Sitting of 20 January 1992

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

    Education (Schools) Bill
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with local education authorities in Wales regarding the provisions affecting Wales in the Education (Schools) Bill.
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the future of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The provisions in the Education (Schools) Bill relating to the inspection of schools and information on their performance were trailed in the citizens charter and the charter for parents in Wales, copies of which were sent to all local authorities in Wales as well as to a wide range of bodies representative of education interests. My officials have met representatives of the local education authorities to discuss various aspects of the new proposals and there has also been correspondence with the Department.
    An announcement on the future role and organisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Wales will be made shortly.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that education in Wales owes much to the professionalism and the independence of the Welsh schools inspectorate, and that there is widespread hostility among both teachers and parents in Wales to the possible privatisation of that service? Most importantly, why is the latest report on schools inspectors in Wales gathering dust on the Minister's desk? The House has a right to know why he is suppressing that report.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course the inspectorate is highly respected in Wales, but the hon. Gentleman will know that it was never geared to carry out inspections with the frequency that we expect will result from the provisions of the Education (Schools) Bill and that we envisage in the parents charter. What Labour Members say makes it sound as though they do not want parents to know what the schools that their children are attending are like.
    With regard to privatisation, the hon. Gentleman must realise that if inspections are to be carried out with the kind of frequency that we have in mind, there has to be a considerable change in the inspection procedure. The consultants' report is part of our wider consideration of the future role of the inspectorate. It is an internal review, and we do not intend to publish it.
    Mr. Rowlands: That is a disgraceful statement. Was not the citizens charter supposed to be all about open Government? The Minister has now said that he will not even publish the report. Is that because the report does not substantiate the proposals in the Education (Schools) Bill, which is nothing more than English ideology that the Government are transmitting to Wales? Why is the Minister slavishly following the English example when the Secretary of State for Scotland is not doing so? His right hon. Friend is sustaining and expanding the Scottish inspectorate, so why is the Minister emaciating ours?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of nonsense. His concentration on the consultants' review is ridiculous. Labour Members should consider what is said in the parents charter about inspection of schools in Wales. It is as a result of that charter that we have to take steps to change the inspectorate.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: How often are schools in Wales inspected by HMI and what change in that frequency is my right hon. Friend seeking to achieve?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer to that question, but the inspection of a school in Wales is a fairly rare occurrence, taking schools as a whole. The 58 inspectors spend only 65 per cent. of their time inspecting and the other 35 per cent. advising. Again, I urge the House to consider the fact that we expect inspections of individual schools to take place on a four to five-yearly basis.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of male and female unemployed in Wales for 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and to the present date.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): In December of each of the years set out in the hon. Gentleman's question, the figures are 97,800, 79,900, 64,100, 72,900 and 95,600 respectively for male unemployed. For female unemployed the figures were 38,600 in 1987, 31,600 in 1988, 21,700 in 1989, 21,000 in 1990 and 26,000 in December 1991.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister, accept responsibility for the deplorably high level of unemployment in Wales? They both go about the Principality boasting about their actions in terms of foreign investment in Wales. They should be reminded that the major investors coming into Ogwr borough, and Bridgend in particular, were Ford of Bridgend, which was brought in under Jim Callaghan's Labour Government, and the Japanese company, Sony, which was also brought in by a Labour Government. It was the Labour party and a Labour Government who created investment into Wales before the present Prime Minister was even elected to this honourable House. If anyone should be boasting, it is those of us in the Labour party. The sooner the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister come to the Principality, the better: let the voters there decide who should have the credit for what is happening in Wales and also what should be done to the Conservative party in view of the deplorable levels of unemployment to be found in Wales.
    Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to report to the House the latest figures for inward investment. The calendar year just finished, 1991, brought new record levels of inward investment to Wales from overseas and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am delighted to report that those new levels consist of 183 projects recorded by Welsh Development International, promising about 17,000 jobs. These are the highest figures ever.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State note that unemployment in my constituency of Brecon and Radnor has doubled in the past 12 months? Will he refute the Prime Minister's suggestion that inward investment has come into Wales as a result of lower personal taxation? Will he agree that inward investment is due to the activities of the Welsh Development Agency, some of the lowest wages in Britain and high levels of skills, and that it is the quality of the Welsh work force as much as anything else that has brought inward investment into Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I find this very interesting. I have been concentrating on a report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on Inward Investment into Wales. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a signatory to the report. I have read carefully the reasons given for the record levels of inward investment that has come into the United Kingdom, including Wales. The Select Committee reported that overseas companies saw the attractions of the United Kingdom—a number of factors are set out—as including, in particular, a favourable tax regime. Has the hon. Gentleman decided to change his mind?
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best hopes for the future of south Wales is completion of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which opposition from so many Labour Members has put in jeopardy?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes. I hope that the Opposition will get their act together on the Bill and recognise that it represents enormous investment in Wales and something that will put Cardiff and Wales generally on the world map in a very big way.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister's answers are evasive. They do not go to the heart of the questions. I remind the Secretary of State of the haemorrhaging that has taken place, resulting in a severe loss of jobs in Wales for which he bears a heavy responsibility. I refer to just a few examples. At Ferranti in Bangor, there have been 250 job losses, which would be equal to about 2,500 jobs in eastern Wales. Nearly 500 jobs have been lost in the steel industry at Shotton in less than a year. As for apprenticeships in British Aerospace in Clwyd, more than 100 people may not be offered jobs by that great company because of the Government's failed economic policies. We have also lost jobs in the cement industry and there are question marks over the Point of Ayr colliery. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that since the beginning of the recession unemployment in Wales has increased by more than 38,000, and that during that period he has brought forward not one new policy to help the economy? He should be ashamed.
    Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to announce this afternoon that since the last Welsh Question Time, there have been 13 new industrial projects—supported by £6 million of regional selective assistance which had been announced—500 new jobs and the safeguarding of 300 others. I am pleased also to announce a total of more than £6.5 million industrial investment by a further four companies, either expanding, modernising or setting up operations in Wales. I believe that Wales continues to be less severely affected by the recession than the United Kingdom as a whole, but it cannot possibly shield itself from the recession both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the world.
    I have been following the hon. Gentleman carefully. He has been wandering about Wales, giving a spending pledge here and a spending pledge there. He has failed to recognise that the statutory minimum wage policy that he supports would lose Wales 70,000 jobs. He has also failed to recognise that the Welsh people will have to pick up the bill for his spending policies.

    Children's Homes, Gwynedd
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the conduct of children's homes in Gwynedd.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Representations have been received from a former employee of Gwynedd county council and from hon. Members.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware that certain allegations have been made about incidents in homes in Gwynedd, and in other parts of Wales, during recent months. He will also be aware that Gwynedd has set up an inquiry into those incidents. Is he satisfied with the conduct of that inquiry? Will he ensure that, when the inquiry is completed, its findings will be published for the benefit of all concerned in Gwynedd?
    Will the hon. Gentleman investigate the levels of remuneration paid to those who work in children's homes? Should they not be paid salaries which accord with the status of the jobs that they perform?
    Mr. Bennett: An inquiry has indeed been set up by Gwynedd county council, but I understand that it is currently suspended because of police investigations. Obviously, I cannot comment on the inquiry because of those investigations. I hope that Gwynedd county council will listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said about publishing a report of the inquiry; I certainly expect it to publish one.
    I have always made it clear that I take seriously any allegations of misbehaviour in any children's home in Wales. That is why I directed Gwent county council to carry out a statutory inquiry into the organisation of the Ty Mawr home. I understand that the report on that is to be published shortly. I have also instituted an inquiry into the running of all children's home in Wales, and I shall publish the report of that within the next few days.

    Kuwait and Bahrain
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the Minister of State's recent visit to Kuwait and Bahrain.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I led a trade mission to Kuwait from 5 to 13 November, which gave Welsh companies the opportunity to develop trade links. Twelve companies took part, several of which obtained firm orders, while other business is in the pipeline. While in Kuwait, I represented the United Kingdom at the extinguishing of the last oilwell fire. I also visited Bahrain, where 26 Welsh firms were represented by the Welsh Office and 10 other Welsh firms had exhibition stands, along with a large British contingent exhibiting at the Rebuild Kuwait '91 trade fair.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the evident, tremendous and burning success of his mission. Could he give us any information on what that mission might represent in terms of increased business, especially for small and medium-sized businesses in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: All the companies either represented by the Welsh Office or exhibiting in the two Gulf states were small or medium sized. We secured orders worth £150,000 during the visit, and there are good prospects for further orders of about £800,000. I hope that additional trade will flow from the mission in the longer term.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister used the word "extinguishing". Shall we not, before long, see the
    6
    extinguishing—after 13 years—of the three Conservative Governments who have managed to create the current situation in Wales, where gross domestic product per capita is lower than in any other region? After those three Conservative Administrations, Wales—alas—is now the poorest region in Britain.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Kuwait.
    Mr. Davies: It is indeed, but it is also about trade between Kuwait and Wales.
    In view of the developments that I have mentioned, why should the people of Wales vote for a fourth Conservative Government?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: They will vote for a fourth Conservative Government, because since 1979 the record of the current Government and their predecessors in regard to Wales has been excellent. We have transformed the Welsh economy. We have increased the number of businesses in Wales, VAT registrations are up by 25 per cent., production industries are up by 60 per cent.—twice the United Kingdom average—and the number of self-employed people has increased by 60 per cent. as well.
    The reason why we arrange trade missions such as the one that I led to Kuwait—six similar missions have been conducted—is our interest in stimulating orders for the new Welsh economy.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate how many hospitals in Wales have applied for NHS trust status.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Pembrokeshire national health service trust will become operational on 1 April 1992. Last month I announced that applications had been invited from 14 units for NHS trust status in April 1993.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State explain to me, and to my puzzled constituents, what is the point of Powys health authority's applying for trust status, given that the entity which now constitutes the health authority would also constitute the trust? Will he also tell us what the cost of a transfer to trust status would be? A Welsh Office official was unable to answer that question at a recent conference in Llandrindod Wells. Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the trust could do that the district health authority, under its present management, could not?
    Mr. Hunt: There has been a positive move towards NHS trust status in Wales. It now seems likely that 65 per cent. of acute services could be trust-based by April 1993. Powys health unit has been invited to prepare an application for trust status in April 1993. Like the unit in Pembrokeshire, it has done that because it believes that it can satisfy the Secretary of State on four points: first, that such a move would show benefits for patients; secondly, that it would improve management capability; thirdly, that clinicians would be involved in management; and, fourthly, that the trust has a future of financial soundness. Only if it had been clearly demonstrated to me that trust status would involve a positive move in that direction would I allow such status to be assumed. There is, of course, no question of allowing any trust to leave the national health service.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: In view of the clear directive contained in the document "Caring for People" that the Government expect health providers to set up NHS nursing homes, will the Secretary of State give a commitment that there will be health providers in Wales, and that trusts will establish such homes?
    Mr. Hunt: It is very much for the providers to determine the future picture. I believe that, in regard to care in the community, we in Wales are leading the way. Many other parts of the United Kingdom view our progress with some envy. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the local joint authorities—including the local authority, the health authority and the other key partners—are currently drawing up local plans for delivering services to the local community.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national health service management reforms, with the forthcoming trust status and record amounts of money being spent on the health service in Wales, will enable the health service there to build upon its success of treating record numbers of patients?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one compares 1979 with today, 34 per cent. more in-patients are being treated in Wales, and the number of day cases is up 227 per cent. Record numbers of patients have been treated, with record funding. I pay tribute to all those who work in the national health service in Wales for having achieved these outstanding results.

    General Needs Housing
    Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings for general needs housing were completed in the Monmouth constituency by Monmouth borough council and by housing associations in 1981 and 1991.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In 1981, 67 social housing units were completed. There are 108 under construction at the moment.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the Minister, although he has not answered the question that I asked. I asked him how many houses had been completed in 1991, and I will tell him the answer. The local authority completed nil houses in 1991. Housing associations completed 33. The people of my constituency are appalled that Monmouth borough council has millions of pounds tied up from the sale of council houses and cannot use that money for housing. Will the Minister use his powers to enable local authorities to provide houses for homeless people, whether through local authorities or housing associations, jobs for redundant construction workers, and new business contracts for the building companies which are going bankrupt?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Local authorities can use 25 per cent. of their right-to-buy receipts for capital purposes and 75 per cent. for redemption of debt on housing revenue account, and in Wales we have a special offer whereby local authorities which sell land for low-cost housing may use 100 per cent. of receipts for capital purposes. I am sorry that local
    8
    authorities throughout Wales, whose total debt on housing revenue account amounts to £1.1 billion, redeemed only £14 million of that debt last year.

    New Houses
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he intends to introduce to increase the rate of new house building in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: A wide range of measures has been introduced, including shared ownership, plots for sale, partnership schemes and flexi-ownership.
    My recently announced initiative on bringing into use empty flats above shops will help to increase the total stock, as will the further reductions in mortgage rates announced last week and the suspension of stamp duty.
    Mr. Flynn: What would the Minister say to a constituent of mine whose business has been wrecked by the Government-created recession, whose home is to be repossessed this week because the Government's rescue scheme is too late and inadequate, and whose family face bed-and-breakfast accommodation because the local council has no council houses to offer because the Government have cut council house building in Wales by 90 per cent? Who is to blame? Is my constituent right to feel embittered against the Government?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we face a world recession. It is taking place in France, Germany and the United States. There has even been a reduction in Japan. We have the benefit of a Conservative Government who will put the battle against inflation at the head of their priorities for dealing with the recession. I am confident that we shall see the end of the recession in the next few months.
    As for housing in Wales, which was the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question, in the last full financial year for which we have figures, 10,000 properties were built in Wales. That means that since this Government came to power, up to the end of March 1990, a total of 117,000 new homes were built. We have added to the housing stock in Wales by more than 10 per cent. since 1979. Housing for Wales, which is charged with dealing with social housing, is on target this year to build 3,500 houses and to invest £170 million in new social housing.
    Mr. Hain: The Minister's reply is arrogant and insulting. It takes no account of the massive rise in homelessness, of the mortgage repossessions in all our constituencies and of record waiting lists. Welsh local authorities have almost half a billion pounds in capital receipts. Why will not the Minister release that money, which could be used immediately to start building 100,000 new homes in Wales? He should take responsibility for doing so or accept responsibility for his party's vote at the next election, when Labour will be returned.
    Mr. Bennett: As I said in answer to the previous question, local authorities can use 100 per cent. of their receipts if they sell land for low-cost home ownership. The hon. Gentleman's authority—Neath—has a debt of £25 million on its housing revenue account, yet last year it did not redeem a penny of it. Only a few months ago, Neath borough council complained that it did not have enough money for housing. In 1990 and 1991, it did not apply for any money from the top slice programme—for enveloping,

    9
    for group repair and area renewal, for the homelessness reserve, for the reserve for private or defective dwellings or for priority estates. The hon. Gentleman should ask Neath borough council why, when money has been available, it has not applied for anything in the past two years.
    Mr.Flynn rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member have a supplementary question?
    Mr. Flynn: No. I wish to give notice that, because of the disgracefully inadequate—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to give the Minister notice of an Adjournment debate?
    Mr. Flynn: That is precisely what I am trying to do, if
    I may. I wish to give notice that, because of the Minister's disgracefully complacent answers, I intend to raise the crisis of housing in Wales on the Adjournment.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to support the mall business sector in Wales and to encourage its expansion.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We shall continue to place a high priority on supporting the small business sector by a wide range of programmes of assistance implemented through the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, training and enterprise councils, local enterprise agencies and the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Michael: May we have a pause in the ministerial litany of self-praise and complacency to recognise the reality of the interest rate burden, the impact of stop-go, the abandonment of research and development, the neglect of training and education and the fact that, because of Government policy, the nightmare of bankruptcy and failure is faced daily by those who run small and medium-sized businesses in Wales? With the threat of the election staring Ministers in the face, will the Secretary of State stop being complacent and persuade Cabinet colleagues to change their policies to ones that will create opportunity and stability for our business community in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman seems to be excelling in gloom and doom today. My reply to him is the same as the one that I gave the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), in which I said that VAT registrations had increased by 25 per cent. since 1979. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of high interest rates. Yes, they are a problem, but we have had to impose them because of inflation. As inflation is low, the prospects for the future are good, especially if the Government are returned to office. We are the tax-cutting party; Labour is the tax-increasing party. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to describe it as a "spend, spend, spend" and "tax, tax, tax" party.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in particular, the tourist industry and many other small businesses in my constituency, which are dependent on flexible working hours, part-time arrangements and appropriate salaries to match, would be devastated by the Labour party's minimum wage policy?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The tourist industry employs 90,000 people in Wales on the basis that my hon. Friend described. I can think of nothing more destructive than the Labour party's proposals.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men and women, full and part-time, were in employment in Wales and Mid-Glamorgan in (a) June 1979, (b) June 1987 and (c) the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. David Hunt: The figures on the basis requested by the hon. Gentleman are not available for Mid-Glamorgan or for part-time male employees, but for Wales, taking September 1991 as the date for which the latest figures are available, there were respectively 618,000, 498,000 and 501,000 male employees in employment. For the same dates, there were 250,000, 225,000 and 246,000 female employees in full-time employment and 165,000, 184,000 and 213,000 in part-time employment.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does not the Secretary of State feel any remorse about those figures? They show that male employment has gone down massively, that there are some additional jobs for female workers—full and part-time—but that the overall picture is one of deficit, despite the record investment based on the quality of the Welsh work force. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say whether he thinks that before the next election these figures will improve, or will they get even worse?
    Mr. Hunt: I regret that the seasonally adjusted figure went up by 700 to 121,600 last month, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that in January 1986, the figure was over 170,000. Since 1986 there has been a remarkable reduction, especially in the figure for the long-term unemployed. In January 1986, that figure was 78,014. It has now fallen 60 per cent. to 31,207, but, of course, there is still work to be done. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that earlier today I announced record inward investment figures for Wales, and we have every right to be proud of those figures.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State notice that 12 months ago every vacant job in Wales was chased by nine unemployed people but that by last month 13 unemployed people were chasing each vacancy? Over the same period, small countries such as the Netherlands and Portugal and, indeed, larger countries such as West Germany and Japan, had a reduction in unemployment, so it is not merely a worldwide factor. Will he accept responsibility for the reduction in job opportunities in Wales and for the increase in unemployment? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Hunt: I was pleased about the lower rate of increase last month and I very much hope that that will be the trend. Of course, there are problems, but we are far better able to negotiate those problems than we were. I believe that Wales is much better placed to ride out the worldwide recession than it has been and I can give the hon. Gentleman this pledge: I and my ministerial colleagues will continue to do everything that we can to attract investment to Wales. We have had remarkably good figures over the past year and we are determined to beat them in 1992.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the job losses at Port Talbot steelworks—a great steelworks under immense pressure because of the recession engendered by his Government—and the continuing loss of jobs in the south Wales coalfields? Should not the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for the false promises that he made in 1991? Does he accept that his comment that the Welsh economy was extremely healthy smacks of the complacency of the do-nothing Government of which he is a member? His Government's record on the Welsh economy will lead to the loss of the seats of his two ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's cracked record does not seem to recognise that we are now in the age of disks. I am afraid that the Labour party is still in the 1960s and 1970s. I very much hope that we shall never see a return to those bad old days.
    In 1979, the steel industry in Wales employed 42,000 people. Today, 18,000 people are employed producing 10 per cent. more steel. Those figures show the transformation in the Welsh economy and we are determined to see that continue. The last thing that we want is a return to the spend, spend, spend—tax, tax, tax policies of the Labour party.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of secondary school children in Wales are educated through the medium of Welsh.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The latest figures for 1990–91 show that about 15 per cent. of secondary school pupils in Wales are being educated in Welsh-speaking schools.
    Mr. Butler: Did my right hon. Friend see the survey in The Sunday Times which showed that some Welsh-medium schools offer excellent education—some of the best education in the whole of the United Kingdom? Is not that a tribute to the quality of education within them?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend and with the comments in the article to which he referred. The Welsh-medium schools provide a first-class education and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that Welsh is being taught in eight out of 10 primary schools in Wales and in nine out of 10 secondary schools.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Racial Hatred
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions for inciting racial hatred there have been in each of the past two years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): In 1990, there was one prosecution for an offence under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 and in 1991, there were four such prosecutions. In 1991, proceedings were commenced in a further case, but they have not yet been concluded.
    Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Although regretting the need for
    12
    such prosecutions, may I congratulate him on the vigour with which he prosecutes those who peddle such odious doctrines?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. "Odious" is the word for the publications that infringe the Act. I wish that it were possible to bring more of those who are responsible for them to justice, but, as my hon. Friend knows, because he makes a close study of such matters, it is often impossible for the police to identify those who are responsible.
    Mr. Janner: May I first associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) with whom I fully agree? That the Government are now taking action is appreciated. Will the Attorney-General please assure the House that such action will also be taken against people who do not normally reside here, such as Louis Farrakhan—if by mistake he or anyone like him is allowed in—if they come to this country to try to stir up racial hatred in this decent land?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is friendly in his remarks. He should know that it is not the Government who take action in these matters, but the Attorney-General. They are extremely important matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I recently had the privilege of giving the Sir George Bean memorial lecture in which I set out in some detail to the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women the basis for my approach to such matters. It may be helpful to me to put a copy of that lecture in the Library.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received since the beginning of December which have been critical of his reaction to Sunday opening of stores.
    The Attorney-General: Including letters addressed to other Ministers and transferred to me, the answer is about 2,000. Substantive replies have been sent in almost every case.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Attorney-General accept that the many letters protesting at his view about Sunday trading, as expressed in the House, suggest that the matter should be reconsidered by the Government, especially as the approach appears to be inconsistent and hypocritical? On Sunday trading, the Government say that there is a risk that the European Court might rule against us, so they take no action. On the environmental impact assessment directive, the European Commission sent a letter before action had been taken, accompanied by a personal letter. The Government said then that although they have been told that they are in the wrong, they will do nothing about it. Surely European laws should be either obeyed or disobeyed. It should not be a matter of pick and choose, as the Government please.
    The Attorney-General: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my last answer. If he had, he would have heard me say that it was for the Attorney-General to enforce the law, not the Government. The answer on this subject that I gave in November made it perfectly clear that the decision is mine and nobody else's. I think that those letters show a wholly

    13
    understandable sense of frustration, but the House of Lords, before which an appeal is pending, has shown uncertainty about whether the provisions of the Shops Act 1950 remain part of our domestic law. Accordingly, the House of Lords referred the issues to the European Court of Justice so that the House of Lords could answer that question. I keep the matter under review, as I must, but in the circumstances I am not persuaded that the public interest requires me to take the necessarily large number of actions up and down the country.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Action was taken on the poll tax.
    The Attorney-General: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contrive to listen to what I am saying on this complicated matter. My jurisdiction is limited to taking action in the public interest. Local authorities have a separate and specific jurisdiction conferred on them by the Act, and the course that they take is a matter for their judgment. The environmental assessment aspect is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the relevant Minister.
    Mr. Channon: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any estimate of the time that will elapse before the European Court gives its judgment on the matter.? Can my right hon. and learned Friend take any action to shorten that period and clear up what is a highly unsatisfactory situation, whatever view one takes on Sunday opening?
    The Attorney-General: I agree that it is unsatisfactory. The Government have asked the European Court at Luxembourg to expedite its hearing. The best that I can say is that we shall receive the answer to the question that the House of Lords has asked in forthcoming months—I hope that the number involved will be few, not great.
    Mr. Anderson: What is the Attorney-General's authority for saying that he cannot rely on Crown privilege in relation to cross undertakings for damages? Is not it crystal clear that the Government are willingly in collusion with those stores that are using salami tactics bit by bit—before Christmas, between Christmas and the new year and after the new year—and which so handsomely contribute to Conservative party funds? Surely, circumstances have now changed and any reasonable Attorney-General would respond accordingly.
    The Attorney-General: I have not troubled to inquire whether any firm has contributed to the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a matter of total indifference to me, as it should be to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). If he chooses to use the word "collusion", and apply it to me in that context, he is attributing dishonourable conduct—he should be ashamed of doing so.
    Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider advising local authorities—which still seem to be unaware of their present powers on which they can act—and circulating information to them to tell them that if they want to come down on Sunday traders, the statute book in Britain already gives them that authority?
    The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the section is entirely clear and I think that all local authorities are aware of its provisions, which place the primary duty of enforcing the Shops Act 1950 on them. There is no shortage of advice available to local authorities
    14
    to enable them to decide whether, in uncertain circumstances, it is politic for them to seek to start proceedings, whether criminal or civil. That is for local authorities to decide, and it is not for me to offer them advice.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Attorney-General agree that the defence of using the treaty of Rome in relation to breaches of the Shops Act 1950 is pretty flimsy and slender? As the European Court delays are providing a valuable premium for some people and holding up injunctive relief in this country, should not further representations be made to the European Court to deal with the problem as an injunctive matter so that certainty is quickly returned to the courts of this country?
    The Attorney-General: We certainly want to know the answer and the House of Lords, which is dealing with an appeal in the B and Q case, also wants to know the answer. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished and experienced solicitor. I do not know whether he wishes to reconsider what on earth he means by saying that it is a flimsy excuse: either it is part of the law, or it is not. So long as there is uncertainty about the matter, that must have a bearing on whether enforcement proceedings are taken by the Attorney-General up and down the country in a necessarily very large number of cases. I explained to the House in November that I do not consider that the public interest lies in my taking that very large number of proceedings up and down the country in those circumstances. Whether local authorities take the same view in their own jurisdictions is a matter entirely for them.

    "Spycatcher"
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General what progress he has made in identifying the total cost of the "Spycatcher" litigation.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The total cost to the Government to date, excluding the contempt proceedings and officials' time, is calculated at £2,221,503.
    Mr. Banks: As the Solicitor-General said, that excludes officials' time, so the figure must be that much higher. Is it not outrageous that so much British taxpayers' money should have been spent trying to suppress a book which in part told us about the treacherous activities of the security services in trying to undermine the democratically elected Government of Harold Wilson? Will the Solicitor-General assure the House that similar treacherous activities will not take place when the next Labour Government are democratically elected under my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)?
    The Solicitor-General: Whatever one thinks about the activities of the author, he was a former member of the security services. These cases have the very valuable result of getting a clear decision from the House of Lords, upheld in this respect by the European Court of Human Rights which took nothing from that decision, that such former members owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Iraq
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources will be made available to improve health care for vulnerable groups in Iraq.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I have recently approved an additional allocation of over £1 million in aid for vulnerable groups in both the north and south of Iraq. Last week, I approved a further £345,000 for the British Red Cross. On 8 January I called for a high-level meeting of donor countries to respond to the United Nations latest humanitarian appeal. That has been favourably received.
    Mr. Cohen: Has the Minister seen the statement made at the weekend by the Red Cross stating that without aid, the whole of Iraq faces massive starvation? Has she seen the Quakers report which states that tens of thousands of children are in jeopardy and thousands will die because of the lack of essential medicines? Is it not now time to lift the economic sanctions that are killing people, including children, in Iraq and to inject a huge amount of those essential medicines which are in short supply there?
    Mrs. Chalker: First, I pay tribute to the British Red Cross and the many non-governmental organisations which have provided help in Iraq supported by money from the Government. We shall continue to support them, as my main answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made clear. However, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's request that we should lift sanctions, I am afraid that he is way out of line. The needs of the Iraqi people can be met by the release of $1.6 billion of oil which would finance the purchase of essential humanitarian supplies to relieve that suffering. We continue to help in the meantime, and at a diplomatic level, we are working extremely hard to have Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 implemented. When that is achieved, the problems referred to by the Red Cross and the Quakers report will be substantially minimised.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In paying tribute to those excellent voluntary organisations whom the Government have grant-aided to help vulnerable groups in Iraq, does not my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that Saddam Hussein has ensured the continuing torment and lack of help for his people, particularly for the southern Shias in the marshes?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. Saddam Hussein continues to ignore the needs of the Iraqi people, particularly those in the south who have had less publicity than the Kurds in the north. Both need our help, but the help that they should be given is by their own Government, by the full implementation of resolutions 706 and 712. We are doing our best to make progress in the talks so that the Iraqi people will get the benefit of the export of Iraqi oil in the near future.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear to the Minister that we should be concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has stated, about the plight of the people of Iraq and the starvation that is being caused? Is it not the case that as long as Saddam Hussein rules that
    16
    country—as long as that brutal and murderous despot continues in power—there will be absolutely no solution for people in that unhappy state?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I believe that the Iraqi people will be safeguarded for the long term and enable the international community to give long-term development aid to that country only when Saddam Hussein is no longer at the helm in Baghdad. It is a very serious situation. The humanitarian groups have done extremely well. Bearing in mind the £45 million which this country has given since April, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to play our part. However, their only true relief, as everybody in the House and in the country knows, is for Saddam Hussein to be replaced.

    World Population Conference
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister for Overseas Development will attend the conference from 31 January to 1 February 1992 for European parliamentarians on action on world population, sponsored by the British parliamentary group on population and development.
    Mrs. Chalker: I much regret that I will be unable to attend that conference because of my forthcoming visit to southern Africa. My noble friend the Earl of Caithness has agreed to attend in my place. My officials will play a major role in support to European action on world population. I look forward to the conclusions of the conference with considerable interest.
    Mr. Steen: The House is sorry that the Minister cannot attend the conference. All European Members would have liked to pay tribute to the splendid work that she and the Government have done for overseas development. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ever-growing problem of street children is a consequence of overpopulation? Does she consider that some new initiative is needed to stem police brutality in countries such as Brazil—where there are 10 million street children—Guatemala, Mexico and other countries? Would my right hon. Friend feel able to lead a crusade with other European countries to put pressure on the Governments of central and south America so that every child there has a home, food, clothing and education and is not allowed to fall prey to the worst excesses of human nature?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree that the situation for street children not only in Brazil and Guatemala but in certain other countries is extremely serious. That is one good reason why we have been supporting several nongovernmental projects in the region and why we have made representations to presidents and other leaders about the state of children in those countries. It is difficult to provide advice on population planning in some Catholic countries, but I am pleased at the progress that we are beginning to make. The more children who are born by choice and not by chance, the better, as we said in August of last year when working our our programme.
    Sir David Steel: Although it is understandable that the Minister cannot be in two places at once, will she assure the House that her noble Friend will make a strong contribution to the conference? Does she agree that some

    17
    of our overseas development programmes have been vitiated by the rise in population in some of the countries concerned?
    Mrs. Chalker: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend will make a very strong statement of Government policy, even though I wish that I could do it myself. Of course the increasing population in some countries is harming the progress that they could otherwise make on development issues. However, it is good to note that because the contraception prevalence rate has increased considerably since 1985 in countries such as Bangladesh and a number of African countries, we are beginning to make more progress. By spending more resources on this matter, as I intend to do, having tripled our programme in the past 10 years, I believe that we shall make still further progress, with the help of education, too.
    Sir Charles Morrison: Although I fully understand why my right hon. Friend cannot attend the conference of Parliamentarians, will she tell the House now whether the Government support the recent call by Mr. Robert McNamara for a global commission on population in preparation for the 1994 United Nations conference on population? Secondly, are the Government currently involved in giving advice or assistance to the Russian republics and to other east European republics?
    Mrs. Chalker: In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, we believe that the UN conference on population in 1994 will he an important focal point and that all possible work to support it should be carried out. We have
    18
    not yet concluded whether that work should be in the form suggested by Mr. Robert McNamara or be carried out in other ways. Nevertheless, we shall support such work.
    In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question about population planning assistance to the former Soviet Union, although we have not been asked for such help, last week I agreed that £2 million-worth of medical aid should be spent in the republics of the former Soviet Union. That aid is already going out, starting with a specific gift that was made today in Moscow.
    Mrs. Clwyd: In so far as the population of Africa, and especially that of Somalia, is clearly at risk from internal conflict and where the aid agencies cannot deliver any assistance because of that conflict, is it not time for the British Government to urge the United Nations to take a more interventionist and far stronger role in resolving those disputes?
    Mrs. Chalker: Having visited homes for abandoned children in Somalia a couple of years ago, I can well understand concern not only about young children in that country, but about all its people. That was why, when meeting the United Nations new Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali, last Monday, I took the opportunity to suggest to him the need for more action in Somalia. James Jonah's visit on behalf of the secretary-general looks like producing some suggestions, but we shall continue to fund British non-governmental organisations that are providing relief in Somalia in the form of both food and medicines. We hope that there will be peace soon so that we can do still more effective work.

Northern Ireland (Security)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I have to report to the House with deep sadness that, shortly after 5 o'clock on Friday afternoon, seven construction workers on their way home from work were killed and seven were injured, five very seriously, when their minibus was blown apart in a massive explosion at Teebane Cross, on the main Omagh to Cookstown road in County Tyrone. The police investigation is continuing, but it is believed that two plastic barrels containing some 300 lb of home-made explosive were placed beside the roadside hedge and detonated by command wire from a vantage point overlooking the scene. The Provisional IRA has admitted that it carried out this mass murder. In addition, in the first three weeks of the year, five other people—all civilians—have been murdered by terrorists.
I know that the House will join me in extending deepest sympathy to the families, friends and colleagues of all those killed or injured, and in utter condemnation of these attacks, which demonstrate the profound depravity and moral bankruptcy of terrorism. All those killed or injured were working men going peacefully about their lawful occasions, yet the terrorists did not hesitate to murder or maim them.
In the face of such unmitigated evil, the reaction of the community and the Government is one of grief and of righteous anger; but I and my colleagues are absolutely determined that it must also be one of resolute and vigorous action. No society which believes in democratic values can allow the ballot box to be overridden by the bomb and the bullet. Violence has not brought, and will not bring, the terrorists any advantage. The democratic path is the one that we shall tread, and we shall go where it leads, not where terrorists seek to direct.
The first task for Government is to ensure that the security forces have the resources—legal and material—which they need. It is for the security force commanders to ensure that all the resources available to them are used with the maximum effectiveness. Both the level of available resources and their deployment are constantly adjusted as necessary to counter the foreseeable threat. When we judge that additional resources are needed, they are made available. My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on Saturday that extra troops would soon arrive. They are already on patrol. In addition, extra troops are also now in the Province in support of a specific operation to enhance the security and to improve the effectiveness of vehicle checkpoints in Fermanagh.
We know that the terrorists can kill, but they cannot win. No democratic Government or society can allow such people to prevail. Nor will we. The security forces will continue to prevent or deter, as they are now doing, by far the largest part of planned terrorist activity. They will also do everything practically possible to protect the public. With the assistance that is increasingly forthcoming from ordinary members of both sides of the community, they will resolutely and successfully pursue not just those who carry out terrorist attacks hut also those who plan them. They will do so within the law; and they will continue to bring the criminals before the courts. That is the only way for a civilised democratic Government to deal with terrorism.
20
I wish to add a personal word on a subject related to recent events, in which I played a personal role. The decision to maintain the acceptance of a long-standing invitation to go on Mr. Byrne's show in Dublin on Friday night was prompted by the opportunity that it afforded to speak to the people of the Republic of Ireland about terrorism and the response of a democratic society. Yielding to an unsignalled invitation to sing on the show was innocent in intent, for reasons which are personal to myself, but it was patently an error. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologise unreservedly to the families involved in Friday's bombing, to those who represent them in this House, and to all those in our wider society who would have taken wholly justified offence.
My commitment to Northern Ireland and its people is, I think, familiar to the House. It is because of that commitment and my understanding of the values and decent opinions of the Province that I have placed my resignation at the Prime Minister's disposal. I also advised him that if he were not to accept it on the spot he should defer any decision on it until after he had concluded his coincidental visit to the Province today.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I join with him in extending sympathy to the families whose lives were shattered last Friday by the IRA's vicious murder campaign. This afternoon, the House must demonstrate its united determination to resist terrorism. We must give a clear and simple message to the IRA and other organisations which emulate its savagery. There are no legitimate targets, be they members of the security forces or civilians. We will not give way to those who mistakenly believe that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. They can play no part in any inclusive dialogue which can create a genuine peace process.
The IRA should have no illusions that it can bomb and shoot its way to the conference table, for it cannot. No one who seeks to impose his will by terror can have a constructive role to play in the resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland. No one who is responsible for massacring his fellow citizens will be accepted as a partner in the effort to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
There is a legitimate expectation that the Government will provide the resources, in terms of both personnel and finance, to ensure the security of all the people of Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm, as he did in part today, that the Government will meet that expectation? In this time of sorrow, when many people are close to despair, we must remember the many occasions on which the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces have thwarted the evil enterprises of the terrorists. In the words of Sir Hugh Annesley, it is slow, patient and incremental police work that will succeed in defeating this evil; there is no quick fix.
The people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of Britain and the Republic expect their constitutional politicians to put aside their differences in pursuit of a peaceful political solution and to raise no false obstacles to sitting down to discuss matters among themselves. We heard at the end of the statement a characteristically honest and courageous statement by the Secretary of State. Those who have worked with him during the time that he has been in his present post have come to admire the hard work, courage and assiduity with which he has pursued the object of bringing the parties within the island of Ireland to sit down

21
with the British Government and resolve their differences. What happened on Friday night happened, but in my humble opinion it never was, nor should it be regarded as, a resignation matter.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not only for his robust statement about democracy but also for his very kind personal words.
I confirm that the Government will meet the expectation in terms of personnel and finance. I agree that patient work by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the other security forces, is the key to these endeavours. In the searches in Belfast over the weekend of 11 and 12 January, which on three occasions revealed a mass of destructive material, we had an outstanding example of that patient work.
Mr. William Ross: The House will be aware that Ulster Unionist Members bitterly regret the need for the Secretary of State's statement. It will be aware also that we have a long, deep and bitter disagreement with the Government over their whole political and security policy in Northern Ireland. However, we believe that it was right that the statement should be made in the House, from which have come the decisions that, in our opinion, have done so much to encourage the IRA through the years. I sometimes think that if the mutilated bodies of those who have been killed were laid out on the Floor of this Chamber the consequences of the decisions of those who sit here might be more effectively brought home to them.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a leading Northern Ireland member of his own party recently described security in the Province as a joke? For the past 23 years Unionists have been saying exactly the same thing with regard to both security policy and political policy. To the people of Northern Ireland the Prime Minister's "no change" comment is simply a promise of more of the same. If the Government are not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence six years after the previous Prime Minister first uttered those words, let them forsake that which has failed.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that we very much welcome his commitment to taking the path of democracy regardless of where it leads? Indeed, that was
the policy espoused by two Members of this House—Airey Neave and Ian Gow—who were murdered. If the Government were to decide to take that route, their decision would be very welcome in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his approval that a statement should be made today.
In reply to his observations about security, I should point out that in recent weeks the Chief Constable indicated that four out of five terrorist attempts are prevented and interdicted as a result of the work of the security forces. It is, of course, a matter for concern that there should be the fifth. The manner in which the security forces in Northern Ireland conduct themselves commands the admiration of all, and I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to impute any lack of commitment to them.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the Government's policy since 1985, I should make the point that I have been Secretary of State for two and a half years of that period. There are moments when I think that it may
22
be that insufficient attention is paid to the coincidence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the upsurge in the supply of Libyan arms, which made a very considerable difference to the armaments of the IRA.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I should like to express here, as I have done outside the House, my deepest sympathy to the bereaved and to the families of those who were injured. I assure the Secretary of State that the people in my constituency are no longer impressed by congratulations on their resistance to terrorism. They want positive, active measures to bring these devils to justice.
My people feel that the right hon. Gentleman would have been better employed if he had rushed to comfort the bereaved rather than carry out a song-and-dance act among people in Dublin, or even watch a rugby match. That is the opinion of the people I represent. However, the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is indeed a right honourable gentleman, and for that he deserves great credit.
What steps were taken to protect the employees of this firm following an explosion that took place some time ago and that could have killed as many as were killed this time?
Mr. Brooke: I recognise the force of feeling that prompted the hon. Gentleman to speak in the way that he did on behalf of his constituents. There will be a thorough investigation, which will address all the circumstances, into this attack and that journey.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I express my sympathy, along with that of my two parliamentary colleagues who are at funerals in Northern Ireland, for the families of those who have been killed and send our sincere wishes to those who have been seriously injured for a speedy and full recovery.
I add my voice to the condemnation of the activity of the Provisional IRA which has pertained in Northern Ireland for more than 20 years and which in this case was clearly sectarian as it killed seven Protestant workers. Actions of evil and barbarism are its stock in trade.
May I ask whoever may hold the Secretary of State's office, whether the right hon. Gentleman or his successor, to recognise that the policy in security has failed? Its failure can be seen in the graveyards across Ulster. We need not a tinkering with security policy—a change here and a change there—but a root-and-branch change in security policy so that it changes from a reactive one to a proactive one and becomes a policy of going after the IRA, of taking the fight to the IRA. That will put us on the route to victory over terrorism.
Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in his moving remarks about graveyards across the Province and in his condemnation of sectarian attacks such as that which occurred on Friday last week. I understand the feeling within his party that has given rise to some of the security recommendations which he conferred on my hon. Friend the Minister of State last week, and which he described as a root-and-branch policy. However, I am not sure that everybody who looked at what can and should be done in the Province would necessarily agree with all the elements of the policy that he put forward.
Mr. John Hume: I join the entire House in utterly and unequivocally condemning the atrocity that led to the Secretary of State's statement. Seven people, most of

23
them young people and all from the Protestant community, were murdered, and murdered for exercising one of the most fundamental rights of all—the right to work. They were also exercising their right in keeping with the loyalty with which they were born, as they were helping to rebuild a security station. Presumably, those who murdered them were also born with loyalties. The answer to divided loyalties and different loyalties is not murder; it is respect—respect for the differences and an accommodation of those differences.
Achievieng that accommodation is the challenge that faces the House, the two Governments involved and all the parties in Northern Ireland. I ask both Governments to intensify their co-operation in order to achieve that aim. If certain parties refuse to co-operate, we should get on with it anyway, and leave no vacuum to be filled by murders such as those which happened on Friday.
As to the Secretary of State's personal statement, as he knows, we do not always agree about everything, but we very much appreciate the efforts that he is making to bring everybody around the table. If the process is to be continued, I hope that his Prime Minister will ensure that he is there to continue it.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and not least his closing remarks. He has been a doughty fighter over a long period in favour of the use of democracy and dialogue and in condemnation of the use of violence. If this incident plays a part in intensifying the co-operation between the two Governments on security policy, I think that good will have come out of it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that all of us who are engaged in the democratic affairs of the Province—that does not simply involve Governments; it involves also political parties—have a joint responsibility to see whether we can advance matters by way of dialogue.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I know that it would be the wish of my constituents that I should convey heartfelt sympathy to the bereaved and the injured in their grief and agony. For more than 20 years the IRA has been executing a horrendous campaign of genocide against the Protestant community, and in the names of the thousands of dead and injured I urge the Government to take the war to the terrorists. That would need the full, undivided and unambiguous support of every decent person in Northern Ireland, and the support of the Dublin Government, who have equivocated too often in the past.
I repeat a suggestion that I made to the Secretary of State at the time of the last atrocity in Northern Ireland. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to the Roman Catholic Church to excommunicate the terrorists—the evil gang of murderers, and their supporters and helpers. I was interested to read in a Northern Ireland newspaper today that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam had considered the same proposal.
I wish to refer to the personal statement which the Secretary of State made. I think that his decision was an honourable one and one which we would expect from an honourable man. I pay tribute to the efforts that he has made since he has held the office of Secretary of State to bring all constitutional politicians together. There is still hope that talks can succeed. I point to the last Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I had the honour of being
24
Speaker. The Members of that Assembly worked for the good of everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of religion or politics.
Mr. Brooke: I appreciate the personal remarks made by the hon. Gentleman.
When he talks of taking the war to the terrorists, I must reassert from the Dispatch Box that the actions of Her Majesty's Government, and of the security forces on their behalf, will be conducted under the rule of law and that the rule of law will not be thrown away, for that would be a concession to the terrorists.
It is at times suggested that the security forces are operating under a series of shackles, which it is sometimes suggested are of a political nature. I know of no such shackles.
Mr. Alex Carlisle: May I and my right hon. and hon. Friends join in expressing sympathy for those who died or were injured in the atrocity in County Tyrone on Friday? It was murder of extreme wickedness. May I also say on behalf of my party that the personal code of conduct of the Secretary of State is an example to us all? I urge upon him that he should not resign. If certain others were in tune with his message of peace, we should see much quicker progress in Northern Ireland.
Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should hold his nerve to the twin track of political progress and strong security? Will he agree also that it would be a serious mistake to abandon the high standards of justice to which we try to keep as a reaction to these events and the evil in Northern Ireland that took place last Friday?
Does the right hon. Gentleman share with me the view that nobody should be allowed to bomb his way into any forthcoming general election campaign? Surely all political parties would do well to agree that there is to be no political vacuum in Northern Ireland and that we are determined to fight for peace as the future of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Brooke: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's personal remarks. I confirm that the Government's nerve will hold in the context of the twin track of political progress and a robust security policy conducted under the rule of law.
In addition to what the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, the Government are preoccupied with social and economic development. Dire though the attacks on Belfast have been during the past two months, it is a sign of just how successful economic development has been that the IRA should have felt it necessary to retaliate in the way that it has.
On the question of the period between now and the general election, obviously I cannot predict the exact course that events will follow. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that if we can avoid a vacuum, that will be in the interests of a democratic society.
Mr. John Biffen: May I assure my right hon. Friend that, in my judgment, it is both correct and entirely characteristic that he should offer his resignation? Whatever the outcome of that gesture, I hope that he will be reinforced and fortified by the knowledge that the whole House recognises the formidable qualities that he has brought to one of the most taxing posts in Government.

25
May I say, as every other hon. Member would wish to say, that we condemn that act of violence—indeed, that act of war, for that is what it was—and have great sympathy with the victims? However, if justice and peace could be secured by this House passing ritual condemnations, Northern Ireland would be the most pacific province in Europe.
We are once again confronted with the fact that there can be no progress in Northern Ireland without greater military security. Although I appreciate that no one should at present, and on the Floor of the House, talk lightheartedly about the deployment of military forces in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable virtue that many would feel if the border with the Irish Republic were more effectively supervised hereafter?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous personal remarks. Of course, I endorse what he says about justice and peace and about the need for greater military security. I hoped that I had made that clear in an earlier answer. The fact is that everything else that occurs in Northern Ireland must be sustained by the quality of the security policy.
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the significance of the border in the campaign in which we are engaged. There is no doubt that the scale of the weapons brought from Libya in the period before the Eksund was apprehended by French Customs has made a considerable difference during the past five or six years. It is known that that material is stored in the republic and then brought north for use by the terrorists. Of course, it is also used by those terrorists who choose to reside in the republic. Better maintenance of the border is a central factor in our policy and it is very much at the heart of the arrangements and agreement that we have with the Irish Government.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman should not consider resigning over the affair in Dublin. The strong views expressed on both sides of the House—which in itself is unusual, divided as it is in its political structure—on the way that the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his job should send a clear message to the IRA: that it will not bomb its way to the conference table; it will not affect us now; it will not affect us during the general election; and it will not affect us after the general election. Such unanimity is unusual in this House, so the IRA should note that message.
There is no quick fix for security in Northern Ireland—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that there is—whether in dealing with last Friday's incident or, sadly, the tit-for-tat murders that follow. There is no easy way and internment is not the answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman study the battery of legislation available in the Province to determine whether it could be used more effectively by the security forces to interrogate people? That is what people sometimes have in mind, but think that it should be done by internment. I believe that it can be done without internment.
Mr. Brooke: I pay tribute to the quality of the testimony given by the right hon. Gentleman—the only Back-Bencher who has held my office—about the way in which democracy is defended against the forces of darkness in Northern Ireland. I shall, of course, establish whether we can use elements of the legislative battery that is available to us in a different way from the way in which
26
it has been used until now. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make any suggestions privately, I shall be very grateful for them.
Mr. Julian Amery: I accept everything that has been said by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for a stronger line against terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that for 20 years he and his predecessors have pursued the will-of-the-wisp of power-sharing, devolved government; and that, for as long as it is pursued, the IRA will believe, rightly or wrongly, that it will get us out in the end?
Has not the time come at last—some of us have been saying this for a long time—for my right hon. Friend, or his successor, to consider seriously the alternative policy that many have advocated: administrative devolution, or short-term integration? Is that not the only way to make it clear to the IRA that there can be no question of the United Kingdom's abandoning the Province?
As for my right hon. Friend's personal position, may I express my admiration for the frank and manly way in which he has offered his resignation? Occupying, as he does, what is virtually a vice-regal position, only he can judge whether he can maintain his authority after the visit to Dublin. That is above all a matter for him to decide; but I very much admire the way in which he addressed the House with his habitual frankness.
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind closing remarks.
I am aware that what the Government have latterly pursued has been periodically categorised as power-sharing devolution. The Government's view has been that, if we are to have a system that will work and last in Northern Ireland, it must be a system on which agreement can be obtained around the table, and on which the endorsement and the thumbprints of all involved in constitutional politics in the Province can be secured. We have kept an open mind about what that system might be. In my opinion, the sooner that we return to serious discussion about the government of the Province, and about the other considerations that were invested in the earlier talks, the better the people of Northern Ireland will be served.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that there is great interest in this serious matter, but we have another statement, and there is great pressure on the subsequent debate. I shall allow three more questions from each side, but I am afraid that after that we must move on.
Mr. David Winnick: I strongly disagree with the political intervention of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). What evidence is there, however, that, after nearly 22 years of sustained terrorist atrocities, the Provisional IRA is any nearer to achieving its objectives than when it started its activities in 1970?
If the country and the House have refused, since then, to give in to terror—despite all the horrors that have been inflicted against humanity on the mainland and, especially, in Northern Ireland—why should the leadership of the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers, wherever they may be found, conclude that we shall give in to terror during the next 21 years?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's attitude to terrorism always does him immense credit. I am grateful to him for what he has just said. I confirm that no progress of any sort has been made by the Provisional IRA towards its objective.
If I may hark back to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), one of the areas on which there has been a significant concentration by the Government and the security forces in recent years is the financial resources available to terrorists—I hasten to say on both sides of the community. There is not only anecdotal evidence but a fair amount of proxy evidence now that that is working.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend accept what is becoming obvious by now—that many of his hon. Friends, and Members in all parts of the House, have no wish or even thought that he should resign over this issue, or that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should see fit to accept his resignation? Does he recollect that during the talks last summer that he strove so hard to make successful the IRA, at least for a time, was marginalised? Does he further agree that the best security for the people of Northern Ireland is in talks and an agreement between political leaders and parties within Northern Ireland so that they may govern their own Province in the interests of all its people? Does my right hon. Friend think that, election or no election, the sooner they get on with it the better?
Mr. Brooke: It was, I think, common cause among all of us who were involved in the talks last year, and who, I hope, will be involved in the talks in the future, that they are not peace talks per se; they are talks about a political settlement, not only in terms of Northern Ireland but in terms of the relations between Northern Ireland and the republic and between Great Britain and the republic. However, my hon. Friend is perfectly correct: if we can make constructive progress along those lines, one of the consequences will be that we shall marginalise the terrorist.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I join with colleagues in all parts of the House in sending my deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives in Friday's slaughter. May the House not forget, through the Secretary of State, the workmates of those relatives who I am sure today, as they go about their legal business and pursue their employment, must have their own personal thoughts against the background of Friday's events.
I believe that I am right in saying that the Secretary of State is a direct descendent of the famous Scottish writer J. M. Barrie. May I take the liberty of reminding the right hon. Gentleman of his relative's famous quote in relation to his own personal position: that each man's life is like a diary in which we set out to write one account and finish up writing something different and that our most humble moment comes when we compare what we have written with that which we intended to write.
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's personal position, there is no hon. Member who believes that he intended any malice in what happened on the television show on Friday night. In the presence of the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House, may I suggest to the Secretary of State that his personal position, because of the very sensitive job that he does in Government, should be cleared up before this day is finished?
Mr. Brooke: In responding to the hon. Gentleman's reference to Sir James Barrie, I should say that I do not, I fear, have a drop of Scottish blood, but he was my father's godfather. The hon. Gentleman has introduced me to sayings of his in the House today that I had not previously appreciated.
As to what the hon. Gentleman said about those who worked for Karl Construction, the building firm that was decimated on Friday, let me pay here, on the Floor of the House, the most profound tribute to those in civilian employment in the Province who go to work to make it possible for the security forces to do their job.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is right that he should restate the Government's commitment to their policy in Northern Ireland, based on the rule of law? Does not he equally expect the rule of law to be observed on both sides of the Irish border? For a considerable time, at least some of us have questioned where the IRA is trained and where it comes from. I should be glad to hear, therefore, what intensification of efforts are being made by Garda Siochana or Irish military personnel.
As regards my right hon. Friend's personal position, he is usually right and he is inevitably honourable. Although the hard and stony-hearted would never be touched by his personality, anybody with a shade of warmth would respond vigorously. I sincerely hope that he retains his position.
Mr. Brooke: I am aware, as we all are, that activities of a potentially terrorist nature occur in the Republic of Ireland. I am immensely gratified that those who participate in the activities of co-operation between the RUC and Garda Siochana say that the quality of co-operation is at its highest point for 30 years. In practical terms, it can always get better, and that applies on both sides of the border. In our relations with the Irish Government and the Garda, we are determined to secure a further contribution to the ending of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Of course, the Irish Government give us considerable co-operation, but in all these affairs—this applies to us as well—we can be still more effective than we are.
Mr. Frank Cook: I rarely comment on Irish affairs, not because of lack of interest but because the Irish communities would reject any opinion or suggestion if they considered it a "Brit" suggestion or opinion, but, in this instance, the circumstances are so hideously distressing that I feel compelled to comment and to ask the Minister whether he thinks it a heavy irony that last Friday's incident followed successive discoveries of large caches of arms and whether perhaps it was a desperate attempt by the IRA to reassert some degree of authority.
Some people complain about security, but perhaps we can all agree with the plea of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for a proactive rather than a reactive response. Does not the proactivity need to be politicians of all parties coming together and discussing and listening to each other rather than simply making pronouncements?
The Secretary of State is one of the few Ministers for whom I have any respect. We have had enough casualties and it would be singularly unfortunate and quite improper

29
to offer the IRA the additional victory of his resignation. I hope, in common with the rest of the House, that the matter is resolved today.
Mr. Brooke: The Chief Constable of the RUC, both last July and, more recently, at the beginning of December, warned of the intensification of terrorist activity. It was recognised that Tyrone was likely to be the area in which there would be activity subsequent to the activities in Belfast. I cannot comment on whether last Friday's events were reactive to the security forces' recent successes, but the searches on 11 and 12 January were, by the standards of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), proactive exercises in terms of their success.
I am not confident about how I should take the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, but I shall bear with equanimity what I suspect may be a poisoned chalice.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is not it now incumbent on all decent men and women in both our countries to sink their party differences and concentrate on destroying this evil? To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell the Irish Government that their constitutional claim to Northern Ireland gives a spurious justification to the IRA's expressed determination to drive the British out of the island of Ireland? Will he also point out to the Labour party that its constant and continual opposition to the prevention of terrorism Act will deprive our security forces of the extra powers that they need to destroy terrorism?
Mr. Brooke: In terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, I said when I addressed the Dublin chamber of commerce on Friday in conjunction with Co-operation North that the Irish Government had made it clear that articles 2 and 3 would be on the table with regard to any talks, and that is, of itself, a reason to seek to proceed with the talks. As for the point my hon. Friend raises about the Opposition's attitude to legislation, it is up to the Opposition to speak for themselves—and I say that knowing that they will do so honourably.

European Fighter Aircraft
4.15 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the selection of the defensive aids sub-system, known as DASS, for the European fighter aircraft.
The House will be aware that the majority of contracts for the development of this aircraft have already been let, including the radar selection which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 May 1990. However, the selection of a DASS for the aircraft has remained outstanding. This system is a key element of the integrated suite of capabilities for the EFA. It will enhance the survivability and combat effectiveness of the aircraft in hostile electromagnetic environments by providing a self-protection capability, including warning of hostile missile attack and initiation of counter measures. Our Gulf experience showed this to be a crucial requirement.
The DASS is thus required to meet a most demanding specification at the forefront of combat avionics. Invitations to tender were issued to companies throughout the EFA partner nations. The EURODASS consortium led by Marconi Defence Systems Limited offered a solution, and this has been subject to rigorous scrutiny to confirm that it meets the necessary technical criteria. There have been equally difficult negotiations to satisfy the partner nations' demanding requirements.
I can now tell the House that, subject to the resolution of a number of detailed contractual points, we and our EFA partners, Italy and Spain, will endorse the selection of the EURODASS proposal. The fourth EFA partner, Germany, has not yet completed its selection process, but the option to join its partners in the EU RODASS solution remains open. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Italy and Spain and their officials for their constructive and helpful approach.
The Government remain strongly committed to the EFA development programme and to the provision of high quality equipment for the armed forces. An effective DASS is essential for the EFA's survivability.
The EURODASS proposal illustrates the vitality and competitiveness of the British aerospace industry. I am sure that the whole House will welcome this further evidence that the EFA programme continues to gather pace.
The EURODASS contract will be worth around £200 million with Marconi's share at just below £100 million. It is expected to lead to the creation of some 500 new jobs, mainly at Marconi's Stanmore and Plessey Avionics' West Leigh sites, but also at a large number of sub-contractors throughout the United Kingdom.
The step that I have announced today represents an important milestone for British airborne technology, in collaboration with our partners, in a major international development project. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Minister's announcement of the contract. I am pleased that, as with the EFA radar contract, it will go to a British-led consortium. The whole House recognises the importance of the contract for the future defence needs of this country and we are pleased that the Minister has been able to lead

31
the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Like him, we are disappointed that Germany has not yet signed up and we hope that it finally will. The implications for our defence industry and for those who work in that declining sector are substantial. I am sure that the news will be most welcome to those whose jobs will now be safeguarded.
Although the news is positive, can the Minister now advise the House on the latest German position on the whole project? He will know, as other hon. Members do, of the considerable doubts being expressed by politicians from all parties in Germany. In the event of the Germans pulling out after the development stage is finalised at the end of the year, what will be the cost and quantity implications for the procurement of the aircraft by the Royal Air Force?
Everyone recognises Marconi's important work in support of our operations in the Gulf. We congratulate Marconi's civilian employees on their work at that time. We hope that the awarding of the contract will help to safeguard our national electronic warfare capability well into the next century. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on the procurement of air-to-air missiles for the aircraft?
Mr. Clark: I am glad to get the hon. Gentleman's endorsement, especially in such positive and unqualified terms. I take that as part of the Labour party's approach to defence procurement, which is to tick off each individual project, factory or programme whenever it comes before the House and to say that it fully endorses it. As we all know, that is immediately reflected in the inconsistency of Labour's accounting programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is nothing ungracious about that comment. The sums are open to anyone who can add or subtract. I welcome the commitment by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We can accumulate the figures and we can all do our sums.
I do not believe that my statement means that the Germans will not necessarily take the system into the aircraft that they order. However, they could end up by having to buy the system off the shelf, in which case it would be more expensive for them. The only alternative would be to put in an inferior system, which means that the German aircraft would be less capable than those in the other three air forces.
I recognise that periodic doubts are expressed about the overall German commitment to the project. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that they are shared by all political parties in Germany, although they are shared by some of them, especially the socialist parties. It is not too alarmist in looking to the future—
Mr. Rogers: The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Clark: We are talking about the commitment of the Luftwaffe compared to that of some of the other parties. I sometimes wonder whether the Labour party, if it were ever able to do so, would consider cancelling the project and doing so under the alibi of some joint arrangement of approaching German political parties in the future. I have my doubts and I believe that many who are concerned with making the aircraft may bear those thoughts in mind. At
32
present, there is nothing in German policy or in service requirement terms to suggest that the Germans will get out of the aircraft.
On missile capability, as the hon. Gentleman knows and as I have announced in the House, we have invited tenders for the ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—capability and we are evaluating them. I hope to be able to make an announcement in the early spring.
Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is excellent news for British industry, especially for the British defence industry? Will he pass on our congratulations to all those in the Ministry of Defence and in industry who have worked so hard in co-operation to continue British primacy in the project?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as in all co-operative and collaborative ventures, we must try among the allies to minimise the differences over such procurement projects? If we cannot collaborate in future, collectively we shall never be able to afford the best for our forces.
Mr. Clark: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his commendation and for the constructive attitude that the Select Committee on Defence has adopted during the past years in helping us extrapolate the various solutions towards which the project is striving. My hon. Friend put his finger on the importance of co-operation, reaching early agreement and avoiding conflict on all the separate aspects of the collaborative project, but I have no reason to believe that anything untoward is occurring. The agreement on the DASS—the fact that we were able to agree with Italy and Spain to proceed with a system, even though the Germans are currently hesitating, possibly on grounds of economy or operational requirement—seems promising. It shows that the overall project is likely to go ahead even if, at intervals, individual members of the consortium do not participate in a particular system.
Sir David Steel: (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): The Liberal Democrats give an unqualified welcome to the statement, which will be good for British technology, jobs and European co-operation. There have been some reports about problems with the flight control system. May we take it that today's announcement means that if there were any, they have been overcome? Would the project continue to be viable even if, unhappily, the Germans were not to adopt it?
Mr. Clark: The project is more likely to be viable if the Germans drop out of it than if the Liberal party's defence programme is ever put in place. I am sure that that programme's ultimate aspiration is for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure. I am entirely confident about the present state of the project. The flight control system is not the same as the defensive aids sub-system—the two are separate—but I have no reason to anticipate any serious hold up with the flight control system.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while we all want the Germans to stay in the project, should they decide to withdraw from it at the end of the development phase, the aircraft would, if anything, be cheaper for the Royal Air Force and there would be increased employment possibilities in this country?
Mr. Clark: I have heard that assertion, which I find attractive and welcome, but there must be a catch in it

33
somewhere—more than that I should not like to say. I should certainly not wish the House to believe that a German withdrawal would lead to the whole project falling asunder. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said, it is a major international collaborative project, and the skills and technological resources of all the partners are necessary if it is to do itself justice.
Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister knows that the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) confirm that there is all-party support for the project. It is not helpful for the Minister to try to make petty political capital out of the issue. The project is of enormous importance to British industry. The research and development contract alone involves expenditure in the United Kingdom of £2.5 billion. Therefore, his statement on the allocation of the contract to Marconi and his strong reaffirmation about the project's future will be warmly welcomed. Can he confirm that everything is going broadly according to plan and that the first prototype plane is expected to fly at Farnborough this year?
Mr. Clark: I am glad to confirm all those points. I should like to repeat the tributes that I have paid to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he gave all our efforts—across party divides—to ensure that the Ferranti radar system was chosen for the aircraft in the spring two years ago. That system, in common with the others, is proceeding well.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister continue to press the Labour party and try to establish whether it is committed to the project? I welcome what Opposition Members have said today, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does. However, we are waiting in Bristol to have the largest industrial contract confirmed, but whenever Labour Members visit Bristol, they refuse to confirm their long-term commitment to the European fighter aircraft.
Mr. Clark: As I told the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), the Labour party has moved quite transparently into pre-election mode in respect of its attitude to all defence projects. Labour varies its tune according to the audience—a familiar distortion imposed by the pre-electoral pattern. Whenever Labour Members visit a factory or dockyard or stand outside the gate of a defence establishment which is threatened with rationalisation, they say, "Of course, under us, not only would it remain, but it would be expanded and we would put more money into it."
When such reports are brought to the unfortunate right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) periodically and he has to add up another £50 million, £90 million or £120 million, his heart must groan under that extra burden. [Interruption.] It was, I believe, a shadow Foreign Minister who came out with a lavish commitment for a fourth Trident submarine in our defence debate a few weeks ago. We could actually hear—never mind see—some of his colleagues wincing as he said that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting a little wide of the statement.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I will not be wide of the subject. May we be told precisely why the Germans are hesitating? Is it for operational or economic reasons? The House deserves to know.
Mr. Clark: In that case, if the House really deserves to know, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visits Germany and uses his well-established contacts there—
Mr. John P. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was asking the Minister.
Mr. Clark: Indeed, but I have no responsibility for the German Government. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow were to travel around and frequent the various places where people of that mind foregather, he would probably be able to pick up a few tips and tell us all about it in an Adjournment debate.
I have no responsibility for the German Government. I imagine that, like all Governments, they are subject to the same kind of mix of political pressure, service in-fighting and conflicting operational requirements of one kind or another. However, I am glad to say that that is quite outside my responsibility.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the Government's unequivocal commitment to the European fighter aircraft represented by this important decision on the defensive aids sub-system. That will be extremely good news for the Royal Air Force and for workers in Stanmore in north-west London. Is my right hon. Friend the Minister aware that it is only a year since the RAF proved in action how important it is to have aircraft of the highest quality with an excellent electronic warfare capability? We are moving in the right direction with the European fighter aircraft.
Mr. Clark: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Many people who argue against the aircraft—and this is certainly true of the Germans—appear to assume that, now that the cold war is over, combat aircraft development has come to a halt and we can all continue to use the aircraft that we have until they wear out or fall apart. However, there will be a continuing requirement for serious ranking world powers—such as the United Kingdom and other Community countries—to maintain effective equipment within their air forces. Many schools believe that it is not operationally practical to go to the extent of aircraft such as the ATAs—advanced tactical aircraft—that are being developed in America which cost between $70 million and $100 million each. We will have a more versatile, more manoeuvrable and more responsive aircraft, probably with increased range, performance and climbing rates. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Rafale is another example of that. We believe that it is inferior in all those respects to the EFA. There will be such a requirement for an aircraft which will be combat capable in the first 10 or 25 years of the next century.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement which demonstrates the Government's commitment to a defence project that is essential in this day and age, despite a peace dividend, for our defence capability and also for our defence industrial capability. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the development stage of the project is still likely to be in the order of £2.5 billion? Will he also

35
tell us when he expects to make a statement on the production phase of the project, which had been expected by the end of this year?
Mr. Clark: I can confirm my hon. Friend's figures. We still expect that the first aircraft will fly at Farnborough. Depending on what happens then and in the months immediately afterwards, I see no reason to deviate from the original forecasts for a statement on production.
Mr. Rogers: May I express my surprise at the way in which the Minister responded to what he acknowledged at the beginning of his statement as constructive support from the Opposition? As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the peddling of untruths by the Conservative party simply for electoral purposes is easily seen through. In every statement, we have always offered our support for the project. We have continually given unequivocal support for it. The Minister knows that, and he is telling untruths if he is suggesting otherwise. Normally, he behaves like a clown, but normally he does so without malice. That is why I was amazed at his response today. He obviously feels under great pressure because of his small majority. [Interruption.] It is small.
The reservations in Germany come from all political parties. If he reads the statements of Mr. Hauser, who is a member of the CSU, which is part of the CDU coalition, he will find that such reservations occur across the spectrum.
We do not accept criticism from the Minister. He has been responsible for the loss of 150,000 jobs in the defence industry in the past few years. The cuts that have taken place under "Options for Change" have been Treasury-driven. They were not decided by any grand defensive strategy on behalf of the Government. The Government have lurched from crisis to crisis. They have the cheek to criticise the Labour party's defence policy. Our record on defence since the war is a darned sight better than the Conservative Government's was when they consorted with the Nazis in the 1930s.
Mr. Clark: I am sorry to have wounded the hon. Gentleman. There was nothing personal about it.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything in "Erskine May" that allows you to protect Back-Bench Members and others against flippant answers by Ministers? What have we been asked to do? We have
36
been, in effect, asked to go to Herman Von Richthofen, the German ambassador, and ask him, as I shall do, a perfectly legitimate question—what are the objections to the project of a major industrial power in Europe? All we are told is to go there and see it. The Government are doing the negotiating. I do not think that that is good enough.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything in "Erskine May" would enable me to adjudicate on answers to questions, but I understand the reason why the hon. Gentleman has raised that point of order.
Mr. Mans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise with you a very important point of order. We have just heard a statement on the most important military project that we have outstanding. The aircraft is built in Lancashire, close to my constituency. I note that not a single Labour Member from Lancashire is here today. Could we therefore, at the earliest opportunity, have not only a statement but a debate on the subject so that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), in particular, and other Labour Members can give their views on this subject, as the hon. Lady has clearly opposed it in the past?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Member should raise that point with the Leader of the House on Thursday, if he catches my eye.

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

TRANSPORT
That the draft International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Local Government Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.39 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Judging by the representation on the Opposition Benches, that is an uncontroversial statement. As this Government's local government policies unfold, and fewer and fewer members of the Opposition parties turn up to oppose us—or even to listen to us or criticise us—it has become self-evident that we are winning the intellectual debate day after day.
The Bill is about preparing local government for the 21st century. It involves a review of all local authorities so that we can bring local government closer to the people. It involves the extension of competitive tendering, which will continue the disengagement of local authorities from direct service provision and which will promote their strategic and enabling roles. The Bill requires the publication of standard performance measures, which will give local electors the information that they need to judge their own council's performance.
The new local government commission for England, which is proposed in part II, will review the structure of local government. It will have a rolling programme of reviews, examining the shire counties area by area, and assessing the case for unitary authorities in those areas. We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas. However, it will be open to the commission to recommend that there should be no change to the existing structure in some areas. We have already made it clear that we do not intend that either the county or the district tier of the local authorities be abolished as a whole. People want local councils with which they can identify and local people will be given a significant voice in the commission's reviews. I expect to see more unitary authorities with a strong local identity.
Mr. Anthony Nelson (: I apologise for asking my right hon. Friend to give way so early in his speech, but I intervene on an important point. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what really matters is the quality and cost of the local government services that are provided to the people whom we represent, yet nothing in the Bill specifically refers to that need as a criterion for change? Before a costly and traumatic reorganisation of the structure of local government is embarked upon, is it not necesary to show ordinary people that demonstrable improvements are available to them as a result of that change and that, without those improvements, there is no case for change?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. If he studies the draft guidance that we have issued for the local government commission, he will see that we have placed considerable weight on the need to demonstrate that there is an economic case for change. I know that my hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am to consider that part of the legislation which provides for an extension of competitive tendering and which gives the Audit Commission the ability to reveal comparisons
38
between one authority, and one service, and another, which is what he is interested in achieving. I shall come to that part of the Bill in a few moments.
Sir Charles Morrison: I too am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend but, as his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) referred to the economic case for change, does he agree that if there is such an economic case for change, it must be made on the basis that where there are unitary authorities, which, as a matter of principle, I strongly support, those authorities must be of an adequate size? If we have endless small unitary authorities, we shall simply add enormously to administrative costs.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting issue that will involve the House and local government practitioners in much debate in the years ahead. As my hon. Friend and I remember all too well, that was the argument that was made in the early 1970s when it was suggested that we should establish a minimum size standard to cope with the provision of certain services. However, at that time we did not give sufficient attention to the concept of an enabling authority, which has the possibility of buying in services from larger, perhaps neighbouring, authorities. Therefore, it is possible to have both a larger-scale provision of services and more local, smaller-scale authorities which buy in and then provide services. It would be wrong for us to block the option of seeking to have an advantage of scale, through private sector or other public sector providers, while placing the structure much closer to individual people.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a factual point, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are looking positively and constructively at the de minimis provision, and at providing an increase from the current level of £100,000 to about £250,000, which was promised in the debate on 17 December last year?
Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for being unable to identify the issue to which he refers. However, if he writes to me, I shall do my best to respond in specific terms. The de minimis provision with which I am familiar cannot be the one about which he is talking, which is the old cut-off point below which capping did not apply. As I do not wish to fail to provide an adequate response to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will let me know exactly what de minimis provision he has in mind.
Mr. Dalyell: I am talking about the Scottish authorities and their concern about de minimis provision.
Mr. Heseltine: In that case, the hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that he will receive the diligent reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to which he is accustomed.
Mr. Robert Adley: I am sorry to have to intervene in my right hon. Friend's speech when two important questions have already been asked of him. I hope that he will not be too bored to hear again my concern that we do not make the same mistakes that we made in 1972. Is he aware that there is still widespread anxiety that, when his Department establishes a commission, there will be a hidden agenda on, say, size or functions? What can he say to those of my constituents,

39
especially in Christchurch, the priory of which celebrates its 900th anniversary in 1994, to assure them that, contrary to the universally expressed wishes of the local citizenry, they are not likely to be subsumed into some suburban, subtopian and grotesque unit of local government, which they would detest universally, to a man and to a woman?
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot believe that my hon. Friend would suggest that I, of all people, have ever had a hidden agenda—[Laughter.] Well, I can assure my hon. Friend that the horrendous spectres which he has waved before us and which the local government commission will doubtless address do not in any way form part of our plans for the future of local government. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that a constructive reply.
Trying to address the issue of local accountability will be a crucial task for the local government commission. We are pleased that Sir John Banham, with his experience at the Audit Commission, has agreed to become the chairman of the new commission when he stands down from the Confederation of British Industry this summer. As I have already said, we have issued a draft of the guidance that we propose to give the commission. Copies have been made available to all hon. Members and we have invited views on the draft by the end of this month. The guidance should require the commission to assess community identities and the impact and effectiveness of any proposed new structure. It will be important for the commission to consider the most effective exercise of functions and the delivery of services, consistent with community identities and the wide public interest.
The commission will be able to obtain advice from other expert organisations, and particularly from the Audit Commission, to assist it in its work. However, it will be the following matters that will influence decisions.
I cannot stress too often that money spent on excessive public relations campaigns will be wasted cash. Although I have said this before, perhaps I may trespass on your tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating this advice to local authorities. They will not enhance their case by employing expensive public relations consultants to spend the local people's money trying to create a synthetic case, which will be looked at in great detail and dispassionately by the local government commission when it begins its work.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today. His speech was similar to that which he made when he told us that he would get rid of the poll tax. Is what he is trying to say an apology to the people of Britain who have been struggling under a local government system that has never really worked, ever since the Conservatives put it through the House in 1972? Is it not an admission of failure that he has had to come to the Dispatch Box today and introduce the Bill?
Mr. Heseltine: If what the hon. Gentleman suggests is true, the only apology that is necessary is from the Labour Government who ruled Britain for significant periods after 1972 and did nothing whatever to put the defects right. Once again, when reform is required, it is a Conservative Administration who address the issue.
Mr. Derek Enright: Apologise.
Mr. Heseltine: If another apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for psyching up the level of community charge bills and encouraging local authorities to increase their expenditure, to add another burden to the tax increases with which we are already threatened by a future Labour Government. [Interruption.] Although few Opposition Members are present, I hope that they will allow me to make progress with explaining to the House the merits of yet one more piece of refreshing Conservative legislation.
The Bill sets out a framework for the procedures that the commission will follow in conducting its reviews, including the arrangements for consultation with local authorities, local people and other interested organisations. The commission will initiate a review, with publicity. If appropriate, it will outline proposals or options. There will then be an opportunity for local authorities and other interested parties to put their views.
The commission will then prepare draft recommendations and invite comments on them. We are particularly anxious that local people should put their views on the local government structure that they want to see in their areas. Once the commission has considered comments on the draft recommendations it will draw up final recommendations which it will publish and submit to the Secretary of State for the Environment. If necessary, I can ask the commission to carry out further investigations or, indeed, to supply more information. Finally, an order implementing the commission's recommendations will be laid before Parliament.
As well as conducting reviews of local government structure, the local government commission will take on the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission. It will be responsible for any reviews of boundaries and electoral arrangements which are needed as a consequence of structural review. It will also be able to carry out separate reviews of local government boundaries or electoral arrangements, at my request.
As now, there will continue to be reviews of electoral arrangements at mandatory intervals of not fewer than 10 and not more than 15 years. Therefore, the Bill also provides for the abolition of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Any reviews begun by the Boundary Commission but not completed by the time that it is abolished may be transferred to the new Local Government Commission. Our aim is that the commission should consider the structure of local government area by area so that it can make tailor-made recommendations for each area about the most appropriate structure to meet that area's particular needs and circumstances. That calls for flexibility. Therefore, the Bill provides for parliamentary orders to change the structure of local government area by area. Such orders will be subject to affirmative resolution procedures.
Mr. Paul Channon: When my right hon. Friend says "area by area", what does he mean? When the commission gets down to its job, will it look at a county at a time or, in some cases, units smaller than a county? How will the commission decide which areas to select for review?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting question. We do not anticipate that the areas will be smaller than counties. Indeed, we expect that they will usually include several counties. Undoubtedly, there

41
are areas where local ambitions or requirements might indicate that cross-county boundary reorganisations are
appropriate. For example, in certain areas old counties disappeared. They might reappear and county boundaries might have an effect on the matter.
Part II of the Local Government Bill also contains enabling powers, subject to Parliament, for setting up a residuary body or bodies, or a staff commission or commissions. As the House will know, such bodies have been found helpful in previous reorganisations. But we intend to set them up only if the need for them is clear.
Part I of the Bill deals with competitive tendering. It is almost uncontested by local authorities—at least in private—that competitive tendering has powerfully changed local services for the better.
Mr. William O'Brien: What of quality of service?
Mr. Heseltine: If the Labour party intends to abolish competitive tendering, that is an additional interesting revelation about its policies. I am only too anxious to give way if anyone wishes to suggest that there will be no more competitive tendering. It is obvious that the winds of change have blown such socialist nostrums from Labour Members' minds. Competitive tendering is one more item on the long list of items that the Conservative party has implanted in the national culture of how to deliver services.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between competitive tendering and compulsory competitive tendering?
Mr. Heseltine: Yes, there is a difference. In the case of voluntary competitive tendering, Labour authorities do not do it. In that of compulsory competitive tendering, they do.
Research by the Institute of Local Government Studies has shown that work awarded through the competitive tendering procedures costs 6 per cent. less on average, and that in general standards are maintained or improved.
Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that only 40 authorities were surveyed by the Institute of Local Government Studies? On page 132, paragraph 13.36, in its conclusion it says:
"Confidence in the financial assessment of the impact of competition must be limited. Outturn figures for the post-tender period are not available. The changing accounting practices that have resulted from competition have made the provision of information and comparisons of cost before and after competition difficult."
In other words, it said that it did not really have the evidence, but it took a good stab at it.
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman is so sceptical about the benefits of competitive tendering, why does he not have the courage to pursue the logic of the argument and say that his party will get rid of it? He knows, as everyone knows, that competitive tendering, imposed where necessary by the Government, has shaken up service delivery standards in local government like nothing that we have seen in recent decades. That is why the Conservative party has the courage to say so, and intends to extend competitive tendering. We will obtain better value for money and higher quality services, despite the worst attempts of the Labour party to frustrate that aim.
42
The costs have materialised at 6 per cent. less on average and in general terms standards have been maintained or improved. But that is an average position. The truth of the matter is that there are many more extreme examples. No one in the House will forget the state of the city of Liverpool when its trade unions, encouraged by the Labour party, tried their customary strong-arm tactics against the Labour council of the time. We had the unedifying sight of pile upon pile of rubbish towering in the city centre streets. When the city went to tender, the in-house team bid £7.9 million. The private sector bid £3.9 million. The private sector cleaned up the city.
Liverpool was not the only dramatic example. When we used our powers to force Camden council to re-tender its street-cleaning and refuse services, it replaced an ineffective and costly in-house service with a private sector contract that swept the streets and saved the local taxpayer millions of pounds.
So the question remains whether those who oppose compulsory competitive tendering seriously believe that without that process those cost savings and management improvements would have taken place in many local authorities. There is a stunned silence from the Labour Benches because Labour Members know in truth that those improvements would not have taken place without compulsory tendering. The fact is that in the past too many authorities ran their services more for the convenience of their work forces than for the communities that they should have served.
Where authorities, on behalf of their chargepayers, wish to employ an in-house team for these services compulsory competitive tendering has forced them to demonstrate that their team can do the job as efficiently and effectively as an outside contractor. That discipline has meant that they have had to knuckle down and get on with the business of providing services for the citizen, and not jobs for the boys.
We now have to extend competition into local authority white-collar services.
Mr. John Maxton: Why?
Mr. Heseltine: Here we go again. The question is again asked immediately. The Labour party says that it will not prevent competitive tendering in respect of the services to which it now applies. I shall be very interested to hear whether the Opposition intend to prevent its extension and thus deprive people of the further enjoyment of improved services.
Last November we published a consultation paper entitled "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services". That document proposes initially to extend CCT to a number of construction-related professional services, such as architecture and engineering, and then eventually to bring the stimulus of competition to a range of core corporate services, such as finance, legal services, personnal and administration. The consultation paper made it clear that we recognise that the existing CCT procedures under the Local Government Act 1988 may need revision for such services.
For the activities already covered by the 1988 Act local authorities decide on the quality of services that they want and then set specifications for the job. Once they have received tenders it is up to them to ensure, in a fair and objective fashion, that tenderers can meet their

43
specifications. But in the case of professional and technical services considerations of quality are more complex and more difficult to measure. It is for that reason that we are prepared to consider a modified tendering procedure with a separate quality threshold and double-envelope tendering. This would enable authorities to look at the prices tendered by those who come up to the standards that they and their local communities require and then to judge on the basis of price alone. It is our intention that this Bill will provide powers to modify the existing CCT procedures for the professional and technical services to take account of this and other concerns.
As it stands, clause 8 does not not do that. Instead, it purports to provide a wholly inflexible and unusable power which could not address the particular concerns relating to professional services. It would treat quality in architecture on the same level as quality in refuse collection. I give notice that, in Committee, we shall table amendments to restore the necessary flexibility to this power.
Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer a question that bothers West Lothian district council. In the event of the authority's having misgivings as to the capability of the lowest tenderer to maintain a quality service, what remedies are available to it at the tender-evaluation stage? This is a matter that bothers serious people.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and I have just answered his question by my reference to the concept of double-envelope tendering, whereby quality thresholds are set and firms have to ensure that those are met. Above the quality thresholds, it is a question of price. The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly legitimate question, but it is one that we have anticipated and answered.
Mr. Allen McKay: On the question of quality, it is well known that firms submit tenders even though architects would advise that those firms could not do the job. On paper the costing looks good, but practical experience is another matter. In such a case, would an authority, on the advice of its officers, be able to eliminate a tender?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that invariably officers advise against competitive tendering techniques. They invariably produce a range—
Mr. Allen McKay rose——
Mr. Heseltine: I have twice given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want now to reply to his questions.
If we had not introduced the rigour of competitive tendering regimes, we should not have seen the dispersion of activity towards the private sector. Local government, if it had had the will, could have done these things on its own initiative. However, it took legislation to change the minds not only of local polititians but of local officials and, in particular, of the trade unions behind them.
Mr. Allen McKay rose——
Mr. Heseltine: I have dealt with the issue, and I wish now to move to the third aspect of what I have to say.
Clauses 8 and 9 contain enabling provisions, and they will not affect local government activities until we bring
44
secondary legislation before Parliament. The consultation paper sets out a number of ways in which we intend to use these enabling powers if Parliament grants them. We shall carefully consider responses to the consultation paper and shall bring forward our proposals for secondary legislation in due course.
I should like now to come to a question that has been raised by Conservative Members—local authority performance standards. Everybody knows that service standards vary. We know about authorities in whose areas rents are not collected and repairs are not done. We know about the bins that are not emptied and about the streets that are not swept. We know that costs too vary. The whole House must know that, in general, costs under Labour authorities are higher than costs under Conservative authorities. It is still true that, on average in local government, a vote for Labour costs the individual payer £80 a year extra.
The citizens charter White Paper promised that electors would be given the information they need to enable them to judge the services provided by their local councils and the costs. Those electors should know that it costs 8.69p per head to collect the rubbish in Tory Wandsworth, and 23.28p—nearly three times as much—in Labour's Camden. They should know that it costs £10,000 per km to maintain the roads of Labour's Lancashire, but only half that in Tory Lincolnshire. We know that these variations exist. [Laughter.] I am not surprised that hon. Members find it funny that services in Labour-controlled areas should cost so much more.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Conservatives were in charge of the Lancashire county council the standard and maintenance of our roads were well above the national average but that they are now below the national average?
Mr. Heseltine: But not in cost. As we should expect, my hon. Friend makes a most eloquent point.
We all know that these variations exist, but the electors should not have to rely on stray admissions to find out what is going on. I refer, for instance, to the admission of Keva Coombes, the former leader of the Liverpool council. In July 1990 The Independent quoted him as having confessed:
"The council's problems are not down to resources, rather inefficiency. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas."
Some hon. Members—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I among them—will remember Maureen Colquhoun, an ex-Member of Parliament and an ex-councillor in Labour Hackney. She summed up the situation in Hackney in these words:
"There was only one reason for Hackney council losing seats at the 1990 elections—the total failure of the Labour Group … to deliver services. The record is shameful."
She went on to make another observation—and this is a matter of which I have experience and in respect of which I know how she feels. She said:
"Tenants were not treated as people at all."
These are the words of a former Labour Member of this House describing Labour in local authorities.
We do not think it good enough to rely on these accidental admissions, so clauses 1 to 4 provide the basis for systematic comparisons. Standards of service and costs should be reported on a common basis determined by an independent body. That is what the Bill provides, and the

45
Audit Commission is already preparing proposals that will allow the public to compare the cost in their area with the cost in other areas of services of similar standards.
Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State has made comparisons. Does he believe that all comparisons are fair? Would he say that it is fair to compare the costs for collecting a single tonne of rubbish? Will he confirm that in Wandsworth it costs £39.28 to collect a tonne of rubbish, in Westminster it costs £21.33, but in Haringey it costs £16.62 and in Newham £19.08? Will he confirm that in Chiltern, a Tory-controlled authority in Buckinghamshire, it costs three times as much to collect the rubbish as it does in Labour-controlled Milton Keynes, down the road? If there are to be comparisons, will they be across the board, so that we can see the kind of rubbish that the Secretary of State is talking?
Mr. Heseltine: As on so many other occasions, having listened to what I have had to say, the hon. Gentleman has come round to agreeing with me. We shall give him exactly what he wants—all the statistics for all the services for all the authorities. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that, because now he will come through the Aye Lobby in support of our Bill. We have another convert on the Labour party Benches.
Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State also look at the statistics on additionality in RECHAR areas?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that this matter is being carefully considered by the Government, and when we have something to say, we shall make a public statement. However, to the best of my knowledge, that policy is not covered by this Bill. If I am wrong, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will correct me, because I have nothing about it in my briefing notes.
Mr. Bob Cryer: If it is not in the Secretary of State's briefing notes, he cannot say anything about it.
Mr. Heseltine: No. If it is not in my briefing notes, it is not there.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Before he leaves accountability, will my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the proposed changes that are made, accountability will be achieved only if responsibility and authority are vested in the same pair of hands? Whatever he does in this review of local government, will he ensure that that principle is scrupulously adhered to?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will have heard what I said earlier about the local government commission because it is with the intention of seeing the emergence of more unitary authorities that we are introducing the Bill. My hon. Friend will therefore be able to support us with enthusiasm.
The Audit Commission has issued a paper—"The Citizens Charter: Local Authority Performance Indicators", and I have arranged for copies of it to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The paper sets out the Audit Commission's preliminary thinking on how it would set about its new tasks. The paper is most important and one that the House will want to consider with great care. As I have said, all the figures will be published and
46
the resulting publicity will be a powerful motivator. Authorities will no longer be able to hide behind vague definitions of standards and vague assessments of costs.
Let me make two things clear. First, standards of performance are central to the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 and to the future development of the so-called league tables. There was some confusion about this matter in the other place. The Bill makes it clear that the subject matter of comparisons is to be standards of performance achieved, as is set out in clause 1(1) at the beginning of the Bill. The criteria of comparisons follow, and are cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Secondly, the requirement for the Audit Commission to give directions to local authorities requiring them to give the public information on their performance in no way detracts from the freedom of authorities to decide for themselves what standard of service to provide. The Bill is concerned about the reporting of levels of service delivered. This will enable the public to make their judgment on whether their authority is delivering good value for money.
Clauses 5 and 6 implement another aspect of the citizens charter. In too many cases, local authorities do not respond to their auditors' reports and recommendations. Clause 5 imposes on bodies a new duty to respond promptly, formally and in public to auditors' public interest reports made under section 15 of the 1982 Act.
There are doubts about the ability of the Audit Commission to publish information about individual authorities—in other words, to name names. Clause 7 will enable the Audit Commission to disclose information on which bodies fail to comply with the requirements of performance standards or contravene the accounts regulations—for example, by failing to publish their accounts on time—or are subject to an auditor's report. They could also disclose the contents of such a report and the body's response. I see no case for shielding authorities which do any of those things from the publicity that their performance should properly attract.
Both in the citizens charter provisions and in the proposals for structural reform, the Bill puts the interests of the people first. It will provide voters with the facts about the way that councils discharge their responsibilities. It will extend the benefits of competitive tendering and it will lead to a local government structure that takes account of the needs of each area and of the views of local citizens. I believe that it will lead to a significant advance in the quality of local government, and I commend it to the House.
5.15 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: Long-suffering local government has been an all-too-familiar battleground for the major parties over the past decade and that has been particularly true of local government finance and competence, where a vast gulf separates the two major parties and where we have differences of a profound nature not only about the practice of policy but about its objectives.
As we approached the Bill, it was possible to hope for some consensus. After all, who could disagree with some of the Government's stated aims, such as better-quality provision or the restructuring of local government so that it is simpler, more democratic and more efficient in its

47
operation? Labour yields to no one in its enthusiasm for those causes. We were there first with our quality street proposals and our proposals for a quality commission.
Labour local government has led the way in practical terms with proposals on how such changes should be implemented. We have been long-standing critics of the 1974 reorganisation. When I represented Southampton, Test I was a strong supporter of what we then described as organic change—a champion of the county boroughs, of their rights and of their capacity to run their own affairs.
Therefore, in principle, we should be able to look for consensus on the Bill, but I am sorry to say that it is simply not possible on the basis of the Bill. The Government have thrown away a chance because they take too narrow a view of how to achieve quality and of what quality means in local government services and because they have been unable to approach the issue of structure in anything other than a spirit of narrow, party advantage.
We have no difficulty in supporting the provisions in the first part of the Bill that require publication of information on the performance of local government. Indeed, we would go well beyond the Government in demanding the public setting of standards, the provision of information to citizens and the ability of citizens to monitor those standards and demand redress when they are not met.
The Government have been hopelessly narrow in their definition of what should be measured. True to form, they are concerned exclusively with cost. They do not concern themselves with the quality of provision. They are looking for an accountant's measure, which will always suggest that cheapest is best. We believe that, on the contrary, quality of provision does matter and that local communities should be able to decide for themselves what quality of service they want. That judgment will necessarily differ from one locality to another. The needs of one community will be very different from those of another.
The circumstances in which a service is to be delivered will vary enormously from one area to another. That factor alone means that the Government's proposals and their insistence on an across-the-board, national set of measures are deficient in terms of the definition of what is to be measured and in respect of how it is to be done. There is no provision in the Bill for local variation—unlike the Government's national health service charter, in which the importance of locally set standards taking account of local needs and circumstances is recognised. Nor is there any recognition of the complexity of the measurements that are to be attempted if fairness is to be achieved and like is to be measured with like. Even a simple task such as grass cutting, for example, cannot be measured unless we are clear about many variables, such as the length of the grass and frequency of cutting. That is—[Interruption.] It is easy to laugh, and I know that the point sounds a small one, but how is such a measure to be used and relied upon? If that is true of grass cutting, imagine the difficulty of measuring the quality of more complex services.
Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government's approach is an accountant's approach. It seems that he and I were listening to a different speech. I thought that I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that, even
48
where service arguments and cost arguments demand large areas, local people might want small areas. Was not my right hon. Friend saying that if people want small areas, that is what they should have? That is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman must be doing his best to confuse the House generally. He has intervened on an issue that does not arise at this stage in my speech. I shall gladly deal with restructuring later. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will try to follow the argument a little more closely. If he does so, he will be able to judge more accurately when to advance his prepared arguments.
The Government should recognise the problems to which I have referred, at least to the extent of acknowledging that a good deal more work must yet be done on performance criteria by the Audit Commission—the report that it is publishing is most welcome—and by local government, so that there is at least an attempt to reach agreement between the commission and local government before local authorities are, in effect, put in the dock by the Government.
The Government's accusatory attitude remains the main thrust of part I. There is the suggestion that local government is inherently inefficient. If not, why is there the emphasis on cost? Why not measure rather more important matters and rate local councils in accordance with their success in delivering important services such as meals on wheels or nursery school places? If we are to measure, let us measure things that are important. I assure the Secretary of State that if that sort of measurement is undertaken the pecking order will be rather different from the one which he has suggested.
That is our main criticism of the citizens charter, on which the Bill, at least in part I, is based. Every page of the charter is redolent of the view that the only thing to be done with public service—especially local government service—is to privatise it or to import the so-called disciplines of the marketplace. The charter is a pathetically inadequate document which has come and gone virtually unnoticed. Even the Government have recognised that it has been a non-event, as is shown by the need to relaunch it later this week. Its impact so far has been zero, apart from its being said that the Prime Minister is pleased with the improved public recognition that he has enjoyed as a result of wearing his own name badge.
The charter is a document without any content. It is an attack on failures for which the Government are responsible. Those are failures of funding and of understanding local government. The charter's prescriptions miss the point and merely reflect the Government's prejudices.
Mr. Keith Mans: If the citizens charter has had no impact, how is it that the portion of it that is called the patients charter has had to be reprinted, and has so far sold nearly 1 million copies?
Mr. Gould: If my experience is anything to go by, I imagine that it has been reprinted many thousands or millions of times. The patients charter arrived through the mail at great cost to the taxpayer, no doubt. When I bothered to read it I found that it contained nothing of any value. Everything that it promised was contradicted by the experience of patients in the NHS.
If we really want improvements in service delivery, we should be looking to Labour's quality commission

49
proposals. Labour local government already has an impressive track record. It has pioneered customer contracts, customer care training and the provision of immediate redress if things go wrong. It is significant—I say this in response to all those ignoramuses on the Conservative Benches who laugh—that when the Government were drawing up the citizens charter they made a discreet approach to—guess who? The answer is the Labour party. They approached us to ask us whether we could send them a handful of the brochures that had been produced by Labour local authorities on customer care contracts, on customer care training and on the provision of redress. It was to those Labour authorities, such as York, Islington, Oxford, Norwich, Harlow and North Tyneside—I could go on because the list is long—that the Government turned for practical examples when they were drawing up a citizens charter.
This part of the Bill is a great disappointment. It is too narrow, too doctrinaire and too permeated with a lack of sympathy for local government. It is all too typical of the charter, of which it is, sadly, all too predictably a manifestation.
That is even more true of the next subject that is tackled by the Bill. The intention here—this was reiterated by the Secretary of State—was to extend the provision of compulsory competitive tendering to a range of professional services, despite the lack of any evidence that such an extension was either desirable or practicable. It might have been thought that before any such enterprise was undertaken it would be sensible to survey the effects of CCT so far. The Government have failed to do that. The studies undertaken have been partial and inconclusive. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the work undertaken by the Institute of Local Government Studies and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is that small cost savings in service delivery of about 6 to 7 per cent. have been at the very least matched and offset by the costs of the tendering process. That is to say nothing of the costs that have not been measured, such as the costs of corners cut in service delivery and of the downward pressure on wages and working conditions, which are already shamefully low.
That is why we believe that the way forward is not through compulsion. A Labour Government will largely remove the element of compulsion, reserving it only for use when a local authority has shown over a period that it has failed to meet acceptable standards. We do not accept that there is any case for extending CCT purely on ideological grounds. The Government have not been able to show any evidence for doing so. They have refused to publish the PA report that they commissioned, presumably because they felt—as it turned out, quite rightly—that the report provided no support for their prejudices. They were duly embarrassed when the report was leaked. It showed that in respect of some of the services proposed for CCT—legal services, for example—costs were substantially higher in the private sector than in the public sector. It showed that no market exists for other services and that process costs would outweigh any cost advantages in yet further examples.
The Government, true to form, were undeterred. They pressed ahead, issuing a consultation document and specifying that consultation would end on 31 January, conveniently after the Bill had received a Second Reading in both Houses. So much for consultation.
50
The consultation paper was hardly free from mystery. The Prime Minister went out of his way last year to specify housing management as a prime candidate for the extension of CCT, yet it is not mentioned in the document. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to resolve the mystery of whether housing management is in or out. I see the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) courteously waiting to intervene, but on the point of leaping to his feet. If he wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is basing much of his case on the PA Consultants' report, yet his noble Friend Lord McIntosh described it as poorly written and inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman says that he believes every word of it. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Gould: My noble Friend Lord McIntosh is entitled to make his own judgment of the report's literary style; I am entitled to put the report's conclusions before the House. I have taken the trouble to spare the hon. Gentleman the pain of listening to the language used in the report, which I have paraphrased. However, I assure him that not only are the conclusions impeccable, but so are the language and the grammar.
Even the Government were forced to recognise in the debate in the other place that, if competition was applied to many services according to ordinary principles, it would be most unlikely that the private sector would get much of a look in. The Government accordingly proposed a quality threshold. The very phrase should send a shiver down the spine, in the light of the television franchise debacle. At the same time, they resolutely refused to recognise that any reference to quality was needed in the services already subject to CCT. If it is right for one group of services, why is it irrelevant to others? Who is to decide the quality threshold? Is it, as the Secretary of State implied, to be him? Is it, as one of his noble Friends conceded late in the debate on the Bill in the other place, to be for local authorities to set that threshold?
Not surprisingly, their Lordships objected to the whole farrago of nonsense and prejudice and they wrecked the Government's proposals, not least on the ground that the Henry VIII clause—part of clause 8—was a constitutional monstrosity. Unfortunately and sadly, as we heard from the Secretary of State, the Government intend to override their Lordships and to restore a provision that has no defenders outside the ranks of the Government's ideologues. We shall resist that restoration.
Part II of the Bill is an even greater disappointment and an even bigger missed opportunity. We have always made it clear that the 1974 reorganisation had failed and that what was needed was a simpler, more comprehensible, more accountable unitary structure for local government. The Secretary of State appeared to accept that, too, so we looked to common ground on that score.
We also supported the idea of a commission that would attempt to measure local needs and interests and come forward with flexible answers to suit local circumstances. We made it clear that if such a commission were properly set up, comprised a proper balance of people and interests, and had sensible terms of reference, an incoming Labour Government would be glad to pick up its work and to act on its conclusions. Those hopes have been dashed by the provisions of the Bill. I say nothing about the membership

51
of the commission, which presumably has not yet been decided, but the heart sinks at the prospect of the Secretary of State's yet again being unable to resist the chance to play party politics.
We are, however in a position to judge the terms of reference of the commission, and they fill us with alarm and despondency. Apparently, it will roam the countryside, guided only by the whim of the Secretary of State, proposing or not proposing—as the case may be—change which may or may not introduce unitary government in one part of the country rather than another. Its recommendations, again subject to whim, will be made and implemented piecemeal and over a long period. It is impossible to imagine a surer recipe for confusion than what the Secretary of State proposes. At any given time, some parts of the country will have unitary and others dual forms of local government. Some will be in the course of change, others threatened with change, yet others absolved from change, with others not knowing what to expect. No one with an ounce of understanding of local government could contemplate such chaos with equanimity.
Mr. Wilshire: I wish to take up the hon. Gentleman on his point about some authorities having unitary and others having dual forms of local government. I am against two-tier authorities, but if local people matter as much as the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say they do, we should not rule out what local people want, even if he and I think that to be wrong. Is he againt local variation and against local people? Does he still want to dictate from the centre?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman must be a very late convert to that view.
It is remarkable that the Government so lack confidence in their espousal of unitary government that they dare not use that principle to frame the terms of reference of the commission. They are not only a sure recipe for confusion, but they entirely fail to deal with some of the fears about, for example, major environmental responsibilities such as the future of structure plans, whose importance Labour is committed to emphasise, and the role of specialist services such as the county archivists. The terms of reference exclude that potentially—indeed, actual—valuable element of local government, the local parish and community councils. They should feature prominently in any future reorganisation of local government.
Most surprising of all is the refusal to recognise the demand for a Londonwide administration for our capital city. The great majority of Londoners—this is shown by all opinion polls—know all too well the price that they pay for the absence of any Londonwide voice, and the handicap that our capital suffers in comparison with other major cities at home and abroad. Even Tory voices, ranging from the chairman of the Tory party—although somewhat muted, it is true—to Lady Porter, recognise that something has to be done. However, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, for once united, are frozen in indecision. They have decided that Londoners must make do without the benefit of a strategic body to plan the capital's future and that London must be excluded from the Bill. They will pay a price for that indecision and the next Labour Government will specifically remedy the omission.
52
The Bill is, in the end, the Secretary of State's Bill. It reflects his peculiarly partisan approach to all these issues. It is local government's misfortune that he brings to his task a perspective that is too narrow, too partisan and too lacking in understanding of what local government is about and the value of the contribution that it can and must make. Local government now needs a proper debate about its true role and function and an appreciation of the importance of decentralising power in a hopelessly over-centralised country. From that debate should flow conclusions about the best structure for local government. Function should determine structure, not the other way round.
The structure should be decided in the long-term interests of local government and the communities that it serves. It should not be influenced by short-term and partisan considerations about where party advantage might lie. It should not be driven by a passion for centralisation and a determination to strip local government of its remaining functions and independence. Yet the Secretary of State's personal style and his record in local government inevitably lead to the conclusion that that is precisely what he is about. We do not trust him and neither does local government. That is why the twin objectives of the Bill—quality services and a democratic and efficient structure for local government—must wait for their achievement until the election of a Labour Government.
5.38 pm
Mr. Paul Channon: Parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) were astonishing, especially his latter remarks and his attack on part II of the Bill. If we do not proceed in the way outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we shall be condemned to many years of uncertainty before any change is made in the structure of local government. My understanding of what the hon. Gentleman was saying was that there should be a long debate and then a future Labour Government—should there be such an animal—would put forward proposals, which would then be subject to major legislation. The hon. Gentleman is putting off the day of reform for many, many years. That may be the wish of some members of the Labour party, but it is not the view reflected in the other place. It certainly does not reflect the views of many Labour party supporters. Indeed, in my constituency, Labour party members are among the most enthusiastic supporters of part II. The hon. Gentleman made a misguided attack on the Bill.
I welcome both parts of the Bill, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the further moves towards competitive tendering and contracting out. My local authority, Southend, was one of the first to contract out its refuse collection services—a move that has been outstandingly successful, and is now entirely non-controversial. A much better and more economical service is now provided. That is only one example of what local authorities can achieve—and, indeed, are increasingly achieving throughout the country.
Part II, which deals with the structure of local government, is the most crucial section. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the reforms of the early 1970s, no one

53
can claim today that they have met with popular support. They have proved unpopular in many areas where services could previously be provided much closer to hand.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And more cheaply.
Mr. Channon: In many cases, yes.
I represent part of what used to be one of the old county boroughs. It seems to me, in retrospect, that that was an excellent arrangement. It allowed decisions to be made at a "responsive" level: it enabled people to feel that they had some control over their local authorities. When the education committee met, for example, everyone knew every school that was up for discussion. Everyone knew which school needed more money. The old system provided more accountability as well as less remoteness, and I suspect that people in virtually all the old county borough areas regret the changes that were made. My constituents certainly do. But I make no criticism of the county council that took over my borough. Despite the inevitable remoteness that has followed the change, that council has proved both effective and economical.
If we are to change the structure of local government—a proposal that has, I believe, been widely welcomed—what should be our aim? Clearly—as my right hon. Friend explained—it should be to provide high standards of public service at a reasonable cost to the citizen, and to respond to the wishes of local people. If the word "subsidiarity", as used by Mr. Delors, has any meaning, it surely applies to local government: decisions should be made as near to the people as is conceivably possible.
I am sure that I am right in expecting my right hon. Friend to ensure that the new local government commission is open to new ideas. After all, he has said in his consultation document that he wants an enabling authority. That, I think, is the direction in which local government will move in the next few years. More services will be provided outside the traditional field of local government. When all schools have their own local management, the structure of local government will be affected; when a vast number of schools become grant maintained—as I confidently expect them to do—the impact will be enormous. If, as I expect, there is a dramatic increase in the number of applications, local authorities will have a smaller role to play.
If we look ahead to a time several decades from now—as we should at least try to do—we should ask how we want services to be administered. I do not see why a national blueprint should be laid down; administration may well be different in different parts of the country. Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dagenham mentioned housing. The increase in the role of housing associations—as even greater increase than the one that
we are seeing now—will mean a smaller role for local authorities, and a greater role for individuals. I have already mentioned some aspects of contracting out.
We do not want local government for local government's sake. We want to provide the best possible standard of service, and I believe that that can be done differently in different parts of the country. Whatever unit of local government finally emerges will, I think, be able to delegate downwards if it wishes, conferring on local communities many of the functions that local authorities now perform.
I am convinced that, in most instances, unitary authorities provide the best solution; but I do not see why
54
the hon. Member for Dagenham should attack my right hon. Friend for enabling parts of the country that may wish to retain two-tier authorities to do so. I know that some of my hon. Friends feel strongly that the dual system is better for their areas. If that is so, good luck to them: why should we try to lay down the unitary system as a general principle? The point of part II, surely, is to give the citizen more say in deciding what form of local government should operate in his area. Most, I believe, will choose the unitary system, but if some do not want that, let them get on with it.
Mr. Martlew: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, when the proposals are ready, they should be put to a referendum so that people can choose the form of local government that they want?
Mr. Channon: I doubt that that will be necessary in most areas; but it is essential—and, indeed, it is clearly laid down in the consultation document—that the decision that is finally reached should be reached by the vast majority of local people. People in my part of the country would be in no doubt about what they wanted. [Interruption.] I have seldom been more convinced that I am right than in this instance. I am not opposed to the idea of a referendum if that is what people want, but I think that in most cases it would be unnecessary. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman's point is that the decision must be welcomed by the majority, he is entirely right. The White Paper provides for a presumption in favour of unitary authorities unless clear reason is given for different arrangements to be adopted.
I should like to know more about the local government commission. How will it carry out its enormous task? Who, for example, will set its programme of work? Will the commission decide how to proceed, or will my right hon. Friend say, "Tackle Avon now, Cornwall next and Essex after that"? That question has prompted a good deal of interest.
In another place, the Minister of State implied that a history of dissatisfaction with the existing structure would be a factor. I hope that that is true; if so, I concede the prime claims of Avon and Humberside. None the less, I wish to draw to the Government's attention the need to deal soon with the problems of Essex, and particularly those of Southend. As in many other ex-county boroughs, there exists in my area a community of interests—as laid out in the consultation paper—and a strong desire not to change the boundaries that existed under the old system, or to become predatory.
I hope that the areas in which dissatisfaction is known to exist will be among the first to be dealt with. I also hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us a little about timing. When will this great process be finished? It is a long and arduous business, and we shall all be kept in uncertainty for quite some time unless rapid progress can be made in areas where agreement is likely.
Will the commissioners split up into different groups, or will all, or only one, carry out each review? Timing, about which there is so much uncertainty, is not only important to the local population; it is crucial to local authority employees. Is the commission big enough? Will there be enough people to do the work in a reasonable period?
My right hon. Friend mentioned costs. I am disturbed by the figures that have been revealed in this week's Local Government Chronicle about the costs that local

55
authorities incur in defending their position. We do not want ridiculously expensive solutions to be adopted at the expense of charge payers—and, later, ratepayers—whose money might be squandered on unnecessary reports. I welcome my right hon. Friend's condemnation of such practices, and hope that he will say more.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) challenged me on the need for a local referendum. I agree with him strongly that we need to consult the people before a decision is reached. Could we have some guidance about that from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Mr. Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Channon: No. I have already given way on that point. All I am saying is that there must be adequate consultation so that we ensure that the community that becomes a local authority agrees with the decision.
I welcome the Bill. I suspect that most people welcome it. I am surprised that the Opposition intend to vote against it, just like that. Although I disagree with it, I understand their opposition to part I. However, to vote against reforming local government in this quick and efficient way strikes me as very surprising. The only consolation is that it will be extremely popular. That will encourage us in the weeks and months that lie ahead. I hope that the Bill will soon become law and that before too much time has elapsed these welcome changes will be in place.
5.50 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: I intend to speak about part II. I assure the Secretary of State for the Environment that we are opposed not to the principle of revision of local government but to the ridiculous way in which the Government are attempting to do it. The Opposition will therefore vote against part II, just as we shall vote against part I. Before I deal with part II, may I say how much I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said about part I, particularly in his closing remarks.
What the Conservatives do in general and what the Secretary of State for the Environment does in particular is to build up an image of Labour local authorities. That may apply in a few cases, but it does not apply to the vast majority of Labour local authorities, including my own. The Secretary of State extends that image beyond Labour local authorities; it embraces local government in general, including Conservative local authorities. Unfortunately, we do not now benefit from many Members of Parliament, particularly Conservative Members of Parliament, having served their apprenticeships, before coming here, as local government members. Many Members of Parliament used to serve on local, district and county councils—even on parish councils. They knew what they were talking about.
It is nonsense for the Conservative Government to say that they introduced competitive tendering during the last 10 years. There has been competitive tendering in local authorities for generations. What the Conservatives introduced was a narrow basis of compulsory tendering. What the Conservative party has done generally and what the Secretary of State has done today in particular is to build up an image and then to attack it.
56
I prefer what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said about the Bill. It is a last vindictive attempt by a dying Government to take a swipe at local government, local democracy and locally-elected people—devoted men and women, of all parties and of none, who are trying to do a good job. They were elected on the same franchise as Members of Parliament. We are here to do a job. They are there to do a job. They try to do that job to the best of their ability. They face the electoral consequences if they do not do so. They should not be put upon by a Secretary of State who wants to be able to tell them how they should do their job. That has been a characteristic of every Act of Parliament relating to local government that has reached the statute book since 1979.
The Bill expands the categories to which part I applies. It embraces the legal system, architects, library services, archivists and archaeologists. All these tasks are now performed by local government on a very cost-efficient basis. The Opposition object to the fact that these services are being driven, by dogma, into the private sector, regardless of the quality of the service provided.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that competitive tendering implies dogma, but does he not agree that to say, as he appears to say, that local government is the only and the best way to provide these services is also dogma?
Mr. Oakes: If it is dogma, it is the dogma of democracy. It is the dogma of believing that those who are elected to do a job do it. It is ridiculous for the Government to proceed in this way. It will affect quality. Moreover, the widest possible powers will be given to the Secretary of State. He will be able to decide, on whim, what services shall be privatised and what services shall not be privatised. What is even worse, he will be able to decide, on whim, that services shall be privatised in one part of the country but not in another. Local government will not have the slightest idea of what he intends to do under part I.
Compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the most minute services. I wonder how the Department of the Environment will police it. For instance, a row is going on in my constituency between the admittedly Labour-controlled but very efficient Halton borough council and the Department of the Environment. The Department served a section 12 notice under the 1988 Act regarding the refuse collection service. I am still waiting to hear from the Secretary of State about the matter.
The one service about which I have never received a single complaint, either in my surgery or by letter, is the refuse collection service in Halton. The Department of the Environment issued a notice saying that Halton had not fairly operated its refuse collection service under the 1988 Act. It transpires that the saving involved is about £9,000. That is the difference between the provision of the existing service and the next highest tender. The Department of the Environment notice included the words
"It has come to our notice".
There had not, apparently, been a complaint from any of the other tenderers. Who brought it to the Department's notice? Does it carry out spot checks on what local authorities are doing? Even if it carries out spot checks on big services, such as refuse collection, I do not know how the Department could carry out spot checks on small services such as the archaeological unit.

57
The Secretary of State inhabits the building that I once inhabited as a junior Minister. When I reached the Department of the Environment my first impression was that it must look exactly like the headquarters of the former KGB in Russia. It looks that sort of place. The Department seems to be behaving in a similar manner. How many staff are involved in checking local authority tenders when the difference involves a mere £9,000? That is and must be dogma.
Mr. John Battle: Even in the commercial sector, if a tender is 3 per cent. lower than the in-house bid, is it not usual for that tender not to be accepted because the margin is thought not to be large enough for it to result in real value for money and efficiency?
Mr. Oakes: I cannot give the exact figure, but the figure would be far less than 1 per cent.
I turn now to part II which deals with the dramatic restructuring that will be entailed. I have to declare to the House not a financial interest but the fact that I am the honorary vice president of the Association of County Councils and that I have held that post for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is an honorary position, but I declare it so that the House knows exactly where I stand on the matter. No money is involved. In fact, the position costs me money.
I remind the Government that our county council structure is the oldest, the biggest and, I would argue, the most cost-effective tier of local government, yet it has few friends in Government, or on the Conservative Benches. I regret to say that it has even fewer friends on this side of the House.
The ancient structure of county council government should not be abolished or castrated to the extent that it exists in name only. I argue that because of its age, antiquity and long-standing nature. I am proud to have been born in Lancashire. Other hon. Members are equally proud to have been born in Yorkshire. In fact, people who were born in Kent, Durham, Cornwall, Cumbria or Cheshire are proud to have been born in those counties.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman's point will attract some traditional local support. My constituents thought that they were born and lived in Lincolnshire, hut since 1974 they have lived in a place with which they have no sympathy—Humberside. They want the commission to get rid of Humberside and to return to the old county structures.
Mr. Oakes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I served on the Committee that bitterly opposed the ideas of the then Conservative Government, yet no notice was taken of his constituents' concerns. I would not object to the old east riding and Lincolnshire again becoming two separate counties because their marriage has been unnatural and uneasy.
At the end of the loyal toast, even in London, where I should not do so, I still toast the duke of Lancaster. Overseas visitors look at me strangely because they think that I am muttering a Jacobite treachery. But someone across the room will be saying the same thing. We look at each other and ask, "Where are you from?" I am sure that such territorial bonds exist in all areas—and rightly so.
Under the 1972 Bill, the part of Lancashire where I was born was transferred to Cheshire. I owe an allegiance, dedication and devotion to my new county of Cheshire,
58
but that would not be true if it had been removed into some region. Unless the Government are strict in the guidelines that they issue, such problems may arise under part II of the Bill.
I fear and distrust the joint arrangements that can be made under the Bill. I know that the Secretary of State has advised the commission to be careful about joint arrangements, but the Government's draft guidance makes it clear that if unitary authorities are to be based on existing districts, joint arrangements will be needed in many counties for existing services such as police, magistrates courts, probation, fire, emergency planning, probably for strategic planning and for education and social services.
Mr. David Bellotti: No.
Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman says "No", but what does "joint committees" mean? It would mean not unitary local government with authorities being individually responsible for services but an expensive, bureaucratic hotchpotch of unselected bodies and committees unaccountable and unintelligible to the public, unable to switch resources between each other and arguing endlessly about crucial decisions.
Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend is warning the House about the situation that has arisen in London following the abolition of the Greater London council. Londoners do not know whom they can hold to account for lousy services. That is the point: the Bill removes democratic accountability.
Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although the Government say that this should be the exception rather than the rule, as the great Nye Bevan used to say, "Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?" The Greater London council and the other metropolitan councils show what will happen. More than 60 per cent. of metropolitan counties became three joint boards for police, fire and civil defence and transport. It would be worse if that were to happen to existing shire counties, because education and social services would have to be added to that list. Unless the Government are careful in their guidelines, I foresee such danger from the creation of joint boards.
Another example of what happens when a metropolitan council breaks down occurred in my constituency just before Christmas. There was a major chemical breakdown in Halewood, which is in the metropolitan borough of Knowsley. Unusually, the wind was blowing from the east, so the spill out blew towards the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Had the wind blown from the west—as it does usually—it would have gone over my villages of Hale and Halewood, over the river to western point and perhaps even further afield. Neither Halton council nor Cheshire council was notified under the emergency procedures. Hospitals and ambulances were not alerted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, that is the purpose of joint boards. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill is rightly pursuing the incident on behalf of his constituents, but he cannot discover who is responsible. That will happen again unless it is carefully dealt with in the Bill.

59
County councils are pretty cost-effective bodies. There are about 28,000 employees per county council, yet only six out of 100 are in central administration. No other tier of local government can make such a claim. No county council invested in BCCI; county councils are prudent bodies. Europe is now used to dealing with county councils, but I cannot see it dealing with joint boards. Such a concept is unknown to Europeans.
I plead with the Government to instruct the commission carefully to consider the ancient tier of county government. If it did not exist, I am sure that it would be necessary to invent it. If it is abolished, another local government review will quickly reinstate it.
6.8 pm
Sir Anthony Durant: I am pleased to speak in the debate. I have great regard for the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and his knowledge of local government, but I think that as vice president of the Association of County Councils he has received its brief and decided to speak on its behalf. That is not the purpose of the debate. We should consider the Bill impartially, but I understand his strong feelings.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had never received any complaints about refuse collection. When I am in London, I live in Lambeth. I am on the board of directors of my block of flats—an unpaid job—which asked me to contact Lambeth borough council about the street refuse. I wrote to its chief executive. I said that perhaps it had become too difficult and that the council had decided not to collect refuse any more, because the streets are filthy and the collection service is appalling. One cannot say that there are no problems with refuse anywhere. Of course, standards vary and they may be good in Halton—they are not that bad in Reading—but the services should be put out to contract wherever possible.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I also live in Lambeth, in a block of flats inhabited by many other hon. Members, including some Tories. I also belong to the management committee which consists of residents. We have never had any problems with refuse collection in my block of flats, so it is highly misleading, to say the least, to suggest that Lambeth in general has massive problems. The experience described by the hon. Gentleman is not so widespread.
Sir Anthony Durant: I shall invite the hon. Lady for a cup of tea and to look around my block of flats. I shall then look around hers and we can settle the argument in that way.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I live in the same block of flats as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It is interesting that she talks about rubbish collection but forgets the street cleaning, which is disgraceful. The streets are absolutely filthy—and that is Lambeth's direct services.
Sir Anthony Durant: I must get back to my speech because we seem to have begun a dialogue about Lambeth's streets and refuse. However, they provide a good example of the necessity to contract out.
60
I am delighted with part I of the Bill and what are called performance checks which are essential. The electorate knows too little about how their services are managed and whether they are cost-effective. The more that can be revealed the better. Were it not for their lack of knowledge, people would express views about what is going on.
My local council spends wildly. I must not mention the subject of bollards. The last time I did so, I swore in the House and Mr. Speaker—rightly—rebuked me. He said that it had gone too far even for Reading. The mayor had to write to Mr. Speaker saying that Reading was not so bad. Nevertheless, Reading council has spent vast sums on bollards costing £100 each and they have been put everywhere. The council has spent all the reserves that the Tories had before it took control. It has not collected the rents and is far behind in collecting the community charge. It is a Labour council. We need the Audit Commission to check what each local authority does, and that is why I welcome part I of the Bill.
Competitive tendering is essential. I said that refuse collection was not too bad in Reading, and the reason is that it has been put out to competitive tender. The dustmen made a bid and reduced their costs by about 50 per cent., so they cannot have been running the service very efficiently. Clearly, competitive tendering works and we must do more to encourage it.
I wish to spend most of my time on part II of the Bill, which deals with the necessary setting up of the local government commission. The electorate is confused about who does what. When one knocks on doors, one finds that people do not know what Berkshire county council does as opposed to what Reading does. That is understandable. It is not the electorate's fault that it does not know who does what. That is one of the weaknesses of a two-tier system. It is essential to create unitary authorities, and that is the right way to proceed. I look forward to its happening.
I regret the loss of the county boroughs. It was a good system of local government. Reading was a county borough—
Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the principal reasons why the Conservative Government reformed local government in 1972 was the inefficiencies of the county boroughs? It was the county boroughs which were destroyed by the Tory legislation in 1972.
Sir Anthony Durant: I was not here, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I know about the county borough system in Reading. I can speak only as I find locally and. as I said, the system worked extremely well and was popular there. I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I accept that he has his own view.
There is a fear, especially among those representing county councils, about education. I was a district councillor on Woking urban district council, as it was then. We were an excepted district under the education system and we managed 26 schools, and did so, I believe, reasonably competently. We appointed the heads and the rest of the staff and we considered their budgeting. I think that we ran a good system. Therefore, I do not think that there is any handicap in setting up a unitary authority at the lowest level which could also run education. We have now increased local management of schools and many schools are opting out, so why should not we let the local

61
district run education at a unitary level? There is nothing wrong with smaller units. That is one of the arguments that the counties use with which I do not necessarily agree.
On the local government commission, I agree that we should not merely draw a lot of lines on a map, which is what happened the last time. I was on the receiving end of that reorganisation as I was on the district council and was chairman of the committee which was supposed to carry out the reorganisation. It was a confused period. I do not foster the previous idea of drawing lines on a map and putting chunks here and there. It must grow like Topsy—the commission must consider the issues in their broadest sense and must make recommendations.
However, we must urgently consider our historic cities. They are part of our national heritage and it was perhaps a mistake to take local government responsibility away from them. They have civic traditions, community interests and civic pride and a unitary state that could be well run. As hon. Members may know, such historic cities are waging a campaign, and I should like to foster that idea. Their philosophy is right—they are trying to re-establish themselves. They demand that we proceed with that idea before some others, but that is a matter for discussion.
The Secretary of State is on record as saying that size should not be the be-all and end-all; it should be possible to have small and large units. As has been stated, we can buy in the services. We must consider the issues more broadly. We must consider the region as a whole to determine how things fit in and take account of local demand, of what local people want. They want to be associated with the area that governs them. If they are citizens of Reading, they want to be part of Reading and to know that Reading town rules them. Whether Reading is good, bad or indifferent is not the point. They want to feel that it is their town and they want to be governed by it, not necessarily by a county.
As several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), have said, uncertainty will be a problem. There will be uncertainty, so we must get on with the job as fast as possible. In cases where everyone agrees on a tidy change, there is no harm in getting on. I do not agree with the Opposition that it will be chaotic if one thing is done and one thing is not. There is no problem with that. Why should not it be done one piece at a time?
There is no doubt that each level will fight for its existence. I agree with the Secretary of State, who condemned the expenditure of counties and districts in fighting their corner. That is a complete waste of money. The commission will be independent and will make its own judgment. It will not be influenced by a public relations company producing a smart glossy brochure. That must be stopped as a matter of urgency. My advice is, "Let's get on with it."
I strongly support the Bill and want to see implemented the changes that it proposes so that we can get people closer to the local government that they want.
6.18 pm
Mr. David Bellotti: After almost 13 years in government and after the horrors of the 1974 reorganisation which most of us can remember, it is right
62
that the Government should now introduce these proposals. I warmly welcome them, especially those in part II of the Bill.
I hope that the Government will seek cross-party consensus in favour of people in local communities. If the Government take that as their trust, it will gather momentum and the reforms could work. We all know that in 1974 the reforms did not work.
My party's contribution on this occasion is set against the background of its either being in control or sharing control of about one quarter of local authorities. After six years on a town council, 12 years on a district council and 11 years on a county council, I feel that my 15 years' service—29 years' service in all—may put me in the unique position of not taking sides, but of being able to see the way forward constructively.
Although welcome, the local government changes must above all be seen to be fair across the country. The Secretary of State proposes that the local government commission should go to certain areas first and that those areas should gather some confidence and momentum, which is not only sensible, but will be welcome. When the Secretary of State appoints the other members of the local government commission, it would be wise for him to consider some cross-party recognition of the role of the parties in local government and the role of people outside politics who could bring their expertise to bear. In that way, some confidence could exist even before the commission arrives in a particular area.
It was also wise for the commission to be called a "local government commission" and for the Government to abolish the Boundary Commission at the beginning. The only clear point from the 1974 organisation was that it was false, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) suggested, to begin with the idea of having a map and drawing boundaries. Nothing could be more preposterous. We should look at the local community, decide on the services that need to be delivered and then find areas that will enable those services to be delivered properly and responsively.
Part II also refers to the Audit Commission and to the need for "economy, efficiency and effectiveness". I hope that we shall also identify as a separate aim the point that we should be concerned about the delivery of quality in local services. It is all very well to consider the price, but it is even more important to discover what the quality of a given service is in a particular area.
The point made by the Secretary of State about comparisons of one authority with another were not helpful. We must study each local authority and decide what the challenges are for the councillors, of whichever party, in delivering a particular service in their authority. In one area, there may be many children who have English as a second language, so clearly the cost of delivering education there will be far greater than the cost of delivering education in another authority where there are few pupils who have English as a second language. If that factor is not taken into account and if we take into account only global spending allied to the number of schoolchildren in a local authority, we could come to some very false conclusions.
The same point applies to the collection of refuse, to which other hon. Members have referred. In my 12 years on Lewes district council, I received massive correspondence and many complaints about local services, but not once did I receive a complaint about local refuse services.

63
Other hon. Members have said that they did not receive complaints about local refuse services while they served in local government. In other areas, hon. Members will have received a massive number of complaints. The only conclusion to be drawn is that each local authority will be different and that we must examine the nature of each one before making comparisons.
Mr. Wilshire: I, too, spent 11 years on a district council and I also had almost no complaints about the quality of the refuse service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only cost but quality that matters, even if there are no complaints? Surely he understands that there can be a huge waste of money which the public do not easily see and so do not complain about. My own local authority never had complaints about quality, but when tendering was introduced, massive savings were introduced although the quality stayed marvellously high.
Mr. Bellotti: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, although it is not sufficiently all-embracing. There is a question of cost and a question of quality. The two factors put together produce the service that local people deserve. In the local authorities on which I served, we were extremely mindful of the cost of delivering the services, but not to the exclusion of the quality of service delivered. Anyone can deliver a service of sorts very cheaply, but to deliver a service of the necessary quality is an extra challenge to the hon. Gentleman's point.
As we look towards the implementation of the proposals, it is important for us to bear in mind the question of timing. I and my party were concerned that the first information on the local government commission seemed to suggest that the implementation could take a long time. I encourage the Secretary of State to consider the point that a shorter period for implementation would be desirable, because the implementation period may otherwise lead to considerable difficulties. Senior staff in local authorities will see new posts being advertised in other authorities and may, quite properly, apply for them, leaving some local authorities in a void because they do not know whether their life will be continued. A shorter period should be the aim of the Secretary of State.
Another question is the continuity of services during the transition period. It is important that local authorities do not pass responsibility to new authorities which then do not take on those services with the continuity that is needed. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) mentioned joint authorities. I assume that the Secretary of State was by and large saying in the Bill that such authorities would be the exception rather than the rule. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could confirm that tonight, because there is a great fear about joint authorities. There is no real problem about police authorities, which have been mentioned, because there are many joint authorities for the police already.
There is no need for joint authorities for service delivery in education and in social services. They are not necessary and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State would confirm that they will not be the normal mode of delivery for education and social services. They could be undemocratic and unaccountable, and they could become very bureaucratic.
64
If a county council finds that it is to be abolished, what will happen to structure planning? That is probably the only function of the existing county councils which deserves some more detailed thought and we may have an opportunity to explore that point in Committee. The Secretary of State has an opportunity between now and then to consider whether structure planning might be an ideal function of a regional tier of government. Structure planning, involving ports, airports, motorways, the countryside, areas of outstanding natural beauty and especially our national parks, would be important if dealt with at regional level. If we had regional government, the case for a government for London should be made at that time.
As a former chair of education in East Sussex—the hon. Member for Reading, West referred to education—I know that it is alarming for a councillor to have to consider visiting 240 primary schools, 39 secondary schools and six colleges. I find it hard to believe that any councillor could keep in touch with such a large section of service delivery. During my time of service, I visited about one quarter of those establishments and the knowledge that I gained was useful but certainly not sufficient for me to oversee such a responsibility.
The right hon. Member for Halton, referring to a brief from the Association of County Councils, spoke of the need to have joint committees if education authorities were smaller. That seems unnecessary and inappropriate. I should have thought that a population base of about 60,000 plus was more than enough for a tier education authority, because the main point is to have a post-16 option in each area. The Government's proposals for colleges—some of which we welcome—make it less likely that a tier of 60,000 could not work. I am sure that it could. The Secretary of State should make it fairly clear that that could be an option if the local government commission arrived at that conclusion and if it was supported by local people. That would do a great deal to reassure people that they would not be put into very large structures.
The Association of District Councils, under the former chairman, Mr. Thomason, and the Association of County Councils, presently chaired by Mr. John Chatfield, have not been extremely helpful to our debates as they have obviously lobbied from vested interests. Having served on both district and county councils, I understand their thinking, but I call on both those associations to put their vested interests to one side during this process. We want to achieve the best structure that we can. I have no doubt that in East Sussex, for which I speak, people living in Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings would love the opportunity to put forward proposals for unitary authorities for those districts. I have confidence that they would succeed in doing so if permitted.
I invite the Secretary of State to come to East Sussex in the near future; I am sure that both he and representatives of the local government commission would receive a warm welcome. I also ask the Secretary of State to consider inviting representatives of the local government commission to go to the Isle of Wight soon. I understand that all the political parties and virtually everyone on the Isle of Wight would like one tier of local government on the island. There is currently one county council and two district councils, so the island would make an ideal starting point for the local government commission, which would receive great support.

65
The Secretary of State said that he—I am paraphrasing—deprecated organisations that spend substantial amounts of charge payers' money on public relations campaigns to preserve themselves. I was pleased to hear that and am sure that he will join me in condemning East Sussex county council for unnecessarily spending £6,000 to join a consortium of county councils in the south-east of England with the sole aim of putting forward proposals to keep the county councils of Kent, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and others. Oddly enough, the consortium did not invite the Isle of Wight to join it—the only county council in that region not controlled by the Conservatives. That gross misuse of charge payers' money deserves investigation and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider commissioning one.
I also hope that the Secretary of State will join me in confirming to communities across England that he has no intention of forcing anyone into a local identity in the form of local government if they do not want it. Clearly, we must decide how to proceed if communities cannot agree, but the present structure of boroughs and districts forms a possible way forward.
If a district or borough wishes to join with another, the proposals must include that as an option. It is an essential principle—one in which I hope the Secretary of State believes—that if parts of districts and boroughs wish to stay as they are, they should not be moved against their will. I have previously raised that matter with the Secretary of State. Although I believe firmly in that principle, it is of no help to me in my constituency when the local Conservative party distributes newsletters claiming that I believe the exact opposite. I now have an opportunity to place on record yet again that I do not believe that parishes and communities should be placed within structures of local government against their will. I believe that the Secretary of State shares my view and confirmation on that would be extremely helpful.
Mr. Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating local referendums to decide the boundaries of boroughs?
Mr. Bellotti: In the small number of cases where there is a clear division of opinion, a local referendum would be extremely helpful as it would be one way to make absolutely sure that the community backed the proposals. I support the idea of local referendums where appropriate. Where the bulk of the local community agrees on what they would like—I believe that there is consensus in Reading, Southend, Bristol, Brighton and Eastbourne—progress could be made without the need for referendums.
The plans to change the structure of local government desperately need all-party consensus if they are to be implemented. I hope that my comments will encourage the Government, because the future of the services that local people so rightly need and desperately want are far too important for us to play party politics with them.
Part I of the Bill refers to the citizens charter. I think that everyone will support—Labour party spokesmen have already done so today—the publication of information on the performance of local authorities. I hope that when we publish league tables and information we shall ensure that true comparisons are made. I also hope that we shall develop that proposal and give people meaningful information. Most of the work that the Audit Commission has produced is really only intelligible to those who understand local government. Many people will
66
not necessarily understand many of the Audit Commission's reports and much of the information sent to local government. In Committee the Government might address the issue of how to communicate to local people the level of services delivered, which is much more important than the cost, and whether the services are working.
I welcome the emphasis that the Government place on parish councils. If there were unitary authorities across England, with active parish and community councils, that would be almost ideal. Active parish councils at grassroots level could bring forward proposals and run some of the services. I do not see why they should not be in charge of some of the leisure and recreational services as well as the village halls and community centres that so many of them have pump primed and some of them run. That proposal would also provide a much more active understanding of how a unitary tier would work.
It is important that we encourage competitive tendering in local government, but if we make it compulsory we shall be going one step too far. There are many examples where compulsory competitive tendering has resulted in higher costs than those formerly charged by direct labour organisations. The report from Strathclyde clearly shows that a range of services provided through compulsory competitive tendering arrangements does not meet the necessary quality levels.
The Bill provides an opportunity to help local government serve the community in the years ahead. I hope that we shall be able to achieve consensus. The Bill has many factors which the Liberal Democrats, from their experience in local government, want to change. However, the local government commission is so important that I hope that if the Government are prepared to compromise, other parties will put their differences to one side. Ultimately, local communities and the services that they deliver are the most important aspects to consider.
6.38 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: The verdict of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) seems to be that the Bill is good in parts. We should be grateful for small mercies and the modest approbation given to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman mentioned East Sussex county council, and I gained the impression that the town of Eastbourne was casting hungry eyes at the possibility of the takeover or demise of the county leading to the town moving into a larger single unitary authority.
I wish to carry forward the theme of the place of counties in the future structure, but to move from the scale of an ant—East Sussex county council—to the size of an elephant—my own county of north Yorkshire which is, I believe, the largest in the country. I shall consider the future of north Yorkshire against the background of two important guidelines that I believe have been placed before the House. The first is the Government's indication in their draft guidance to the local government commission that they wish local government in principle—and as a preferred option—to move in the direction of unitary authorities broadly as the norm. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that "no change" would be an appropriate solution or option in certain areas and in certain circumstances.
I want to make some observations about the implications of those two distinctive guidelines for my

67
shire county of north Yorkshire. First—and I mention this only to dismiss it and eliminate it as a serious option—there is no case, in my view, for turning the existing North Yorkshire county council into the single unitary authority for the huge geographical area which constitutes north Yorkshire. That is an area of more than 830,000 hectares which extends virtually from the outskirts of Leeds in the south to virtually the outskirts of Darlington and Teesside some 80 or 90 miles up the Great North road in the north. It stretches from the western Pennines on one side to the North sea on the east. That is too big an area for a single county authority to become the unitary authority for the area.
In its public statements, North Yorkshire county council gives a nod in the direction of the proposition that it should become the unitary authority for that huge county. However, it does that I believe only as the ultimate fallback alternative to the possibility of its total demise as an authority.
I want to put before my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities the proposition that the north Yorkshire county area might be one of the areas where no change—or at least no absolute change—might be the proper option for the local government commission to consider. I advocate that option because if the county area of north Yorkshire is too big for a single unitary authority, its very size paradoxically involves the deployment of certain services, above all, police, fire, highways and coastal protection and also perhaps some strategic planning functions, which must be organised in an integrated and cohesive fashion if they are to be efficiently organised and deployed over an extended area. For those reasons, they are probably best deployed under a single eye from a single vantage point or base.
Those services could be administered by a consortium of smaller unitary authorities, based on the existing districts, under the so-called joint arrangement or agency facilities. However, if such agency or joint arrangement provisions are to be necessary for certain services in north Yorkshire, a strong case can be made for the retention of North Yorkshire county council precisely for the oversight of the long-distance and strategic services to which I have referred.
I do not believe that the case for retaining North Yorkshire county council rests only or principally on the argument for retaining the education and social service functions at Northallerton. I am agnostic as to where those services might be best located in future in north Yorkshire. They could be devolved to geographically smaller unitary authorities based upon the existing districts, such as Selby district council which is an efficient authority with a commendably human interface and local responsiveness.
I make that point about the potential for placing education and social services with the smaller districts if they were to become unitary authorities, simply because so much devolution and dispersion to local levels is nowadays inherent in the modern approach to running schools and to enhancing the local community dimensions of social services.
However, whether or not North Yorkshire county council should retain education and social services under a retained, two-tier structure, I must place on record the view that the very fact that one can argue cheerfully and
68
with conviction that North Yorkshire county council should survive in some form into the new era is a powerful testimonial to the calibre of the elected representatives and to the outstanding quality of the local government officers who serve the public from Northallerton under the politically moderate but dedicated and conscientious leadership of John Clout, the leader of North Yorkshire county council.
John Clout leads a good and efficient team and its dissolution would be a loss for local government. I want to place on record how greatly indebted I am for the prompt, courteous and efficient responses that I receive regularly from the county chief executive, Mr. Leyland; the county surveyor, Mr. Moore; the county education officer, Mr. Evans; the county's director of social services, Mr. Ransford, and the other officers of the authority, to the many approaches that I have had to make to them on behalf of my constituents. It is the service which my constituents receive from the county council——
Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend deserves a lunch.
Mr. Alison: Indeed, a great many lunches would have to be deployed if all the satisfied customers were to be given lunch by the county council.
It is in response to the services that my constituents and I receive with such great efficiency from the county council in Northallerton that I advocate the "no absolute change" option which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned this afternoon and which my hon. Friend the Minister will understand. He has repeatedly been kind enough to receive representatives of the county council and discuss some of their peculiar difficulties, such as clearing snow and ice from the extensive roads in the county, and other problems facing the council, to which he has so courteously and helpfully responded after the deputations from my right hon. and hon. Friends and I with John Clout and others.
I hope that the "no absolute change" option will be considered seriously for north Yorkshire against the background of the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
6.47 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: This is proving to be a fascinating debate not only because of its subject, but because we have learnt a new adage from the Government Benches—I paraphrase: "My authority is wonderful, so please leave it intact because it is Tory-controlled, but look at all those wicked Labour authorities elsewhere with which we must deal." In some respects, it is depressing that such a vital part of democracy in a modern thriving country should be so derided and undervalued by Conservative Members.
I want to defend the principle of local government. The principles of local democracy and accountability should be enhanced. Our local authorities comprise officers, professionals and workers who, on the whole, are dedicated people. They are dedicated to the principle of local government. They include teachers, housing workers and social workers who try daily to deliver services that millions of people depend on.
It is a shame that some local authorities have been wrongly accused of self interest in the discussion of local

69
government reorganisation. Local authorities are attempting genuinely to participate in the debate on local government reorganisation. In Bristol, we have a two-tier authority. We have Bristol city council, which is for the district, and we have Avon county council. Reference was made to whether we would toast Lancaster. I suppose that we in Avon would toast a cosmetics company. I am not quite sure how people identify with the county. The county council has discussed the matter with all the district authorities that make up the county. They have jointly commissioned two universities to examine local government reorganisation and to consider how best to continue delivering the services that local people decide that they want from local government in action. It simply is not true that local authorities are motivated by self interest.
Conservative Members should not be surprised that we do not take seriously their commitment to consultation. We do not believe them when they tell us that they are committed to the principles of accountability and democracy. The reason is that they abolished a level of local authority. I did not see them consult anybody when they got rid of metropolitan authorities or the Greater London council. I do not remember extensive consultation on how fundamentally to change the method of local authority finance when they introduced the poll tax. Lo and behold, as we approach yet another pre-election period—it is difficult to know how many more there will be before election day—the Government claim to be interested in service delivery.
Local authorities in Bristol employ about 41,000 people. They deliver services to hundreds of thousands of people in the county of Avon. They approach with fear and trepidation the instability and insecurity of another chaotic, badly thought out reorganisation of local government. Such an environment is the hallmark of the Government's approach to local authorities. There will be chaos and destruction, not the enshrining of democracy and accountability. The Government, in restructuring local government, have missed an opportunity to provide certainty about the future of local government because of the way in which they have set up the reform process.
I wish to widen the debate to see whether we have a common view of local democracy and accountability. In the mid-1960s, the Labour Government set up a royal
commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to examine local government in England. The commission considered that local government was
"not to be seen merely as a provider of services."
It said:
"The importance"
and thereby the purpose
"of local government lies in the fact that it is the means by which people can provide services for themselves; can take an active and constructive part in the business of government; and can decide for themselves, within the limits of what national policies and local resources allow, what kind of services they want and what kind of environment they prefer."
That is exactly the principle that the Government are trying to avoid in setting up the commission for local government reform. The matter is to be finance-led, with all the simplistic answers and the lack of reality that are involved. The Government present artificial debates as though some hon. Members who would gaily burn £20 notes and waste local money rather than spend it on delivering the valued services that people desperately need.
More recently, Professor John Stewart has been exploring a new basis for local government which
70
embraces the ideas of Redcliffe-Maud. Instead of the term "local government", he prefers to use the term "community government". Either way, we know what we mean—local democracy. He says:
"The concept of community government or local government is built on three crucial ideas—an enabling authority."
He describes that as one that adopts management structures and processes, that focuses both on community concerns and problems and also on the means of meeting those concerns and problems. This will involve direct service provision, but it will also require the ability to work with other agencies. As authorities adopt a wider role, they have to abandon the assumption that they are a self-sufficient authority—all-knowing, all-seeing, all-doing. That is what the Government assume. They think that they know what everybody thinks, what everybody wants, and exactly how they would want something done in the first place. We must move away from that attitude.
Professor Stewart describes new ways in which local authorities could work with the voluntary sector, with the private sector, and with joint ventures. That is part of our discussion. Professor Stewart talks about a responsible authority seeking to provide services not to the public but for the public, and with the public. That is a different concept of local democracy from the one that is advocated by Conservative Members. In plain language, a responsible authority tries to find out what people actually want and attempts to meet their needs.
Before we hear cries of derision from Conservative Members about current local authority practice, no one is advocating that everthing in local authorities is perfect. Councillors and officers know that, and they are struggling with limited resources, instability and insecurity to try to meet their objectives.
Mr. Wilshire: I know Professor Stewart well, and I have great respect for him. Does the hon. Lady accept that his point, and my point, that needs extend beyond local government services is a key to the issues that we are debating? People need their dustbins emptied, and they need grocery shops, doctors, schools, fire brigades and solicitors. Needs go much further than the argument that the hon. Lady is deploying. Sensible local government and the Conservative Government are concerned about the needs of all people, not just the services that local government provides.
Ms. Primarolo: I tried to indicate that local authorities should have power to co-operate beyond their boundaries and not assume that they are totally self-sufficient. I do not subscribe to the view that we should regard local authorities as public utilities from which people demand exactly what they want. What is missing from the debate that the Government have engendered is the idea that participation in a democracy also requires responsibilities in the provision of services. We are talking about much more than ringing up and demanding that our dustbins are emptied. The debate is about participating in the decisions that are made in the area in which one lives.
Better local government means improving access to services and learning from the public, which is something that Governments find difficult if not nigh on impossible sometimes. It means listening to people and communicating with them about both the services and the standards that they demand. It means extending choice and involving people in decision-making. It means working with people

71
to provide responsive services. If Conservative Members think that such things are not already happening in local authorities, then, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said about schools, I can say only that they cannot have paid much attention to or visited many local authorities. We need responsive authorities that are accountable to the communities that they represent.
We need to look at the very structure of local government and at why so many women are excluded from participating in it. We need to discover ways of devolving decision-making to ensure that more women can become representatives and locally elected councillors and get involved in the wider debate about local democracy.
Sir Anthony Durant: I have been listening closely to the hon. Lady and agree with much of what she has said, but she has not said whether she favours retaining Avon or wants to get rid of it. She said that "Avon calling" is the only toast that she can think of, so would she prefer Bristol to be the most important authority? I should be interested to know her view.
Ms. Primarolo: I have already said that I favour a unitary authority. I have been trying to say that, before we decide a structure, we must know what we expect that structure to do and how we expect it to meet the hopes and aspirations of the people whom it seeks to represent and who have expressed their views. However, none of that has been taken on board in the criteria that have been set for the commission. The crucial issue of fiscal control in a local authority also determines whether the services that that authority wants to deliver can be delivered.
I should like to demonstrate the sort of things that are happening now in local authorities. As a former councillor, I know that many local authorities have what are called "performance review committees". The Government seem to think that they are the only ones who think about performance and review, but Bristol city council has a core strategy for its performance review committee, which is a sub-committee of its policy and resources committee. It has called the objectives that it seeks to achieve the "six Es for good local government". They are economy, efficiency, effectiveness, equity, empowerment and environment. The council talks about making sure that the community has a representative voice to speak for Bristol and the interests of its people. It talks about encouraging and expanding democracy in Bristol by maximising participation in public life and extending community empowerment. Its objectives refer to accessibility, communication and research into identifying needs. It talks about how to maximise the use of council resources and about how to employ external resources in co-operation. It refers to providing high-quality services and facilities where resources are available. It strives to eliminate disadvantage, discrimination and deprivation. Bristol city council also talks about a corporate management style and about behaving as a model employer.
As we enter a period of local government reorganisation and review with the establishment of the commission, we should be laying down clearly exactly what we believe local government should be about. We must decide
72
whether it should be simply an outpost of central Government, doing whatever it is told, or an integral and important part of local democracy.
Local government is about services. It should not be used as a basis for ad hoc competition—which is what the Government have sought—because that simply enhances and entrenches inequalities; it does not eradicate them. Local government should reflect local needs. It should be about ensuring that people control their lives.
It is interesting to note that the Government would not extend these proposals to British Gas, British Telecom, the electricity companies, the water industry, the Bank of England, the judiciary or even Government Departments. Imagine if they were subjected to the constraints now facing local councillors in terms of their financial duties and the Government's ability to surcharge them.
The Government are about destroying local government and local democracy and replacing it with pathetic charters that promise everything but guarantee nothing, while isolating people from power and ensuring that they cannot participate in the decisions that govern their lives.
We are facing a golden opportunity that should not be missed. The commission should be given a wider brief to state clearly what is meant by local democracy, how people can be encouraged to participate in it, and how local government can discharge its duties locally.
7.6 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I shall concentrate my brief remarks on part II. We are a conservative nation, with the word "conservative" spelt, I hope, with a capital "c," but certainly with a small "c": we do not like change. That is certainly true of people in the north-west where the local government changes of 1974 were, and to a large extent still are, resented by many people. The move from small urban authorities to large authorities was generally not welcomed. It was accepted only because the new authorities that were eventually established could have been even larger.
Hyndburn, for example, is made up of the former urban districts of Oswaldtwistle, Clayton-le-Moors, Rishton, Great Harwood, the parish council of Altham, and of Accrington non-county borough. Despite the fact that the people of those districts had much in common and that, with the exception of Great Harwood, they comprised a parliamentary constituency, there were many misgivings about the changes. It has taken 17 years of dedicated hard work, not least by the mayors of the new borough, to make Hyndburn acceptable to the majority of its residents. Even now, however, a sizeable minority still yearn for the pre-1974 days. The changes that are now being considered are, therefore, a matter of concern and interest to them.
In all their local government reforms, the Government have always placed much emphasis on accountability. I believe that accountability is greatest when the unit of local government is closest to the people and when people are represented by someone they know, someone whom they see around as they go about their daily lives, someone who lives among them and who knows the area. That is why I support the abolition of the county councils.
If asked, the majority of people would be unable to name their county councillors. They rarely see them and there is little coverage of their activities in the local press. Indeed, press coverage of the activities of the county councils, which account for 88 per cent. of local

73
government expenditure, is sparse. It could almost be said that the publicity that is given to district and to county council matters in the press is in inverse proportion to the amount of money that the two types of authority spend. Consequently, at county council elections, people do not vote according to the achievements or otherwise of that council but use the occasion to pass judgment on the Government of the day. If local government is to be accountable, it must be local.
When the latest proposals to change local government were announced, I was concerned that we might see an unseemly scrabble, with existing districts seeking to extend their boundaries, especially in east Lancashire, with Blackburn wanting to take over Hyndburn or at least part of it, and with Burnley looking covetously at Pendle. That has not happened. Existing districts throughout Lancashire have acted responsibly and have considered the options open to them seriously and in detail.
Along with the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr), and my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), I recently met the leaders and chief executives of the six district councils of east Lancashire. They told us that all the 14 district councils of Lancashire were committed to becoming unitary authorities on their existing boundaries. I and my colleagues were happy to give our support to that case because we are acutely aware of the sense of community that the districts represent.
In my constituency of Hyndburn the council carried out a survey in which all electors were asked questions about what they wanted from local government in the future. The outcome was a ringing declaration of support for the council's case which, needless to say, has all-party support. Let me give some idea of how local people feel. When asked whether a single council providing all services would be more or less responsive to their needs, 60 per cent. said that it would be more responsive. When asked whether that single council should be at county or district level, 71 per cent. preferred the district. When asked whether the local authority should remain at its present size, 72 per cent. said yes and only 12 per cent. opted for a larger council.
The survey also consulted all companies in Hyndburn which employ 20 or more people. Of those, 84 per cent. wanted a unitary authority and 87 per cent. wanted the authority to be based on the district, not the county. In addition, a meeting of religious leaders of Christian denominations and the Muslim community from the whole constituency voted unanimously that Hyndburn was the right size for the unitary authority. I regard that as significant, because clearly those people had no political axe to grind.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities has emphasised that the aim of the Bill is to ensure that the new structure of local government reflects the identities and interests of local communities. As a life-long resident of east Lancashire, I know how strong are the ties that bind local people together. We are fiercely proud of our history, our civic traditions and the contribution that we have made to the nation's well-being, first through the cotton industry and, more recently, through the multitude of new businesses that have grown up since cotton's demise.
I am pleased that the Government have made it clear that any change must be worthwhile and must not be made merely for the sake of it. I was pleased to hear my right
74
hon. Friend the Secretary of State say today that local opinions would be listened to, for it would be disastrous if the Government and the commission thought that they could draw neat circles on the map and lump two or three existing districts together for administrative convenience. Lancashire people are not prepared to be pawns in someone else's game. Only they know what is good for them. The poll that I quoted showed clearly what the majority of people want. They want to be rid of a high-spending county council, and they want unitary authorities based on existing districts.
7.12 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: It saddens me to have to speak in the debate. We are discussing the Bill because the Government got it wrong again on local government. They did so on the poll tax and quickly changed their minds. On this matter, it has taken them 20 years to change their minds. The trouble is that they have not told us what they want to do. They have told us that they got it wrong in 1972, but not what we can have. We could have unitary authorities based on the district or the county, or a two-tier system. One could have any one of three there. It does not make any sense.
In response to my intervention, the Secretary of State blamed the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 for not changing the structure. What a cheek! What would have happened if, in 1974, soon after the reorganisation, we had reorganised again? We had to let the system settle down. We had to suck it and see. By the end of the term of office of the Labour Government, we had decided that the system needed to be changed. Then the Conservative Government came to power and did nothing about it. They left us for almost two decades with a mess.
I feel sorry for councillors of all political persuasions, who have been struggling on since 1974 with a system that does not work. It was introduced by the Conservatives, despite Labour Members telling the Government that it would not work. Since I entered the House in 1977 I have been shocked at the way in which the Conservatives denigrate local councillors. It is an absolute disgrace. Often they denigrate councillors of their own political persuasion. There is an arrogance about the Conservatives. They think that they know what is right and what will happen. I suspect that if we read the fine print of the Bill we would find somewhere a provision to enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to appoint the mayor of Carlisle. That is how extreme the Conservatives are in destroying local democracy. They do not give a fig about what councillors think.
It is important for a political party to control the local council which can stand up to the national Government. We need checks and balances. If the Conservatives are in power, the only way to check their abuse of power is to have Labour councils. That is why the Conservatives have tried to shackle Labour councils over the years.
There is some anxiety that we do not know when the local government reorganisation will happen. Will the commission start in Cornwall and work up to Cumbria, or start in Cumbria and work down to the Isle of Wight and Southend? We are not told. We are told that the reorganisation will not be uniform and will not take place on one date, such as 1 April 1994. It is a timetable for chaos.

75
The Government's proposals will be a fiasco if the Government have the opportunity to implement them. At any one time some councils will be getting ready to change, others will already have changed and others will not know what is to happen to them. How will it be possible to appoint officers to those councils? Will the best officers settle for an authority of which the structure is already settled? Will they wait in an area which may no longer exist? How will it be possible to hold local elections in such areas? We need annual elections, but will councillors wait about to see whether their authority will be dissolved? It will not work.
Many Conservative Members have spoken about their experience in local government, so I suppose that I might also parade my campaign medals. I served on a county borough for two years before it was abolished. I served until 1988 on a county council and for two years had the pleasure to be the chairman of that council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes)—his constituency is basically Widnes, with bits added on—said that people born in Cumbria were proud to be called Cumbrians. That is all right if one comes from Cumberland, but not if one comes from Westmorland or the furthest parts of Lancashire. Down there we are still proud to be called Lancastrians. It would be nonsensical to give any serious thought to unitary authorities based on counties the size of Cumbria.
We have heard a great deal about whether education or social services could be administered by district authorities. It would depend on the size of the authority. No one has suggested for one moment that housing could be run by a county council. We all see housing as a service which must be near the people. That would be difficult to achieve in a large county council.
The Government appear to be giving the nod to unitary authorities. I said that it would be a fiasco if all the councils did not change on a certain date. I hope that if the Government look to unitary authorities to set the lead they will consider the historic cities which have perhaps 800 years history of looking after themselves and controlling the way in which they develop. In two decades that tradition and that expertise have not been lost. I am sure that the councils of the historic cities could very quickly become all-purpose authorities. I come from the historic city of Carlisle, which has had a royal charter for 800 years. I hope that if it is decided to go for unitary authorities in my area that fact will be taken into account.
Here again, we are talking about compulsory competitive tendering. This is an aspect of the Bill that concerns me deeply. In my maiden speech in the House in 1987 I said that one would find it easy to save money if one were to cut wages and holiday entitlement, get rid of entitlement to sick pay and do away with pension provision. That is not a measure of efficiency, although perhaps it is a measure of meanness which will be easily recognised by Conservative Members, who do not care what price the workers have to pay so long as the poll tax payers or ratepayers—or whatever they are—have to pay less. It is not difficult to have that kind of efficiency in services if one is prepared to create a pool of unemployed people willing to take jobs at any wage better than the dole that the current Government provide. That is what this is all about. It is not about efficiency; it is about cutting costs.
76
That is one of the reasons for the Conservatives' strong objection to our plan for a minimum wage. If the minimum wage were set at £3.40 an hour many of the cowboys who are running the services would have to increase the wages that they pay. Thus they would not be able to compete with local authorities and would go out of business. Of course, in many areas that will not happen as the local government structure has been destroyed. In many areas it would be impossible for refuse collection to be carried out by local authorities because all the wagons have been sold off. People will end up paying more to private contractors when those contractors get away with paying low wages.
Under other provisions of the Bill the same thing will be done to white-collar services. I do not understand. No one would run a private business like this. No one would suggest that the personnel function of a multinational company should be tampered with to the extent of 25 per cent., as is proposed in the Bill. [Interruption.] On that point I am prepared to give way to any hon. Member.
Mr. Wilshire: Surely the hon. Gentleman has heard of consultants. Firms, large and small, the length and breadth of this country and of every other country bring in experts to deal with specific matters.
Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the personnel function let me tell him that I used to be the personnel manager of the largest boot company in the world. I can assure him that that company was very efficient and that it did not farm out its personnel function to private contractors. It knew that if it were to do so it would not get as good a service and that the cost would be twice as high.
Now there is talk of CCT in legal and financial services. Has any hon. Member ever spent a morning talking to a solicitor or an accountant? Any who has will know that a month later, when the bill arrives, it looks as if the discussion lasted a fortnight. The provision of services in this way is by no means cheaper. One could spend the equivalent of a year's poll tax in a morning's consultation with a solicitor.
Mr. Dalyell: Last week I spent a morning with Mr. Alex Linkston and Mr. John Spraggon, who are senior officials of West Lothian district council, and with Councillors Graeme Morrice, Jimmy McGinley and Jim Clark. We were dealing partly with precisely the enormously difficult issue of legal services. The people to whom I spoke are concerned about the fact that low tenders received from firms paying lower-than-minimum wages would be absolutely false in the event of the introduction of a minimum wage or a decent wage. This is exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making.
Mr. Wilshire rose——
Mr. Martlew: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Later perhaps, but we do not have intervention upon intervention.
Mr. Martlew: Let me return to the main theme. Privatisation of this kind will not result in a saving of money. We know that professionals such as architects, lawyers and accountants are probably the most expensive people in the world to employ by the hour. Any councillor who has ever been involved in a dispute about a legal

77
ruling will know that the chief executive says that it may be necessary to get an opinion from Queen's counsel and that, in that event, the council has to consider whether a supplementary estimate is necessary to pay the QC's bill. Once the professional essence of local government has been destroyed it will not be recoverable, and the councils will be ripped off by the private sector.
All this is nonsensical. The Secretary of State, referring to our objections to compulsory tendering, said that what we were in favour of amounted to jobs for the boys. If I have ever seen anything that amounts to jobs for the boys this is it. It is jobs for the boys in the Law Society and the Rotary club, and my constituents and their constituents will pay. It has nothing to do with efficiency, but everything to do with the fact that the Conservative Government do not understand local government and, therefore, fear it. The Conservatives are not fit to pass any laws on local government, as is evident to anybody who looks at their record. Let us consider the poll tax, of which the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who is on the Government Front Bench at present, was a great advocate. That is not mentioned these days, but it is a fact. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who piloted the Local Government Act 1972 through the House, should have had the decency to come here today to hear his own side denigrate that Act. Conservative Members do not understand it, are afraid of it and will try to destroy it.
This Bill has nothing to do with improvement. It will only create confusion and low morale in local government. Having talked to many local government people at the weekend, I know that morale has never been lower. The Government are creating uncertainty. There will be many early retirements, as there were the last time. It will cost the councils a fortune. In addition, the former officers will reappear as consultants earning twice as much as they did previously. Let us vote against the Bill because it fails to provide for democratic local government to take us into the 21st century.
7.27 pm
Mr. Douglas French: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the introduction of this Bill. I welcome very much the citizens charter and the financial accountability measures contained in part I.
Like several other hon. Members, I want to address my remarks to part II—in particular, clauses 13 and 14, which establish the local government commission and give it power to recommend single-tier authorities in place of the two-tier authorities, having had regard, as is specified in clause 13(5),
"to the identities and interests of local communities".
The intention is to secure effective and convenient local government, rather than, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) tried to argue, to destroy local government.
The Bill makes one thing very clear indeed: there is absolutely no intention to indicate a preference for districts over counties or for counties over districts. It seems to me that that is fundamental to the content of the Bill, and people who seek to read some political point into it are barking up the wrong tree.
My right hon. Friend, in his opening remarks, and my noble Friend the Baroness Blatch, in her speech in another place, made it clear that there was a presumption in favour
78
of unitary authorities but that in those places where the arguments appeared to favour the continuation of two authorities that was a perfectly satisfactory solution. In other words, the proposal being put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison)—that in some circumstances there would be no change—is a positive and acceptable decision. I very much support that approach.
The proposals before the House are of particular relevance to a certain group of local authorities. I refer to those cities which formed the historic cities group following the consultative document on the structure of local government published in April 1991. The participating cities are Cambridge, Canterbury, Carlisle—we have heard from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—Chester, Exeter, Lincoln, Norwich, Oxford, Worcester, York and the great city that I have the honour to represent, Gloucester. Hon. Members will notice that those cities display a cross-party political complexion and that the hon. Members representing those cities show some variations in their enthusiasm for the Bill's proposals, although, having spoken to all of them, I have gauged that there is broadly a majority in favour of the Bill.
The councils running those authorities have chosen to join the historic cities group because they see much greater opportunity for securing an effective and convenient local government with unitary status than without it. That is the aim of the Bill. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said, it is surprising that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) expressed himself so firmly against the proposals for unitary status. As has been said, he will find that a number of councillors representing the Labour party do not agree with his views.
All those historic cities, with the possible exception of one, had county borough status up to 1974, so they have had extensive experience of running their own affairs. As long ago as 1483, my city of Gloucester received a charter to run its own affairs, and it continued to do so successfully until 1974.
Many other cities may equally make out a strong case for unitary status but were not county boroughs before 1974 and nobody is suggesting that county borough status should be a necessary qualification for a city to achieve unitary status now. It is only that the existence of previous county borough status is likely to result in the criteria that the local government commission will be looking at being more readily, easily and obviously satisfied.
The local government commission will be called upon to consider the identities and interests of local communities—what I would describe as civic and community loyalties. In other words, it will find out to where and to what group the residents living in that area look. It is, dare I say it, the local government equivalent of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) once described—thereby attracting a great deal of criticism—as the cricket test. Where do loyalties lie? If people live and work and have the centre of their lives in a great historic city such as Gloucester, they are more likely to feel that that city will represent, and protect where necessary, their interests. However well meaning and diligent a councillor living in a rural hinterland may be, he cannot hope to understand the wishes of people who live in the city as well as they do themselves. He has chosen to live in the countryside, and that is what he knows about.

79
Historic cities have an intensely and characteristically strong community identity. They are an integral and highly important part of the country's national heritage, with civic traditions stretching back many years. Local people look to the city for local identity and community loyalty. Therefore, it is logical and appropriate that the city to which they look should be responsible for delivering the services that affect their lives.
One factor that welds together their loyalty is historic tradition. When the Bill was debated in the other place, my predecessor, the Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes, argued that historic tradition should be taken into account by the local government commission when it assessed the suitability of an area and of an authority for unitary status. I entirely agree with that argument. Historical tradition means awareness of, adherence to and respect for the long-established customs and practices of a community.
When the local government commission considers the identities and interests of local communities, it could scarcely ignore the historical tradition altogether, but precisely because some candidate authorities will not have any historical tradition worth mentioning, I should like to see the words "historical tradition" included in the Bill as one of the factors that it should take into account. It is very important that the commission fully appreciates the extent to which historical tradition is an ingredient in community identity in these cities.
I was pleased to see that this theme was acknowledged by the Government in the debate in the other place and is likely to figure prominently in the guidance given to the commission. The draft guidelines published in November refer to taking into account the history of an area. That is a step in the right direction, although the history of an area is not quite the same as its historical tradition.
In my authority, there are many examples of problems caused by division of responsibilities between the city of Gloucester and the county council of Gloucestershire. Despite all the efforts of the county council and those who work for it, who I am sure do their best, they are cast in an impossible role.
Let me give some examples. There has recently been a dispute over the planning permission for a major new building—a magistrates court—to be located in the centre of Gloucester. This received planning approval by the county despite the fact that the plans had been condemned by the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage and Gloucester Civic Trust as unsuitable. The popular view in the city was that the proposed building was inappropriate for the site for which it was planned, which abutted the narrow streets of a mediaeval planned city. However, this factor did not sway the planning authorities on the county council and as a result that application is to go to a public inquiry.
Another example is social services. Three years ago, there was a particularly tragic case in Gloucester of a deaf-blind adult, Beverley Lewis, who was found dead in circumstances of neglect. There was a strong feeling within the city that the social services department of the county had been predominantly oriented towards a rural, affluent country area, and had not been sufficiently tuned in to the far different difficulties of a close urban environment.
Another example is education. Over many years, there has been widespread dissatisfaction with the county
80
education authority, which has not always promoted the best interests of the city schools. Such schools should be administered by people who know and feel for them rather than by people who are remote from them.
Yet another example is the highly dubious roads and traffic planning situation. Here again, the interests of the city and the county do not always come together in a convenient and sensible way. Nor does the existence of two authorities make the preservation of heritage any easier, and the preservation of heritage is of prime importance in any historic city.
In about the past 12 months Gloucester has won four national awards, including those for the best tourist destination and the best practice for regeneration. The best practice award was given to the Gloucester docks development scheme, which is now attracting over 1 million visitors a year. This achievement, which is very much to the credit of the city council, was not made any easier by the overlapping responsibilities of the city and the county. In some instances there was a duplication of responsibilities involving the management and provision of tourist attractions. There were complications over museums, libraries and historic buildings, and the services that go with them. Unitary status would avoid that type of problem.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is giving examples of the various services that could be carried out by a unitary authority. Education and social services are reasonably straightforward, but he referred to planning. How does he see unitary and strategic planning procedures being carried out under the present proposals?
Mr. French: My example was of a building which was to be erected within the city of Gloucester, not in the county. It was to be used largely by those living in the city. It was to be seen every day by those people. Yet it was proposed that it be built to a design which was widely regarded as unacceptable to the people in the city. I am endeavouring to argue that decisions that so closely affect one community should not be significantly determined by those who live somewhere else.
When it comes to planning there has, of course, to be consideration of factors that are part of the wider strategic plan. That consideration applies especially to transport and roads. There has to be a broader plan and broader decision-making on the zoning of certain areas. The establishment of a unitary authority does not mean that that authority will consider factors that relate only and specifically to the geographical area over which it has control. Any unitary authority will have to bear in mind also the broader strategic balance. I see no difficulty in that.
Mr. O'Brien: The Bill does not bring clarity to any of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially that of strategic planning. It does not tell us where functions will lie. If he agrees that there is a need for that identification, will he press the Secretary of State to ensure that it is included in the Bill?
Mr. French: The Bill will establish a local government commission, which will be provided with guidelines to determine the work that it does. Within those guidelines several factors have to be taken into account. If the commission follows the guidelines as set out—no doubt

81
they will be refined, but we have a draft set—it seems to be highly likely that it will need to take into account the very point which the hon. Gentleman is making.
I shall complete the examples that I was giving earlier. There is confusion over local taxation as a result of the presence of two authorities. Perhaps the prime example is the community charge. Although the city council had the responsibility of collecting the charge, the county was to spend the overwhelming majority of the moneys. It was not clear to the residents of the city where their money was going. Nor was it clear, unless they examined the small print on their bills and the accompanying literature, how the money was spent. That clouds accountability between county and district.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, people do not know who does what. I say that people do not know who spends what or who receives what from funds raised locally.
Why is the situation now different from how it was viewed in 1974? There is a difference for the fundamental reason that has been mentioned earlier, which is that local authorities now are much more enabling authorities than they were before. It is not necessary now for local authorities to be responsible for providing every service themselves.
Notwithstanding the argument that has taken place during the debate over the cost of consultants, the fact remains that it is now possible to deliver virtually every service that a resident within a certain area requires even when the population of the area is extremely small. As the role of an enabling authority is now understood and is being practised, the size of the authority, even if it is a small one, does not stand in the way of it achieving unitary status. There will be—I expect this to happen—some examples where unitary status in respect of certain services is not regarded as practical. In that event, joint arrangements can be organised with a lead authority.
The second difference between now and 1974—this is apart from the growth in understanding of the enabling role—is that cities have generally become much more involved in a wider range of local issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, they are meeting the needs of people and not merely providing services. This is clear in Gloucester, where the local authority plays a part in economic development, tourism, leisure, pedestrianisation plans and conservation. It is now involved in many areas with which it would not have been concerned previously. It is artificial, highly bureaucratic and impossible to try to separate some of the responsibilities and functions that cities perform well from those which they are not allowed to perform at all without having first consulted the county council and obtained its agreement. Responsibilities and functions should be brought together.
Where unitary status is ultimately decided upon, I believe that local government will be more efficient, more effective and more economical and that there will be less duplication, confusion and delay and an end to divided responsibilities that lead to buck passing. Successful democracy requires accountability, which the Bill seeks to strengthen, and that requires people to know where responsibility lies. There must be clear and simple lines of communication and decision making. I think that the Bill and the proposed commission will deliver that, and the sooner the better.
82
One or two aspects of the commission's work worry me. It will examine which structure is best for which area. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West asked towards the beginning of the debate, "What constitutes an area?" When my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities replies, I hope that we shall hear more about the definition as he understands it.
My second reservation about the commission is that it will have a rolling geographical programme. That suggests a rather leisurely timetable. If the commission's work is allowed to spread over too long a period, it is highly likely to get bogged down and to run into unwelcome difficulties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West suggested that the commission might start its work by considering areas of dissatisfaction, and he cited his constituency as one. That is one possible approach, but I suggest another for consideration: the commission should start its work by considering areas that have common characteristics. I suggest that the historic cities are much at the forefront of that category. They have a powerful case, which I think deserves to be heard early in the proceedings. I believe that the commission should consider the most obvious cases first.
The commission will need to be firm and efficient in the way in which it conducts its work if the ensuing debate is not to become an unseemly squabble between counties and districts. That must be avoided, or the result will not benefit individual residents—whom this Bill is designed to help—and it will discredit not only central but local government. Local residents would be disadvantaged.
The way that the commission conducts itself, the method of operation and the planning of its work are vital to the success of the Bill. I hope that very careful consideration will be given to that.
7.50 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The basic lacuna, and a source of great personal sadness for me, is that I never served in local government. I am the first speaker tonight from this side of the House who has not done so. Those who have not served in local government are, in a sense, incomplete in their political education. Therefore, in my almost 30 years in the House this is my maiden speech on local government matters. My reason for speaking is that West Lothian district council is concerned about the Bill. I have a very good relationship with the council. I met senior councillors and officials and listened to what they had to say, and I found their case compelling.
I have given notice to the Scottish Office that I wish to ask the following questions. First, will the Minister confirm that the Government are looking positively and constructively at the de minimis provision being increased from the current £100,000 to £250,000, as mentioned in the debate on 17 December 1991? From the information provided to me, it is clearly counterproductive in terms of value for money to go through the tender procedure for small contracts.
Secondly, in the event of an authority losing a contract resulting in the abolition of the in-house facility, will the Minister confirm that should that authority not be able to obtain satisfactory competitive prices second time around, additional resources will be made available either to fund the higher costs or to re-establish the in-house provision?

83
Thirdly, West Lothian has a clear policy of providing quality, customer-driven services to its community. In the event of the authority having misgivings about the capability of the lowest tenderer to maintain a quality service, what remedies are available to it at tender evaluation?
Fourthly, the cost of a performance bond is a real cost to a local authority and is necessary to safeguard customer interests. The Government's proposal to deduct the cost of that from the private contractor bid at tender evaluation is illogical in terms of value for money. Will the Minister reconsider that aspect?
Fifthly, what proposals do the Government have regarding the way in which future work will be packaged? In the provision of quality services, it is essential that work is packaged in a way that facilitates value for money and customer satisfaction, and is not artificially packaged to facilitate commercial considerations.
All those points were raised 10 days ago with the Scottish Minister—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—and I today confirmed that I would raise them again in this debate.
I wish to make two other points. The first is the timing of the stages in tendering exercises. West Lothian is a responsible authority and I have worked in harmony with it for 30 years. The timetable proposed would take between eight and 10 months from the date of the initial advertisement to the start of the contract. That would be inappropriate for certain contracts—for example, building works—and there is an argument for setting a de minimis level for such an extended time schedule. For many elements of professional work, speed is of the essence and flexibility for short time scales must be permitted.
The period from announcement to the start of the contract is crucial and it should be kept to the absolute minimum. Otherwise, the council feels that if in-house bids are unsuccessful there will be little motivation to perform well, and the result would be detrimental to the community. Will there be a change to the current tender timetable? If so, the time scale should be restricted to one or two months respectively.
I wish to revert to my comments on the performance bond. The cost of the bond is a real cost to the private contractor, and one that will have to be paid by the client if the contract is awarded externally. The Government's proposal to deduct the cost of the bond from the private contractor's bid would artificially reduce it and could have the effect of the client paying more for the work because of that notional adjustment. That does not equate with the need to obtain best value for money and it should be strongly resisted.
I would not have dared to participate in this debate were I not absolutely convinced that it is an argument about value for money. Mr. Linkston, the chief executive of West Lothian, and his colleagues persuaded me that some of the proposals are, in effect—at least, for smaller authorities—against a decent value-for-money concept.
The case against compulsory competitive tendering must be strongly put. It is against local democracy. Councils will be denied the right to decide how best to organise and procure professional services. Value for money is not determined by cost alone. Commercial organisations, such as that referred to by my hon. Friend
84
the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), recognise that. I am a member of the all-party retail trade group and we visit large organisations such as Sainsbury and Safeway. They recognise that value for money is not determined by cost alone and they do not appoint on the basis of lowest cost.
Professional fees are a small percentage of total project costs, and savings in that area can be quickly eclipsed by poor design and inadequate consideration. First cost will predominate; no recognition will be made of the life cycle cost. Surely any prudent authority must be concerned with life cycle cost. Councillor Graeme Morrice argued at considerable length, and with great persuasiveness, that life cycle costs are all important.
Quality and lowest cost are incompatible. No other country in Europe selects contractors on that basis, so why should we apply that criterion to consultants? The professional institutions—for example, the Royal Institute of British Architects—whose members arguably have most to gain by an increased workload, have firmly and publicly declared against competition. There will be lack of continuity, discontinuity of service delivery and irreversible loss of valuable skills and resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, with his great experience as leader of his council, put the irreversible nature of the loss very strongly.
Proactive team work will be precluded. Service issues of confidentiality, propriety and commercial benefit are at stake in relation to policy advice. Substantial increased costs are inevitable in the tendering process, briefing, monitoring and arbitration of claims and disputes. Role separation will result in design and specifications being changed from practice and practitioners from feedback.
Let me say a word about architectural and engineering services. Clarification is required on design and feasibility projects that are carried out in-house, outwith the architectural services department, to ascertain whether such work is excluded from competition. The market place is currently organised on a single-project basis, with professional services procured primarily by individual discipline. Clarification is required as to whether it would be anti-competitive to package work on, first, a full financial-year basis—or on the basis of a longer period—and, secondly, a multi-disciplinary basis.
My friend and political opponent Councillor Jimmy McGinley has made a special study of the effects on the architectural and legal departments. He, too, was entirely able to persuade me that it would be extremely imprudent not to take account of what really happens in council work. The quality and ability of contractors are crucial, and local authorities must be left with maximum flexibility in assessing those qualities and taking them into account.
The professional organisations have already pointed out that lowest price is not an appropriate method of assessing and appointing professional contractors. Applying CCT to professional services introduces serious problems of confidentiality, conflict of interest, indemnity insurance and so forth without a realistic prospect of improved efficiency or cost savings. Those potential problems will make contractor supervision expensive. In recessionary times, professional services in local authorities may seem attractive to the private sector, but the opposite is true in boom times. There will be serious consequences for local authorities.
Efficiency of professional services is best achieved by the introduction of trading accounts for all professional

85
units. There is no good reason for applying different rules to architects and property management. Trading accounts and league tables of local authorities—coupled with direct comparison of fees from the private sector—is a much better route to the measurement of efficiency.
Concern for quality is identified in relation to a proposed system of "two envelope" tendering, and a plea to professional institutions to recommend that low measurements of competition be built into the quality threshold. Quality and lowest cost are incompatible. The Government indicate pre-qualification on a quality threshold, but determination on lowest cost. The concept of "two envelope" tendering is related to determination and quality.
I have had my time, and I shall leave it at that, but these are serious questions, posed by practical, serious people.
8.2 pm
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): I give an unreserved welcome to the proposals in the Bill. They reflect the logical way forward for the development of local government services and structure, taking full account both of the experience and success of compulsory competitive tendering and of the undoubted wish of local people—including my constituents—for the return of unitary authorities.
During the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill 1988, I moved an amendment—it was later withdrawn—to add five services to the seven that, under the Bill, were already subject to CCT. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through Committee, pointed out that the amendment was not necessary, because, under the Bill, such extensions would be made later by order. The advantage of this Bill is that it enables us to take full account of the experience of CCT to date.
Fourteen years ago, the country was moving in the opposite direction from that proposed in the Bill. The Labour Government of the day allowed direct labour organisations to provide local government services without a cost-competitive test: it even allowed them to provide other local authorities with such services. Indeed, Labour's 1979 election manifesto anticipated the further expansion of DLOs, in addition to the takeover of local building firms by workers' co-operatives. It was the "winter of discontent" which discredited for all time the notion that public service unions would put patients, and other consumers of services, above their own vested interests.
The present Government began to reverse that trend by putting DLOs to the test of competitive tender in building and maintenance in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. However, the work of pioneering councils such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)—who earlier reminded us graphically of its contribution—was required to prove that the tendering of service provision to private contractors was needed to expose the waste and inefficiencies that had been tolerated by town halls for far too long.
As we now know from research conducted by Birmingham university, the London business school and not least the Audit Commission, CCT works, achieving savings of 20 per cent. or more. More important, however, has been the direct effect that it has had on the entire
86
management structure of local government at all levels—from the officers at the top to the point of delivery at the bottom. That has been experienced at first hand.
CCT has exposed gross inefficiencies that were formerly taken for granted by town halls and county halls. It has encouraged new attitudes, new methods and new training, and a far healthier relationship has developed between client and contractor, including direct service organisations. To date, however, the vast majority of contracts—some 80 per cent.—have gone to the DSOs, which did the work before CCT. There is nothing wrong with that; value for money is the principal test and, if the DSOs can do the work efficiently at the lowest possible cost, they should receive the contract. It is a pity that the prospect of tendering has had to act as a catalyst to produce improved efficiency.
Now that the private sector has had time to get its act together, with new companies—for instance, the water companies—now prepared to enter the field, I expect it to be more successful in bidding for the service contracts for which the Bill provides, as well as existing contracts when they come up for renewal.
One benefit of not extending CCT to further services until now has been the opportunity of learning from the experience to date—for example, the unfair practices adopted in favour of the DSOs. It is, for instance, clearly wrong to include internal redundancy and the winding-up costs of DSOs in calculating the total cost of a private-sector bid, as it is to define a contract so awkwardly that only the existing DSO would possibly fulfil it. Another example is the denial to all private-sector bids of access to council depots, along with the provision of such access for DSOs. The Bill will, I hope, outlaw all such public-sector biases.
It is, of course, equally fair to insist on a level playing field for public-sector tenderers, to allow them to bid for private-sector contracts. They cannot do that now. For example, the building design practice section of the former architects' department of Dorset county council will have to make staff redundant or cease operation altogether if it does not succeed in its present bid to retain all its duties next year. It has sought permission to tender for work in the private sector which would broaden its experience; unfortunately, it cannot legally do that now. Such a development could only enhance competition, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind in Committee.
Experience of the 1988 Act also suggests that we should now ensure that the quality of professional services, such as architecture and engineering, is fully taken into account in the contract process, as the original Bill proposed before its amendment in the other place. I am pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend is proposing a new formula for a quality threshold clause. It must be right to insist that those submitting bids have the expertise, experience and resources to complete the contract for which they have put in a bid.
Mr. O'Brien: If it is correct that quality should be included in compulsory competitive tendering for white collar services, how can the hon. Gentleman say that that should not apply to compulsory competitive tendering for other local government services?
Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. He intends, perhaps, to say that a level playing field

87
should apply to existing services, subject to the contract process, as well as to what is being proposed in the Bill for white collar services.
As a result of compulsory competitive tendering, local government services are being undertaken today more efficiently, to a higher standard, at better value and at a saving of millions of pounds to the charge payer. Usually they are being undertaken by a happier, more fulfilled and better-rewarded management and work force, yet Labour still talks about abolishing CCT and the Audit Commission which pointed the way to such achievements. On the contrary, I hope that the Government will commit themselves to going still further in the privatisation of local government services. I suggest that the 24 provincial airports, 54 ports and harbours and 38 bus companies should be privatised, all of which remain in council hands.
As for the provisions that will establish a local government commission, I point out to the Minister that the prospect of a return to a unitary authority has been particularly welcomed by those of my constituents who remember Bournemouth as it was until 1974—a county borough council. It was a great mistake to abolish the county boroughs, the finest units of local government anywhere in the world. I do not believe that the schools, roads, libraries, public protection, traffic management and the magistracy in my constituency have been better served by remote control from county hall, given the competing priorities of a mainly rural county and the absence of personal local knowledge and accountability that borough councillors provide.
Unfortunately, unlike my local Conservative association, which has submitted clear proposals for Bournemouth to have as much control over its own services as possible, our local Liberal council is calling for additional tiers of local government, such as neighbourhood councils and regional authorities. Like so much else of Liberal policy—all of which is adopted by default—these proposals will lead to greater bureaucracy, add to the cost of local government, for which the charge payers must pay, and will be unnecessary if local councillors are doing their job properly, with proper two-way communication between themselves and those whom they are elected to represent.
Moreover, the Liberal alternative of a single authority in my part of Dorset, which is dubbed by the local press as Wessex city, for an entire Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole conurbation would be a disaster locally. The common pooling of resources and the sharing of services between two or three of these authorities must arise from sensible negotiation on common problems such as tourism and community care and must not be imposed upon them by statute.
In determining the districts that are to become unitary authorities, the new commission will appreciate that there cannot be a return to what happened before 1973. Thanks to this Government's policies, local government has evolved to a considerable extent. It is local government's new role, as an enabler of services and as the contractor of services, that justifies this important review. There is no longer any question of returning to the unnecessary duplication, by districts, at the expense of economies of scale that justified strengthening the counties in 1973. Nor
88
does any future reorganisation have to be as costly, as was demonstrated by the abolition of the metropolitan counties a few years ago.
It is essential that the commission should include among its membership the practical input of serving councillors at all levels to determine the merits, costs and benefits of the submissions that will be made to it. I look forward to the Minister's assurances on that point. I welcome the appointment of Sir John Banham as the commission's chairman, in view of both his Audit Commission past and his undoubted success at the Confederation of British Industry.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends the new local authorities to be in place and to take over in May 1994. Presumably, therefore, he has in mind elections to those local authorities in May 1993, next year, and believes that they should shadow the present authorities, as happened between 1973 and 1974 when the previous local government reorganisation took place. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is to be the programme.
Mr. Ian McCartney: I understand that before the 1974 reorganisation there were no elections and that the local authorities set up joint arrangements for the distribution of services in preparation for subsequent elections. What the hon. Gentleman says is historically incorrect and, in practical terms, is an utter shambles.
Mr. Atkinson: I well recall being elected to the new Essex county council, representing a Southend ward, having previously served on Southend county borough council. Between May 1973 and May 1974 we acted as a shadow council, preparing to take over and working with the existing retiring council on our new responsibilities.
I am sure that I speak for most of my constituents when I say that we greatly look foward to this opportunity to restore a Conservative administration to Bournemouth, in view of the increase in the community charge that is threatened for the forthcoming fiscal year. It cannot come soon enough.
8.16 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Earlier this evening a Conservative Member offered the opinion that this is a conservative country—he hastened to add with a small "c". I think that he is likely to find out before many more weeks are over that the country is less conservative than he cares to believe. It is certainly a lot more conservationist.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has had to leave for a meeting. An interesting article in today's Daily Record shows that my hon. Friend has been named as the most environmentally friendly of all Scottish Members of Parliament. That was said by a panel of expert ecologists, led by David Bellamy. Interestingly enough, the same group was asked for nominations for the booby prize when it came to environmental issues. One of the nominees was none other than the Secretary of State for the Environment. That says a great deal about this Government if the Secretary of State can be nominated for the booby prize by those who are most concerned about these issues.
I intend to refer to clauses 8 to 11. I did not hear all of the Secretary of State's speech, but for several hours I have

89
listened to Conservative Members speak about the Bill's provisions. I still have to be told why the Government refuse to make public the results of the PA Consulting Group study. Could it possibly be because they were advised against putting out a number of services to tender? They have received advice that certain services are not candidates, or are not good candidates, for compulsory competitive tendering. The examples given included the development of corporate strategy, committee administration, membership services, electoral registration, financial planning and advice and personnel recruitment, yet we find that they are on the list of services proposed to be pushed out to compulsory competitive tendering.
The Government published a consultation paper at the same time as they published the Bill. If the Government seriously intend to consult people properly, I wonder what time scale they have in mind. What assurance can any of us possibly have that the Government will pay any attention whatsoever to views expressed against the contents of the consultation paper?
That is especially the case when one considers that in Scotland in particular the Government asked for people's views about hospitals being taken out of the national health service and given trust status. Despite the fact that the Government consulted widely and were told by the vast majority of people that they were against hospitals being given trust status, and the doctors were against it, they went ahead and imposed trust status upon hospitals in Scotland. Such consultation must be regarded with much suspicion. We know perfectly well that the consultation period will be short and that the Government do not intend to pay the slightest intention to views, no matter how well informed, that are contrary to their wishes.
I have seen a long list of services that the Government intend to put out to compulsory competitive tender, of which I am sure Conservative Members are well aware. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that home-to-school transport was included. I should have thought that, above all, it is essential to have a reliable service so that parents know that their children are safe. If other, more lucrative contracts are won by the firm that wins the local government contract, it might easily let down the local authority. Where will that leave children? I am not talking only about them making their way home in bad weather, but young school children who are vulnerable and could be endangered by traffic and people of ill will. That proposal requires second thoughts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned corporate services such as personnel. We are all aware of firms offering their services as head hunters and selectors of personnel, but what about the important personnel functions of training for the skills that are necessary in a local authority? What about the difficult issues of discipline and dealing with appeals by employees? I cannot see how an outside firm will be able to deal with such issues fairly. How will employees be able to place their trust in the objectivity of the judgment of an outside firm, paid by the local authority?
I can hardly credit the Government's proposals for financial services. The accounts of large councils such as Glasgow district council run into millions of pounds and have to be brought in on time. Year-on-year estimates are an enormous job. A local council may be left in severe difficulties if it is let down by a company that has been awarded the contract. Local authorities already find it
90
hard to cope because of the Government's impositions on them, but the Bill does not seem to heed the need for efficiency of local authorities.
No Scottish local authority has faced sanctions under sections 13 or 14 of the Local Government Act 1988, which permits the issue by the Secretary of State of a written notice requiring an authority to justify any actions which he feels are anti-competitive, following which the Secretary of State may issue a direction to the authority preventing it from carrying out all or part of the work concerned or stating particular conditions which must be fulfilled before it has the power to carry out the work. Once again, because of Conservative Members' hostility to Labour-controlled English authorities, a Bill is being introduced that is not relevant to Scottish authorities.
Hon. Members have mentioned the commission for local government but they have got that slightly wrong. The commission is for England, not for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland was asked to explain that some months ago in the Scottish Grand Committee and replied that Scotland was small enough for the commission not to be required. That is an extraordinary attitude. The Secretary of State for Scotland will define anti-competitive behaviour. He is a bit like the queen in "Alice in Wonderland": he defines it and imposes his will.
Last Saturday night, the four leaders of the main political parties in Scotland debated constitutional issues at Usher hall in Edinburgh. The Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about his plans for Scotland's constitutional future. The right hon. Gentleman was coy and refused to answer—perhaps because one of the plans was that he will define what is meant by anti-competitive behaviour. He knows that the Bill is not wanted or needed in Scotland and that the majority of Scottish people oppose it.
Despite the Government's hostility, local authorities have succeeded in winning the majority of in-house contracts. The Government want such nice little earners to go to their chums in the private sector. I wonder where it will end. I sometimes suspect that some more extreme Conservative Members will put the monarchy out to tender; if so, I think that the Fyfes may be able to undercut the Windsors! Conservative Members have said how popular the Bill will be, but none of them tried to pretend that it is wanted in Scotland.
It appears that the Scottish national party failed to express a desire to speak in this debate. I am unaware of it expressing a desire to take part in the Committee. It turned down the opportunity to serve on the council tax Bill. Scottish nationalists are often absent from debates and votes on what they call United Kingdom Bills but which seriously affect people living in Scottish constituencies. They have been challenged about their poor work rate for their salaries, but have excused themselves on the ground that they are doing other things in Scotland. Some of us think that more effort is required. Hon. Members can deal with their constituents' needs, campaign for what they believe in, and do their job in here to earn their salaries. We do not think that Scottish nationalists should try to get away with such excuses.
They can talk up a good fight. It is very easy to tell supporters how much one disagrees with the Government, but it requires more effort to be in here, challenging the Government and demanding answers. That is what we shall do in Committee.
8.28 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: No Session, even a short one, is complete without a local government Bill. I am glad that this Bill has been introduced because it is the most important Bill to come before the House for 20 years. It is more important than the flagship Local Government Finance Bill that is being scuttled at the breakers' yard. Indeed, it is more important than the salvage tug Local Government Finance Bill that was recently before the House. It is more important than any local government finance Bill that the Opposition might dream up should they unfortunately be governing the country after the next election. If we are to make sense of the Bill and to understand its importance, we must think through why it seems like that to so many of us. The answer is that the structure of local government is the key to success.
Structure is far more significant for success—or for anything else—than finance, a point which seems to have escaped the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who, in his opening remarks this afternoon, said that structure follows function. Indeed, his comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who said that before one decides structure, one must decide what local government is going to do. I want to show how such sentiments are fatally flawed and, indeed, how such sentiments got us into this mess in the first place.
The Bill seeks to put right the errors of the Local Government Act 1972. It has been suggested that that Act was all about my party, but we have heard two comments from the Opposition which show that if they were in control they would still make the mistakes of 1972.
However, the Bill is not only about the aberrations of Avon and Cleveland. It is not even about the gratuitous insults to some of our historic cities. It is about the whole concept of two-tier local government. When I intervened, I said that I was implacably opposed to two-tier local government, although I would defend the rights of people who believe that it is better for them.
Two-tier local government flies in the face of how people feel about themselves, of how society instinctively organises itself and of how clients and consumers think about the services that they need. Therefore, the key to getting local government structure right is to understand the true nature of the communities to which people think that they belong.
Those communities are not defined by the cost of service delivery, which is why the Opposition are wrong to say that we keep focusing on cost. Cost is not the bottom line when defining natural communities. Of course, that might be true of services, but that is a different issue. Getting structure right is not about defining areas according to managerial convenience but about something fundamentally different. The good news is that, if we can get our structures right, basing them on the correct criteria, local government will flourish.
However, the bad news—especially for my colleagues who say that all one needs to do is to get the community right and all will be well—is that we all belong to many different types of communities. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said that when he praised the virtues of the historic counties. Of course we feel strongly about our historic and cultural background, but that has nothing to do with service delivery. If one is proud to belong to Lancashire and one lives in the north of it, one would not
92
dream of sending a child to school in the south of it. One's longing to be back in Lancashire is entirely different. Therefore, the bad news is that if we search for natural communities and think that there is just one such community and that if we could find it all would be well, it would be a search for fool's gold.
If we are to put structures right, we must be absolutely clear why successive Governments—and I stress the word "successive"—keep getting it wrong. I believe that the reason is that successive Governments have failed to think through the simple idea of who owns local government. Some people say that local people own it, and I have heard several hon. Members say that today. Other people will say that central Government own it. I think that one or two Conservatives say that out loud sometimes. Because of those two ideas—that local people or central Government own it—there will be problems, which is exactly what we are experiencing now. If only there were a simple answer, we would not be discussing the issue again.
The reality is that both local people and central Government own local government. Local government has a dual nature, and unless we embody that dual nature in its structure we shall continue to flounder and argue with one another and we shall not make progress.
What do we mean when we say that local government belongs to the people? In those circumstances, it is about meeting people's needs. When people say that they own local government, they want it to meet their needs within areas in which they are prepared to move. However, when we talk about local government belonging to or being created by central Government, that is entirely different. We are talking about just one of a range of vehicles for the local delivery of national services. Local government is just one of many, alongside quangos, central Government and the voluntary and private sectors.
The dual nature arises for a key reason, which is that the needs of the people and the services that are provided to meet them are fundamentally different, and the failure to grasp that fact has got us into this mess. The failure to grasp the fact that needs and services are different led to the 1972 Act and will again lead to mistakes if we continue to organise our structures on the basis of service requirements.
Another issue that we need to think through is why it is so easy to get into this mess in the first place. I think it is because the needs to which I have referred and the services which meet them are territorial. Needs have territories: people expect to go to school in a particular area and to do their shopping in a particular area. Services are territorial: that is how they are organised and managed. For that reason, it is very tempting for those who design them to say, "Wouldn't it be neat and tidy if we could make the same territory cover both needs and services?"
However, the truth is that, except in places such as the Scilly Isles and the Isle of Wight, needs territories and service territories rarely coincide. For example, a district general hospital almost always serves several local communities, but most individual local communities have more than one general practitioner's practice area within it.
It is important to notice that such examples which easily come to mind are outside local government. That is because people outside local government instinctively seem to understand that one designs service delivery according to the requirements of the service, not according

93
to the geography of the communities. For example, electricity companies organise themselves according to where their wires go, and water companies organise themselves according to where their pipes go, so why in heaven's name should anyone argue that fire services and libraries need the same territories? They do not—they need their own. They are nothing to do with needs but everything to do with services.
Whenever I say such things—especially when members of the Opposition have bothered to turn up and join in the debate—I am criticised. Indeed, throughout these debates my colleagues will run into flak not only from the Opposition, but from councillors of all political persuasions and also from a fair number of officers. I say to such people who shrug their shoulders and say that this is nonsense that I should take such criticism far more seriously if it came from an organisation called local government which people liked a great deal more than they seem to.
At the moment local government, despite its protestations, is not held in high regard by the public. One has only to consider the turnout at local elections and the comments that people make about the quality and cost of services to realise that. If I listen long enough—and I spend a great deal of time listening—I hear three themes. The first is that all the talk about such changes is impractical. The second—and we have heard it this afternoon—is that such changes weaken accountability. The third is that the changes undermine local government itself. The claim that the changes are impractical does not bear close examination. I accept that having many different territories is not neat and tidy, but the real world is not neat and tidy, unfortunately for us. I accept that having many different territories means many different arrangements for the delivery of services, but that is the real world as well.
The health service organises itself in its own way and the lawyers organise themselves in a different way. The retail sector, with its grocery shops and other shops, organises itself differently. The whole world of service delivery is different outside local government. We must stop trying to be neat and tidy just because we seek a local government solution that looks nice on the map.
To say that community X is too small to provide its own schools is to repeat the mistake of 1972. It confuses the needs of people with the services that meet them. School territories—deciding how big an area one wants to run schools economically, efficiently and effectively—is a service argument. Children needing education live in communities, whether we like it or not, and they expect to go to school in those communities. They do not expect to be told by county hall or by Whitehall what is convenient for the service.
It is claimed that all my arguments undermine accountability. We heard that argument from the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who kept saying that we need accountable local government. We heard it from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who spoke about the situation in London. He asked how on earth joint authorities could be accountable. I now live much of my life in London, and I have noticed that fires are still put out. A joint fire authority seems to function perfectly well. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. If I called the fire brigade and it did not come, I would not fret about which councillor or
94
which council was responsible. I should go down to the fire station, talk to the fire fighters and hold them accountable. That is the nature of accountability.
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman would do what?
Mr. Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene to challenge me? Obviously not.
Accountability is not in the ownership of democracy and it is utter nonsense to say that it is. Hon. Members should try telling that to a shop assistant who has sold faulty goods. He or she understands what accountability is about and does not need local government to explain it. Hon. Members should try telling that to a youth club leader when a member of that club has been involved in an accident. The youth club leader understands that he or she does not need local government to worry about that accident. Hon. Members should try telling anybody outside local government, "You cannot be held accountable unless the local democratic process is involved."
Accountability flows directly from the person who provides the service to the person who uses it. It does not go via a third party, whether that third party is elected or not. When I go into a shop, when I go to see a doctor or when I use any other service, I expect the people who are providing it, not some magical person way out in the distance, to be accountable. That is the true nature of accountability.
The reason why accountability gets muddled up is that those in local government who keep arguing about accountability are really talking about power. They are asking what they are accountable for—what they have power and control over. They overlook the other side of accountability, which is to ask who they have duties to. Those duties are to those whom they represent. Those duties are to ensure that all needs are met. If only those who argue about power and control and about local government having to have an oar in something would focus on duties, they would broaden the horizon of councillors to include the provision of all services and the meeting of all needs, not only those of which they can get control.
Another theme is that the Bill somehow undermines local government itself. The Bill touches on all the points that I have mentioned. The people who talk like that, who say that services should not be taken away from them and that they need them under their control, say, "Do not force us to seek tenders because there is something mystical about the way in which we do things. Do not publish nasty facts about us because it might undermine public confidence in local government." Such people, who are not confined to one party, seem to say, "Just remove a tier of local government and then go away."
The Association of County Councils would abolish the Association of District Councils, and the ADC would abolish the ACC. Our mailbags are full of that. The trouble with both arguments is that we are considering boundaries, structures and organisations which were two-tier solutions, and it is the two-tier solution itself that is wrong. We need to go back to the drawing board, and we need to become involved in those issues. That is why I welcome the Bill.
The Bill repairs the damage done in 1972. It gives us a chance to get the structures of local government right and it will enable us, if we do get them right, to get local

95
government closer to the people. The Bill will broaden the horizons of local government so that it concerns itself with all services, and it will switch the focus of local government away from power and control to meeting the needs of local people. If that is right—and I believe that it is—the Bill is vital. It offers us an opportunity to improve local government, to improve local services, and to meet more needs of local people. If we get it right, the result will be a new, respected and secure role for local government in the long term. Such a prize deserves more than party bickering; it deserves the support of everyone in the House.
8.45 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. Members for my failure to attend earlier. I assure the House that I have not been dragooned in here by people behind the Chair. I have been sitting as a member of the Select Committee on Social Services considering the role of pension funds and especially that of Mirror Group Newspapers. A discussion that should have taken an hour lasted two and a half hours. I hope to make up in Committee for my late arrival; I say that to cheer up the Minister of State.
I am an adviser to the Greater Manchester fire authority, and before I was elected to the House and for a short time afterwards I was a member of the fire and civil defence authority and the Labour party's spokesperson on that body. Since coming to the House, I have maintained an interest in the fire service as an integral part of local government services.
In England and Wales, there are 64 brigades and all of them are concerned about the consequences of the Bill for the provision of in-house services by fire brigades, it is important to make it clear that every hour fire fighters put their lives at risk—sometimes in a futile effort—to protect the lives of individuals in their community. It is vital that the way in which we deliver the fire service and in which equipment is delivered at the point where it is needed is professional and protects the fire fighters in their role in the community.
It is dangerous enough to be a fire fighter on every occasion when the bell goes in the station. It is essential that equipment, such as turntable ladders, extinguishers providing foam and other fire-fighting materials, is provided and maintained to a professional standard which meets the requirements and safety regulations for the fire fighter and for those who, unfortunately, require the use of the service to protect property, lives or, in most instances, both.
The uniqueness of the fire service led to the exemptions in the Local Government Act 1988. It was in 1988 that the Government made their first ideological stab by taking away effective control of many services from local authorities. The hon. Member for Bournemouth. East (Mr. Atkinson) encapsulated the ideological view of Conservative Members when he said that the bottom line was value for money. The fire service is not just about value for money as one cannot give a life a price—whether that life is the one saved or the one being put at risk as a fireman tries to save another life from fire, smoke, dangerous hazards such as chemicals or bombings.
96
Hon. Members, Treasury spokesmen and Opposition spokesmen offer plaudits on the work of the tire service, but in this legislation the Government are prepared to put political ideology before the necessity of constantly maintaining the equipment that protects those who put their lives at risk to save others. That is why the Bill is so unacceptable. It is not just an ideological attempt to undermine other local government services. It is one thing to sit in a local authority office dealing with housing problems, but it is quite another matter when a fireman is 30 ft up a turntable ladder in a temperature of 1,000 deg C trying to save people or at least ensure that the bodies of loved ones are brought out and given decent burials. Those are the realities on the front line of the fire service.
The Local Government Act 1988 recognised three factors—first, the uniqueness of the vehicles provided for the fire service; secondly, the high standards that must be maintained due to the statutory duties imposed by the Home Office. It is interesting that no Home Office Minister is present this evening. The Home Office is responsible for the current review of fire services as they are affected by compulsory tendering, but during the Bill's passage no Minister is available to answer questions or take note of the issues rightly raised by the fire services during the so-called period of consultation.
Thirdly, there is a statutory requirement to maintain the hydraulic pumping and mechanical equipment to a high enough standard to meet the other statutory obligations of reaching a fire within a specific time, maintaining certain levels and types of equipment at all times and ensuring that it is in working order. However, the Government say that, since 1988, there have been developments in commercial vehicle maintenance that overcome the special needs of maintaining fire service vehicles. Will the Minister list the developments, who prepared them and say what report on them is available to the Home Office or the Secretary of State for the Environment? My contacts in the fire service, which are widespread and include those in fire brigades in Labour-controlled and Conservative-controlled local authorities as well as in those with no overall control, all state clearly that they do not know of any of the so-called revolutionary developments. The reality is that such developments do not exist. The truth is that the Minister of State is showing his zeal to maintain the momentum towards compulsory competitive tendering in all sectors of local government services, including the fire service, which provides unique services to the community.
In the debate in another place Viscount Mersey encapsulated the view of all right-thinking people on the Government's position. He would normally be expected to support the Government but he said:
"Fire Brigades are unique. They are required by law to be at an accident within a specific time. Fire Brigades have their own highly specialised capital intensive workshops which have a faultless track record and which I believe no private competitor could hope to match. Even if they did manage to match it, there would be a learning period in which the Government would literally be putting people's lives at risk whilst the private contractor learned a new craft of fire engine maintenance."
A supporter of the Government made the grave charge that, in relation to the Bill, the Government's ideology would put people's lives at risk. In the light of such charges, the professionalism of the fire fighters in the

97
United Kingdom and the advice that the Home Office is already receiving, I hope that the Minister will state clearly that the fire service will be exempt from the proposals.
I wish to put several questions to the Minister and if he cannot answer them all this evening perhaps he will do so in writing after he has had consultations with his Home Office counterparts. If not, perhaps he will give detailed answers at a later stage of the Bill's passage. It is quite clear that there is a serious risk that a contract could cease operation for financial or commercial reasons such as bankruptcy or takeovers. That would leave a fire brigade with serious difficulties in maintaining its 24-hour, 365-day emergency cover.
It would be incredible if competitive tendering meant that the very basis of maintaining a high standard of care of vehicles and other life-saving equipment was put at risk by bankruptcy, impending bankruptcy or other financial difficulties within the commercial enterprise that was operating the support services for the fire brigade. Surely such circumstances should not be contemplated. To say that they would never arise is nonsense. We all know of the present huge number of bankruptcies—there are almost 1,000 a week in the current recession in the United Kingdom. In my district, the north-west, more than 120 companies go bust every week. Who is to say that those firms going bankrupt are not the ones that provide the life-saving back-up facilities for organisations such as the fire brigade? For that reason alone, never mind all the others, the Government should cease promoting the policy of contracting out such an important life-saving service.
There will be conflicts of priority between brigade emergency vehicles and commercial customers. If an organisation is involved in the preparation of materials for the fire service, unless there is an overriding guarantee to cover all circumstances, fire brigade vehicles and equipment could be put to the bottom of the list of priorities in that workshop. That would undermine the maintenance of the 24-hour service—a statutory requirement laid down by the Home Office. There must be day-to-day monitoring of work and changes to agreed contractual arrangments. Unless such monitoring takes place on the spot by fire service personnel there will be no guarantee that a fire tender or fire-fighting equipment will not break down. Such break-downs normally occur at the scene of an incident and put at risk the chances of rescuing people from buildings. They even place fire fighters' lives at risk. That is unacceptable.
On-the-spot judgments about the professionalism of fire fighters and the quality of care of the vehicles and equipment must he taken by the chief fire officers of fire brigades. That will happen only if he controls the day-to-day operation and discipline—it is a disciplined, uniform service.
I shall submit in writing to the Minister of State my worries on matters relating to the expertise of outside contractors, contractors' responses in relation to emergency services and the immobilisation of fire brigade equipment and materials that are necessary, particularly when fire brigades are asked to respond to major accidents, whether motorway pile-ups, bombings or other incidents. It is vital that we have clear guidance from the Minister or from the Home Office about the requirements for competitive tenders in respect of outside organisations, to ensure the maintenance of emergency cover in the face of emergencies experienced by fire brigades daily. When such emergencies occur, the complete mobilisation of all a
98
brigade's resources will be required. That cannot be guaranteed unless workshops are under the direct control of a fire authority and, in particular, of the chief fire officer.
For those and other reasons, I hope that the Minister will provide some guidance tonight. Will the Government continue the folly of putting fire services at risk of competitive tendering? Does the review being carried out by the Home Office reveal opposition from the fire services and, in particular, from chief fire officers? If so, will the Government withdraw such competitive tendering proposals for fire brigades?
The Government must listen to their professional advisers, the chief fire officers. They are responsible to the Home Office by law. They must provide advice about the fire services. No Conservative Member would disagree that the chief fire officers in Britain are part of the most dedicated and professional fire service in Europe.
The Bill must not undermine the capability of Britain's fire services to maintain and save lives from the point of view of those affected by fire and, as importantly, from the point of view of fire fighters who daily try to save other people's lives without thinking of their own. The Bill attempts to put a price on life, but it is impossible to do that.
9 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The House has listened with interest to the forceful speech made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and to his impassioned plea for adequate provision for emergency and essential services. No one would disagree with him about that. However, we must recognise that all services, no matter how life saving and essential they may be, cannot be provided without regard to cost. Cost is an essential part of both parts of the Bill, which I welcome.
With regard to part I and compulsory competitive tendering, Opposition Members failed to differentiate between compulsory contracting out and compulsory competitive tendering. We are talking not about compulsory contracting out of services provided by local government but about the right, on an equal and fair basis, for private provision to be assessed in conjunction with direct labour organisations. That is wholly proper and in the interests of community charge payers. As trustees of the public purse, we should welcome that tonight.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mounted an attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He seemed to accuse my right hon. Friend of having little knowledge of local government, of not being prepared to go far enough in his proposals and of not being prepared to embark on radical change of local government in a way, supposedly, the Labour party would. I can think of few people to whom such criticisms should be less directed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My right hon. Friend introduced the housing legislation that gave council tenants the right to buy their own homes. He grasped the difficult political nettle of abolishing the community charge and replacing it with the new council tax. He introduced the present Bill. Over a decade or more, he has presided over major reforms of local government of which this Bill is the latest and the most welcome.
While I welcome the provisions relating to the powers of the Audit Commission and compulsory competitive tendering, I want to consider part II which relates to the

99
structure of local government. My constituency of Chichester is in the county of West Sussex and we are well served by Conservative-controlled district and county councils. It is difficult for me to advance a strong case for radical change in the structure of that system of local government when it is providing such good services on an accountable and low-cost basis to my constituents. I hope that the local government commission will recognise that.
We are considering a Bill which is necessary for several reasons. First, there has been a radical change in the system of local government finance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we cannot consider finance separately from structure. Also, several of local government's responsibilities have changed—for example, in education, in community care and housing. It is appropriate now to consider whether a new structure is called for. Much has also been said about Avon and Humberside, where the need for change may be more apparent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said that he hopes that we will be able to retain in some parts of the country a structure which has served communities well and which reflects the distinctive nature particularly of large disparate rural communities. There are large rural areas which do not have one predominant conurbation in their midst. The existing structures of some district services and some county services have worked well.
I have one criterion in considering the reform of local government—whether it will deliver to my constituents cheaper or better-quality services. Unless it can be shown beyond doubt that the services that my constituents receive will be of better value, involve a wider choice, or be of a better quality, I do not see the case for a radical, traumatic and costly upheaval in local government. My constituents are entitled to ask, "What is in it for us?" If the answer is that there is not a great deal in reform for them, there is no point in embarking on change for the sake of change.
In the remit of the local government commission and the guidance that has already been issued and which is the subject of consultation, the Government go a long way to relieving some of our concerns, because they lay emphasis not only on the cost of services provided but, first and foremost, on the community identity of local councils. They state a preference for unitary authorities, but, at the same time, they recognise that different structures may be appropriate in different parts of the country.
We in West Sussex believe that we have an exemplary Conservative-controlled county council whose spending last year was 8 per cent. below the standard spending assessment. This year, its spending will be 7 per cent. below the standard spending assessment. Our county council has no debt whatsoever, and therefore no financing charges to bear. As a result of the prudence of Conservative-controlled county and district councils, we pay £58 per head less than we would otherwise have to pay. That is a real dividend in my constituents' pockets. At the same time, a range of services has been improved. On education in particular, The Times lists us as having the third best examination results in the country.
Not only at county level but at district level, that success is reflected in Conservative management. In the Chichester division, for example, we have been able to
100
provide increased housing enablement facilities and improved environmental protection and litter and dog control, yet we have been able to do that by budgeting at or below the standard spending assessment.
Mr. Bellotti: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nelson: I shall not give way because of the time.
The cost to my constituents in terms of the average community charge is £170. I advise the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to go down the road to the district of Adur where, for similar services in a similar area, people pay £266. That is the difference between Liberal and Conservative control in Sussex—£192 for a couple.
Mr. Bellotti: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nelson: I have no time. With regret, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.
Local authorities should not indulge in a dog-eat-dog attitude. We should not put on their employees a blight of uncertainty pending local government reform. I hope that, as soon as possible, the local government commission will spell out to local authorities and to the Secretary of State areas such as West Sussex in which no change may be preferable to radical reform. However, in other parts of the country, change is much needed and there is no reason why we should adopt the same pattern nationwide.
I hope and believe that the local government commission will serve a real purpose in bringing forward reform which is now overdue, which is in line with Conservative party policies, and which will deliver value for money and improve the quality of services—the hallmarks of good Conservative control. The Bill sets that process on its way, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it.
9.8 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North: I speak as someone who until last May served as a councillor in a metropolitan district. As such, I must be one of the few hon. Members who has seen the practical effects of the implementation of legislation such as this, and not simply the ideology behind it.
The council that I had the honour to serve was Bradford which, from October 1988, suffered thea so-called "people's revolution". That was the authority that caused so much scandal as a result of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation with such iniquitous dealings in the management buy-outs of the school meals service that the Audit Commission had to issue special guidelines for all future cases. Against all advice and costings, the Conservative council awarded the catering contract for Bradford's theatres to an outside company that was even more expensive than the in-house team. After three months, the contract had to be cancelled. The Conservative authority also awarded the contract for vehicle maintenance to a company which, because of its failure to perform, was already in litigation with our neighbouring council. Those are some of the practical effects of compulsory competitive tendering in which ideology takes the place of practicality and common sense.
The Bill refers to the requirement to publish certain types of information. Perhaps we should consider publishing details of the many failures in Conservative councils throughout the country, and not least in the

101
borough in which this House is situated which, while exporting its homeless to other authorities, appears to be guilty of the illegal sale of houses that were not its to sell in the first place. Perhaps we should consider giving widespread publicity to the Audit Commission's account of the Government's failings. That could be done by means of a supplement to the citizens charter and could be delivered to every household in the country. There have been reports on poll tax collection, care in the community, housing benefit administration, the cost of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and into the incredible disgrace of the state of school buildings throughout the country—not forgetting, of course, the report that praised the cost-effectiveness of direct labour organisations, contrary to the thrust of Government legislation.
Omissions from the Bill are perhaps as significant as its contents. The legislation takes no account of the expense that is incurred when a council puts work out to tender. It costs thousands of pounds to draw up the documentation. People put together their bids only to find that the work invariably stays with the in-house team. I am no great lover or defender of the legal profession. Since the admirable legislation relating to guardians ad litem was enacted, and since the passing of the Children Act 1989, social services work has involved much extra legal work. The going rate for solicitors in Bradford to work on such legislation is about £60 per hour, whereas the in-house price is about £14 per hour. However, as a result of this legislation, somebody will no doubt have to go to the expense of drawing up tenders and specifications and of sending them out. In the end, all that expense will probably be wasted.
The failure to recognise the difference between public concern about standards and public concern about price is what makes the Bill deficient. If cost alone is to determine the level of service that is provided, we shall no doubt see Ministers trading in their Jaguars for Ladas——
Mr. McCartney: Or Trabants.
Mr. Rooney: Yes, or Trabants.
In Yorkshire, we have an expression, "You don't get owt for nowt." Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for everything and, under this Government, that price is measured by what we call the poll tax and will soon no doubt be measured by the council tax.
If we had stuck with the fair rates policy the vast majority of people in Britain might have been able to bear that price and public services would remain public services, not sacrificial lambs on the altar of the ideology of the Conservative party. As with a similar Bill that was around at about this time in 1987, this Bill is the product of the Government's imagination. At the election it will undoubtedly turn into a nightmare for them.
9.14 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): In view of the shortage of time, my speech will be rather more in note form than I intended, but I hope that the points that I make will be clear. I join in the general welcome for the Bill among Conservative Members. When examining the structure of local government and establishing the local government commission, one could not make any better start than the appointment of Sir John Banham as the chairman of the commission if one wants common sense, quality decision making and a tough-minded approach.
102
There is a strong feeling, certainly among Conservatives in local government, that we need to appoint people with direct local government experience to the commission. That has been reflected among Conservatives in Parliament to some extent. When that aim is interpreted, or at least when it comes out of the other end of the machine, it results in the odd ex-chief executive being appointed. That is not what I mean. Of course, there is a place for one or two chief executives, but I can think of several names, which I will not mention, of former Labour and Conservative council leaders who could make an enormous contribution. I hope that some of those names will be borne in mind by my hon. Friend the Minister.
I have a preference, and a preference is shown in the spirit of the Bill, for unitary authorities. Let us make one comparison. If West Yorkshire can manage without a county council and manage well, and the West Yorkshire district councils can carry out the necessary functions, why does Derbyshire have to be encumbered with a county council? There is a strong feeling in Derbyshire that the county council is an encumbrance and that the sooner that it goes, the better. However, I do not intend to get embroiled in the arguments between the districts and the counties. If I do, I may find myself kebabed between the two. They can sort out their own arguments.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right about the public relations campaigns being run by the counties and districts. They are a complete waste of taxpayers' and charge payers' money. The councils should understand that the campaigns will have no effect. Even Humberside county council is launching a campaign to show the people that they have been wrong all these years and should have loved it. Some campaigns are doomed to failure from the start and that one will certainly be a waste of time.
The question to be asked is how the popularity of the final proposals is to be tested. We should not go so far as to hold a referendum, but the people must have the final say.
I wish to say a few words about what measures we would be considering if we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government. Rather than moving towards unitary authorities we would be considering the re-establishment of the Greater London council—a new, larger and uglier version. One would not think that that was Labour's intention from reading the document "London United" issued by the Labour party, but one would know it from reading the draft of that document which the Labour party did not dare publish. If it had published the full document as originally written, we would know that there are some real nasties in it.
For example, housing strategy would go to the GLC. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly told us that it would be impossible for a county council to run housing strategy. Yet that is what the Labour party promises for the new GLC. It wants to give tourism back to the GLC, yet the only contribution that the GLC made to tourism was to destabilise and almost destroy the London tourist board.
Despite the GLC's lack of success with London buses and the London underground, the Labour party wants to give back to the GLC not only the buses and the underground but Network SouthEast. That would not go down well with my constituents or with many people in the south-east of England.

103
To crown it all, it is people like the extremists—in some cases, frankly, nut cases—who run some Labour authorities in London that the Labour party wants to see running London's police. The Labour party's draft document, which it did not dare to publish, refers to London policing functions. No wonder the party did not dare publish that document.
The Audit Commission must be free to cause discomfort. Of course it says things that are uncomfortable for the Government and for local authorities. Howard Davies has done a very good job there. I wonder how long he would last in the emasculated Audit Commission about which the Labour party has talked. The Labour party has form in standing up for secrecy in local government, in opposing the publication of school results or of any other kind of league table. That is why the party opposes this part of the Bill. Its approach to cost comparisons is to say that they are not fair, whereas the Conservative approach is to ask, "How can we do better? How can we provide a better service?"
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), in a half sentence that he perhaps did not mean to utter, let the cat out of the bag. He said that the real problem was a failure of local government funding. In other words, like all of his Labour colleagues, he is promising paradise when he should be talking about priorities. Labour makes promises: a new council house building programme, more money for community care, more money for roads and pavements, more for teachers, better schools, extra equipment, new capital expenditure, leisure centres and sports facilities—and all of this to be funded without a general increase in taxation.
Labour's deputy leader has been saying to the councils, "You may not get as much as you want, but you will certainly get more." This is a deeply cynical exercise in uncosted but attractive promises. It is not so much a programme to improve services as a Labour gimmick to gain votes.
9.22 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has just done a first-rate job on behalf of the Labour party. We congratulate him on spelling out the good things that we shall be offering. We also pledge that when we are drawing up the membership of the commission we shall take into account his earlier suggestions about widening the membership. We shall even consider him in whatever new role he has at the time.
If ever there was a wolf in sheep's clothing this Bill is it. It pretends to be about local government when it is nothing of the sort. It pretends to be in favour of the user, the customer, although it does not mention quality at all. That being the case, we are right to ask what the Bill's objectives really are. Clearly, they have nothing to do with extending local democracy or with bringing local government closer to the people or about accountability. They are not even about the accessibility of services, and they are certainly not about the development of economic and social policies—something that is so often ignored in the scramble to fragment and disintegrate what was built up over the last century by local government people of all political persuasions. It is certainly not about quality, and
104
it is not about service. The words "public service" are, and for the past 13 years have been, anathema to Conservative Members.
The content of the Bill, despite its presentation in this House and in another place as being innocuous, is, in fact, a reflection of the views of the No Turning Back group of Conservative Members. Unlike the council tax legislation, its provisions can be embraced with genuine enthusiasm by the Minister of State. Instead of having to stand on his head, he is runing hard and pushing his shoulder to the wheel because, of course, he is a member of the No Turning Back group. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members who are shouting "Hear, hear" indicate the support that the No Turning Back group commands in this debate and in the Conservative party. Members of the Conservative party were nurtured—nay, bottled—on the heady milk of Margaret Thatcher's version of Conservatism. The pamphlet "Choice and Responsibility", which was supported by the Minister of State, spelt it out. It said:
"Local authorities, like central Government, should become enablers rather than providers … Compulsory competitive tendering should be progressively phased out and replaced by compulsory private tendering … Only public health, civil defence and local amenities need to remain an integral part of local government."
That is the agenda of the No Turning Back group. That is what it stands for and that is what the Bill embodies.
Part I, which deals with the tendering process, makes the values clear. Instead of what we would consider to be a reasonable programme for the provision of services, and an increase in control by local people over such provision by holding to account those whom they elect, we have the Conservative party slogans of privatise, centralise and neutralise. Cost, not quality, ideology not competence, delivery for profit rather than service for people—those are the slogans that we have had from this regime. Those who read the Bill, the comments in press releases and the local government commission's guidelines will be able to see that.
The Secretary of State talked about cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness but not about quality or service. If the Conservative Government were serious about a genuine effort to reach a consensus about the way in which we should mirror what is taking place in the rest of Europe—east, central and west—and in the United States and Canada with the devolving and decentralisation of services, we should be happy to reach an agreement with them. What is needed is not compulsion or dictation from the centre but people working together in the best interests of their local community.
Interestingly, the message spelt out by the ideological right in the United States is rejected by the ideological right in Britain. While they both preach the supremacy of the market and the inalienable rights of the private sector, the Americans preach a pragmatism in the provision of local services. More importantly, they advocate removing the overwhelming power of the central state to dictate, and leaving states, counties and cities to decide matters for themselves. That message is being fought within the Republican party between Pat Buchanan and George Bush.
Here, we have a strange, enforced market economy. If a local authority wins a tender, the Government try to take it away. They invent strange reasons for doing so, saying that it has used anti-competitive practices. One cannot expect the Government to accept European Community

105
rules about the "economically advantageous" projects that should be accepted when any scheme goes out to private tender but one can expect consistency. Three times in the House of Lords spokesmen contradicted themselves when asked whether that phrase should be applied.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, the spokesmen got themselves into an even bigger twist over the question whether cost should be the primary basis on which to judge a contract, or whether then to introduce another element so as to ensure that white collar services can be won by the private sector. In other words, they have an enveloping scheme under which there has to be a basic threshold over which people must pass before getting into the realms of simply accepting the lowest possible tender.
All of the contradiction comes because when the citizens charter was announced and the Prime Minister increased the costs of the Cabinet Office by £800,000 to pay for the work to be done on it, bringing the cost of the Cabinet Office to £22.5 million, it was announced that the PA consultancy report had been commissioned. At paragraph 1.4, the report states:
"It can be argued (and indeed many of our case study authorities did argue) that, given the problems with the application of CCT in the corporate service sector described above and the current existence of strong pressures to reduce central costs (described in section 2), it is neither desirable nor necessary to extend CCT into this sector at all. There is some substance to that argument."
The PA report was supposed to justify the Government's programme and ensure that they could press ahead with what they wanted to do. Every professional body that had been consulted has rejected the programme and the proposals attaching to it. The winner of the Queen's gold award for the best architectural projects of the year, Mr. Stansfield Smith—for Hampshire county council schools as it happens, an authority that is proud of local provision by an in-house organisation—has described the programme as being as much about
"cheap politics as about cheap buildings".
He referred also to cheap tendering. My right hon. and hon. Friends could not describe it any more succinctly than that.
The programme is intended to ensure that people can make profit out of public service rather than to achieve the goals that we see as important for ourselves. We, the Opposition, do not have only those who are in public service to support what we believe to be right. We have, for instance, the former comptroller of the Audit Commission, the new chairman of the local government commission, John Banham. At the conference of the Institute of Housing at Harrogate in 1985, Mr. Banham praised the authority of the city of which I had the privilege to be leader, describing it as the most efficient authority in Britain.
Mr. Portillo: He did not always do that.
Mr. Blunkett: I think that once was enough, Mr. Banham said that Sheffield was a shining example. He added—this is the importance of the statement—that privatisation was the last resort of a management which had given up. That is about the ticket.
There are local government officers who are engaged in management buy-outs and others who decide to work in the private sector and pretend that they can deliver services better while being paid more than in the public sector.
106
Alternatively, they can get some rewards from shareholdings. We have Whitewater Leisure, Contemporary Leisure and all the controversy about those who used to for the Glasgow authority. They go off and tell untruths about the organisations for which they are working—in fact, downright lies—or for which they worked. I shall say that outside the House if there is anyone who is worried about privilege.
The examples that I have given show that there is a fundamental myth, which is that public service is incompetent and that the private sector is always right. It is not always in the right and we know that it is not. We know, for instance, that 76 per cent. of the services that have been put out to tender have been won in-house despite the fact that in-house organisations cannot develop the capital investment and lease equipment in the same way as the private sector. Everything that they borrow has to be put against basic credit approvals. They are bound and gagged when it comes to extending services by engaging in competition with the private sector outside the local authority.
Some of us were interested to hear the Secretary of State espousing or advocating cross-boundary tendering. I say to the hon. Member for Harrow, West that I think that the right hon. Gentleman's words will have reached the chairman of the Audit Commission. They might even have reached the legal officer, Mr. Tony Child. If that has happened, his view will change overnight. I hope so, because it would be nice to integrate—to subsume—the Audit Commission, in an orderly fashion, into our quality commission. That would provide quality for people and ensure that league tables mean what they should mean, which is a comparison of the delivery of services to people. They should show, for example, how many home helps per thousand of the population are being provided. They should show up Tory authorities for not providing nursery provision. It is 20 years since the previous Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education, promised universal nursery education for all three to five-year-olds whose parents desired it. Promises fulfilled—people standing on their heads by the dozen.
I shall cite one league table comparison that might be worth considering. Earlier today the Secretary of State chided me and said that in some way I was an advocate of his system because I used the example of refuse collection and its cost to show that his system was simple and that we were in agreement on it. He should ask Chiltern, the Buckinghamshire district that I quoted, and whose refuse collection costs a great deal, why that should be so. It is because collecting the refuse of houses in close proximity, such as terraced houses in the city of Sheffield, costs only one third of what it costs to collect the refuse of houses in the posh south-west of Sheffield, where the houses are spaced out and the collection men have to walk up long drives. In Sheffield, householders do not have to carry refuse to the end of their drives—how do we construct league tables to reflect that?
Conservative Members might like to think about the league table that I am about to cite. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is keen on people reading books. We are all keen on that. I am desperately in favour of my children learning to read books. What about the number of books issued? I am not referring to The Sunday Times cocked-up, distorted version, which CIPFA denounced after it had been printed. I shall give the figures for the number of library books issued per hundred of the

107
population across a sample of authorities. For Manchester, it is 537. Who controls Manchester? It is Labour. For Hammersmith and Fulham, the figure is 382; for Lewisham, 371; for Merton, 366; for Greenwich, 346; and for Islington, 345.
For Suffolk—a Tory authority—the figure is 129. It could manage only just over one book per person per year. For Berkshire, it is 134; for East Sussex, 149; for Cornwall, 153; and for West Sussex, 167. What a fantastically literate lot they are in Tory authorities. People talk about reading and about literacy, but they do not spend the money to enable people to achieve that. The Labour party believes in service and in spending money wisely on providing that service. We believe in a local government structure and a set of functions that enable that to happen.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) found himself in an interesting ideological twist on whether function or structure came first. He denounced function as an irrelevance and said that we needed to set up a structure. Presumably, we could invent anything that we liked. Local government could meet in a telephone box because function is not important. However, we all know that it is important and that it is the driving force of structure. We need the right finance and the right structure, but above all we need the right objectives. We need to know what we are setting out and why. We need to know the principles behind what we are doing.
If we believe, and many of us do, in unitary local government—one door to knock on and one set of people to hold to account—we must give them something to do other than riding around in a civic car pretending that they are important and delivering nothing, responsive to no demands, not aspiring to change and improvement, and not even doing what the Conservatives of old did in the Chamberlain era when there was the sort of socialism that is now anathema to the Tory party. Instead, according to the Tory party, and as spelt out in the guidelines to the commission, we have a structure that accords with the aims of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He is ill, and I hope that he is now improving. In one of his speeches, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a council that met once a year to put out contracts, had a good lunch and then went home. I am sure that all Conservative Members are in favour of a good lunch; but it simply will not do.
Let me spell out what the commission's report is supposed to do. The guidelines do not talk about developing a structure that is crucial to the quality delivery of services. This is what they say about housing:
"Authorities also own arid manage 4 million houses nationally."
Referring to assessment and monitoring, the guidelines continue:
"Their role in these areas of housing will be passed over to housing associations and the private sector."
They speak of opting out in the primary, secondary and further education sectors; as for social services, they speak of monitoring and enabling rather than providing. Every part of appendix A talks about disabling local government, rather than enabling it to perform.
We offer something very different. We offer a decent finance system that can sustain the functions that we give to local government, and a structure that is not piecemeal,
108
but is based on identifiable communities—that is geared not to numbers alone, but to the ability to provide a decent level of service.
What the Bill offers is not local, nor is it government. It is dictation from the centre; it is administration rather than government. What is not privatised will be centralised. All that the Bill contains, and the ideology behind it—the values and principles that it espouses—must be rejected tonight in favour of genuine local democracy, and a Labour Government who will implement real policies for the people whom we represent.
9.41 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I thank the many Conservative Members who have spoken so well in support of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is one of the most thoughtful Members of the House in this context, described it as historic. It is indeed historic, not because reforms of local government have not taken place before—they have done so often—but because it offers a reform of the structure of local government. That structure can now be diverse, based on local choices, and it can place tremendous emphasis on community identity. Different solutions can be adopted in different places, solutions that are suited to the different needs of different people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) was particularly strong on that point.
It struck me as extraordinary that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should attack us on that point. To him, the idea of different solutions in different places seemed untidy—chaotic, he said. It did not meet the socialist ideal of being able to impose the same solution from Whitehall on every part of England. It appears that, over the past 20 years, the hon. Gentleman has slept soundly. The Labour party has learnt nothing about the deep-seated wish of the British people for local government structures that reflect what they feel about their local communities, and units of government that mean something to them and are not imposed on them.
Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: I am sorry; I will not give way.
Something very funny must have happened to the hon. Member for Dagenham on his way to the Chamber. Last year, when the Government announced the proposals, Labour appeared to be in favour of the reform of local government structure and the establishment of a local government commission. The hon. Member for Dagenham must have been speaking out of turn at that time; he has certainly been nobbled since.
It may well be that the policy was agreed by the shadow Cabinet, but some chance remark made by the Leader of the Opposition at Luigi's restaurant threw the whole thing into disarray. The Labour party is certainly in opposition now. I am not sure whether I am more appalled at the prospect of the Labour party being in government than I am at the prospect of having the support of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) and the Liberal party.
Diversity is the point of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, backed up so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for

109
Southend, West (Mr. Channon), we do not want this reform to result in lines being drawn on a map that will be imposed upon people. There is no need for a minimum size. There is no Whitehall model that could embrace the Isles of Scilly and the demands of Yorkshire. There is no reason, as the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne were concerned to know, to presume the need for joint authorities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West asked me a number of specific questions. The chairman-designate of the local government commission, Sir John Banham, is in place. I hope that soon, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said, we shall make more appointments to the shadow commission so that the commissioners can begin to plan their work in order that the commission can start its work shortly after Royal Assent. The Bill specifies a maximum of 15 commissioners. That number is enough to operate on a regional basis.
It should be possible for the local government commission to consider four or five different areas throughout England at any one time. The areas will differ in size. I believe that the smallest area that will be considered by the commission at any one time will be a county, with the possible exception of certain islands. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said, it may be appropriate in some cases to consider a group of counties if clear cross-boundary issues are likely to arise during the discussion period.
The order in which we put the various parts of England under the local government commission's microscope will be for the Government to decide. It will take some years to complete that process, but that is a necessary price to pay for the flexibility that the legislation gives us. It enables us to tailor our solutions to suit the needs of different places.
We are predisposed towards unitary authorities. We believe that there are strong arguments in favour of unitary authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) spoke eloquently about them in general and about how they would apply in his particular case. When there are two tiers of local authority, people tend to become confused about who is doing what. Accountability suffers. People do not know which authority they are paying for particular services. It leads people to believe that there is excessive bureaucracy and overlap and the potential for waste. We do not want to be dogmatic. When he spoke about north Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said that it would be unwise for any Government to impose the same pattern on every part of England because the differences between one part of the country and another are so great.
At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Dagenham said that no one disagrees with the Government's wish to introduce simplicity into local government, but the fact is that the Labour party profoundly disagrees with that wish. It wishes to impose an extra tier of regional government upon the country. It does not matter to the Labour party that the regions are unpopular, or that they cannot be afforded, or that they are unwanted. The Labour party still favours introducing another layer of government, imposing it upon the people of this country and raising taxes to pay for it.
What clearly are wanted are the links that people cherish with their traditional counties. Even if the units of government are not based upon the counties, people still
110
hark back to the links that they had with the traditional counties. They are still keen on those links. There is no reason why the traditional counties should not emerge as part of the process, even if they are counties that have no administrative functions in certain places. [Laughter.] The Opposition laugh at their peril. It matters very much indeed to the people of Wirral whether they live in Cheshire or Merseyside. It matters very much to the people of Coventry whether they live in Warwickshire or in the west midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) is in his place. It matters a lot to many people in Bolton whether they live in Manchester or Lancashire. Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about Middlesex.
To the people of England, it is more than a question of who administers local government: the lines on the map, the cricket teams, the Lords Lieutenants and signposts are important. To the Labour party, they are untidy matters, which is why it not only opposes these changes but laughs when they are mentioned.
The hon. Member for Dagenham wants not only to recreate a GLC but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, for it to be bigger and for it to control the police, which the old GLC never did. He warned us that we would pay the price. He said that a Labour Government would create a new GLC. Labour will pay the price: there will be no Labour Government because of the London effect. Once again, we shall win marginal seats in Lambeth, Haringey, Lewisham and Waltham Forest, where people are fed up with Labour government. We shall win in Brent and Ealing, where we have already turfed out the Labour party, and marginal seats in Wandsworth and Westminster, where people have seen the benefits of Conservative government. The London effect will again work in favour of the Government. One has only to look around to see Labour government in action in London.
I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in giving notice of the details that he wanted to raise. We shall address those points in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be happy to deal with them in correspondence. However, it would be unrealistic to do so in replying to the debate. We have sought evidence that the de minimis rule is inappropriate. In England, no such evidence has come forward, but it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide whether he is convinced by the evidence.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a number of other important issues that we shall want to consider in Committee and, I hope, in response to consultation.
Mr. Dalyell: Will there be a decision on de minimis fairly soon?
Mr. Portillo: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have noted the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned the fire service. I do not share his view that it is inappropriate for it to be excluded from compulsory competitive tendering. None the less, we are in a consultation period and the Home Secretary will want to take account of all the points that are made to him. As the hon. Gentleman said, the opinions of chief fire officers will obviously weigh with the Government.

111
There has been a change in the approach of local government to compulsory competitive tendering, but it appears to have been lost on the Labour party. Local government is anxious to provide better value, to improve management, and to seek competitive bids for many of the services that it provides. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I received representations from local authorities about their standard spending assessments. Hardly a single Labour or Conservative-controlled authority failed to mention the strides that they are making in improving the competitiveness of services and in putting services out to competition.
The Labour party is almost alone in the world in questioning the benefits of competitive tendering. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West gave good examples of the way in which it is improving services. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made an eloquent speech about compulsory competitive tendering; and I was heartened by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) also realised that we were talking not about compulsory contracting out but about compulsory competitive tendering, which means that there is an opportunity for the in-house team to make a bid.
Many local authorities have moved ahead and are putting many of their services out to competitive tender.
They are already investigating the scope for putting some
more services—management services, computer services and the collection of moneys—out to the private sector. In compulsory competitive tendering the Government are merely bringing up the rear and ensuring that local authorities that have not yet taken advantage of those techniques are brought up to the level of the best.
How the House will have valued yet another statement from the hon. Member for Dagenham, this one to the effect that he would do something only in extremis. On this occasion, he said that if he were Secretary of State he would introduce compulsory competitive tendering only in extremis. That is yet another case of the hon. Gentleman not being able to make up his mind about his policies and he must therefore reserve the right to do precisely what is Government policy.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East was extremely eloquent about the importance of levelling the playing field between the private and public sectors. There have been far too many cases of abuse in which local authorities have contrived a system of competitive tendering under which only the direct service organisation could win because special conditions were imposed. Those practices must be brought to an end, and I know that my hon. Friends will strongly support the Government when we say that enough is enough and that if we are to have a compulsory competitive tendering regime, it must be one under which the private and public sectors are able to compete with absolute equality.
The hon. Member for Dagenham said that the citizens charter had been ineffective, but how wrong he was. Here we are, just a few months after the announcement of the citizens charter, legislating to improve the services provided to citizens. We are already halfway through a Bill which is a major step forward in that respect, and it is
112
breath-taking nonsense for the hon. Gentlemen to suggest that Labour authorities were pioneers in the provision of better services to their constituents. We know that Labour authorities in London and throughout the country have become bywords for poor and expensive services, for litter-ridden streets, for badly-managed housing estates, for miserable conditions and for high levels of taxation.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) raised the question of how much it cost to collect a tonne of rubbish in one place as opposed to another. It is expensive in Wandsworth because the streets are swept every day. I suspect that it would be cheaper to collect a tonne of rubbish in Lambeth on the basis of an annual sweep of the streets because, to pick up a tonne of rubbish there, one would hardly have to stir from the spot. That is the experience of many people living in Lambeth. We shall introduce a system of measurements so that people in different local authority areas will know precisely to what standard their local services are being provided.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) criticised the Government for not slavishly following the advice given by consultants. In this Government it is the Ministers who decide on policy, not the consultants. It gave us a good insight into a Labour Government. A Labour Government would bear the impression that the last consultant laid upon them. The Opposition have no philosophy of their own. Presumably, they would set out on one course of action, receive a consultants' report which would blow them off their course, the journalists would then be summoned to Luigi's restaurant and policy would once again be changed.
Labour is offering to people who are presently enjoying the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering a promise to scrap it. It offers to those who demand quality the abolition of the Audit Commission, something to which it is pledged. Labour offers to all those who want simpler local government a new tier of expensive regional government.
We offer higher quality services brought about by competition, we offer better information to the public about the standards of service which they will receive, and we offer to reform local government to reflect wishes and natural communities. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 221.

Division No. 43]

[10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alexander, Richard

Benyon, W.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Allason, Rupert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Amess, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Amos, Alan

Body, Sir Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Bottomley, Peter

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Robert

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkinson, David

Bowis, John

Baldry, Tony

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Batiste, Spencer

Brazier, Julian

Bellingham, Henry

Bright, Graham

Bendall, Vivian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

113

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

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Harris, David

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Haselhurst, Alan

Buck, Sir Antony

Hawkins, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Hayes, Jerry

Burt, Alistair

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Butler, Chris

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carttiss, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hill, James

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hind, Kenneth

Chapman, Sydney

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Chope, Christopher

Hordern, Sir Peter

Churchill, Mr

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Colvin, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Irvine, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irving, Sir Charles

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Jack, Michael

Couchman, James

Jackson, Robert

Cran, James

Janman, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jessel, Toby

Curry, David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Day, Stephen

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Devlin, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dickens, Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Kilfedder, James

Dorrell, Stephen

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knapman, Roger

Dover, Den

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dunn, Bob

Latham, Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Eggar, Tim

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lightbown, David

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Farr, Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Favell, Tony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maclean, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Mans, Keith

Fishburn, John Dudley

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Maude, Hon Francis

Forman, Nigel

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Mills, Iain

Fox, Sir Marcus

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Franks, Cecil

Mitchell, Sir David

Freeman, Roger

Moate, Roger

French, Douglas

Monro, Sir Hector

Fry, Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Morrison, Sir Charles

Gardiner, Sir George

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Gill, Christopher

Moss, Malcolm

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Nelson, Anthony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Nicholls, Patrick

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Norris, Steve

Gregory, Conal

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Grist, Ian

Page, Richard

Grylls, Sir Michael

Paice, James

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Patnick, Irvine

Hague, William

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hampson, Dr Keith

Pawsey, James

Hanley, Jeremy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hannam, Sir John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

Porter, David (Waveney)

114

Portillo, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Powell, William (Corby)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Price, Sir David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Temple-Morris, Peter

Redwood, John

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder V)

Riddick, Graham

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thorne, Neil

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thornton, Malcolm

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tracey, Richard

Rost, Peter

Tredinnick, David

Rowe, Andrew

Trippier, David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sackville, Hon Tom

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Shelton, Sir William

Walden, George

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shersby, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Watts, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wells, Bowen

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, Sir John

Speed, Keith

Whitney, Ray

Speller, Tony

Widdecombe, Ann

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wiggin, Jerry

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wilkinson, John

Squire, Robin

Wilshire, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

Wolfson, Mark

Stevens, Lewis

Wood, Timothy

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Yeo, Tim

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Stokes, Sir John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sumberg, David

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Summerson, Hugo

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Tapsell, Sir Peter

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Clay, Bob

Allen, Graham

Clelland, David

Anderson, Donald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cohen, Harry

Armstrong, Hilary

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Aspinwall, Jack

Corbyn, Jeremy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cousins, Jim

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Crowther, Stan

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, Bob

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Dr John

Beith, A. J.

Dalyell, Tam

Bell, Stuart

Darling, Alistair

Bellotti, David

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Bidwell, Sydney

Dixon, Don

Blair, Tony

Doran, Frank

Blunkett, David

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Eadie, Alexander

Bradley, Keith

Edwards, Huw

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Enright, Derek

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Caborn, Richard

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Callaghan, Jim

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Fearn, Ronald

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Canavan, Dennis

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

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Fisher, Mark

Carr, Michael

Flannery, Martin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Flynn, Paul

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Foster, Derek

115

Foulkes, George

Litherland, Robert

Fraser, John

Livingstone, Ken

Fyfe, Maria

Livsey, Richard

Galloway, George

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Loyden, Eddie

George, Bruce

McAllion, John

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McAvoy, Thomas

Golding, Mrs Llin

McCartney, Ian

Gordon, Mildred

Macdonald, Calum A.

Gould, Bryan

McFall, John

Graham, Thomas

McKelvey, William

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

McLeish, Henry

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McMaster, Gordon

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McWilliam, John

Hain, Peter

Madden, Max

Hardy, Peter

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harman, Ms Harriet

Marek, Dr John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Haynes, Frank

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Doug

Maxton, John

Hinchliffe, David

Meacher, Michael

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Meale, Alan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Michael, Alun

Home Robertson, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hood, Jimmy

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Howells, Geraint

Morgan, Rhodri

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Morley, Elliot

Hoyle, Doug

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mullin, Chris

Illsley, Eric

Murphy, Paul

Ingram, Adam

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Janner, Greville

O'Brien, William

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

O'Hara, Edward

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Parry, Robert

Kennedy, Charles

Patchett, Terry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Kirkwood, Archy

Primarolo, Dawn

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Quin, Ms Joyce

Lambie, David

Radice, Giles

Lamond, James

Randall, Stuart

Leadbitter, Ted

Redmond, Martin

Leighton, Ron

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Lewis, Terry

Reid, Dr John

116

Robinson, Geoffrey

Stott, Roger

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Strang, Gavin

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rooker, Jeff

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rooney, Terence

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dennis

Rowlands, Ted

Walley, Joan

Ruddock, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wareing, Robert N.

Sheerman, Barry

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Short, Clare

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wilson, Brian

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

Winnick, David

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

Worthington, Tony

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Wray, Jimmy

Snape, Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [LORDS) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for—

(i) paying to the Local Government Commission for England established under that Act amounts required by that Commission for carrying out its functions;

(ii) paying compensation to persons who cease, under that Act, to hold office as members of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England; or

(iii) meeting expenses incurred by a staff commission established by an order under that Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Patnick.J

Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
10.15 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Just before the Christmas recess, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a statement announcing a package of measures designed to help with the problem of mortgage arrears and repossessions and to stimulate the housing market generally. The Bill gives effect to one aspect of my right hon. Friend's package—his proposals to increase the stamp duty threshold from £30,000 to £250,000 for eight months starting from 20 December last year. We debated last week the resolution that founds the Bill.
This is a short Bill. Clause 1 lifts the stamp duty threshold for purchases of land and buildings up to £250,000, applying to documents executed between 20 December last year and 19 August 1992. Clause 2 provides a procedure for giving refunds where documents have been executed since 20 December 1991 and stamped before 16 January, the date the resolution took effect.
Stamp duty on property transactions runs at 1 per cent. of the purchase price, and it applies to all transactions above the threshold. During the eight-month moratorium, about 90 per cent. of private house purchases—about 600,000 transactions—will not bear stamp duty. That means that housebuyers, the people who generally pay the charge, will be able to save up to £2,500 on the cost of a house. For someone buying the average-priced house, it means a very useful saving of £600.
The purpose of the measure is to encourage people considering buying homes to get on with buying their houses or flats and to prompt others to bring forward their purchases to take advantage of the moratorium. That is why the threshold is lifted for only eight months; on 20 August it will go back to £30,000.
It will, of course, be a little while before the effects of the measure show up in the levels of house sales. It takes time to decide on the right house and to go through the formalities of buying, so it would be nonsensical to argue, as some have sought to do already, that the measure has failed. It is far too early to see its effects, but the measure has been very widely welcomed by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the House Builders Federation and many others as a helpful spur to a depressed housing market.
The cost of the measure to the Exchequer will be about £110 million in the current financial year, and £310 million in 1992–93. As my right hon. Friend said in his statement, that cost will be met out of the public sector borrowing requirement saving of £1 billion from deferring the abolition of stamp duty on shares.
Over the coming months, the measure will mean that many thousands of people will pay less to buy their new homes because they will not have to pay stamp duty. I am sure that it will encourage and facilitate house purchasers and so provide a real stimulus to the housing market. I commend the Bill to the House.
10.19 pm
Dr. John Marek: In the eight or nine years that I have been a Member of the House, I have not heard any Minister make a Second Reading speech as short as
118
that which has just been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It sounded as though it was being read from a prepared script. Indeed, I seemed to recognise in it large sections of the press release issued on 19 December.
The Financial Secretary gave no explanation of why the Bill is suddenly necessary. He gave no reason for the Government suddenly being able to find £400 million, although the press release said something about where the money has come from. He gave no reasons for why the Government have chosen to spend that money in this way.
It was a pity that the Financial Secretary's speech took such a short time because that means that the Opposition will have to pursue the Bill just that little bit further than normal because we want to ensure that the Government are acting properly and to ascertain their intentions. As I do not know the Government's intentions from the Financial Secretary's speech, I shall have to think of some myself.
I begin by asking whether the Bill will reduce homelessness. This country has a housing crisis and homeless people. I know that several of my hon. Friends will seek to address that topic if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Homelessness will not be affected by the Bill. People will continue to be homeless. I must also ask whether the Bill will stop houses being repossessed. It may help a little if, as a result, the lenders—the building societies and the banks—are a little less keen to repossess. I should have liked the Financial Secretary to comment on that but, unfortunately, he did not. However, I do not think that the Bill will help to alleviate the problem of repossessions. The Bill will not rescue those who are in arrears with their mortgage interest payments—not a bit of it. It will not lower interest rates. Furthermore, it will not extend housing benefit to people in difficulties.
The Government could have addressed all those issues. If they could not make provision for them all in this Bill, at least we might have expected to hear from the Financial Secretary why all those important and serious matters, such as homelessness and people's difficulty in repaying their mortgage at a time of very high interest rates, were not included in the Bill and why the Government did not take action. Of course, it is a question not of a Government who cannot take action, but of a Government who will not take action.
The Bill contains one major provision—that stamp duty will be relieved for about eight months. That means that for eight months those who would normally have paid 1 per cent. stamp duty when buying a property priced between £30,000 and £250,000 will not now have to do so.
The Bill is supposed to kick-start the market. The Government have come up with this solution and are taking up the time of the House to debate kick-starting the market by a Bill that will ease stamp duty payments. It is a great pity that the Government have done that and that they did not seek instead to introduce a Bill to increase manufacturing because that might have increased trade between this country and other European Community member states. The Government could have introduced a Bill to increase employment. All those measures would have given a kick-start to what the Government desire—a better "feel good" factor before they have to face the electorate at the polls. If manufacturing was increased, more people would be in work, paying taxes and have disposable income to spend. More people would "feel good". The same effect would be created if trade or employment were increased. But that is not what the

119
Government have done. That shows the serious difference between the Conservative party and the Opposition. The Conservative party is playing politics. It is not interested in tackling the root causes of our decline during the past 10 years or our economic problems.
The Conservatives have a one-club solution to our economic problems. Interest rates must be high enough to ensure that inflation is low enough. The Opposition take the diametrically opposite view. One club is not enough. Of course, inflation must be low for prosperity. But high interest rates are not good for prosperity. There are ways of increasing manufacturing, trade and employment. The Government could have introduced a Bill to tackle those issues. They have not done so because the Tory philosophy is built on the market.
The Tories believe that the market must not be meddled with but left to its own devices. But unfortunately the market does not make anything. It does not export anything. The market is greedy and does not take account of the well-being of the economy of the United Kingdom. It is not in the interests of the market to do so. That is indisputable.
It has been the Tory philosophy to leave the market entirely alone, yet with this Bill they are interfering in the market. If they were true to their philosophy and left the market strictly alone, the Bill would not be before us tonight. They would have said that the housing market was of no concern to them. It would be of no concern to them if citizens of Britain who bought houses three or four years ago when interest rates were low had a cross to bear when interest rates suddenly and catastrophically doubled.
Mr. Geraint Howells: The hon. Gentleman knows my constituency well. There is a great deal of anxiety there about repossession of homes. The number of homes repossessed last year was 100 per cent. up on the figure for five years ago. There is a great deal of anxiety about repossessions, whatever views the Government hold on the issue.
Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is true that there is a great deal of anxiety about repossessions. I shall seek to persuade the House that the Bill will do nothing or very little to alleviate the problem of repossessions that we are suffering at present.
Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister has not taken a blind bit of notice of what my hon. Friend has been saying about what the Government could and should do. I think that he is going to listen now. It is the obvious thing that my hon. Friend should say straightforwardly to the Minister that the Bill is a racket. It is a quick fix job because we are coming up to an election. The Government hope that they can catch one or two votes because they know what the position will be when the election is called. The Bill is a fix and a racket. That is what the Government stand for as far as the electorate out there is concerned.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend puts the point succinctly and straightforwardly. Of course, his argument hits at the heart of the matter and at the Government's policies. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I delve into Government policy a little further to pin round their necks the policy that they seek to put through the House of
120
Commons. It is, of course, a racket, a gimmick, and they hope that they will be able to reimpose the tax as soon as the election is over.
Sir William Clark: Rubbish.
Mr. Marek: It is not rubbish.
One amendment is designed explicitly and purely to help the Conservative party. I shall not deal with it at the moment save to say that it is the one that changes from 20 August to 7 May the date on which stamp duty becomes payable again. Of course it would be very helpful to the Conservative party if there were a great many transactions on 5 and 6 May to make it appear that the market had been kick-started. However, I shall explore that matter later. At this stage my theme is that this is an election gimmick. The Conservative party would not have found this money in a million Sundays if it had not been for the fact that there must be an election by a date in July.
Tory philosophy has been to leave the market alone, yet here the Government are interfering. The reason, of course, is that the election is coming and they want the "feel good" factor to operate in their favour. To emphasise that point I should like to quote from the research note that was produced by the Library on 15 January. On page
5 the note says:
"The main reason why the Government wants to act is that economists now generally accept that that there is a strong link between the housing market and general consumer wealth effects. Put simply, the price of our houses and, perhaps more importantly, the rate at which it is increasing or decreasing, affects how we, as consumers, spend our money."
The Library is always very careful not to take one side—either the Government's side or the Opposition's side—in any argument in this House. Here, however, it says quite clearly that
"there is a strong link between the housing market and general consumer wealth effects."
That is a very telling statement and amounts to a very strong indication of the Government's reason for introducing this Bill. The Library's research note goes on to quote the Bank of England's quarterly bulletin of February 1990. Four effects are noted. The first is:
"A buoyant house market stimulates considerable purchases of related consumer durables. This is outside the scope of this note, but it is not insignificant in its own right." The second point that the bulletin makes is this:
"Rising capital values…leads to an increase in net cash withdrawals. This is mainly effected by bequests and is…[an] increasingly common feature of consumers' lifetime income profile following the death of the first generation of home owners on a large scale."
That is further support for my proposition as to the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. This is the bulletin's third point:
"Work was done on 'equity release', the extent to which homeowners manage to release some of the capital that they had in their home either during continued occupation or when they exchanged residences. Although 'equity release' was positively related to buoyant market conditions it was not a significant macro-economic phenomenon."
Making the fourth point, the bulletin says:
"The Bank found that rising capital values influenced consumers' decisions about saving."
And this is important:
"Rising prices persuaded individuals to reduce their savings held in other, more liquid forms."
This is what happened three, four, five years ago when we had the last housing market boom. House prices were rising, and home owners were persuaded to part with their savings. The Government think that this move will have

121
the same effect, that it will kick-start the economy and, miraculously, people will forget what happened three or four years ago and will start spending. I have news for the Government: people are not that stupid, and they will not be fooled twice.
Those comments, from the Library and the Bank of England, are not the only ones. One can adduce a further piece of evidence from the Financial Times. I could paraphrase this, but one should always give the source of one's information, and there has been quite a bit of press comment about the Bill and whether it will work. When it was announced before Christmas, the Financial Times reported:
"In the City, there was scepticism about the effects of cutting stamp duty and speculation that the eight-month period was deliberately timed to coincide with the run-up to the next general election."
It does not take much to divine that. Mr. John Wrigglesworth, an analyst at UBS Phillips and Drew, said:
"We saw in 1988 what a deadline concession does to the market, and a 1 per cent. cut in a falling market does not mean much."
There is then the problem of what will happen in the three or four months after 19 August. The Financial Times was right to highlight the problem of going for a Bill that will give a relaxation that will be abruptly cut off on 19 August. I shall not dwell on this now, but we may be able to discuss what will happen after 19 August when we deal with an amendment later. I give notice to the Financial Secretary that I should like to hear, as I am sure that the House would like to hear, a little more about what he thinks will happen after 19 August if the House sees fit to pass the Bill.
Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman says on the one hand that this is an insignificant measure that will have no effect on the housing market, and then on the other that it is so significant that it will affect decisions about whether people buy or sell before 19 August. Which is it—significant or insignificant?
Dr. Marek: We can explore this later. The Financial Times and other commentators have expressed considerable doubt as to whether this move will have a significant effect on the Government's aim of kick-starting the economy. On the other hand, such house purchases as are made will be concentrated in the period up to 19 August. After that, nothing will happen in the market. It is a bit of both. I do not think that it will be effective, but to the extent that it is effective, it will distort the market.
Mr. Bob Cryer: When we debated the Ways and Means resolutions that were the legislative underpinning for this Bill, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), a Conservative Member of Parliament, made the very point that my hon. Friend has just made—that the Bill will be a disincentive against entering the housing market after its provisions end. He pleaded with the Government to assure him that the cutting of stamp duty would continue after August. Therefore, I was surprised when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) stabbed one of his hon. Friends in the back, and made such sneering remarks.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend must know what the Conservative party is like. It does not surprise me. The record will show the truth of the matter.
There was further press comment after Christmas. As I am sure that hon. Members would like to know the source
122
of the article to which I shall refer, I shall not paraphrase. The article appeared in The Guardian on 4 January and was written by Simon Beavis, the business correspondent. It reads:
"The Government's decision to suspend stamp duty payments on housing transactions will do nothing to revive house prices or housebuilding before 1993, a leading construction industry chief said, yesterday.
This would make the present downturn in the housing market one of the longest on record, John Smith, chairman of the Building Employers' Confederation, said.
The depressed construction sector saw no prospect of recovery this year even if the economy as a whole began to improve. Despite a rise in new housing starts in the third quarter of 1991, 'the housing market as a whole shows no sign of real revival', he said."
An eminent person who is involved in the construction industry is saying that the Bill will not help it. I have already said that it will not help manufacturing, trade or employment. It will not help either anyone who has had his house repossessed or someone who is in mortgage difficulties. If the article is right, it will not help anybody in the construction industry. The article continues:
"His bleak assessment coincided with the new poll by Gallup for Gartmore, the investment management group, which found that one in five people are waiting until after the election before moving home. Four out of 10 thought that the recession would not end before 1993."
Even the Prime Minister is hedging his bets now and thinking that it might not end until 1993.
When commenting on the eight-month abolition of stamp duty, Mr. Smith, who is the chairman of the Building Employers Confederation, said that
"the new measures introduced to stem repossessions would help to reduce the stock of unsold new houses, but did not go far enough. 'It will be 1993 before we see any real recovery in house prices and housebuilding.'"
Mr. Harry Cohen: One of the problems with the present level of house prices is that many people have a house that would sell for less than the mortgage which is attached to it. If such a person sold his house he would still be indebted, and possibly considerably. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not addressed that problem in terms of the Bill and, indeed, have not given any consideration to the people who are in the plight that I have described?
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that he will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to advancing those arguments. There is nothing in the Bill from which anyone in difficulties can take consolation.
The Government have a large majority in the House, although they obtained only 42 per cent. of the vote in 1987, and I do not fancy my chances, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, of beating them, in trying to improve the Bill or in adding to it measures that would make the Bill more acceptable and protect those who are in difficulties with their mortgage arrears or who have had their homes repossessed. We shall, however, have to wait and see.
The green shoots of the economy have, unfortunately, been frozen off. The plant was left outside in the back garden and the frost has got it. That is being admitted by the Government, including the Prime Minister. There are many glum faces among Members on the Government Benches.
Mr. Maude: That is because they are listening to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Marek: Indeed. They are hearing and agreeing with the veracity of my remarks.
There is no recovery in sight, and any recovery that there may be will be spasmodic and minor. The Government, typically, have not produced a Bill that will get the economy back into shape by kick-starting it. They are trying to kick-start a spurious housing market to try to create a consumer boom, to make people think that they are wealthy and to make them feel good so that they can win the election. It is all about the election and gimmickry; it is not about good government and it is certainly not about consideration for those who have housing difficulties.
I remind the House that this change in Government policy is not the only one. The Prime Minister, when he was a social security Minister, cut mortgage support from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. for the first six months for people who had to live on benefit either because they had been made redundant or because they had become unemployed. Indeed, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the measure five years ago he boasted about it. He said that there was too much support for housing. Now, the Government have come round full circle. Suddenly, the reality of an election is before them and they can see the deadline of the buffers only a few yards ahead of them. That is why they are trying to help the housing market in such a peculiar way.
There has been another change in Tory party philosophy recently. Only a year ago, mortgage interest relief at 40 per cent. was withdrawn and restricted to the 30 per cent. tax rate.
Sir William Clark: Twenty-five per cent.
Dr. Marek: I am sorry——
The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): A Freudian slip.
Dr. Marek: It was not a Freudian slip. The real rate of taxation under the Tory Government is 25p in the pound plus 9p for national insurance, which makes 34 per cent. Under the last Labour Government, national insurance was only 6.5p in the pound. Value added tax was only 8 per cent., but under the Tories it is now 17.5 per cent. Under Labour, the burden of taxation was about 34 per cent.; under the Tories, it is 37 per cent. I do not need any lectures on who is the high taxing party—it is the Tories—[Laughter.] They may laugh, but let them challenge what I am saying. I shall give way to any Tory Member who wishes to do so. The high taxing party is the Tory party. The burden of taxation in the 1980s was always higher than it was in the 1970s. I am waiting for a Tory Member to challenge my figures. Of course, no one will do so—[Interruption.] Oh, one will.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman knows that the burden of taxation on present taxpayers rose in the first two years of this Government because the last Labour Government had spread the burden of taxation on to the next generation. We had to unmortgage the country's future, and since then the burden of taxation has steadily fallen.
Dr. Marek: My recollection of events is slightly different. Before 1979, the Conservative party said that it had no proposals to put up value added tax. As soon as it
124
came to office, it almost doubled it, from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. That was why the burden of taxation shot up between 1979 and 1981. That is a slightly different story.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the burden of taxation is actually higher under the Tories, but they carefully differentiate between direct and indirect taxation? The combination of the two is much higher under the Tories. The increase in value added tax bears most heavily on the poor as it is a bigger share of their income than it is of the income of the wealthy. Therefore, under the Tories not only has the burden of tax increased overall; it has actually increased more for the poor.
Dr. Marek: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. I do not want to digress too much, but we are talking about taxation: the Bill gives away money and forgoes tax revenue. The Government could have kept that money, or at least given it away in a different manner. Although VAT in this country is not as regressive as it is in other European Community member states, it has certain regressive aspects.
The proportion of our national income that is taken in tax has risen from 34.75 per cent. In 1978–79 to 37 per cent. in 1991–92. In 1978–79, a married couple on typical earnings paid 30.9 per cent. of their income in tax; now, they pay 34.9 per cent. There is no doubt that the burden of taxation has risen, although there may be arguments across the Floor of the House about the reasons for that rise; and the fact is that the Conservatives are the high-tax party.
I cannot argue that, because the Government are giving back a little tax, we should vote against the Bill, and I shall not urge my hon. Friends to oppose its Second Reading—although we retain our right to examine the amendments carefully. None the less, I wish that the Government had presented us with a different Bill, and that the taxation that is being forgone was being forgone in a better way.
It is clear that the Conservative party is rattled, for it has changed its philosophy. At one stage, they say that we should not interfere with the market; at another stage, they say that we should. I think that I have demonstrated that the Bill is an election gimmick, and that after 9 April—or is it 7 May?—it will be speedily forgotten.
Perhaps it is not too late for the Government to propose an adjournment, so that we can return to the Bill next week or at some other time. Perhaps they will change their mind, and incorporate some of our suggestions. Labour's programme is eminently sensible. We propose, for instance, that local authorities be enabled to acquire properties selectively on the private market. Why was not something done? Why was a deal reached quietly, with building societies and banks saying, "We will not go so heavy on repossessions if you—the Government—forgo taxation in the form of stamp duty, and also insist that DSS money is forwarded directly to us rather than being given to home owners"?
Why did not the Bill contain a provision enabling local authorities to acquire properties? Housing associations could and should be encouraged to enter into deals with local authorities enabling them to manage temporary accommodation on authorities' behalf; authorities could be enabled to acquire buildings and convert them into short-stay hostels for homeless people; social landlords could be urged to adopt "living above the shop" initiatives,

125
which have been pioneered in Cambridge and elsewhere. Local authorities could he encouraged to speed up the letting of their empty properties; the Housing Corporation could monitor the number of empty properties that each Department has, and the information would be passed to the relevant Secretary of State and the National Audit Office. That would exert pressure on Departments to bring their empty properties swiftly into use.
The Bill could have launched a real attack on the appalling state of housing in this country, and on the crisis that we face. Nothing in it, however, remotely suggests that the Government are thinking along those lines, or intend to present the House with another Bill in the future. Local authorities could have a right to acquire derelict private properties. Housing association and local authority homes which are unjustifiably left empty for long periods could be given to other social landlords to be managed more effectively. Moreover, it could be made more cost effective for local authorities to lease decent homes from the private rented sector for use as temporary accommodation.
In addition, there is the Labour party scheme to turn mortgage interest repayments into rent. There would be a part mortgage repayment and a part rent repayment, if people got into difficulties. I understand from my Front Bench Environment colleagues that the Opposition have been talking to the Council of Mortgage Lenders for some time about these matters, yet the Government have not seen fit to do anything positive to try to get round this terrible crisis.
This is an election gimmick proposal. Interest rates are at a record level. In 1979 the Conservative party promised to keep mortgages below 10 per cent. but they have been below 10 per cent. on only one or two occasions. If anybody looks at interest rates under the Labour party in the 1970s and compares them with the interest rates of the Conservative party in the 1980s, he or she will see the great
126
difference between the interest rate policies of the two parties. I have every confidence that after the next election the Labour Government will pursue the same policy of low interest rates.
The number of mortgage repossessions represents an all-time record. Figures provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department show that 33,778 families were served with mortgage repossession orders in the first six months of 1991. The figure for the whole of 1991 will he about 80,000 properties repossessed, yet the Bill does nothing whatsoever to make that figure 77,999 even. Not one house that has been repossessed will be affected by the Bill.
There is a record shortage of affordable housing. More than 1.25 million homes have been sold, yet very few of those homes have been replaced. The total number of homes built by local authorities in 1990 was a mere 13,000 compared with 92,000 in the final year of the last Labour Government.
Finally, we have record levels of homelessness. In 1990, 145,800 households were accepted as homeless by English local authorities, compared with 56,000 in 1979. That is the legacy of 13 years of wasted Conservative Administration: more repossessions, more homelessness, higher interest rates and a disdain about doing anything for the average human being in this country who, through no fault of his or her own but as the result of the Tory party's policies, has suffered the effects of persistent high unemployment. It is a terrible indictment that has not been lost upon the voting public.
The Bill will help none of those unfortunate people. It will not help the economy. It will not kick-start anything, but the Government will, no doubt, continue to kick everything. However, it will not be long before we have a Government who will do something about the current appalling housing crisis. That will be the Labour Government who will take office after the next general election—when this Government dare to call it.
10.58 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Bill does not address the housing crisis. That does not mean that it ought necessarily to be opposed. I am not clear, having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), whether the Labour party intends to oppose the Bill. I do not believe that it should be opposed and I intend to say why. Nevertheless, it is a wholly inadequate response to a desperate housing crisis.
The unlocking of council house money that is in council bank accounts—the receipts from council house sales—and the use of a significant part of that money to replace the houses that have been sold and to deal with the homelessness that so many local authorities face would be of considerable benefit to the housing market. A more determined effort to stem the repossessions and to turn mortgages into rents for those for whom a mortgage is no longer a financially viable option would be a significant contribution to the solution of the housing crisis. An attempt to attract private capital into the purchase and building of homes for rent could also make a significant contribution.
The Government have not sought the most cost-effective solution. The use of the business expansion scheme for building houses to rent has not proved a cost-effective means of stimulating the private rented sector. It is important to enlarge that sector, and the Labour party could encourage the investment of substantial capital by making it clear that there will be no wholesale imposition of rent controls.
Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal party favours the abolition of rent control so that private landlords can rip off tenants with impunity? That surely is a new aspect of Liberal party policy, on which he might enlarge.
Mr. Beith: I thought the hon. Gentleman might say that. We are not arguing for the removal of the remaining limited rent controls, but I gather from what the hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party favours a return to a wholesale rent control system. On the basis of experience, I tell him that it simply will not work. It would ensure, as it did for many years, that no private capital was invested in rented housing because it would not be possible to obtain a return.
Liberal Democrats do not believe that the private housing sector can meet all our housing needs, but it can make a bigger contribution than it has in recent years. One of the tragedies of the post-war years was that the significant contribution that the private sector made—many people of my age grew up in privately rented housing—was gradually whittled away. Our housing opportunities were only purchase and the then large municipal sector; the options in between were insufficient.
There are now other elements in the equation such as the considerable social housing sector provided by voluntary housing associations, assisted by the Housing Corporation. The market is more complex than before, but the private sector has a significant part to play in the provision of rented housing. It will not play that part if there is a prospect of the wholesale imposition of rent controls. As the housing market is so badly off, the introduction of a potential new purchaser—the private landlord buying or building to rent—would be helpful. It would act as a significant stimulus to the housing market.
128
All those measures would have a more significant effect on the housing market than will the Bill, which is unlikely to make much difference, because houses are being sold for thousands of pounds less than people paid for them or the price at which they were valued 12 or 18 months ago. A difference of £600 on an average price house may be helpful and welcome to purchasers, but it is unlikely to generate more sales than a price drop of £5,000.
I am sceptical about the impact of the Bill. The Government are using the windfall gain of stamp duty revenue that would have been forgone if the stock exchange had been ready with its new transactions system for the abolition of stamp duty on share transactions.
I do not like stamp duty; I would rather get rid of it altogether. However, it is not top of my list for tax reforms or the removal of taxes. I would rather get rid of the poll tax, the council tax or even the 17.5 per cent. rate of VAT, which seems a particularly heavy burden on the pressed consumer market. I would not argue for the permanent retention of stamp duty on housing transactions, especially as we have got rid of it for so many other transactions.
We are not even considering a measure based on the belief that stamp duty should go, because it is to be reimposed on 20 August this year. It is a piece of temporary fiscal fine-tuning and the Government are not supposed to be in favour of fiscal fine-tuning. Ministers are always telling us what a bad thing it is, but I see no reason why we should not give it a go and discover whether it will have a beneficial effect on the housing market.
There will be some concern and opposition on 20 August when the duty is reimposed, but, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) rightly said, the extent of the anguish will be in direct proportion to its significance to the housing market in the meantime. I assume that it will not be that great, but that it will be welcome to those who are able to benefit from it because they are able to manage a house purchase during that period. Those who buy a house after 20 August will feel considerably aggrieved that they have not been able to benefit. The Government will not gain much popularity, but by then it will all be over so they will not be very worried. They may be sitting on the Opposition Benches by then and it will have long ceased to be a matter of concern to them.
I do not think that the limited nature of the Bill or its temporary character is any reason why hon. Members should want to march enthusiastically into the Lobbies and deprive potential beneficiaries of the short-term ability to purchase a house without the imposition of stamp duty. The duty is an irritant to many people, and many buyers—especially first-time buyers—feel that it is a tax that they should not have to bear. Such buyers are often most stretched when they first undertake a purchase and in the early months of payment, especially when the interest rates are as high as they have been recently.
I shall not oppose the Bill and I invite my hon. Friends not to do so. I hope that it goes through all its stages tonight. I am not aware that it is riddled with so many drafting defects that it need take us all night to dispatch the business, but there seems to be considerable zeal for detailed scrutiny by hon. Members around me. I am not quite sure what the motivation for that is, but I shall be interested to see whether the Opposition discover a drafting defect.

129
What sticks in my mind after studying the Bill is how little the Government are assuming that the housing market will change. I raised that point when we discussed the Ways and Means resolution. The Minister said that it was not reasonable to talk about revenue forgone in respect of improvements in the housing market because they would not have happened if the measure had not been introduced. However, if the Government expect the measure to cost only £400 million, they must be assuming that during this period there would have been no increase in housing transactions and no increase in housing values, except the little and the few induced by the Bill. That is a pretty depressing forecast for the housing market, but it is perhaps the Government's most honest recent forecast on any of the economic indicators. It suggests that the housing market will be in such a poor way during the coming months that the Bill is unlikely to make a great deal of difference.
11.7 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I agreed with much of what he said about the impact of stamp duty on the housing market and what an irritant it is.
I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor. As such, I have been involved in many property transactions and I take this opportunity to welcome the Bill, which will reduce the cost of such transactions. The costs are far too high and have been for a long time. I have previously attacked the conveyancing system which gives many lawyers the opportunity to rake in large amounts of money. I believe that the system should be simplified so that it is not necessary to use the services of lawyers. Of course, it is not strictly necessary to use lawyers in property transactions now, but most people find it convenient, if expensive, to do so.
It is not necessary to use the services of estate agents when selling property. Many people think that they have to use estate agents when selling property. I assure them that they do not have to do so and that they can save themselves large amounts if they do it themselves.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) about the Bill. I thought that I heard the sound of many red herrings being dragged about, especially the little dissertation on VAT. The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot that, under the previous Labour Government, there was a higher rate of VAT, at 25 per cent., on so-called "luxury" items, which included television sets. On that basis, that rate being three times as high as the then so-called "basic" rate of VAT, if there were ever another Labour Government, would they apply the same differential, with VAT on television sets being raised to 52.5 per cent?
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the former Prime Minister stated that under no circumstances would the Conservative Government double VAT?
Mr. Summerson: I am talking about the Labour party, following what it did last time and tripling the rate of VAT on so-called "luxury" items.
Once the Bill has become law, I recommend that the London borough of Waltham Forest reduces its enormous holdings of property. That Labour-controlled council
130
owns property which brings in at least £1 million. Anyone who walks down Hoe street in my constituency will come across two shops side by side which are derelict and boarded up. They been derelict and boarded up for years. That council is always complaining about lack of money, yet is has resources to hand, and if it only used them it could benefit the entire community.
The hon. Member for Wrexham spoke a great deal about whether the Bill would kick-start the market. I remind him that kick-starting is a rather inefficient method by which to start a very small engine. The housing market in such terms is rather a large engine. We shall never be able to kick-start it; we need a battery by which to get it going. The Bill will put some charge into the battery. A number of factors will get the housing market moving and the Bill is just one of them. Any reduction in the cost of buying and selling property is welcome. I welcome the Bill.
11.12 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: I believe firmly that the Bill is an out-and-out gimmick. I remember coming into the House in the week in which the legislation was announced when I was dealing with a constituent whose house was being repossessed. I will tell the story later because it makes sense in what I am about to say. It is unbelievable that we should be given such a response when under this Prime Minister, in this year alone, 300 people every day have had their houses repossessed. Last year, 80,000 houses were repossessed. Since this ditherer has been Prime Minister, more than 750,000 people have lost their jobs.
I doubt whether the suspension of stamp duty will help the workers at Ravescraig who will lose their jobs and possibly their homes. It will not help the workers at Armitage Shanks, many of whom have bought their houses. The word "kick-start" is an insult to the thousands of people who have had their houses repossessed during the past decade of the Tory Government. The Government have done little or nothing —in fact, they have caused a massive problem in relation to council housing.
I look to the Government to do something for people. This Government are driving people into early graves. Not content with doing that, they have introduced the Bill while aware that they are not tackling the real problem.
Interest rates are raging. The Prime Minister has kept them at 15 per cent. when all businesses are calling for them to be reduced. Manufacturing and service industries might have been able to develop and allow workers to keep their jobs and maintain their mortgage or rent payments, but the Government have kept interest rates too high and are now introducing desperate measures to try to stop repossessions.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke of house sales. I have never seen such incredible hype from the Tory party and some of their friends out in the country who say that things are not too bad. They should come to my district or I can bring all the local newspapers to show them stories of people who bought their houses at £34,000 and £50,000 and are now taking the desperate measure of emigrating from Scotland for a job. Some of them had to drop their house prices by about £6,000 which gives a lucky chance for anyone with the money to buy them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would agree that there have been many such sad housing tales in Scotland.

131
I have seen the same problems in London. I am looking for a house—[Interruption.] I cannot hear the Conservative Members who are intervening from a sedentary position as I have a hearing aid—I am glad of that sometimes. Some people are trying to sell their houses for £30,000, £40,000 or £60,000 less than they paid for them. What will happen to those people? We are talking not just about repossession, but about absolute bankruptcy and the moral degradation that goes with it. The Government have placed people into such positions by kidding them and telling them the lie that everything was rosy. The former Chancellor that the Government dumped—
Mr. Alan Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that 10 per cent. of home owners in Britain are at least two months in arrears with their mortgage repayments? Does that not support his argument and prove that the present position is serious?
Mr. Graham: Yes; it is a tragedy that 10 per cent. of those with mortgages are still behind in their payments. The Government do not seem to care about that.
Mrs. Llin Golding (: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are now throwing the keys of their property on to the building society's desk because they can no longer cope with the mortgage? They tell the building society to keep the keys, then they walk off and disappear.
Mr. Graham: I had a phone call from a solicitor tonight who told me that a number of his clients were walking out and abandoning him. They were not attempting to tell anyone where they were going, but simply disappearing from the face of the earth. I am sure that we shall hear of more such cases after tonight.
Not long ago an ambulance man whose house was being repossessed came to see me. He was a young man who had never lost a day's work; he had worked constantly and had a young family of three. He bought a council house in Linwood and took on a mortgage that was not too expensive to repay. I am telling it straight to the Minister, and if he wishes to know who the man is I shall gladly let him know. He came to see me when he was facing the possibility of his house being repossessed and his family being made homeless. His wages had fallen dramatically as he was no longer doing normal hours and overtime. His wife had lost her part-time job because of the prevailing economic climate. He had been conned by the Government. He had been told, "This is great. Buy your house and you will live happily ever after." He took the Government's advice and he is now in desperate straits. He cannot pay his mortgage and his house is being repossessed. He came to me and we tried to get the local council to provide him with a house. The council tried desperately to accommodate him.
I also have a case involving a mother with two children at university who receive grants and loans. Her house was being repossessed and she wanted to know why the Government's provision applied only to new house purchases simply to stop repossessions. The Government could have acted on repossessions in a more meaningful way. She has a small part-time job. Her husband left her and disappeared to another country. The building society
132
wants to repossess her house and she has got to go. I fought for weeks until eventually we found a council house for her. The council had to come up with the goods because the woman was to be made homeless. That was another tragic case.
In those two cases the council fulfilled its obligation and housed those people. However, I have another eight cases involving people whose houses have been repossessed because they have lost their jobs, or there have been massive cuts in overtime or short-time working has been introduced. For the love of it, those people cannot provide enough money to pay their mortgages. There is no guarantee that the economy will improve so much that they will return to full-time work or that their employers will be able to increase their wages at least by the rate of inflation. Those eight people are desperate.
However, thousands of people in my constituency and around Renfrew are homeless and waiting for housing. They are desperate to see council officials because the people about whom I am concerned do not have collateral or insurance to get a house in the private rented sector. They can get houses only from the local council, but the councils do not have enough houses to provide housing for all the homeless or for people such as those I have described, who, as a result of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, have had their houses repossessed and have been driven to desperate measures.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the stamp duty provision for a first-time purchaser will do nothing for people who already have mortgages? It is only a bribe to the building societies to get off their knees the people they have been robbing for the past five or six years. If the Government really intend to do something for people who have had their houses repossessed, they will have to reduce interest rates to 7 or 8 per cent.
Mr. Graham: I would go further than that. Renfrew district council has borne the brunt of the Government's mismanagement of the housing economy. Over the past few months, it has housed at least 10 people. That has possibly cost £80,000 a house, or £800,000 in all. In the face of that, the Government come up with a pittance of a few million pounds for all of Scotland to deal with homelessness. That might make one laugh, but it makes me sick to the teeth because the people about whom I am concerned are good people. They want to work and have the right to a decent job. Conservative Members can smile all the way to the bank, but those people can only smile all the way to the dole queue.
Mr. Meale: It is not only in Scotland that severe crises are occurring. At the moment, in my constituency 9,500 people are on the local authority waiting list, and 2,700 of them require special needs accommodation. Terminally ill people, severely disabled people and old people cannot get the right type of accommodation. In my area, 850 people are classified as homeless. Thousands of people throughout the east midlands are in exactly the same position. Thousands of people in the midlands have had their homes repossessed. The problem does not occur only in Scotland; it occurs throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for that information. I am aware of the terrible tragedy. The Government have inflicted poverty on Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales.

133
I am terribly ashamed to have a decent wage and to be able to afford a house when thousands of people who voted for us are living in squalid poverty because of the Government's ineffectual handling of the economy.
Mr. Meale: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to consider that an argument that is often put by Conservative Members concerns empty properties. Will he explain to the House the misinformation that Conservative Members are trying to give? If every house were filled, hundreds of thousands of people would still be homeless or in need of proper accommodation.
Mr. Graham: That is a valid point when we are talking about the Government's measures supposedly to stop repossessions and help the homeless.
In Renfrew district, because of the climate. many houses suffer from dampness and condensation. Because of lead pollution in the water, councils have a problem in trying to keep houses fit. There are many empty houses through no fault of the council. I can relate to the Minister chapter and verse of some of the problems that Scotland faces. Councils need support from the Government to tackle the weather problems that create bad housing.
There are many empty houses in our area, but the council needs money to bring them back into a rentable state. The law dictates that those houses must not only be wind and watertight but fit for habitation. At present, Renfrew district council, along with other district councils, has suffered savage cuts. Thousands of millions of pounds have been cut during the decade during which the Tory party has been in power. That has caused a deterioration in our housing stock and put tremendous pressure on local councils to provide people with a roof over their heads.
It is not long since the former Prime Minister stood in a house with a bag of groceries in her hand. Hon. Members may ask, "What has this to do with stamp duty?" I shall tell them in a minute. The former Prime Minister was proud of what that bag of groceries cost. However, she would probably only have a slice of bread in that bag today. The house that she stood in would probably be a tent or a lump of cardboard. Today, the family concerned would not be able to afford the food that was in the bag. Many people can no longer afford to live comfortably.
Tonight I spoke to my mother, who is a pensioner. I told her that this week we would have the poverty debate and that tonight we would have the stamp duty debate. My mother said, "The stamp duty debate, son?" I said, "Yes, mother." She said, "What is that about?" I said, "Well, the Prime Minister has seen his chances slipping away, and the general election will be the nail in his coffin. Therefore, today he is attempting to buy a few votes, mother, and he has come up with this stamp duty measure." "Well, Thomas, tell me what it means," she said. I said, "It means that stamp duty will be abolished for houses that cost between £30,000 and £250,000." My mother said, "Goodness God, do people buy houses that cost a quarter of a million pounds? Son, it must be the biggest family in Britain if they are to live in a house costing £250,000. It must be the Taj Mahal palace." I said, "Mother, unfortunately, there are people who have £250,000 to spend on a house—but not around here. They are down south." I then had to explain what that meant.
At the end of the day, however, when I look in the mirror, I have to ask myself what the Bill really means. It certainly does not mean a lot to the people I know whose
134
homes are being repossessed. It is not the people in the high-flying jobs who are losing their jobs and houses; it is the plumbers, the butchers, the bakers the tailors, the toilet attendants and the council workers. They are the people who are being thrown on the dole and who do not have the money to pay the mortgage. Furthermore, they are not buying houses that cost £250,000. Their houses cost £16,000, £20,000 or £30,000. They are the people who are being thrown out of their homes because of repossessions. They are the first people to lose their jobs, and they are the people who cannot afford to build up a kitty to carry them over.
The Government are sick not to recognise that. Instead of trying to help some of his wealthy friends, the Prime Minister should have taken a look at something that could be targeted at the local councils to provide them with sufficient money to enable them to build homes for local people to rent. Such money would also enable the councils to make many of the empty properties fit for habitation and for renting.
Often when I speak in the House I see cynical smiles and grins on the faces of Conservative Members. That makes me angry. In other places, I might not be as civilised as I am in the House, and if I were to take the Financial Secretary into my community folk there would not be so nice to him as Tommy Graham. They would not sit back and simply accept that the Minister and his hon. Friends grin at their poverty and losses because they blame the Government for inflicting such damage on them. So I make a plea to the Financial Secretary in all sincerity: "When I am speaking with sincerity, please listen with sincerity."
I shall go further. I believe firmly that rural communities are also suffering and that the abolition of stamp duty will not help those in the towns and villages of Scotland and other areas—
Mr. Meale: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the Minister what good the Bill will do to those people at Ravenscraig who wish to remain in employment and who, because of the Government's strategy, have to change employment and, in the process, try to sell their homes in an area where massive numbers of houses will be put up for sale. What good will the few pounds of stamp duty that they save be to them?
Mr. Cryer: The answer is public ownership.
Mr. Graham: I am grateful for help on this matter.
The possibility of 1,200 steel workers selling their houses in the current housing market in Scotland is lamentable. There is no chance of selling even a dog's kennel in the housing market in Scotland if jobs and industries continue to be lost on the current scale. I must advise the Financial Secretary that there is no chance of the Armitage Shanks people selling their houses either—although they live in the constituency where the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has his house. As I said earlier, people trying to sell their houses have had to take dramatic cuts in price.
Mrs. Golding: My hon. Friend has mentioned Armitage Shanks. He may be aware that I represent the Potteries and the areas around Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire where more than 600 jobs have been lost in a similar industry involving the manufacture of

135
kitchenware and bathroomware. It is an absolute disgrace. How does the Minister think that people can manage to keep up the repayments on their homes when they do not even have a job?
Mr. Graham: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the answer that I will get. It will be the same one that everyone else gets. The Government will give people six months of dole money but after that abandon them to the desert of homelessness and unemployment.
Tonight we have seen an attempt to present a gimmick as a saviour. What an absolute disgrace. What inhumane treatment of the 80,000 people whose homes were repossessed last year. What an inhumane future the Government present to the 300 people daily who have had their houses repossessed this year. The Minister should hang his head in shame.
The Government should have made sufficient funds available to local authorities. There should have been a major house-building programme to give the homeless the right to a roof over their heads. More importantly, the Government should regenerate people's right to work. Instead of the end of stamp duty, our people should see the end of the Government. They have the right to a job that brings home a decent wage and can make them proud to be able to pay their rent or buy their own home. They have the right to a job that gives them consistency and the ability to live in this country decently and pay their mortgage for 25 years, rather than not knowing whether they will have a job this week, next week, tomorrow or the day after. Minister, stand up and fight for the homeless people and those who have had their houses repossessed instead of fighting for the moneyed people.
11.35 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: This measure to remove stamp duty for the next eight months is a stamp-sized effort by the Government to deal with a whole package of problems in the housing market. Stamp duty will be back on 20 August. As my hon. Friends have said, the measure is only for the election. It is an election gimmick. It is tinkering with the problems in the housing market and the suffering that they are causing. However, it is expensive tinkering. It will cost about £400 million. It is the only measure that the Government have taken to deal with the housing problem and it does not measure up to the scale of the problem.
I suspect that when the figures are announced in the next few weeks they will show that 100,000 houses were repossessed in 1991. Many more repossessions are in the pipeline. Every one of those 100,000 repossessions is a terrible tale of misery for the families and people whose homes have been snatched away from them as a result of the economic circumstances in which they have been placed. One in five of the homes on the market are repossessions. That is one of the reasons for the great collapse in the housing market.
That collapse was brought about by three main factors. The first was the uncontrolled rise in house prices which was way above inflation in the 1980s. The Government allowed prices to let rip as a way of making money, not to deal with people's housing circumstances for the future. It was just a way of making money. That bubble has burst with a vengeance. The Government are not prepared to
136
take responsibility for the policies that created the difficulties in the 1980s. So people have to pick up the problem.
The collapse was also brought about by record high interest rates, particularly when set against inflation. People had to pay high mortgage interest rates. Now on top of that we have the impact of the recession. Unemployment has gone through the roof. It rose by 700,000 last year. People have insufficient incomes to meet their bills. Unemployment is not the only problem; the argument about tax is relevant. People have other bills to meet. For instance, there is the poll tax, as well as VAT on the goods that they buy. For that reason, they do not have enough money to meet the record mortgage payments. In addition to all the personal misery that has been created, there has been a collapse of the housing market.
Hon. Members should consider the way in which the collapse has affected the construction industry. The fact is that if there is no housing market people do not have an incentive to build new homes. Obviously that affects the private sector. Many homeless people come to my surgery and to the surgery of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). Homes should be built for such people, but, as the market collapse proves, this cannot be left to the private sector. In present circumstances, it will not do the job.
Mr. Summerson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will mention the housing action trust, which is doing excellent work in the London borough of Waltham Forest and will deal with two of the worst estates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Cohen: Indeed. I have been arguing for an improvement in council estates. I welcome all such measures. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a particular problem that must be tackled. Overall, the Government have not invested nearly enough to improve council estates. That is why such serious problems have developed over several decades. Indeed, those problems have worsened during the past decade, when investment has been lacking.
However, the collapsed housing market is a different problem. It is a problem for people who want to own their homes. The market has failed to provide the houses that are needed. Only the local authorities can do the job effectively, yet the Government have prevented them from making the necessary investment. The ban on the use, for this purpose, of the receipts from the sale of council houses should be lifted. Indeed, the Government should have done that straight away. What we need is a package of measures to enable local authorities to build homes. While the matter is left to the market, homelessness will increase. Central intervention is required.
The £400 million that this stamp duty relief is costing would be better used to help the victims of repossession to stay in their homes. Those people should be allowed to convert mortgage payments to rent payments. Councils have a duty to house them and, as council accommodation is not available, that is an intolerable burden. The ricochet effect is felt by people in my borough of Waltham Forest —indeed, by people all over London—whose names are on waiting lists. Some families in very poor council accommodation need transfers. There are some, for instance, who need two bedrooms instead of one, but, because councils have a duty to house people whose homes

137
have been repossessed, others have virtually no chance of a transfer. The Government should put this money into helping the victims of repossession to stay in their homes. The fact that one in five of houses for sale is a repossessed home has killed the market. If the Government want to revive the housing market, they should find ways to enable those who face repossession to stay in their own homes.
In my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I made the point that, in the current state of the housing market, many people have mortgages that are greater than the value of their properties. If they cannot afford the mortgage repayments and are forced to sell their homes, they will still be saddled with astronomic debts for years to come. In effect, such people will be bankrupt, but the Government have not shown the slightest glimmer of concern; these people have not been given tax assistance.
Mr. Meale: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned this problem, because in the past few months people have come to my surgery and told me that they can no longer keep up their mortgage repayments but the value of their properties would not be enough to cover the mortgage even if they were able to sell. Some have said that they offered their properties to anybody who would take up the mortgage repayments, thereby forgoing any investment in the properties. This has happened time and time again.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Many people are caught in the trap of not being able to afford mortgage repayments, and often have mortgages that are greater than the value of their properties. Such people have no way of escape, and the Government should be doing something for them.
On 10 July 1990, I introduced, as a ten-minute Bill, the Mortgage Assistance Bill. Had the Government accepted that Bill, we should not now have a collapsed housing market and 100,000 repossessions. I will not repeat all that I said then—it is to be found at columns 181 to 183 of Hansard of that day. However, I made five main proposals.
The first was to allow mortgage payers to convert to part-ownership, thereby scaling down the ownership element and allowing time to meet reduced payments. The second was to let the mortgage payer convert to shared ownership with a local authority or housing association, so that he would pay half mortgage and half rent, thereby reducing the amount that he would have to pay and the debt that he had incurred.
My third suggestion was that we should facilitate conversion from ownership to rental, and a great deal more needs to be done to allow those faced with debts that they cannot repay to move over to rental but to stay in their own homes. Such a move could be supported by local authorities.
Fourthly, I said that there should be a duty on the lending institutions, the building societies and the banks to sort out alternative arrangements before any court action for repossession. All too often they wash their hands of cases, take people to court and repossess properties before investigating all the means for helping people to stay in their homes.
The fifth measure that I proposed was special funds for local authorities and new borrowing arrangements to enable them to enter shared ownership schemes, and
138
special funds to housing associations. The Government still ignore that suggestion. They will not give local authorities money to tackle the problem of repossessions.
This puny, stamp-sized measure that the Government have introduced is far too little, far too late.
11.50 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: The Bill will only tinker at the edges of a housing crisis that the Government fail or do not wish to recognise. Anything that helps to solve housing problems is welcome, and I am advised by the building societies that the Bill will go a small way to easing problems for them; they do not say that it will ease the problems of my constituents. The lowering of the mortgage interest rate is to be welcomed, but all the comments about that have been made in terms of helping the housing market, not of helping those of my constituents who are homeless.
During my time in local government and central Government I have never known such a housing crisis. About 90 per cent. of the letters in my postbag concern housing. I hold a surgery every Saturday and Sunday somewhere within the constituency, and about 90 per cent. of the complaints that are brought to me involve housing. The Bill will go nowhere to deal with the problems. I have never known circumstances in which young people with children are facing the possibility of going into hostel accommodation because no housing is available. We should be disgusted with ourselves. The Government should be especially disgusted with themselves for allowing such a crisis to develop. Young mothers of 18, 19 and 20 years of age are facing the prospect of hostel accommodation.
What is the reason for this? The answer is that the Government turned their back on local government itself, and on the way in which local government deals with its housing responsibilities. In 1979, when the Government came to power, those of my constituents who placed their name on the local authority housing list had a home within three weeks. A single person who placed his name on the list had a home within 10 weeks. There is not a chance in hell of getting a house in my constituency now because there are none. That is because the local authority has been unable to build houses for the past six years.
The Government stand condemned because they have not provided sufficient money to enable local authorities to get rid of old housing stock that should have been condemned and cleared away. This stock is having to be used because of the Government's housing policy.
The Government stand condemned for many things but especially for the housing crisis that their policies have created. As I have said, the Bill will do nothing to house people. It must be understood that 300 families a week are losing their homes. Those people turn to local authorities and they are being turned away. As a result, those without their own home move in with friends, parents or relatives. The overcrowding should never be tolerated. I thought that we had got rid of it some time ago. Indeed, we did, but because of the Government's ideology on home ownership unacceptable overcrowding has returned.
I agree with the Government about home ownership. There is no finer state within a community—for those who wish to buy. Unfortunately, many people either do not wish to buy or are unable to buy. When there is a 40 per cent. unemployment rate in a constituency, as there is in

139
mine, many people are unable to buy and will be unable to do so for many years. There is not a market to satisfy such a position.
The private rented sector is milking the position; it is all right. There is certainly a market there. When people are turned out of their homes they have to go into rented accommodation. My constituency is a fairly-low-rent area, but people are now having to pay £60 to £70 a week. In fact, they are not having to pay, the DSS has to pay. The people whom the Government talk about—the community charge payer and the taxpayer—have to find the money for that rent. There is a lucrative market in the private rented sector because people have nowhere else to go.
My local authority, which had 16,500 houses, has now sold about 8,000–50 per cent. of its stock. That has left a huge gap because the local authority cannot replace them. However, some of the 8,000 people who bought those houses are now themselves becoming homeless. Why cannot the local authority buy back those houses? Why cannot it be reimbursed for doing so? Those houses could then be put back into the rented sector, which would sort out a great number of problems for a great many people.
Why cannot local authorities return to the position in which they can buy rented and owner-occupied accommodation that is for sale at a competitive price? Why is not the money available for them to do that? Until that happens, all the tinkering at the edges will be to no avail. The Government may think that it will get them off the hook, but the people whom the Government's housing policy has affected will not let them off the hook. They and their families will not forget the misery that that policy has caused.
11.57 pm
Mrs. Llin Golding: I want to talk about the state of the building industry both in my constituency and throughout the country. Steetley is a well known and large employer in the brick industry. It was encouraged by the Government to make massive investment in its plant in my constituency. It has been working at only 50 per cent. capacity ever since.
Since September 1989, about 3,000 people have lost their jobs in the brick industry. Steetley is spending its time fighting a takeover bid which it does not want, which the workers from my constituency certainly do not want, and which the workers and management throughout the company do not want. The company could better spend its time producing bricks to build homes for people, rather than fighting takeover bids.
In the slate and tile industry—again an important industry in my constituency——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I regret to tell the hon. Lady that she is a long way away from the subject under debate. She must relate her remarks more closely to the Bill.
Mrs. Golding: My remarks are relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Maude: Order.
Mrs. Golding: Does the Minister want to say something?
Mr. Maude: No.
Mrs. Golding: My remarks are relevant because the relief on stamp duty is intended to encourage people to buy homes.
The building industry seems to be closing all over the country, at a time when homes are needed. Where is the necessary production to take place? The same is happening in the ceramic industry. In Scotland, Armitage Shanks is closing, with attendant job losses, and the industry is also suffering in north Staffordshire. Industries do not start up again simply because of a change in Government policy.
Mr. Meale: If the trapped £18 billion in local government receipts from the sale of council properties throughout the United Kingdom were released, the building industry could construct some 550,000 new homes, accommodating more than 1 million people. Given that—according to Shelter and the Salvation Army—that is the number of people who are registered as homeless, the housing problem would be greatly eased by such a move.
Mrs. Golding: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What the Government's policy is doing to people is disgraceful. So many of them are coming to all our surgeries: young couples with children living in top-floor flats, for instance. How can mothers with babies and small children in pushchairs climb stairs? Old people are living in homes that are entirely unsuitable; they desperately need ground-floor accommodation, but they cannot obtain it.
You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am wandering slightly from the subject of the Bill. The Bill is designed to release people and to make the housing market move, but the Government will not succeed with it. What is needed is a concerted policy: that is clear to us when we talk to local authorities, housing associations and, indeed, manufacturers. Doors need handles; windows need catches and glass. Then there are all the ceramic fittings for bathrooms and kitchens, and the bricks and tiles. All those things must be produced, and we cannot simply flick a switch and expect production to start up again.
The Bill goes a little way, but it is only a very little way. What we need is a Labour Government, committed to housing the homeless.
12.3 am
Mr. Maude: It is usual on these occasions to say what a useful debate we have had. I do not think, in all sincerity, that I can say that this time; by and large, this has been a fairly sterile occasion.
We have presented a measure that has been widely welcomed. We never claimed that it would transform the world, or switch on a light in darkness. We said that it was one part of an important package, which would have a measurable and serious impact on the housing market and would greatly benefit a large number of people. It is therefore mildly irritating when Labour Members come along, shedding copious crocodile tears about all the problems and refusing to address the issues raised by the Bill.
Labour Members seemed to veer wildly between saying that the Bill would be hopelessly ineffective and would make no difference to the housing market before 20 August, and saying that it would devastate the housing market after that date. They cannot have it both ways. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), either it will have no effect before, or after, 20 August, or the reverse.

141
The fact is that the Bill will bring forward transactions, as all who have studied the position recognise. It is a good and useful measure, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.

TEMPORARY RELIEF FROM STAMP DUTY
12.5 am
Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out '£250,000,' and insert '£240,000,'.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 12, leave out '£2,500,' and insert '£2,400,'.
Dr. Marek: I am sorry that the Financial Secretary felt that he could not say that we have had a useful debate. I can only surmise that the Tory party has been caught out and that he did not like it. No crocodile tears were shed on this side. Our speeches were sincere and honest and addressed the real problem for which the Government have not provided a solution.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to reduce the £250,000 limit to £240,000. There are few houses, if any, in my constituency that cost £250,000. I do not therefore see why the limit has to be set so high. However, it may have something to do with the south of England. If so, I shall wait with bated breath to hear what the Financial Secretary has to say about it.
I suspect that people with very big houses are not short of a bob or two. A stamp duty concession for them seems yet again to be the Tory party looking after its own. It looked after the rich when it reduced the higher rate of income tax from 60 to 40 per cent. All the tax reliefs went to the rich. I wonder whether the Government are playing the same old game. The amendment is partly a probing amendment. It seems to us that £240,000 would be more appropriate than £250,000. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise. However, unless the Minister can put forward a very good argument, we may have to insist on pressing the amendment to a Division.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) described the amendment as a probing amendment. He sought to make a point about the level at which we have chosen to set the threshold. No huge matter of principle is involved. Where the threshold in any taxation matter is set is a question of judgment, not of fundamental principle. The reason for setting it at £250,000 is that it will exempt about 90 per cent. of the purchases of residential property from stamp duty. We shall retain about 90 per cent. of the revenue from stamp duty in the case of transactions affecting commercial and other properties.
The proposal, as formulated, is very well targeted and concentrates the benefit where it is most likely to stimulate activity in the housing market. I said earlier that about 600,000 purchasers of residential property should be exempted. It is not a great matter of principle. We believe that we have pitched the threshold at the right level.
142
Therefore, I invite the Committee to support the provision, as drafted, and the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, leave out '20th' and insert '30th'.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 17, leave out '20th August' and insert `7th May'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 24, leave out '16th' and insert '31st'.
No. 7, in clause 2, page 1, line 28, leave out '20th' and insert '30th'.
Dr. Marek: We come to an interesting set of amendments that fall into two groups: amendments Nos. 3 and 6 and amendments Nos. 4 and 7. I originally considered tabling an amendment to replace 20 December with 10 December, but the Table Office ruled me out of order. The Government's rules on tabling amendments prohibited that.
Mr. Maude: No.
Dr. Marek: Through their majority and will, the Government impose Standing Orders on the House. The Opposition are prohibited from tabling an amendment that would increase taxation.
An important issue is at stake, so we tabled amendment No. 3. I wanted to make a point about the unfairness that might arise if someone's property deal were stamped on, for example, 15 December. They would say, "A few days later, we could have saved ourselves £1,000 or £2,000." The Government gave no warning of their intentions. On 19 or 20 December, they produced, like a rabbit out of a hat, a concession on stamp duty.
I realise that the amendment simply delays the problem. If the Government accepted our amendment, no doubt people who had their instruments stamped on 7 or 8 December would feel just as aggrieved as those who had their instruments stamped on 17 or 18 December.
An article that appeared in The Independent on 11 January says:
"On 29 November last year, Elaine and Graham Bradbury-Stewart completed the purchase of their home in Lightwater, Surrey. They paid £125,000. If they had moved just 20 days later they would have saved £1,250 in stamp duty—a sizeable chunk of their moving expenses of £5,500. Not surprisingly they feel somewhat aggrieved. Mr. Bradbury-Stewart says, 'We were "gobsmacked" as they say—£1,250 would have bought some new furniture, or the bathroom suite that we need. I can see no real justification for having the tax in the first place. It is the Government taking 1 per cent. for nothing.' Neither Graham nor Elaine believes that increasing the threshold temporarily will boost the housing market."
On Second Reading, I produced a fair amount of
evidence to show the veracity of that statement. People regard it as an election ploy. That is the purpose of the Bill—an election ploy.
Mr. lain Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the fact that he has only one Labour Member supporting him, apart from Members of the Front Bench?
Dr. Marek: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been here for long. He probably walked in recently, as I do not remember seeing him.
Mr. Mills rose
12.15 am
Dr. Marek: If the hon. Gentleman will let me answer him, I shall be happy to give way to him again. He must examine who has spoken in the debate. One Tory Back Bencher has spoken, but four or five Opposition Back Benchers have spoken. That makes my point. It shows bad grace for the hon. Gentleman to complain that I am calling the Bill a gimmick when the main tenor and thrust of my Second Reading speech was to that effect. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again, I shall give way.
Mr. Mills: So the hon. Gentleman regards it as very good that four or five hon. Members have spoken in support of his speech?
Mrs. Golding: Six to one.
Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman should not push us too far or he might find himself here much longer one early morning—
Mr. Greg Knight: He was joking.
Dr. Marek: He was joking, was he? I shall accept the Whip's advice on that, but let us return to the argument.
One argument involves the inherent unfairness in the Government's suddenly producing without any warning a substantial concession in duty. The people who had their instruments stamped a few days before the Government produced such a bonus feel aggrieved and wonder why they could not have partaken of it to a certain extent. It is no use the Financial Secretary saying that they were going to buy property anyway and that the measure is designed to kick-start the housing market, if I may use that phraseology.
The Minister made his announcement on 19 or 20 December and some instruments would probably be stamped on 21, 22, 28, 29 and 30 December and were then going through the pipeline. What is good for one set of people should be good for another set and I look forward to hearing what the Financial Secretary has to say about that.
The other group of amendments deals with when the concession should end. I could not resist tabling an amendment to help the Conservative party. The Conservative party is calculating on ending the concession on 19 August, but I think that it should be ended on 7 May. If it were to be ended on 7 May—on election day—there would be such a hive of activity before then that it could perhaps be believed that Conservative party policy was working and that the market was very active. It would also give the Opposition a chance to demonstrate the norm—that immediately after the concession ended, the market would cease to exist for a considerable time. We have had these problems before when joint mortgage relief came to an end and I fail to see why the Government have introduced a measure of a similar nature under which there will be problems on 20 August.
The second group of amendments seeks to elucidate from the Minister how he feels the situation will develop and what will happen to the market on that date and beyond. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
Mr. Maude: As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) eventually managed to sort out, there are two broad groups of amendments: one makes a silly point and the other a bad one.
144
The bad point is about the time from which the welcome relief from stamp duty comes into force. He said that it should have been introduced earlier because it was terribly unfair that people who had already had their documents stamped would be denied the relief.
Whenever any change is made to any taxation, some people fall on the helpful side and some people fall on the unhelpful side. That is simply a fact of life. If one makes the date 10 December, 10 November or 10 January, there will still be a line, and some people will fall on one side and some people will fall on the other. It seems to make sense that one should say that the provisions will come into force from the date on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the change would take place. People who were executing documents after then knew that they would have the benefit of the relief from stamp duty or the refunds under clause 2. Those whose transactions were already complete knew that the transaction would be completed on the basis which they had expected. There is nothing especially dramatic or unfair about that.
The silly point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham concerned the date at which the provision would end. He thinks that it is frightfully witty to make the point about amending the Bill so that the suspension ends on what he fancies is a date on which the general election may take place. The hon. Gentleman has sought to argue this evening that the provision is nothing more than an electoral gimmick, which he contends with what I discern as a growing element of unease, gradually working towards panic. In the way in which he moved the silly amendment, he conceded that the measure will have the effect that we intend, and that it will draw forward transactions and thus have a stimulating effect on the housing market. Although his points are not very good, he has inadvertently drawn attention to the underlying belief of Labour Front-Bench Members that the measure will work. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
Dr. Marek: The Financial Secretary has put his finger on the point. The measure will bring forward transactions, but it will do so at the cost of having a dearth of transactions later. That is the problem, and that is why the Bill is a gimmick. It is not a long-lasting solution. Transactions will be made earlier than they otherwise would have been, but there are likely to be few more—perhaps no more—transactions as a result of the Bill. That is why the Opposition tabled the amendments.
Amendment negatived.
Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
Mr. Mills: Formally.
Dr. Marek: I do not move it formally. The amendment is a probing amendment. I will not speak long on it as I want to hear what the Financial Secretary has to say about it and how he will defend the clause.
Mr. Maude: It is a little difficult to know what the hon. Gentleman seeks to probe through the deeply thought out and stimulating probing amendment. He suggests that we should remove clause 1(3) which concerns documents executed on or after 20 December which were not already stamped before the resolution was passed. The general rule is that documents cannot be given in evidence or used for other legal purposes, except in criminal proceedings,

145
unless they have been duly stamped in accordance with the law in force when they were executed. If a document was executed on, say, 20 December, the law in force at that time would have required it to be stamped on the basis of the £30,000 threshold because the House had not yet passed the resolution to give effect to the new threshold. Now that we have passed the resolution, the benefit of the new threshold can be given.
Clause 1(3) ensures that documents will not be subject to a legal challenge merely because the new threshold did not yet have statutory effect at the time at which they were executed. That is, therefore, a necessary protection for the taxpayer and the amendment would remove that protection. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman, having probed in a compelling way, to withdraw the amendment.
Dr. Marek: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF STAMPED INSTRUMENTS
Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'one year' and insert 'six months'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 13, at end insert 'and within three months of the claim being made'.
Dr. Marek: The two amendments are fairly sensibl—at least, amendment No. 11 is—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but the fact that I said that amendment No. 11 was sensible said nothing about amendment No. 8, which seeks to change the period during which a claim can be made from one year to six months. That seems sensible as one does not want legislation that could result in claims being left on the statute book for too long. I should have thought that legal advisers would draw the attention of prospective purchasers to the Bill and a claim would be made in a matter of days. I am prepared to be persuaded by the Financial Secretary that the period should be one year, but I think that six months would be better. That was why I did not give an unequivocal view on the amendment.
However, I am clear about amendment No. 11. It is possible that the commissioners will delay repaying amounts due and the amendment seeks to limit that delay to three months which I believe is sensible. I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree to the amendment.
Mr. Maude: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about reducing the period for claiming a refund, there is no magic in one figure as opposed to another and not very much hangs on this one way or the other. We made a broad judgment on what is a sensible period to allow for claims to be made and decided on 12 months. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in practice most claims will be made quickly—within a matter of days, not months—but there may be cases where, for one reason or another—because someone is ill or temporarily working overseas or even, perhaps, because of an oversight—the claim is not made quickly. As it does not much matter whether some claims are made later rather than earlier, we wanted to allow reasonable time to cover such cases.
146
It could be argued that the limit is on the generous side, but I do not see any particular advantage in reducing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, while no great weight attaches to this matter either way, the time limit in the Bill is reasonable and defensible, so the amendment should be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 proposes that the Inland Revenue should be required to make reimbursement within three months of a claim being made. It involves an important matter of principle: in practice, the Revenue will make the reimbursement as quickly as possible once it has been established that a payment is properly due. I expect that that reimbursement will be made well within the three months after the claim is made.
The problem with the amendment is that payment by the Revenue will depend on the necessary conditions being satisfied. It is not clear what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting should happen in cases where the Revenue cannot be satisfied that those conditions have been met until more than three months after the claim has been made, for example, where information in support of the claim is slow in coming forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish the Revenue to be required to make a payment without being satisfied that it is properly due.
The fact that I resist the amendment does not mean that I would expect payments to take more than three months. However, the amendment would place the Revenue in a position that the Government could not defend. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
12.30 am
Dr. Marek: I understand what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury means about amendment No. 8. That is a matter of judgment. I also understand what he says about amendment No. 11. However, it is an important part of a citizens charter that a citizen should have some right in that moneys that are due should be paid. While there may be some defects, the sense of the amendment is clear. If the claim has been made and the commissioners are satisfied, they should pay that money as quickly as possible. Three months is a generous period.
The Opposition feel strongly about that. The public and our citizens should have some right and the matter should not be left to the mercy of commissioners, the Government or anyone else. I would like to divide the House on amendment No. 11, but to withdraw amendment No. 8.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (d).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 10, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
'and (e) any conditions in paragraph (d) above shall be regulated by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Dr. Marek: The amendments seek to define a little more tightly the conditions that may be applied by the

147
commissioners. They also give control to the House, in that any such conditions shall be subject to a negative resolution procedure in the House.
Amendment No. 12 replaces "may" with "shall" and amendment No. 9 seeks to delete paragraph (d). In other words, it would change the Bill so that commissioners may not impose other conditions.
I understand that none of the amendments is necessarily perfect. However, the Bill states:
"such other conditions (if any) as the Commissioners may determine".
That gives a lot of power to the commissioners, but no redress for the citizen or applicant who wants his or her money to be returned. The commissioners may decide on reasonable conditions and I am not against that. That would be right. However, they may sometimes decide on unreasonable conditions. If that is the case, the Bill should be tightened up and and I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree about that.
Mr. Cryer: I want to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). The Bill will pass to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue an ability to legislate.
It is true that that applies to a very narrow area in respect of instruments that were executed on or after 20 December 1991 and before 16 January 1992 and stamped before 16 January. However, there is also the application of restrospective legislation about which the House is very cautious. The Minister will claim that it is usual in taxation to apply retrospective powers. That may be true when concessions are made, but, as the Financial Secretary knows, when retrospective powers are applied for a tax that is being levied, we run into great trouble. In effect, people are asked to make payments for back taxation, which is deemed to be very unfair, and that is why the House generally looks rather cautiously at retrospective legislation.
As the commissioners' powers are not qualified, because the Bill allows
"such other conditions (if any) as the Commissioners may determine are satisfied"
amendment No. 10 allows for negative procedure instruments to be provided by the Government. That is a reasonable precaution. It is a narrow matter. It would not be the first time that the House has required delegated powers to be exercised by a Minister over a narrow range of subjects. The House should be extremely cautious in delegating powers to unelected people outside the House. It does that on a number of occasions, but the House is extremely sloppy and careless in its supervision of delegated legislation, anyhow. Sooner or later, an almighty error will cause pressure from outside the House to produce changes in the scrutiny of delegated legislation.
It is about time that the House looked at this matter in more detail. When changes have been made in the system of delegated legislation, it has always been because serious errors had been made. The room for error is greater when powers are granted to bodies outside the House. Although it has many faults, the House has the ability to provide some scrutiny for even the most esoteric and labyrinthine legislation. The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but clause 2(1)(d), which contains the power of the commissioners to provide conditions, could provide for
148
people to be ineligible for the stamp duty concessions which the Bill provides. If people who applied before 16 December 1992 were in breach of the conditions which the commissioners are given power to apply, they would lose the right to exemption of stamp duty.
The Financial Secretary may say that the commissioners may never apply any of those powers, because the Bill states, "If they wish to apply any of the conditions." However, those powers are given to the commissioners. Unless there is further primary legislation to take them back, they are being handed over unconditionally to the commissioners. Therefore, we should take a fair amount of care in doing that.
I shall be interested to hear the Financial Secretary's comments on how he expects that the commissioners will apply clause 2(1)(d), why it is inserted, why the commissioners have been given such discretion, and whether that discretion is necessary. The Financial Secretary must have some examples in mind. If those matters are genuinely trivial, the Committee might be satisfied, bearing in mind that the powers are unqualified. They simply have the right to create conditions, and that is less than satisfactory. Surely the Financial Secretary must have something in mind or that provision would not be in the Bill. I look forward to the Financial Secretary's comments, and I hope that he can satisfy me on the validity of that provision.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has made an important point clearly and lucidly, and if this were not a temporary provisions Bill, we would be entitled to press it a great deal further. I was not happy to see in the Bill the words that he quoted, but in this case they relate to and will be in force for only a very short period and do not look likely to restrict the concession a great deal. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has given a timely warning.
A curious situation appears to have developed. I was trying to develop an index of official Opposition concern. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that the Opposition were very concerned about amendment No. 11 and would therefore divide the House on it—I am inclined to support him on that point. However, if I was looking for a measure of official Opposition concern, I should think that the fact that the hon. Member for Bradford. South has spoken in the debate is possibly a measure of relatively greater Opposition concern than would have been the case if only the hon. Member for Wrexham had spoken. A debate in which not only the hon. Member for Bradford, South speaks but in which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) delivers an impassioned speech must be an index of even greater Opposition concern. That combination of speakers arose against the whole principle of the Bill, but did not lead to a Division or to a vote against the principle of the Bill. A strange inverse principle of Opposition concern appears to be at work.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised a perfectly sound point and I hope that the Financial Secretary, and especially the parliamentary draftsmen, will take it seriously into account.
Mr. Maude: I have some sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). As the Committee and especially all those who are accustomed to

149
dealing with financial legislation know, there are tiers of legislation. Some things are rightly regarded as being of such importance and permanence that only primary legislation is satisfactory. For less important matters, secondary legislation that is subject either to positive or negative resolution is regarded as an adequate protection, and for things that are even lower down the scale of importance, arrangements such as this are regarded as satisfactory. The hon. Member for Bradford, South is entirely right to test and probe the provisions and to require Ministers to set out why they think that this approach is right here.
I am happy to tell the House that I shall set out only briefly a little about the way in which the reimbursement arrangements will work. People will be able to claim a reimbursement from the Revenue in the circumstances that we have set out if they would have paid less duty or none on the basis of the new £250,000 threshold. When they paid the duty, they will have been given a special receipt for it. With their claim for reimbursement, they will need to produce that receipt and the stamped document. But in some cases it may not be possible for the claimant to produce the stamped document because the appropriate registrar cannot release it. In those circumstances, the Stamp Office will advise what alternative evidence should be produced. In order to ensure that reimbursement is claimed only once on any particular document, the document may be stamped to show that the reimbursement has been claimed.
As all hon. Members who have spoken have acknowledged, in practice we expect the number of reimbursements to be small—low hundreds rather than thousands—because most people will have decided to wait for the new threshold to be given legal effect before presenting their documents to be stamped.
The clause permits the Inland Revenue to lay down conditions for reimbursement. It has been suggested it was unduly wide to allow the Revenue to determine what the conditions should be. But the reason for that is to allow flexibility to cater for particular circumstances. For example, an absolute requirement that the applicant should produce the original stamped document would cause problems in some cases, because the registrar might not be able to release the document to him. In those cases, the Revenue will need to ask for details of the document and may need to arrange directly with the registrar for the document to be stamped to show that the reimbursement has been made. In some cases other evidence may be required—for example, because the claim has been made by a different person from the one who is named on the receipt for the duty. There may well be good reasons for that. For example, the taxpayer may have died or may have changed his solicitor. It is sensible that the Revenue should be able to satisfy itself that the claim is well founded and ensure that double claims are not made for the same duty.
Several unusual circumstances may crop up in no more than one or two cases. It is unnecessary to create all the paraphernalia of secondary legislation so that particular conditions can apply to no more than a handful of cases. I have considered the matter carefully. I am confident that this is a proper occasion for the use of this type of power. It is important to ensure that double claims are not made for the same duty and that claims are well founded. Amendment No, 9 would prevent the Revenue from taking those precautions.
150
This is a sensible, pragmatic and flexible arrangement. I can undertake that the Revenue will operate it in a reasonable and sensible way. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee is satisfied with my explanation and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
12.45 am
Mr. Cryer: Madam Deputy Chairman—Chairwoman—Chairperson. [Laughter.] I am covering all eventualities, Miss Boothroyd. After all that difficulty with descriptions, I should like to concentrate on what the Minister has said about the power granted in clause 2(1)(d). The power is drafted too widely. Yet it covers a narrow area. It is to require alternative evidence where applicants have to provide proof of payment when they pay the stamp duty and then seek a reimbursement. That is a perfectly legitimate process within the framework of the legislation.
I suspect that the reason why the power is rather widely drafted is that people who draft legislation have got into the habit of writing in a belt-and-braces clause so that they have the necessary powers to do anything at all about a difficult situation that crops up. I do not believe that that is right. Where such powers are given, they should be carefully defined. The Minister says that he wants some flexibility to deal with a handful of cases. All right, that can be incorporated into the precise area with which the Minister proposes that the Bill should deal. That would be preferable to the bland assertion that any conditions whatever can be produced.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister is throwing money at the problem?
Mr. Cryer: I would not agree that he is throwing money at it, but he could be giving power to the commissioners to produce conditions that make reimbursement difficult. Clearly, that will not be the case if everyone has good will, but occasionally good will is absent. In those circumstances, the commissioners may produce conditions which deny someone a perfectly proper reimbursement. That would be unjust. Any remedy would be difficult to obtain.
This is primary legislation on a fairly narrow matter. That narrowness should be indicated in the Bill, if necessary by an additional few words or a schedule defining what the commissioners can do. That would be entirely preferable. The clause is yet another example of the drafting of broad clauses because the Government want to hand over administrative details. Successive Governments have done it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has tabled a perfectly sensible amendment on a narrow point to require that the instruments come before the House. If the conditions were unfair, we would have the opportunity to pray against the instrument and have a debate on it—should we happen to get any time, which is another question entirely. We could then remedy any faults.
In spite of the Minister's explanation, I still find the clause unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham will also have some comments to make on it.
Dr. Marek: Among Opposition Members there is concern about clause 2. I agree with the remarks of both my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed

151
(Mr. Beith) about the amendments. However, these are temporary provisions, and I am mindful of the Financial Secretary's assurance that the commissioners will behave reasonably. I hope that they will.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 2, line 13, at end insert
'and within three months of the claim being made'.—[Dr. Marek.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 115.

Division No. 44]

[12.50

AYES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Beith, A. J.

McMaster, Gordon

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cryer, Bob

Marek, Dr John

Dalyell, Tarn

Meale, Alan

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Wareing, Robert N.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wray, Jimmy

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hood, Jimmy

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Lewis, Terry

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Allason, Rupert

Dover, Den

Amess, David

Durant. Sir Anthony

Arbuthnot, James

Fallon, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ashby, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Freeman, Roger

Baldry, Tony

French, Douglas

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boswell, Tim

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bottomley, Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

Hague, William

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bowis, John

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

Bright, Graham

Harris, David

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

Hawkins, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Hayward, Robert

Butler, Chris

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Carrington, Matthew

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunter, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Irvine, Michael

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Jack, Michael

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Janman, Tim

Colvin, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Conway, Derek

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Couchman, James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maude, Hon Francis

Day, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Dorrell, Stephen

Meyer, Sir Anthony

152

Mills, lain

Speller, Tony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Moate, Roger

Stanbrook, Ivor

Monro, Sir Hector

Steen, Anthony

Morrison, Sir Charles

Stevens, Lewis

Moss, Malcolm

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Summerson, Hugo

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Sir 0. (Calder Valley)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Norris, Steve

Twinn, Dr Ian

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Viggers, Peter

Paice, James

Waller, Gary

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wheeler, Sir John

Portillo, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wilkinson, John

Riddick, Graham

Wood, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Yeo, Tim

Shaw, David (Dover)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shelton, Sir William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Noes:

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. David Lightbown and

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.
Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
I have tabled the amendment because I am genuinely perplexed. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain these matters in simple and lucid terms so that we can all understand them.
Mr. Maude: I cannot guarantee that I can meet the concluding part of the request of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), but I shall endeavour to fulfil the first part.
The amendment would remove subsection (4), which provides for a reimbursement made under the clause to be treated as a repayment for technical purposes under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. Strictly this is because the reimbursements made under the clause will not be repayments of stamp duty but equivalent payments. This will not affect the amount that taxpayers receive, only the form of the payments. It is to avoid any possible risk that the legal status of a document that has already been stamped may be prejudiced if stamp duty already paid had to be refunded.
Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act permits the Inland Revenue to deduct tax repayments from the gross revenue that it collects before paying it into the Consolidated Fund. Subsection (4) of the clause is necessary because the reimbursements will technically not be repayments of duty but tantamount to tax repayments. It is sensible, therefore, to deal with them in the same way as tax repayments. There is no question of the Inland Revenue making a payment in a case where no tax has been paid. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Lockerbie Bombing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
1.3 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have obtained a copy of part of an investigation report submitted by the Lockerbie police to the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. The report is significant because it appears to contradict statements made to the House on 14 November by the Foreign Secretary about the Lockerbie bombing. In reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—whose role, in my opinion, in relation to Libya has been serious and honourable throughout—the Foreign Secretary said:
"I deliberately put in that sentence that there was no evidence about the involvement of other Governments."—[Official Report, 14 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1230.]
However, the report, publicly quoted I believe for the first time by me tonight, unambiguously details evidence from the Scottish police which implicates a Syrian-based terrorist organisation. The report is entitled:
"Bombing of Pan Am 103: Interview of Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat as a suspect."
I should say to the House that I asked Sir William
Sutherland, QPM, chief constable of Lothian and Borders, with whose force I have worked in harmony and respect for 30 years as a Member of Parliament, to approach chief constable Esson, and deputy chief constable Orr about the possibility of my talking to them. Understandably, these two police officers and their colleagues in the Scottish police, for whom I have sincere admiration, declined to do so. I would not like colleagues to think that I have been discourteous to the police or critical of them in the face of what is the greatest crime committed against civilians of the western world this decade.
I shall quote from the conclusions of the report, a copy of which I have given to the Foreign Office, together with tonight's speech. It states:
"Evidence could have been led to the fact that after being in Germany for 13 days he [Marwan Khreesat] had not approached Dynacord, which was supposed to be the reason for his visit."
That company was not approached by police until 22
February 1989. I am exceedingly unhappy about the actions of the German police and the CIA and I am
sending copies of this debate to the American and German ambassadors.
The long report ends:
"It is possible that the brown suitcase was delivered to another person while Dalkamoni was 'parking his car' and that that suitcase contained another IED (Improvised Explosive Device), and that the suitcase referred to is the brown Samsonite suitcase which contained the IED on PA 103.
The IED which was recovered in the Ford Taunus appears to be similar to the IED which destroyed PA103.
A similar device, hidden in a record player, was used on the El Al plane in August 1972, and one Marwan Omar Krisat is still wanted in this connection.
There can be little doubt that Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat is the bomb-maker for the PfLP-GC, that he was brought to West Germany for that express purpose and there is a possibility that he prepared the IED which destroyed PA 103. As such he should not be at liberty but should be closely questioned regarding his activities with a view to tracing his associates in the attack."
Has the Foreign Secretary been shown that document
by the Scottish police? Although it was written in 1989, I understand it has never been contradicted or withdrawn.
154
In my discussion of 50 minutes with the courteous Lord Advocate, I gained the impression that for the first 18 months of the inquiry there was substantial information, still relevant, pointing to the involvement of an Iranian and Syrian-based organisation.
Why has the Foreign Secretary been so categorical in ruling out the involvement of other parties when Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate, has gone out of his way not to rule out the involvement of other states? How does the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) account for the discrepancy between the privately held view of the investigators and the public statement of his Government? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, contrary to his statement in November, the Government have not ruled out Syrian and Iranian involvement?
I shall quote pages 212 and 213 of David Leppard's excellent book "On the Trail of Terror". It states:
"The commissioning and the inspiration for the bombing came from the Iranians. They commissioned an operation against an American civilian airliner in revenge for the shootdown of the Iranian airbus in the Gulf in July of 1988. The original commission was given to Jibril. Jibril's commission was frustrated because the [West German] unit that was to go against aircraft including American civilian aircraft was arrested.
The CIA has evidence which indicates that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the president of Iran, knew of the decision and supported it. Just what this evidence is, however, remains a closely guarded intelligence secret. 'It was not a rogue decision', Cannistraro stated. Rafsanjani, he pointed out, was commander-in-chief of the Iranian military in the summer of 1988 when the operation was reportedly commissioned through the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."
How can the Foreign Secretary state that there is no evidence that any Government but Libya was involved when the inquiry is, I understand, actively pursuing all possible evidence? Is he not prejudicing the inquiry by ruling out the possibility of finding new evidence which could lead to the indictment of officials or terrorists from Iran and Syria?
It seems to me that Libya is being used as a sole whipping boy when there was an alliance of elements from Iran, Syria and Libya. Father Patrick Keegans, of 1 Sherwood crescent, Lockerbie—than whom no one had more direct involvement in the tragedy—authorises me to repeat the concerns expressed in his letter to me of 13 January, of which the Foreign Office has a copy. He expresses concern in particular about the telephone conversation between Mrs. Thatcher and President Bush in March 1989, agreeing to "play down" the Lockerbie disaster, and the removal of Syria and Iran from any Lockerbie connection after that telephone call.
I cannot do better than quote the last paragraph of the powerful leader in The Sunday Times of 24 November 1991:
"Maybe it has been necessary to be nice to Iran and Syria to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Beirut. It must be more than coincidence that both countries were officially cleared of any Lockerbie involvement just a few days before Terry Waite and Thomas Sutherland were at last released. Our joy at their freedom should be tempered by the shame of the cost: the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bomb must now come to terms with the fact that most of those behind the murder of their loved ones are going to get away with it. The cause of justice is being sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic convenience. We will live to regret it."
I find it extraordinary that the prime suspect, as identified by the Scottish police, has not—after three years and some £20 million of taxpayers' money spent on the inquiry—been interviewed. I also find it extraordinary that

155
we appear not to have actively sought information about the suspected involvement of officials, or foreign officials, of the Iranian and Syrian Governments in the conspiracy to blow up a western civilian airliner in the latter half of 1988.
Against that background, I plead with the Government not to embark on sanctions against Libya—let alone another military strike wreaking havoc in Tripoli and Benghazi of the kind that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I saw with my own eyes in November. I hope that my hon. Friend will be given time in which to speak tonight.
I was deeply concerned to read a front-page report in this week's Tribune by Ian Williams, the paper's United Nations correspondent. He wrote:
"Speculation is growing in the United Nations that John Major and George Bush are looking to fight their 1992 election campaigns on the back of military action against Libya."
That, apparently, is the view of the United Nations in some quarters.
Be it the adopted daughter of President Gaddafi or the daughter of Jim and Jane Swire, it is the innocent who suffer. Dr. Swire is concerned—and who is in a better position to be?—about the cycle of violence that could be unleashed. What we need is a round-table conference with middle eastern countries about the prevention of terrorism. Military action will lead to the tit-for-tat of another Lockerbie. Our time and energies—never mind our money—should be spent on fighting famine and disease throughout the world.
1.12 am
Mr. Bernie Grant: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me some time in which to speak.
As a person of African descent, I am particularly concerned about the plight of African countries and their peoples. That is why I am so keen to see justice done in the case of Libya. I am also opposed to terrorism, and keen to see the perpetrators of this horrendous crime brought to justice—but not tried by a kangaroo court.
After the Gulf war, President Bush talked about a new world order and about big nations not taking advantage of small ones. He talked about the need for legality, international law and respect for a nation's sovereignty. It is on precisely those points that I wish to dwell. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow spoke about the evidence in the case, but I wish to deal with other matters.
Let me make three points. The first concerns the legal position. The Minister must state the legal basis on which he is acting when he asks the Libyans to hand over two of their nationals. Under which international convention or agreement is he acting?
Under the 1971 Montreal convention, the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, unless there is an extradition treaty in force between countries—in this case, between Libya and Britain—Libya is entitled, indeed obliged, to try the offenders under her own domestic law. Article 7 applies, as there is no extradition treaty between Britain and Libya. The article states:
"The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence
156
was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State."
Furthermore, article 14 of the Montreal convention states:
"Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot he settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them. be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties arc unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court."
Libya was a signatory to the Montreal convention on 19 February 1974. Britain is also a signatory to the convention.
The Minister will no doubt say that Libya is a terrorist state and therefore put itself outside the Montreal convention. I shall make two points. First, no United Nations body has declared that Libya is a terrorist state. That is something which the United States of America and the United Kingdom Governments alone have said. Secondly, I understand that there are proper and well defined procedures under the Vienna convention by which states that may have transgressed may be dealt with. These have not been utilised in the case of Libya. It is not therefore correct for the Minister to describe Libya as a terrorist state, as he has done, unless of course the British Government have now taken it upon themselves so to designate states unilaterally and arbitrarily, as does the United States.
Since Libya received the warrant from the Lord Advocate, it has acted in accordance with its own domestic law and with international law by appointing a High Court judge who is carrying out an investigation into the charges levelled against the two Libyan citizens. The Minister should state why the Government are not prepared to allow police officers, or other relevant officials, to co-operate with the Libyans in their attempts to deal with the matter, as international law both permits and demands that they do, especially as the articles in the Libyan criminal procedure code, which prohibits the handing over of the men without proper evidence, were set up by the British in 1953. The legal system in Libya has not been altered since that time, I understand. Just as Britain would not hand over its citizens to another country for trial without proper prima facie evidence, neither should Libya be expected to do so.
My second point concerns the position of Malta. The charges laid by the Lord Advocate make much of the Maltese link in the trail that led to the Lockerbie tragedy. Like so much else in the version of events that we have been given, there are grounds for believing that this, too, is open to question. I recently visited Malta and spoke to senior members of the Maltese Government about the Maltese connection in all this. I was told in no uncertain terms that the Maltese Government, who had their own investigating team working alongside the Scottish police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, co-operating with them at every stage and seeing the same evidence, came to a completely different conclusion from them.
In the opinion of the Maltese authorities, the evidence to support a Maltese connection is, at best, very feeble. They had found no evidence to support the United States-United Kingdom assertions that the bomb originated in Malta. The Maltese Government's views

157
could not be reconciled with the views of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, despite visits to Malta by the Minister of State, the deputy Attorney-General of the United States and the Lord Advocate.
The Maltese Government believe that the Libyan authorities are acting properly under international law and their own domestic law by investigating the charges laid against the two Libyans and by refusing to extradite them. They are totally opposed to military action or sanctions against Libya. In fact, the Maltese Government felt that, although they did not want it, they would be prepared to consider a request that the Libyans be tried in Malta as a way out of the present impasse, especially as the British and United States Governments claim that the crime originated in Malta. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why the British Government are not prepared to consider that.
My third point concerns the consequences that sanctions or military action would have in the region and the Arab world generally. Since the Gulf war there has been considerable political turmoil in north Africa, especially in Algeria, where the rise in support for fundamentalism has been dramatic. Western economic or military action against Libya will cause further instability in the Maghreb region, which could result in refugees and asylum seekers pouring into Europe as their first port of call to escape political turmoil in their countries. Some people believe that such action by the United States and Britain could play into the hands of fundamentalists in the region.
It should be noted that, to date, the Arab League has unanimously supported the Libyan Government's actions and called for the formation of a joint United Nations and Arab League committee to investigate the matter and for it to be resolved peacefully. That scenario is different from the one that prevailed before and during the Gull war, when the position of the United States was supported by several Arab countries.
The 1986 bombing of Libya, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has referred, was an unforgivable episode in international relations that later turned out to have been unjustified. Innocent civilians died. That mistake must not be repeated.
The proper way forward is a full and proper international inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster to establish the truth of what happened. The Libyans have suggested that an inquiry should be held and they would be willing to hand over the two named individuals to any international court set up to try them. In view of the recent miscarriages of justice in British courts and biased reporting in the media, it is questionable whether the two individuals could get a fair trial in Britain. But in Britain we can begin the search for truth and justice by setting up the public inquiry that has been demanded by the United Kingdom Families of Flight 103 campaign. Their courage and steadfastness deserve nothing less.
1.21 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Hon. Members will recall that on 14 November last year my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in the House in which he reported that a warrant had been obtained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The warrant,
158
backed by a full statement of the facts, was delivered to the Libyan Government by the Italian Government, and a text of it has been placed in the Library.
The House will recall that, on 27 November last year, the Government, with the Governments of France and the United States, made certain requests of the Libyan Government. On the same day, the British and American Governments, in a separate statement, requested the Government of Libya to surrender for trial all those charged with the crime and to accept complete responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials. We further requested the Libyan Government to disclose all that they knew of the offence, including the names of all those responsible, and to allow full access to all witnesses, documents and other material evidence, including the remaining timers. The Libyan Government were also asked to agree to pay appropriate compensation.
Since that time, the Government and the Governments of France and the United States have been assiduous in their respective efforts to persuade the Government of Libya to deliver the two named individuals for trial in Scotland or the United States. I do not suppose that the people of Scotland will have been pleased to have heard the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) describe their judicial procedures as a "kangaroo court".
Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in a way, the speeches of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) were a criticism of Dumfries and Galloway police, who have produced conclusive evidence about the culprits in Libya and have been supported entirely by the Lord Advocate, who believes that he can make a firm case against them? To try to shift the guilt to another country is surely a criticism of a police force that has done outstanding work.
Mr. Hogg: I have high regard for the work of the constabulary. It has produced a prima facie case sufficient to justify the issue of a warrant. It is now for the relevant courts, either of Scotland or of the United States, to determine whether the people named in the warrant are guilty or innocent—it being for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I share my hon. Friend's respect for the constabulary.
The House will further note that the United Nations Security Council is presently discussing a resolution supporting the decision of the Governments of France, United States and Britain. That resolution condemns the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and the UTA flight and the resulting loss of lives. It also strongly deplores the fact that the Libyan Government have not yet responded effectively to the requests made of them to co-operate fully in establishing responsibility for those terrorist acts. It urges the Libyan Government immediately to provide a full and positive response to those requests. It urges all states—individually and collectively—to encourage the Libyan Government to respond fully and positively to what has been asked of them.
I turn now to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and Tottenham. Both went into the events in considerable detail. I have no intention of doing so. As they know, two individuals have been named in a warrant. It is our intention that those two individuals should be

159
brought to trial. In such circumstances, it would be wrong for me to comment on the evidence, not least because to do so may prejudice or be thought to prejudice a fair trial.
However, it is no secret that during the first 18 months of the criminal investigation attention was focused largely on the organisation known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command, based in Damascus. When as a result of forensic scientific evidence the facts of the investigation shifted, the investigators did not abandon the material which they had gathered together over the previous 18 months, but careful examination of that material has failed to disclose any evidence which would justify the issue of warrants against nationals of any country other than Libya.
As both hon. Gentlemen may know, I have practised for 20 years at the common law Bar. I know well from personal experience that the police investigate many leads and go down many paths which ultimately take them nowhere. Those responsible for framing criminal proceedings must look at the totality of the evidence assembled at the conclusion of the investigation. It was on the basis of that evidence—the totality of the evidence—reviewed at the conclusion of the proceedings that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate decided that there was a case for the two named Libyans to answer and he therefore issued the warrants against them. He also decided that there was no sufficient evidence to issue warrants against any other named individuals and, in particular, against individuals serving in Governments other than that of Libya.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister explain his use of the word "sufficient"?
Mr. Hogg: There is no evidence to justify the issue of warrants against anyone other than the two named individuals.
Clearly we cannot exclude the possibility that other persons or Governments were involved because one cannot prove a negative. What I can say to the House is that there is no sufficient evidence to justify making such an allegation in court.
I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not said that Her Majesty's Government have ruled out the involvement of other countries. What he said is what I have just said and what the Lord Advocate had previously said—that the investigation had revealed no evidence of involvement by other countries. As has been said on a number of occasions, if there is such evidence involving officials from other countries we will look at it, and if anybody has such evidence they should pass it on to the investigating authorities.
As to the future, I hope that the Libyan Government will agree to deliver the two named individuals to the courts either of Scotland or of the United States. If the Libyan Government do not agree to do this, we will have to decide what further steps may be necessary. At the moment it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the nature of those further steps.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow has called for a round-table conference with middle eastern countries to discuss the prevention of terrorism. Indeed, to be fair to him, that is the only thing for which he called. I have to say
160
that that is a wholly inappropriate, not to say inadequate, response to one of the gravest crimes committed in post-war Europe. Two named people are charged with the gravest offences. They should stand trail. They will get a fair trial. It will be for the prosecution to prove the case against them. If there is any reasonable doubt as to their guilt, they will be acquitted. That is the way forward, and I hope that this House will endorse it.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister answer the question put by Dr. Jim Swire about how one avoids a cycle of violence being unleashed? If military action is not ruled out—and I get the impression from what the Minister said that it is not ruled out—what does the Minister expect but tit for tat? Should we not recognise that the whole tragedy started with the bombing of Tripoli, with the bombing of the civilian areas of Benghazi, and with the shooting down by the Vincennes, now discovered to have been in Iranian territorial waters, of the Iranian airline?
Mr. Hogg: I have never made any reference to the use of force. I have said here and elsewhere that we seek to persuade the Government of Libya to comply with our request that the two people should be brought to trial before the courts either of Scotland or of the United States. We hope that we shall secure a United Nations resolution underpinning that request. We hope that the Government of Libya will comply. Clearly, if they do not, we shall have to consider our next step. I have not suggested force. I have ruled nothing in and I rule nothing out.
Mr. Bernie Grant: As an ex-lawyer, will the Minister turn his attention to my points about the Montreal convention? Why are the British Government not prepared to follow the procedures laid down in that convention?
Mr. Hogg: Those who framed the Montreal convention never contemplated that the Government of a country in which the individuals—two in this case—would be present would themselves be party to the crime. It is clear nonsense to suggest that——
Mr. Grant: It has not been proved.
Mr. Hogg: I have not suggested that it has been proved. I have said that there is a prima facie case against two individuals who are officials of a Government. That is to say not that they are guilty, but merely that there is a prima facie case in respect of which they should stand trial. It is complete nonsense to say that the Government who employ them should also be the authority that tries them. We all know perfectly well that there is a close identity of interest between the judiciary and the intelligence services in Libya. We all know that the country is a tyranny.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has been very good about giving way. If the country is a tyranny, why is it that 5,500 expatriates, British people working there, earning the Minister's bread and butter, my bread and butter and the bread and butter of the rest of us, take a very different view of what they think is an incorrupt and very efficient regime? The fact is that 5,500 of our fellow countrymen, many of them Scottish engineers, are working in Libya. It is simply not good enough to shrug our shoulders and say, "These people knew perfectly well what dangers they were going to." Perhaps they did know, but that is no reason to wash our hands of them. What does the Foreign Office think will happen to them if there is any further military

161
action? Who would sanction it first? If there were sanctions, it would mean that those people could not come back as they do now. The general pattern is eight weeks in Libya working and two weeks over here seeing the headquarters of their homes and their families.
It is high time that the Foreign Office, if it does not want to talk to the Libyans, at least talked to people such as Dick Morris of Brown and Root and employees of the 36 other British firms that are working in Libya. The Foreign
162
Office should ask them whether they think that what the Minister has described is a sensible way to go about matters. For my part, I am extremely alarmed by the tone of the Minister's reply—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  European Union
  European Union
  Sir Basil Feldman
  Sir Basil Feldman
  Office Costs
  Office Costs
  Businesses (Environmental Performance)
  Businesses (Environmental Performance)
  Lord Lieutenants
  Lord Lieutenants
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
ENERGY
  Advertising Expenditure
  Advertising Expenditure
  Nuclear Materials (Protection)
  Nuclear Materials (Protection)
  Euratom
  Euratom
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  HSE Offshore Division
  HSE Offshore Division
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
  Linkohr Report
  Linkohr Report
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Djibouti-Eritrean Border
  Djibouti-Eritrean Border
  South Korea
  South Korea
  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  UN Secretary-General
  UN Secretary-General
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  East Timor
  East Timor
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Bingham Inquiry
  Bingham Inquiry
  United States International Affairs Minister
  United States International Affairs Minister
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Pipe Tobacco
  Pipe Tobacco
  Derbyshire County Council
  Derbyshire County Council
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Deposit Protection Board
  Deposit Protection Board
  Bloodstock Industry
  Bloodstock Industry
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
DEFENCE
  Research and Development Funding
  Research and Development Funding
  Semiconductor Materials
  Semiconductor Materials
  Vacation Employment
  Vacation Employment
  Defence, Research Agency
  Defence, Research Agency
  Chemical and Biological Warfare Agreements
  Chemical and Biological Warfare Agreements
  Research Links
  Research Links
  Research
  Research
  Education Links
  Education Links
  Collaborative Research
  Collaborative Research
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Facilities Charge
  Facilities Charge
  Submarines (Fishing Vessel Avoidance)
  Submarines (Fishing Vessel Avoidance)
  Nuclear Warheads
  Nuclear Warheads
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Submarines
  Submarines
  Nuclear Weapons (Safety Review)
  Nuclear Weapons (Safety Review)
  US Atomic Co-ordinating Office
  US Atomic Co-ordinating Office
  Nuclear Weapons (Information Exchanges)
  Nuclear Weapons (Information Exchanges)
  Simon Brittain
  Simon Brittain
  Services Shops
  Services Shops
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wind Energy
  Wind Energy
  Bovine Somatotropin
  Bovine Somatotropin
  Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
  Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
  Food Irradiation
  Food Irradiation
  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Food Aid
  Food Aid
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  EC Research Contracts
  EC Research Contracts
  School Visits
  School Visits
  Education Staff
  Education Staff
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Education Funding
  Education Funding
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
  Pupil Testing
  Pupil Testing
  Technology Schools Initiative
  Technology Schools Initiative
  School Transport Statistics
  School Transport Statistics
  Derbyshire College of Higher Education
  Derbyshire College of Higher Education
  St. Faith's School, Winchester
  St. Faith's School, Winchester
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Procedure Committee Reports
  Procedure Committee Reports
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Duchy Costs
  Duchy Costs
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  CPS (Disclosure Guidelines)
  CPS (Disclosure Guidelines)
  Serious Fraud Office
  Serious Fraud Office
  Covenants
  Covenants
  Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
  Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Union Flag
  Union Flag
  Cases (Government Representation)
  Cases (Government Representation)
  Treaty of Rome
  Treaty of Rome
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Caribbean Basin
  Caribbean Basin
  Rain Forests
  Rain Forests
  EC Overseas Development
  EC Overseas Development
  Liberia
  Liberia
  World Population Conference
  World Population Conference
  Eastern and Central Europe
  Eastern and Central Europe
  Baltic States
  Baltic States
KNOW-HOW FUND
  ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA
  ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA
  Debtor Countries
  Debtor Countries
  Third World Debt
  Third World Debt
  Southern Africa
  Southern Africa
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dr. Malde Modwadia
  Dr. Malde Modwadia
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Police Interrogation
  Police Interrogation
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  South Yorkshire Police
  South Yorkshire Police
  Muslim Parliament
  Muslim Parliament
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
  Criminal Records
  Criminal Records
  Mrs. Ahmed Yusuf Mako
  Mrs. Ahmed Yusuf Mako
  Category A Prisoners
  Category A Prisoners
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Motorists (Assault Charges)
  Motorists (Assault Charges)
  Police Traffic Departments
  Police Traffic Departments
  Motorists (Criminal Charges)
  Motorists (Criminal Charges)
  Prison Dog Service
  Prison Dog Service
  Wolds Prison
  Wolds Prison
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
  Mint and Boxed
  Mint and Boxed
  Insolvency Service
  Insolvency Service
  Liechtenstein (Companies)
  Liechtenstein (Companies)
  Liquidators
  Liquidators
TRANSPORT
  Car Safety
  Car Safety
  Tyre Laws
  Tyre Laws
  British Rail (Performance Standards)
  British Rail (Performance Standards)
  London Underground (Safety)
  London Underground (Safety)
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Plutonium (Transport)
  Plutonium (Transport)
  Traffic Lights
  Traffic Lights
  Thameslink
  Thameslink
  Pavements
  Pavements
  Utilities' Street Works
  Utilities' Street Works
  Cliff Rescues
  Cliff Rescues
  Trust Ports
  Trust Ports
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Town and Parish Councils
  Town and Parish Councils
  Tyre Recycling Plant, Wolverhampton
  Tyre Recycling Plant, Wolverhampton
  Green Alliance
  Green Alliance
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Departmental Permanent Secretary
  Departmental Permanent Secretary
  Departmental Debts
  Departmental Debts
  Self-build Projects
  Self-build Projects
  Urban Regeneration
  Urban Regeneration
  Urban Funding
  Urban Funding
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  Advertising Expenditure
  Advertising Expenditure
SCOTLAND
  Emissions
  Emissions
  Ewes
  Ewes
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sheep HLCA
  Sheep HLCA
  Foresterhill Hospital
  Foresterhill Hospital
WALES
  Swansea Council (Expenditure)
  Swansea Council (Expenditure)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Maastricht Agreements
  Maastricht Agreements
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Economic Prospects
  Economic Prospects
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Housing Opportunities
  Housing Opportunities
  General Practitioners (Targets)
  General Practitioners (Targets)
  Rural Rental Housing
  Rural Rental Housing
  Cataract Operations
  Cataract Operations
  Cardiac Services
  Cardiac Services
  Rechem International
  Rechem International
  Traffic Speed Limits
  Traffic Speed Limits
  Trawsfynydd Lake (Radiation)
  Trawsfynydd Lake (Radiation)
  Health Service Expenditure
  Health Service Expenditure
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  GPs (Night Calls)
  GPs (Night Calls)
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Neighbourhood Hospital, South Glamorgan
  Neighbourhood Hospital, South Glamorgan
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Heart Operations
  Heart Operations
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Hospital Provision
  Hospital Provision
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Local Authorities (Capital Spending)
  Local Authorities (Capital Spending)
  Plant Breeding Station
  Plant Breeding Station
HEALTH
  Clinical Trials
  Clinical Trials
  Causes of Death
  Causes of Death
  NHS (Awards)
  NHS (Awards)
  Trust Funds
  Trust Funds
  Hospital Trusts
  Hospital Trusts
  Care Homes, Manchester
  Care Homes, Manchester
  Mortality Statistics, Manchester
  Mortality Statistics, Manchester
  Disabled People (Footwear)
  Disabled People (Footwear)
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  South Derbyshire
  South Derbyshire
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Electors
  Electors
  Asthmatics
  Asthmatics
  Child Health
  Child Health
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Children's Needs
  Children's Needs
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
  Project 2000
  Project 2000
  Psychiatric Prisons
  Psychiatric Prisons
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Employees (Dismissals)
  Disabled Employees (Dismissals)
  Health and Safety Executive Offshore Division
  Health and Safety Executive Offshore Division
  Training Credits
  Training Credits
  National Vocational Qualifications
  National Vocational Qualifications
  Radiological Emergencies
  Radiological Emergencies
  Wakefield TEC
  Wakefield TEC
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics

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

Hospitals: Building Finance
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria have been used in the apportionment of new building money for the 57 newly formed hospital trusts and the hospitals remaining under the control of area health authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the main criteria used to allocate capital for new developments are that there is a demonstrated service need and support for the development by purchasers, that purchasers can afford the development, that there is a sound business case to support the development, and that the development should accord with national priorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, perhaps she will understand that some of us find the position difficult to comprehend. For instance, the figure quoted in a recent press report of the allocation for Guy's Hospital in London, using the present criteria, is £36 million. I make no criticism of Guy's Hospital being allocated that money or the use of it. Is the Minister aware of a report in the Manchester Evening News on Friday last which uses the term "shocking conditions" with regard to Withington Hospital in Manchester? Elderly people and the chronically sick are suffering because of the conditions at the hospital. The figure quoted to those who have to manage and operate that hospital to deal with the backlog of repairs and maintenance to put the hospital into an acceptable condition is £26 million. Why is there that difference between Guy's Hospital and Withington Hospital when human beings are involved in both cases?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord acknowledges that the capital allocation to Guy's and Lewisham National Health Service Trust is not the result of any special treatment but merely the continuation of capital investment which commenced prior to the unit becoming a trust. Much the same applies to the Manchester situation. Virtually the whole of the capital allocation has been for ongoing schemes in the North West. Allocations for both Manchester Central Hospital and Christie Hospital result from those ongoing schemes. The funds for Withington Hospital, to which the noble Lord specifically referred, again are in proportion to the ongoing nature of the arrangements.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that every penny spent in Guy's Hospital is worth while?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on capital allocation, does the Minister agree with the view that the trust hospitals fare better if they are underbedded, thus ensuring that all the beds are full? It has been observed by one of the trust general managers that that may be unfortunate for the patients but it is "commercially sound".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have already established, there has been no special treatment for trusts. Any disproportion between the number of new developments funded in the first wave trusts compared with directly managed units may reflect the ability of the trusts to produce sound business cases for new developments, which is an important new criterion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not the question that I asked. I asked about the effect of the technique of underbedding to ensure a larger capital allocation for trust hospitals.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had assumed that the noble Lord referred to sound business cases. The management and use of beds is part of the sound business case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the considerations set out in her original Answer will strike most fair-minded people as thoroughly sensible?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that Guy's Hospital is in the middle of a building programme? Does the Labour Party seriously suggest that we should not put the roof on?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe I underlined the fact that in that case the capital allocation was part of an ongoing and very large new capital investment. We are pursuing what I believe is known as Guy's Phase III as of this moment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will be aware, as I am, that Guy's Hospital has two powerful advocates in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, did not seem to be concerned about Withington Hospital, although I expressed anxiety about Guy's Hospital. I do not know whether the noble Lord who has just spoken is still employed by Guy's Hospital. However, he has had the advantage of being employed at Guy's Hospital. Therefore Guy's Hospital is in a very privileged position: an advocate who works at Guy's Hospital is a Member of your Lordships' House and makes a special pleading.
However, the point that I put—
Noble Lords: Ask a question!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question. Is she satisfied that elderly

561
people and the chronically and mentally sick in Withington Hospital are obtaining a fair deal from the criteria cited? That hospital requires £26 million to put it into a reasonable state of repair, irrespective of the allocations to Guy's or anywhere else?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the short answer is yes.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, makes an important point; namely, that hospital buildings in the National Health Service are in a sorry state because in the past management in the NHS has been very bad and money was saved by not repairing buildings?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I know that there is strong feeling about the state of Withington Hospital. It is a matter that is under discussion and review. I certainly hope that patients in that area receive the best possible treatment in the future, as the health authority aims to ensure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is a real one and that hospitals have been starved of money and not been able to undertake repairs, particularly over the past eight or nine years? Is he not correct in that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we all recognise that there were problems in the National Health Service. That is the reason for our reforms.

NHS Hospital Beds: Numbers
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will respond to the Audit Commission report recommending the closure of large numbers of NHS hospital beds, and whether they will consult relevant staff organisations before doing so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government welcome this report but have no plans to respond directly to it. Local National Health Service managers will review their services in the light of the report and the further detailed work that the Audit Commission will carry out in all health authorities and National Health Service trusts over the next 12 months. The effect of any consequent decisions on staff will be a matter for local decision.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I assume from the Minister's Answer that staff associations, which are gravely concerned about this situation, will undoubtedly be consulted first at local level and then if necessary at national level? Is she aware of the grave concern that will be caused by an item in today's BBC programme "Panorama" according to which hundreds of beds are being closed down for very elderly and badly stricken patients who are to be moved—in the anomalous term—"elsewhere"? Can she enlarge on that information and say what it means?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, first let me say that the Government welcome the thrust of the report to which the noble Lord referred. As I said, implementation of the report will be done at local level and will undoubtedly involve consultation with staff. The "Panorama" programme has not yet been transmitted; so we are talking somewhat hypothetically. During the period to which the programme, which has been trailed in the press, refers, there has been considerable improvement in hospital rehabilitation, acute care and community health services. That has resulted in a shortened length of stay, down from 79.3 days to 38.6 days. That reflects fully our policy of trying to keep to a minimum the number and length of any episodes of hospital care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many beds that might be closed under the proposals of the Audit Commission are beds for the mentally ill and for the elderly and mentally frail? Bearing in mind the commitments in the Patient's Charter, will she give an absolute assurance that beds will not be closed so long as there is a need for them and that patients will not be discharged until there is proper alternative accommodation and treatment for them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, decisions on the length of stay of individual patients are clinical decisions for the consultant concerned. With regard to discharge, the recommendations of the report reinforce our advice on arrangements for discharge already issued to health authorities. We expect health authorities to ensure, through their contracting arrangements, that discharge procedures are properly followed.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the report of the Audit Commission is a great embarrassment to all those who have been making such a hoo-ha about all the beds that have been closed in the past 10 years? Is she aware that every year since 1964 on average 7,000 beds have been closed, irrespective of the government in power? Does she further agree that beds are dangerous places and that one should keep out of beds as much as one possibly can?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, by way of agreement with my noble friend, I confirm that the National Health Service is there to look after patients and not beds.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission report found that in 90 per cent. of hospitals last year patients requiring emergency admission had to be put into beds earmarked for routine surgery? Is she further aware that that situation caused cancellation of operations and lengthened the waiting list? What proposals do the Government have to prevent such occurrences? Did the Minister not say in her first Answer that the Government did not propose to respond to the report?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said that it was not for central Government to respond to the report. In fact we welcomed the report. Implementation of the report is for decision and action at local level.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the figure of 7,000 beds closed every year since 1964, given by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, means that a total of about 175,000 beds have been closed? Is that really true? Will she be kind enough to comment on that figure?
Furthermore, having heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to whom I listened with great respect, is it not a fact that there is acute anxiety as regards the number of mental patients and geriatric patients who are discharged unjustifiably? In view of that, is it not the duty of the noble Baroness's department to look into the matter very carefully? Will she ask her right honourable friend either to make a Statement or produce a short White Paper explaining the situation to the satisfaction of the people of this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is true to say that substantial numbers of beds have closed over a long period of years. We welcome that because at the same time more patients are being treated than ever before. That is as a result of increased and improved techniques and technology which enable patients to stay in hospital for a minimum amount of time thus avoiding disruption to their lives. That must be the best way forward. We hope that the trend will continue.
As regards the latter part of the noble Lord's question, if any examples of patients who have been discharged at the wrong time are brought to our attention or to the attention of the health authority, those examples are investigated. That is what the Patient's Charter is all about. However, we take the advice and clinical judgment of the consultant in those situations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be rather more specific or at least give an undertaking that she will look again into the charge that 175,000 beds have been closed since 1964?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is usually so good on his figures that I am prepared to accept them. However, I shall investigate the matter and let the noble Lord know if there is any substantial difference.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the report shows that in 1974 there were 158,000 beds and in 1988–89, 123,000 beds, a reduction of 36,000 beds in that period.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have undertaken to look into the matter.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that during the past 30 years in surgery we have managed to carry out operations without having patients in hospital beds for 30 days?
564
They are now only in for 30 hours. Is that not a good trend? Does my noble friend not agree that in view of that progress, we do not need as many beds?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, certainly it is not the total number of available beds which matters but the use which is made of them. Medical and surgical advances, the development of day surgery, faster throughput and more efficient use of resources mean that the National Health Service is treating 25 per cent. more patients than it did in 1979 with some 30,000 fewer beds in that period.

EC Funds: UK Contributions
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to negotiate an amendment to Articles 4 and 5 of the EC Decision of 24th June 1988 (Cm 822) to provide for a significant increase in the abatement of the United Kingdom's contribution to the "own resources" of the EC.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, at present we have no plans to do so. The Fontainebleau mechanism negotiated in 1984 provides a significant abatement to our contributions, with a cumulative benefit of some £12.5 billion by the end of 1992.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that after the extremely welcome abatement to which he has referred and after taking into account all receipts from the European Community by way of the social fund, the regional fund and so on, the net burden on the British taxpayer of our contributions to the European Community has amounted, during that period of abatement, to nearly £10 billion? This country, together with Germany, still remains the only country which makes a significant net contribution to European Community funds. Is the Minister aware also that during that same period the dubious benefit to the United Kingdom's economy from its participation in those EC matters has been a visible trade deficit of £50 billion, including a £25 billion deficit on our manufactures?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot claim the figures which he just quoted are a direct result of our membership of the European Community. That could have happened whether or not we were members of it.
Ourselves and Germany are not the only large contributors. France is also a significant contributor. The reason for our contributions is twofold: first, our share of the agricultural support expenditure is low because we have a relatively small agricultural sector compared to other member states; and, secondly, we are a relatively prosperous member state and therefore we receive only modest levels of structural fund receipts.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, do I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is

565
advocating the withdrawal of this country from the European Community? Is that in accordance with the policy of his party?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am pleased to say that it is not for me to answer on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, while recognising that we are a major contributor to the European Community, surely we are entitled to some receipts. One notable receipt is the £09 million of RECHAR money which has been agreed by the regional development commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan, but the Treasury seems to be preventing the coalfield communities from receiving that money. Why has there been no agreement on that matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Treasury is not preventing the receipt of that money. We believe that the Commission is wholly wrong to hold the RECHAR funds. It should pay those funds and should pay them now.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the Labour Party is fully committed to staying in the European Community. In fact, it is rather more committed than noble Lords opposite, since my party would have been at the forefront of the Maastricht renegotiations. The Labour Party will certainly seek to make sure that in a few months' time it is at the forefront of developments following from that. On more serious matters—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like these political discussions going backwards and forwards. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on a significant part of his Answer. He said that we are net contributors partly because we do not receive a great deal in the agricultural sphere. Is not another reason that we do not receive a great deal not only that our agricultural sector is small but also that it is rather efficient? Is that not a consequence of the nonsense of the common agricultural policy because it does not reinforce efficiency?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure what could be more serious than our membership of the European Community. On this side of the House we are committed to remaining as a member of the Community and have been for many years, unlike noble Lords opposite who have changed their minds half a dozen times in a dozen years.
As regards agriculture, we are concerned about the common agricultural policy and we shall pursue any possible useful reforms to it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord's remarks on the common agricultural policy. My point about seriousness is that I believe that the subject of membership of the Community is too serious to be bandied about. Will the noble Lord confirm that his party is united in its attitude towards Europe, especially post-Maastricht? We may then
566
hear some members of the leadership of his party occasionally supporting the Prime Minister on those matters.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we are fully committed to membership of the EC. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to discuss the issue with his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I speak as one who has not changed his mind and who will in due course be vindicated. Is the noble Lord aware that the directive to which I referred in the Question must be renegotiated at some time during the current year in order to ensure the necessary amendment to Article 3 of the directive? Is the Minister saying that he will not use this opportunity to renegotiate the abatement which has so far proved quite inadequate to meet an altogether fair position between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Community?
If he is not prepared to negotiate, why did not the Prime Minister at Maastricht renegotiate Article 201 of the Treaty of Rome so that major decisions on that directive or amendments to it require unanimity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we will consider our position in the future financing review which is shortly due to take place. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that just as it would require unanimity to weaken the abatement, so it will require unanimity to improve it.

R. v. Rooney: Inquiry
3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the observations of Judge Bruce Laughland on the case of Regina v. Rooney at the Central Criminal Court what action they propose.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there will be a full inquiry into the case. We shall announce its precise nature and remit shortly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I welcome that reply? Is she aware also that the judge at the trial of Mr. Rooney said that the crime was foreseeable and the death of Mrs. Quigley preventable? Further is she aware that Mr. Rooney was taken to the Homerton Hospital by police officers after he had attacked another woman? He was allowed to discharge himself and six days later he murdered Mrs. Quigley in the presence of her two small children. Is the noble Baroness finally aware that this man, on three separate occasions, was taken to a mental hospital after either attacks or threats of attack on other women? In all the circumstances that is an extraordinary situation.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is obviously a sad case and we shall study the papers carefully. However, I expect that any conclusions regarding resources, action taken or the adequacy of the law to deal with them will need to be reviewed in the light of the

567
inquiry. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I am unable to make comments in detail at this stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say whether this is an isolated case or whether similar cases have occurred where the papers have been sent to the relevant department?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the nature of things I assume that such matters may happen from time to time. In each and every case where any problem is found, clearly remedial action is taken to ensure that it does not happen again. I am certainly not aware of any other cases.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness undertake that a copy of the report of any inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, indeed. That is normal practice.

Business
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Jenkins of Putney. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit. But I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of nine minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to protect employees working on offshore installations against victimisation when acting as safety representatives for members of safety committees. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

NHS Medical Bodies and Health Department: Working Relationship
3.3 p.m.
Lord Molloyrose to call attention to the case for a closer working relationship between the Department of Health and the medical organisations of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Government on the creation of the UK Central Council for Nursing. It has been accepted by nurses as an interesting step forward and they are grateful. We understand that nurses will now be accountable to the nursing profession and that the nursing profession will perhaps have a lot more say than hitherto.
Another point in which the nurses are interested is that nurses elected to the UKCC will be allowed to examine all finances. With that measure, therefore, the Government have got off to a good start. I hope that they will improve on it by following the line of my recommendations this afternoon and consult more with the nursing organisations.
I know full well that the Minister understands the link between all NHS staff and professional organisations, and that must be appreciated also by the department in which she is an able and hard working Minister. I sometimes think that somebody in the department is attempting to put a brake on her attempts to have more discussions with the organisations and associations.
I should like to make clear that all the organisations and associations in the NHS knew full well that various changes had to be made. Many of them did not join in the cries when certain proposals were introduced. All the responsible organisations in the NHS knew that changes were necessary. They criticised some of the changes but fundamentally they criticised the fact that, having acknowledged that changes were necessary, greater dialogue with the Minister did not take place. They complain that the dialogue is much too limited.
I shall make reference also to what has become known as the "Selsdon Manifesto". It is causing some anxiety. I cannot say that the Government will approve of it; I hope that they will not. However, doctors, nurses and other specialists—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will agree even some of the great surgeons—are anxious that general
practitioners may become self-employed professionals employing their own staff and that all hospitals will become self-governing either through sale, management buy-outs or as independent trusts. It is felt that all patients will have to choose which hospital and which GP they want. Of course there will not be a great amount of choosing. People know the doctors and hospitals in their areas. I believe that the so-called "Selsdon Manifesto" is unnecessarily causing perturbation and anxiety among people in the professions and ordinary folk.
I wish to refer also to the Dyson proposals which tend to make, inter alias the NHS a hire and fire employer by casualising the workforce. I am not

569
totally sure what that means. Are we to have casual Lord McCoils doing a little now and again? Will there be casual doctors and nurses, and only casuals? It is causing great anxiety. All doctors, nurses and surgeons who have examined the Dyson paper, irrespective of their political outlook, find it a source of serious anxiety.
Perhaps I may briefly mention—it is not mentioned enough—an argument for dentist's charges. We discussed some aspects of the issue last week. According to my researches dentists are of the opinion that they need more money. The British Dental Association says quite categorically that underfunding can mean that patients will suffer. I feel sure that the department does not want that to happen and will be prepared to look at the situation.
I should like to talk briefly of the work done by some of the associations; first, the British Medical Association. It is a powerful association. I regretted some of the extreme views it took when opposing the Government some time ago and was glad that more sane voices prevailed. It did as it ought and will continue to be as co-operative as possible.
The BMA produced a thoughtful document which is a great credit to a great organisation. I refer to the BMA Agenda for Health. It is concerned with educational advice and it makes the point that education and advice are no substitute for fiscal measures and defective legislation. The BMA believes that NHS trusts are needed for certain types of hospital but not all. It also believes that those hospitals that are being formed into trusts should in the initial period be carefully monitored. Every specialist, surgeon, nurse and doctor does not look at the matter with a political eye. It is new. It may be right or wrong. In any case it will be correct for the department on behalf of the nation to ensure proper examination and monitoring. The BMA makes the point also that free eyesight tests for all should be reintroduced.
I mention those matters so that people can understand that it is not a question of a continual argument concerning the medical associations and organisations against the Government. All do a remarkable amount of civil and decent work. For example, the BMA is campaigning for a closer examination of the diets of our people, the amount of alcohol they drink and their smoking habits. The BMA believes that with its voice and specialist knowledge, its views should be heard.
I read an article by a very old colleague of many noble Lords. He was at one time leader of the Liberal Party. He was very witty, able and capable. He has suffered enormously of late. I refer to Mr. Jeremy Thorpe. We all know what he is suffering from and we realise how terrible it must be. In the article he refers to how upset he was that non-medical people were making vital decisions about how he should be treated although they knew nothing about what was happening to him. The priorities of the actual sickness or ailment must be a matter for the medical profession itself. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has made a similar point—that is to say,
570
concerning the discussion of the conduct of research both by and within the NHS, particularly as a result of the inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee of this House into the priorities in medical research. That is is of great value to the country as well as to the NHS.
I shall also speak briefly about other organisations. I refer first to the Confederation of Health Service Employees. It is a remarkable organisation. It covers a very broad area of National Health Service staff including nurses, nursing sisters and other ward staff, ambulance crews, kitchen staff and nearly all other auxiliaries. The officers of the confederation have great knowledge of the workings of the NHS and how they can be improved. The officers have a wealth of experience. They wish to make certain that that experience is put at the disposal of the department.
The confederation acknowledges that occasionally there are meetings with the Secretary of State but only through the TUC health service committee. The confederation believes that its detailed knowledge should be made available. Its representatives should be able to submit a case to the Secretary of State on the basis that he would be prepared to discuss it immediately and give the representatives of CoHSE every facility. It is not enough to have an occasional meeting on a certain date once a year. The confederation believes that if it comes across something which can increase the efficiency of the health service and which can help to reduce pain and suffering, then a meeting should be arranged with the Secretary of State. The confederation gains this knowledge from the experience of its members. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will acknowledge that nurses, ambulance drivers and such people sometimes gain knowledge which even great surgeons such as the noble Lord would not be aware of.
The current chair of the general Whitley Council is a representative of the confederation. That is a useful organisation. The confederation believes that discussions with civil servants are not enough. I can understand that. I was chairman of a Foreign Office organisation many years ago. We found life very difficult. I had to see the then Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, he was probably our greatest ever Foreign Secretary. I cannot repeat the language which Ernest Bevin used to me about ex-civil servants, but they poke their noses in where they are not wanted. He said to me, "Whenever you have anything important, Molloy, you come to me, not to them." It is that kind of attitude that we want in the National Health Service. CoHSE believes that discussions with civil servants are very important but not enough. There is need for more realistic meetings with top flight civil servants and ultimately with Ministers.
It hurts me to have to tell the House about a little incident some time ago which affected Mr. Hector MacKenzie, the general secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. As noble Lords will gather, he is a dour Scot: he does not take

571
any insult lying down. He was insulted by the Secretary of State for Health. Mr. Waldegrave had referred to a speech in which Mr. MacKenzie said:
"COHSE is acting now to protect its members. Success depends on the willingness of members to stand by their unions … to push for a Health Service that acts in the interest of its staff".
The Secretary of State went no further. He did not add Mr. MacKenzie's final words,
"and the people who rely on it".
Those words were deliberately omitted, and the omission completely altered the context of the statement. It was a very important part of the statement. Hector MacKenzie had said that if one had a satisfied staff and a comfortable one which was happy at its work, it must mean that patients would be much better looked after. The Secretary of State did not bother to mention that.
I want to speak briefly about the NHS support federation. It is a growing organisation garnering support from those who want to see complaints eliminated and improvements examined. It wishes to become a worthwhile watchdog. The federation asks that a certain group of people should be able to examine all that is taking place in the health service. I am not too sure whether I agree with that, but I shall not reject anything that comes from such an organisation.
There is another great organisation which is acknowledged by doctors, specialists and nurses throughout Great Britain. It may well be the favourite organisation and its work the most valuable work of all. I refer to the Health Visitors' Association. I am proud to be its trustee. The organisation is intimate with poverty—a word that the Secretary of State has abolished. That is arrogance for you! The Secretary of State may have abolished the word; the association believes that he should be more interested in abolishing poverty. I agree with that.
The Health Visitors' Association provides school nurses. Its very first nurse, Amy Hughes, was appointed by the London School Board to investigate the health of school children. At the time of the Boer War, poor physical fitness among the working class meant that many young men were unfit to join the forces. Indeed, just after the last war Aneurin Bevan said that one of the most disgraceful things that our nation had to realise was that between 1938 and 1939 between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of our young men between the ages of 18 and 21 were unfit for military service. I agree with Mr. Bevan that we have to keep a strong army, navy and air force. We also need a strong NHS so all the young men serving in those great services can be fit and give of their best. I do not know whether any noble Lords would disagree with that.
The Health Visitors' Association provides probably the most poignant story of all. Its general secretary, Catherine Burns, and the members, deservedly enjoy the praise and support of all NHS organisations. The association deals with school nursing and deprived families and is active wherever poverty strikes. It works for the stricken and crippled. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will acknowledge that some people, with the best will in the world, are sometimes
572
confined to bed for the rest of their lives. Some servicemen of the 1939–45 war will never get out of bed again. They depend greatly on the remarkable people of the HVA.
The association is also concerned with one-parent families and broken families, including the homeless. As the organisation provides midwives, it has to deal with the awkward situation of the unmarried girl who is pregnant and who does not know what to do. The members of the association are remarkable people. They deal with the blind and all aspects of community nursing. They are veritably the angels of mercy. The association has run a cot death campaign to which the Government are now giving support and it welcomes that. The services of health visitors, in connection with doctors, specialists, nurses and ambulances, are appreciated throughout the NHS.
Does my noble friend on the Front Bench wish to intervene? He should have listened to what was said by the Leader of the House. I did, that is why I am continuing for a few more minutes.
It would appear from Mr. Waldegrave's attitude that these NHS organisations need not exist, particularly with regard to their views on some aspects of trusts and the creation of NHS reforms. I believe that our NHS is the envy of the world. It was created within a few years of the end of the most costly war in our history. It is one of the most wonderful things we ever did; after a most terrible war when London, Scotland and parts of England were bombed, and tens of thousands of soldiers were injured overseas and had to be brought home. We built more houses in those two years of our history and at the same time created the National Health Service. It is those things that make us a great nation and an example to all mankind.
I conclude with these words. We quite rightly spend many millions of pounds on defence and assisting other nations with arms so that they can give us support. That is right and proper. However, we must work not only for massive military organisations like NATO—which is vital—but start thinking about creating the equivalent of a nursing medical NATO for the benefit of all mankind. That may well be hundreds of years away, but I believe that if there is one country which can start the medical equivalent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—that is, an organisation leading to a worldwide free health service—it is this nation of ours. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for bringing this debate to us. I agree with him entirely that all 1 million employees in the National Health Service have a great deal to learn from one another. I pay personal tribute to many of the people who have kept Guy's Hospital and Lewisham Hospital running for many years—the faithful people of Bermondsey and Southwark who have done such great work in keeping the hospitals clean and who carry out all those jobs behind the scenes for which they do not often get a great deal of credit. They are, I believe, the salt of the earth. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is absolutely right to draw attention to them.

573
Nowadays when I am operating in theatre you can see everything I am doing because it is on a sort of television screen. Everyone present in the theatre can see my every movement. Therefore, if I have had too much coffee and there is a slight tremor it is visible on the screen, so they can all make comments. They can contribute. I am very happy to listen to advice from anyone. Sometimes the porter may be in the theatre and see something he does not quite like and say, "steady there". I am very happy to have any help.
I am reminded of the relatives of a child who was very ill. The parents asked the consultant paediatrician if he would mind very much if they took the child to Lourdes. I shall always remember what that paediatrician said. He said, "Of course, we shall be delighted if the child is taken. We are going to need all the help we can get". That is the right attitude to have in the health service.
Perhaps I may go back to some of the points which have been raised on the maintenance of hospitals. It was mentioned earlier that the fabric of our buildings is, in many cases, in very bad repair. That is a serious matter. But we should not lose sight of the reason why that has occurred. I am afraid that in the past 20 years or so we have not been blessed with the best managers and finance people. It is not their fault, they simply were not trained for that kind of work.
When some managers received a bill and did not know what to do with it they put it into the "suspense" account, known as the "dustbin". Some of them left the bills there unattended for a year so there would be bills amounting to a million pounds. That very often was the basis of a financial crisis. It is unbelievable how crude the financial control was. Therefore, towards the end of the financial year there is sudden panic and a great deal of money has to be saved quickly, so they stop maintaining the buildings. Some of the buildings have not been properly maintained for over 10 years.
That is a very short-sighted policy because the total bill at the end of the day will be much more. It would have been much cheaper if they had kept up regular maintenance. That is now being done. I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that.
I turn now to the question of beds. I am sorry if I shocked the House with my figures. There is nothing new about them. TB is no longer a scourge. We no longer need those thousands of long-term beds. People who had suffered heart attacks used to be kept on complete bed rest for six weeks, and that was only 30 years ago. They were not allowed even to leave their beds to go to the toilet. They had to put up with that dreadful torture called the bedpan. I do not know whether any noble Lord has ever balanced on one of these things on a Dunlopillow mattress, but it is a form of torture and great effort is required to keep one's balance. Heaven knows what it did to the heart. However, patients were kept in bed for six weeks. Nowadays they are in for hardly more than a few days. That is nothing to with saving money. It is simply the best way of treating patients.
As far as concerns children it is better that they do not stay a single night in hospital. They can stay in
574
hospital, with their parents, throughout the day and go home in the evening. That is the best way of doing things. Elderly patients feel much the same. Sometimes they refuse to come into hospital altogether, so we have to go to their homes and operate in their bed at home. I am talking about the very elderly who would be disoriented by coming into hospital, even for a few hours. In such cases we go out to their homes. That does not present any great problem except that their beds are usually rather low and to do the operation one has to kneel, which is probably the right attitude to adopt in more senses than one.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, say that perhaps self-governing hospitals may be right and perhaps they may be wrong. I think that is a real breath of fresh air from the Labour Party, which I welcome very much indeed. There is not a great deal of difference between self-governing hospitals today and the teaching hospitals of old with their boards of governors. And who set them up? Aneurin Bevan. He was no fool. So I am very glad that there is this attitude that perhaps self-governing hospitals are right after all. I think that they will turn out to be right because they are orientated to giving the best deal possible to the local population. That has to be right.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is absolutely right in what he said. That is precisely what Bevan said. It is not possible to say that all hospitals are this, that or the other. He gave the example of what hospitals have to do mainly in South Wales. They will always have to deal with miners who have had accidents, miners who have what we call "the dust", or steel people. About 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of all patients in those hospitals are either steel workers or miners. So what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said is correct.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for that intervention. I also take up the point that he made that these self-governing hospitals should be carefully monitored. That is absolutely right; but it applies to all hospitals, not only self-governing hospitals. That is a crucial part of the Government's reforms of medical audit. Again, like all the reforms in the Government legislation on the NHS, they were not plucked out of the air. They were not new. They had been tried in many places. Medical audit has been tried for something like 20 years. The Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are very much in favour of this. The Government are absolutely right to push that movement.
I am also pleased to acknowledge our debt to the British Medical Association. I have always been a member and have remained so through thick and thin. I pay tribute to the present chairman, Dr. Jeremy Lee-Potter, who is first rate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, he is a man with a completely open mind, and we are grateful for that.
The noble Lord asked whether surgeons will become casual surgeons. There is no such thing as a

575
casual surgeon. We have to operate most days in order to maintain our skills. If we do not operate most days many of us get withdrawal symptoms. It is important to continue to be expert. When we realise that our expertise is diminishing, then is the time to retire. It is sometimes difficult to have the necessary insight to know when to retire, but the students usually give one a pretty good indication. One of our Home Office pathologists was once lecturing the students. He was talking about gunshot wounds and he was saying how worried he was in case he started to become senile before he was due to retire. He said that he had arranged with his wife—also a forensic expert—that if she saw any sign of him going off she would arrange a shotgun accident. A student at the back of the lecture theatre—the students are very sharp these days; they are better than ever—shouted out "Left it a bit late, hasn't she?" There is nothing wrong with medical students.
I should like to deal with the question of finance. It has been said that this Government are not putting enough money into the National Health Service. I should like to analyse that claim in a little more detail. The British Government put into the health service 5 per cent. of gross national product. America puts in 5 per cent.; Switzerland puts in 5 per cent.; many European countries put in 5 per cent. But the difference is that all the European countries, the United States and Japan put a great deal more into the private sector. In this country 1 per cent. goes into the private sector and 5 per cent. goes into the health services through the Government. In the United States 5 per cent. comes from the government and 7 per cent. goes into the private sector. We must bear that in mind when we hear constant attacks about finance.
The position is not quite as it seems. If one goes to Germany to have one's hernia repaired one is given two week's holiday, with physiotherapy, in Lindau am Bodensee. Is that really necessary? Is it not the height of extravagance? The patient should be back at work in two weeks. Running repairs is the name of the game. It is safer to get back to work as soon as possible. It is safer to spend as little time in bed as possible.
Finally, there was reference to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and myself being powerful advocates on behalf of Guy's Hospital. I am sorry that that was said. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has given marvellous service to Bermondsey and Southwark and he has been of tremendous help to the hospitals. He is an astute man with tremendous insight. I can assure the House that he has been around our hospitals and has been very critical; critical in order to improve them. He has made many extremely helpful suggestions. Neither of us would ever use our positions to further our hospitals—when I say "further our hospitals" I mean further in an undesirable way—but we use our positions to try to improve the service given by our hospitals because we believe that that is the right thing to do.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, by his choice of wording for the Motion my noble friend Lord Molloy has given us an opportunity to range fully around the National Health Service. We have just heard a very entertaining description of the journey of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have chosen the narrow interpretation of my noble friend's Motion. By "medical" I shall refer to the medical profession as such, of which I am a member, though I fully agree that a closer working relationship between all health workers and the Department of Health is vital.
There is a continuous dialogue between the Department of Health and the medical profession. The BMA has at least six standing committees and other ad hoc bodies which have frequent meetings, sometimes regular fixed meetings, with Department of Health officials. Ministers attend at critical junctures. There are regular meetings with the Chief Medical Officer. The Royal Colleges have frequent meetings with the relevant officials to discuss legislation and other matters affecting their special interests. I am not saying that all is sweetness and light at those meetings. There are a number of issues of a political nature where the Government's position appears fixed. To describe a meeting over such an issue as a consultation, as has happened in the past, is a euphemism.
In this respect I am thinking in particular of the imposition of the limited list and the general practitioner contract, the latter when M r. Kenneth Clarke was Secretary of State. However, when, as with the current reforms, Parliament endorses changes, the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges, opposed to them in principle, discuss with the department the practicalities of operating the changes in a constructive manner. The current discussion on general practitioner fund holding is an example. One result of that dialogue is that the Government appear implicitly to have recognised the potential damage that a high proportion of unrestricted GP fund holders could have on the planning and operation of a health district's budget. I am delighted that collaborative projects between district health authorities and GP fund holders are now to be set up in a number of districts. Had the Government listened to advice from this House two and a half years ago they would have instituted such projects right from the start.
Another issue on which the profession differs from the Government is the abolition of free eye tests, a point to which my noble friend alluded. Since they were abolished in 1989–90 the number of tests has gone down from 16.2 million to an estimated 10 million only. There is a great need for closer monitoring of the effects of this reduction in eye tests. Ophthalmologists are very worried, especially in regard to glaucoma.
Altogether, the effects of the National Health Service reforms have not been as beneficial as the Government would like us to believe. Only last week a Department of Health report on increased activity revealed no such thing. In fact the increase in the number of in—patients treated—I accept that there was

577
an increase—was slightly less than the increase in the preceding year. What is needed is a more objective and rigorous monitoring exercise that is not designed mainly to reflect credit on a Government running up to an election. Perhaps that is too much to ask at this time of the year in this particular year.
Lastly, I wish to mention a running sore. I refer to the pay of clinical academic staff, a subject with which my noble friend Lord Butterfield will deal in more detail. Since the late 1960s clinical academic staff have been paid on identical salary scales to those of NHS hospital doctors. Parity of salary between clinical academic staff and their NHS counterparts was introduced to resolve a long-standing problem of recruitment and retention of the best doctors into academic medicine.
Sadly, I can remember that issue causing problems as far back as 1967–68, when I was a full-time academic at St. Thomas's Hospital. It seems incredible to me that a formula has still not been devised which avoids that embarrassing hassle. That is possibly because the profession has to deal with the Department of Education and Science and not the Department of Health. That should not happen; universities should automatically be given the top-up required for clinical academic staff from the Department of Health through to the DES every time clinical salaries are reviewed.
From time to time joint meetings of the Department of Health with representatives of all the branches of the professions may be required. Very strong representations suggesting beneficial changes to the NHS Bill were made to the Government in 1989 by an impressive and unanimous array of Royal colleges and other organisations. Sadly, the Government did not listen. But, on the other hand, the ongoing dialogue at relatively mundane working level which goes on day by day and week by week achieves a great deal. The relationship between the Department of Health and the professions is probably closer and better than in nearly every other country. Such discussions sometimes even result in modifications of rigid government positions which cannot be achieved by political means.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for introducing the debate this afternoon and to say what a pleasure it is to take part in such a good tempered debate on the health service. I was going to apologise to the noble Lord for widening the range of the subject, but he has shown me that that will not be necessary. I have kept my eye on the speakers' list and, in view of the fact that there are not too many names on it, I believe that the noble Lord will not object if I say something about the dental profession. I feel confident that it can be described as a medical organisation of the National Health Service. However, I should first declare an interest as I am a dental surgeon. I should also point out that I have notified my noble friend the Minister of some of the points that I intend to cover this afternoon.
578
In September of last year a sample survey of dentists in the general dental service was conducted to present an overall picture at national, at regional and at individual family health service level to establish whether, following the introduction of the new contract, dentists were still treating patients under the health service and, if so, whether they were being selective in the type of patient whom they were treating. Nationally, it was found that 76 per cent. of dentists routinely accepted all National Health Service patients; that 22 per cent. of dentists were selective in their acceptance; and that only 2 per cent. did not accept any NHS patients.
That finding, and the British Dental Association's press release on Friday 10th January, which showed that, in the South East, fewer than 70 per cent. of dentists accepted all patients, caused quite a stir in the national press. On 11 th January The Times ran the headline, "Dentists turn away NHS work". A headline in the Telegraph stated, "Dentists refusing to treat NHS patients". In the Independent the headline was, "NHS dental work disappearing in South-East" and the Guardian quoted, "Dentists turn away NHS patients".
In a letter to The Times on 13th January my noble friend the Minister repeated the department's denial of any problem. The last paragraph of her letter read:
"The vast majority of dentists still work within the NHS. In most parts of the country there is not the slightest difficulty in obtaining NHS dental treatment, and if anyone has a problem, steps will be taken where necessary to improve the problem".
My noble friend repeated that in her Answer to a Question on the same subject tabled last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
The new contract means more work and that has been endorsed by a workload survey which is due to be published at the end of the month. The Government are keen to have some sort of performance-related pay and I am aware that the Secretary of State has summoned the chairman of the GDSC to bring forward proposals for this by the end of the month. The dental profession would welcome a scheme which rewards commitment to the NHS by dentists. I know that there are general principle proposals with the department on this, but it must be paid for with new money—not by shuffling round the existing money in the GDS pool.
The existing system penalises the profession for its success. The more patients that are signed up, the more of the population will be covered. But, if dentists exceed the income recommended by the review body, then it will be clawed back in three years' time. Over the lifetime of this Government, the sum of £4,509 per dentist has been recovered because more work than was anticipated had been done. The Secretary of State has recently written off £1,529 of that "overpayment", which will help; but it should not be regarded as an overpayment. The work has been done and, in effect, the Government are applying an incomes policy, as happened in the late 1970s under another administration.
We need to encourage dentists to register NHS patients by putting in pump priming money so that we can increase the proportion of the population who

579
have their own dentist and encourage those dentists who are committed to the NHS. Even now members of the profession are working hard to ensure that their patients are receiving a high standard of care under the NHS, but there is no doubt that their health, their bank balances and their family life are suffering—to the extent that some are finding that they are no longer being able to afford to offer NHS treatment, while others are taking early retirement or leaving the profession altogether. For the first time since I qualified in 1966, I am aware of bankruptcy involving dental practices.
I know that my noble friend will deny that there is any crisis and that she will tell me that there are now 100 or so more dentists working in the GDS than this time last year. However, she must be aware that many who opt out of the NHS still retain their FHSA number to treat family or friends, and to avoid the considerable superannuation, pension implications of leaving the NHS altogether. In some areas, particularly London and the South East, one in every five dentists has registered less than 200 patients for the first year of the new contract—meaning, in effect, that they do not taken on NHS patients. Low fees are certainly the biggest problem, but dentists are also leaving the health service in low-cost areas where overheads are relatively low. The fees are the same as in the South East, so I must ask: why is this happening?
I have spoken to many dentists, who all say that the "registration" aspects of the new contract are in complete chaos. Unless patients are registered with a dentist, he or she cannot undertake a course of NHS treatment. Registration involves compatibility of the details on the computer at the Dental Practice Board with the treatment form sent in by the dentist. If there is any fault, such as an initial or a spelling being given incorrectly, the patient's form is rejected on the ground that the registration cannot be found and the eventual process can be delayed by six months or more.
The British Dental Association tells me that it has been trying for over six months to negotiate changes in the system with the department, only to be told just before Christmas that there were insuperable legal problems which it would require primary legislation to correct. My noble friend will no doubt point to her various public statements, including a press release issued in October 1991, in which she expressed her willingness to enter into discussions with the GDSC about "fine tuning" of the contract. However, I am told that the profession has found progress in the negotiations to be extremely slow. For example, meetings have been cancelled at the last moment and there are frequent delays while officials in the department consult among themselves, with Ministers, with the Treasury and with legal advisers. Nor are such delays confined to the dental service. I hear that the Joint Negotiating Forum for the Community Dental Services has not met since last August because, apparently, it is awaiting responses from the department on various issues raised by the profession.
580
An administrative letter to the Dental Practice Board is not now routinely acknowledged owing to shortage of staff. Moreover, replies can take up to five months to be dealt with. When the contract was introduced in 1990, most dental practices were inundated with extra dental work, to the extent that many dentists took on extra staff to deal with the workload. At the same time, it transpired that the DPB—this is confirmed in its annual report—was laying off staff as part of a cost-cutting programme. That has made practitioners extremely angry.
It is also argued by practitioners that many hundreds of dental forms are being lost or are going missing at the DPB or en route to the DPB. That means lost registrations and lost payments. If those forms are eventually described as officially missing, the practitioner has to produce a duplicate form which is valid only if it has the patient's signature. That is often difficult to obtain. I am aware of practices where there are many hundreds of such forms, all originally sent to the DPB by recorded delivery, which are awaiting a new signature before the work, carried out many months previously, can be validated and paid for.
Children registered into capitation in October/ November/December 1990 all lapsed on 31st December last unless a roll-on form was completed to reactivate the capitation. Because of the delays, I suspect that hundreds of thousands of those forms are unprocessed and sitting at the DPB. My anxiety is that that will result in all those children being missing from the dentists' lists this month and it may be some considerable time before they are re-registered.
When the GDSC has raised those worries with the DPB it has been assured that no major problems exist. It would seem that the problems experienced by dentists are not taken sufficiently seriously by the board and that something must be done to improve communication between the board and practitioners.
The board's chairman and chief executive have been extremely helpful in conversations I have had with them. While they admit that there have been some problems with the tremendous volume of paperwork and the large number of invalid forms, they do not feel that there is much wrong with the system, and they state that cash flow to dentists is being maintained. I am aware that the board has made high levels of payments in the past few months, but some members of the profession have found that not to be the case. Perhaps I can persuade my noble friend to visit the DPB with representatives from the dental profession to obtain some firsthand information.
Capitation works well in areas where there is no dental disease, but in areas where there is a high caries rate, or expenses are particularly high, it has produced devastating problems. Due to the fact that all treatment must be completed within fixed financial limits, thousands of children are not being given the full treatment they need or are being referred on for extractions under general anaesthesia. I should be grateful if my noble friend would, yet again, give an assurance to all my dental colleagues that dentistry is not being carefully withdrawn from the NHS.

581
Following the Government's launch of the Patient's Charter, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"This is the first time that a Government has put its weight behind a set of rights which all patients are entitled to under the National Health Service. It is also the first time that a Government has introduced national standards for the NHS. By implementing these fundamental rights and national standards we have signalled our commitment to preserving and improving the standards in the NHS".
The dental profession is concerned that the charter did not even contain the word "dental" and that no dentists have been involved in any of the NHS strategy meetings. I must say that that does appear a little suspicious. I hope that my noble friend can state categorically that the exclusion of dentistry from the mainstream of the NHS in the charter is not a Government admission that the idea of universal NHS dental provision has been abandoned.
Morale is low. Perhaps my noble friend can cheer us up and give an indication that the Government will accept in full the forthcoming report of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Board and not stage the award as has happened in the past. In conclusion, will my noble friend say whether she is aware of any progress made with the Oral Health Strategy Group, which was set up under the chairmanship of the Chief Dental Officer to advise the department on the development of a consultative document to propose more detailed targets for improvement in dental health than those contained in the Health of the Nation Green Paper, and when the profession can expect an announcement of the action to be taken as a result of the Poswillow Report on dental anaesthesia and sedation?
3.55 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for giving us an opportunity to air some of the matters that are worrying us. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already said that an issue which is worrying me and many of my colleagues relates to the pay of academic doctors; that is to say, doctors who work in the university departments and who work with the NHS. The situation is unsatisfactory. It is sad because each year—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will be able to confirm this—heads of university departments have young men and women academic doctors who face difficulties because their pay rises do not come through at the same time as those of their colleagues.
I hope the Minister will not be too upset if I tell her that we should be most grateful if she could solve that problem in the near future. It is having an unfortunate effect upon the morale of people whom I regard as among the most important and valuable members of the medical profession—those who take responsibility for teaching our medical students, organising research programmes, publishing papers, setting examination papers and ensuring that candidates' standards are maintained, who go abroad and produce papers about the great achievements of British medicine, who stand up for the NHS when it is attacked in America and who are in fact some of the Government's most important shock troops in the whole medical
582
profession. I hope that other Members of the House who may not feel so strongly about such people—I admit that I have a personal interest in them because they are my young friends and they are the young people whom I feel I must do what I can to support—will understand that they have had a wretched time.
It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that year after year the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Board has worked out what would be a reasonable salary increase for the people beside whom its members work on the wards, in the operating theatre and in the outpatient department, the people with whom they may well be planning curricular developments for our students, with whom they are working in the community and with whom they work, even late at night, on the statistics that result from their experiments. They are working beside those people and they are conscious that while they were in medical school most of them were the top boys and girls—those who received the medals and whom the professors all identified as the sharp-eyed people who would maintain the cutting edge of our profession. They feel, and I am sorry to have to put this so firmly, that they cannot matter very much if they become a shuttlecock or political football—whatever one likes to call it—in the interactions between the DES, the CVCP and the UFC on one side and the Department of Health on the other.
Sometime during the year a salary rise is given to people within the NHS. When that happens we have to start negotiations within the university world to try to get a rise for the people who are doing similar work but who have many additional important responsibilities which they cannot duck to do with the teaching and research side of the profession. It should be remembered that such people cannot be promoted these days unless they have an astonishing record of research and of publishing papers and giving lectures all over the place. They will not receive their salary rise until some great chess game is played behind the scenes by the people who are responsible for getting them their salaries—but out of where?
The problem is that it is difficult for the university organisations to know by how much the review board will increase salaries. There are between 2,000 and 2,300 such people out of perhaps 30,000 academics altogether. They form only a small section of the academics. I admit that they receive good salaries and get rises, but it is hard for the bursars and university finance officers to be able to budget for those rises; so they are not budgeted for. If they are not budgeted for, when they arrive everyone scratches their heads. They say that the doctors and the surgeons will have to wait and, "They are busy. They will not notice that their salaries are not going up". They do notice. In these days when mortgages and interest rates are part of the warp and weft of a young person's life, such people go to their professors and ask, "I'm in a fix. Is there any chance that I can do better in America?". Sometimes they go there.
I very much hope that a way will be found to solve the problem. I have many friends who point out to me repeatedly that, "You will never win on this one. If these people are paid by the Department of Education

583
and Science but are working with and helping the Department of Health, there is no way you will be able to get money out of the Department of Health budget into the Department of Education and Science conduit".
I beg the Minister to examine the situation because I believe that that argument is flawed. Having served for many years on regional health authorities, I know that those authorities grumble when they find that they have to pay the merit awards—that is the top-up, to make sure that people do not emigrate when they are at the top of the tree.
The merit awards are paid into the salary pool of these people out of the Department of Health funds. If it could be arranged to pay the superstars like the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and me in my day, why on earth can we not arrange to pay for the young chaps and young women who replace us? It seems to me that they should know, first, that this is happening with the merit award system. It has always been kept rather quiet, understandably, in the past. If they knew that, they would be cross. I do not say that they would march because they are not that kind of people, but they would be cross. Secondly, if they found out that this had been going on for many years they would wonder what on earth the likes of us professors had been up to over the years in not helping to defend their just deserts in terms of salary rises year by year.
I hope that the Minister will not mind my bringing this out. It is a serious matter for about 2,500 young men and women. To me they are a special group of young people because they not only carry on their clinical work but take on many other responsibilities, carrying out research, publishing papers, going abroad. Everyone says, "Oh, they go swanning off on a wonderful trip", but when they go abroad they have to stand up for Britain. They have to give their papers impeccably so that other nations do not think that British medicine is slipping. I can assure the House that it is not, but the morale of these people is low.
People have asked me over the years, "If they really think that we are so important, how is it that they cannot solve this apparently simple problem? Are they not supposed to be clever people in the Treasury?"
4.3 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, one point is agreed by all parties: that this House has not been short of discussions on the National Health Service either during Question Time or in general debates. We need make no apology for that at all. Good health is essential to any country. Whether we have a recession or a boom, one thing is quite certain: the health of the nation is all-important.
We are all very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for having initiated the debate, which until now has been good tempered and extremely constructive. One depressing point is that at the moment in the run-up to the general election—and I have witnessed a few general election campaigns in my time—there is constant backbiting about the National Health Service. All political parties seem to be entangled in an unholy row. Who are the losers? The losers are the nurses, the doctors and others who are
584
employed within the health service, as well as the patients, as has quite rightly been said. In a democracy differences of opinion must be aired. In the time prior to an election it is only natural that fairly strong views should be expressed, particularly in the elected Chamber. It is, therefore, a breath of fresh air that we are able to have such a debate and I hope that it receives wide circulation. Many of the speakers taking part have extremely close experience of the National Health Service.
Turning to the Motion, I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister, who wrote me an extremely explicit introduction to a conference at which I had to speak in Copenhagen in September, the second European seminar on the registration and national care of the elderly. It is a subject in which I must confess I am not particularly expert. But it was an extremely interesting conference, and the Minister's foreword was received with enormous enthusiasm.
Knowing Scandinavia as I do, particularly Denmark and Finland, I made the point that we are treating at least 40 million people under the National Health Service every year, plus European Community nationals and many others who come over here. Whatever differences of opinion we may have on hospital trusts, the condition of hospitals or nurses' pay, the large number of patients is something which all political parties will accept.
My family has been connected with health care for six generations, although I have pointed out to your Lordships before that only our younger daughter, who is a practice nurse, is employed in therapy. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned Mr Aneurin Bevan, who is acknowledged as one of the outstanding health Ministers, even by those who may not necessarily agree with all his views. In the early days of the health service, my uncle was secretary of the Kingston Hospital in Surrey. There was a regional board meeting going on, and Mr. Bevan came into the oak-panelled council room with all the doctors there. He said, "You so-and-so doctors, it's a very different game now, boyos". Then he gave them quite a lecture and walked out of the room. They all thought, "By jove, the next board meeting will be north of Moscow". He came back an hour later and my uncle quotes him as saying, "I am sorry, I was rather angry with you. Please forgive me. We must all work together", and they did. They may have disagreed but there was an enormous amount of working together in those days, even though the inception of the health service had certain problems.
I wish to make a somewhat provocative point here. Looking at the health service with hindsight, I believe that if some minimal charge had been imposed at its inception, if only for patients' food, despite national insurance contributions and so on, the service at that time would have been better funded. I believe that the policy would have been continued. However, that is water under the bridge and I mention it only because whenever I go overseas I always try to visit a hospital. I ask two questions: "Do you have waiting lists? Do you have a nursing shortage?". I must say that I am surprised to hear that, in the majority of countries, in almost every case the answer is in the affirmative, even

585
in Scandinavia, where there are a relatively small number of people to treat. Hospitals there often have much better operating theatres and wards because they have the finances which are often denied to this country through the enormous number of people we have to treat. But they are faced with similar problems. We must get this matter into perspective.
In yesterday's edition of the Sunday Times there was a survey of waiting lists in hospitals throughout the country. I am always rather suspicious of surveys as they represent the state of affairs that exists at one time only. However, the survey in the Sunday Times was interesting in that it showed that hospitals situated north of Watford have shorter waiting lists. It was a little depressing to note that Westminster Hospital came bottom of the list of credits. However, I am not at all sure that one survey necessarily proves anything.
I was particularly keen to note that the Epsom hospital trust—as your Lordships may know, I am a friend of Epsom general hospital—was rated highly as regards facilities for ear, nose and throat treatment. I believe such treatment constitutes a vital part of our health service, particularly as regards children. The National Health Service has an important role to play in that area.
My father used to be the chairman of a London children's hospital in Chelsea. In those days there was a kind of one upmanship as regards removing tonsils and adenoids. Their removal constituted a status symbol. My father intervened in that matter as many children who needed such operations were denied them as a certain amount of queue jumping went on. That is one area where it is essential to ensure that everyone has equal access to treatment.
I have always believed, as a canny Scot, that one should make haste slowly in the matter of hospital trusts. I believe the idea of the trusts is a good one. It has certainly worked in the area where I live. In my area there is a superb manager and a substantial number of staff have been appointed. However, this is a matter that needs to be looked into. I have never believed—I do not think many people believe this should be the case—that all hospitals should be made into trusts at a stroke. It is equally vital that local control should be given to the trusts. Much depends on the manager, and also on the number of nurses who now become nurse managers.
This is an important debate. In two days' time we shall have another important debate on a much narrower subject. For the sake of nurses, doctors and patients I hope my noble friend the Minister will make some interesting points when she replies.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in the various public national services there is almost always a tripartite structure, either acknowledged or covert. It is that of, first, the professionals, secondly, the public, and, thirdly, the political parties, including primarily the party of the government of the day. Those three combine to make the success or failure of the services.
586
I take an example from the area of education where I am more at home than I am in the area of health. In education the running is almost always made by the professionals. They like to pretend that that is not the case. Perhaps I am being unfair in saying that they "pretend" since they may not always be aware of how much influence they exert and to what extent they govern the climate of opinion at any given time. I have little doubt that the professionals also have an important part to play in forming the opinions which lie behind the running of the health service.
However, it is to a certain extent for the government of the day to hold the ring. Not only are the consumers and professionals involved but there is rivalry either acknowledged or unacknowledged, between various branches of the profession. The Government's job consists not only of putting into practice and into legislation the decisions that are made by all these bodies, but also in ensuring that none of the bodies is being done down. The Government will, of course, inject their own ideology. That is right because that is what governments are for and that is why we have political parties. If that means that from time to time we have reversals of ideology, that is the price one pays in a democracy. Recently, we have not had to pay that price often enough.
The Government's job is also to ensure that the voice of consumers is heard as loudly as possible because consumers are very much on the receiving end in every sense of that phrase. It is difficult for them to combine sufficiently to make themselves heard unless the institutions through which they do so are provided by the Government. Things are much better in the health service today than they were in the past when the voice of the customer was not often heard. The present Government have a certain amount to be proud of in that respect.
It is also the job of the Government to look after the whole area in which the great national services operate. In the field we are discussing today the Government have not always been as understanding of the professional interests as they might. If that is so, what of the future? We must all welcome the Patient's Charter. That must be a step forward in an important area where the Government can make provision for the ordinary consumer and the ordinary patient. It is by definition in this field that the patient is doubly or trebly at a disadvantage as opposed to consumers in other fields because he or she is usually feeling ill. It is important also that the Government should pay attention to those areas where it appears that trouble is brewing because where trouble brews it is usually for a good reason.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke in such detail of the problems in the dental profession. That is an area where the Government must do something to heal—how impossible it is to get away from medical metaphors—a running sore in the National Health Service. Like the noble Lord, I hope very much that the Government are not sidelining the dental profession, which is a very important part of the National Health Service.
The whole question of eye tests needs to be considered again. Much more care, trouble and time

587
needs to be taken over the establishment of NHS trusts. It is undoubtedly the case that they can be a good thing, but there appears to have been too much haste in the implementation of some of them.
A tremendously important area is the impact of poverty on the health of the nation. There is a group we have come to know as an underclass—a debatable but I think correct term—of people, who are singly, doubly or trebly handicapped in various ways. They are not able to look after themselves because they are not given the opportunity to do so. Among them—because of poverty and poor diet—illness and disease are rampant. Often, the health service they receive is not as good as it should be, not through any fault of the professions but because that is the way of society. Those who are already unfortunate and who have little find that what they already have is taken away from them.
It is important that local and professional representation should be included on all the governing bodies of the National Health Service. We should press for that. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for initiating what has proved an extremely good debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who made an excellent and illuminating speech, as did several other noble Lords.
We have a great health service still, despite all the problems. Those of us who from time to time go to the United States of America and see one of the alternatives come back to Britain thanking God for what we have here. We must keep it. All parties to this great debate are learning and doing better. The Government are learning to co-operate, even when they feel rather impatient in terms of their own ideology. I know that the medical profession is improving. When I was young it was fairly difficult to find a general practitioner who was not a little bit of a dictator. Now if one tries to find a new practice to attend under the National Health Service one will find that almost everywhere doctors have learnt the new language of co-operation with patients as opposed to dictatorship.
I go to the Bolingbroke Hospital in Wandsworth, which has won prizes for the best outpatient facilities in London and for serving the people courteously, efficiently and in very pleasant surroundings. It is extremely good that there are such competitions. All hospitals appear to be improving their service.
The main principle is co-operation. It is a matter for the Government primarily to see that the bodies concerned, including themselves, hold the right balance in co-operation and in using the resources that are available to the very best effect and to the benefit of patients in particular and the general health of the nation in general.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank my noble friend Lord Molloy for making the debate possible and the Government for making it necessary. We are all in favour of closer working relationships. That must mean openness and access to information. It is not just a matter for the medical
588
organisations, which are mentioned in the Motion, and the health care professionals; the voice of patients and client groups must also be heard.
Unlike the noble Lord who has just spoken I am glad to see that the Government appear to have dropped references to "customers" of the health service. The term was heard a good deal at the beginning of the reform debate.
We all agree that lack of constructive dialogue leads to ill thought out and badly planned projects. Noble Lords will remember the very short time allowed for consultation—was it five months?—between the issue of the White Paper Working for Patients and the publication of the reform Bill, a change which we were told was the biggest in the National Health Service for 40 years. An even shorter time—was it five days?—was allowed between the White Paper on community care and the publication of the Bill on that subject. Your Lordships will also remember that many organisations and many Members of this House and the other place begged the Government to take more time, to try out proposals on a pilot scheme basis and to listen to the advice they were receiving. Sadly, that did not happen. Despite a barrage of public relations publicity—and I fear that we shall receive even more between now and the election—some of our fears have been realised.
Curiously, where those fears have been slightly alleviated it has been because the Government have acted to stop the reforms working as they were supposed to. The example of the GP fundholders was given by my noble friend Lord Rea. To prevent queue jumping the Government had to introduce a protocol almost as soon as the reforms came in, although the fears expressed on that subject had been brushed aside before the reforms were introduced. A second example is the decision to require health authorities to negotiate "solid state" contracts to ensure as little upheaval as possible to referral patterns, presumably before the election. A third example is the ducking of painful decisions about hospital provision in London. In effect, the reforms in London have been put on ice, again presumably until after the election.
To be fair, the picture is not all bad. There is the recent example of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, a non-contentious Bill drafted after lengthy consultation and supported from all sides of both Houses. I understand that there is shortly to be a Private Member's Bill on nurse prescribing, again a sensible proposal which has been drafted after lengthy consultation.
Therefore, the Government can consult if they have a mind to do so. But why make the process of consultation, dialogue and local involvement more difficult by excluding local and professional representation from health authorities and packing them with property developers and company directors, the majority of whom I suspect rely largely on private health care?
I ask the Minister what proposals the Government have for monitoring the performance of the trust hospitals on an objective and credible basis? If the performance last week on activity levels is anything to go by, we shall not receive that objective monitoring

589
from this Government. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Rea. The same applies to waiting list statistics. Your Lordships will know that many doctors have pointed out that, to improve the statistics, patients who had been waiting for over two years with non-urgent conditions have been given preference over patients with more urgent conditions who had been waiting for less than two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to an article in The Sunday Times yesterday. It quoted a device whereby, to cut long waits for inpatient treatment, authorities are deliberately allowing longer waiting times for outpatient appointments because the clock on the waiting list does not start to run until the consultant authorises the treatment. It seems that we now have waiting lists for waiting lists. To quote the Sunday Times:
"For example, Southmead hospital"
which serves the Bristol constituency of the Secretary of State,
"sent a letter to an orthopaedic patient that says: 'The consultant presently has a waiting list of 60 weeks to see him and therefore rather than booking an appointment too far into the future we have added your name to our pending list'".
I would ask the Minister if she has any figures on the length of pending lists.
Yet another example of lack of dialogue and local involvement is the deliberate downgrading of the role of community health councils, with one third reporting that they have not been invited to comment on the general contract plans and over half being excluded from input into individual contract specifications. As so many noble Lords have said, why will the Government not listen to the BMA and to the many other organisations which want the reintroduction of free eyesight tests for everybody? Why did the Government not listen to the fears that were expressed over the new dental contract? That was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. We now know that nearly one dentist in four is not offering the full NHS dental service, and in some areas the figure is much higher.
The Government were warned about the effects of the closure of geriatric beds. We now learn that there is enforced and substantial shift of geriatric care from the National Health Service to the private sector.
Another area where consultation and closer working relationships, which we all want, are being put at peril is that of patient confidentiality. One FHSA now employs a doctor to go round to GPs' surgeries and take patients' confidential medical records from the shelves to check up on the payments to that doctor. I understand that the department has turned a deaf ear to pressure on that issue from local doctors, from the data protection registrar and from the community health council. The department said that such action was required for the effective management of the service. I would ask the Minister whether, if a patient expressly stated to his or her GP that the medical records were not to be revealed to third parties without the express consent of that patient, the GP would be entitled to refuse access to the records to another employee of the health service?
590
An article in the British Medical Journal of 31st August last year stated:
"The threat to patient confidentiality is the most disturbing feature of the whole process".
That is a reference to extra contract referrals.
"Patients who are referred extracontractually may have their name, address, diagnosis, and proposed course of treatment transmitted, often by facsimile machine, to people not directly concerned with their care without their knowledge or consent (which they would probably withhold were they to be given the choice)".
If we are to ensure closeness of working relationships, this must mean trust between staff and management. Is the Minister aware that in at least one general hospital due for trust status in April 1993 non-executive directors were appointed last October and the shadow chairman of the proposed trust now expects to chair the various appointment committees? The shadow chairman is not a member of the health authority, and the hospital will be directly managed by the health authority until April 1993. There is a statutory procedure for appointments to various committees. I would ask: what is the legal status of the shadow chairman and the appointments made under his chairmanship?
Is the Minister aware that in some cases the national agreements regarding study leave for doctors and associated expenses have been abrogated? In one district health authority in the West country, which I know well, the total costs for doctors on study leave and expenses have been slashed to a maximum of £200 per year while the limit for managers is £500. Is that the way to build up the closer relationships which we all want to see?
Time does not allow me to take up all the points made in the debate, but I must refer to one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. He drew a not unreasonable analogy between the governance of self-governing hospitals and what used to happen under Nye Bevan. I hope that the noble Lord is not therefore arguing that the late and great Nye Bevan would have supported the internal market. If the noble Lord believes that, he will believe anything.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to point out. that Aneurin Bevan had some very remarkable ideas. He introduced the system of merit awards whereby secret payments made to consultants could double their salaries. A third of all consultants had them. So he had a very open mind, possibly in many ways more open than the minds of some of the present members of the Labour Party.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord really believes that Nye Bevan, with all his background, would have supported the internal market, I have to say that he would believe anything.
I referred at the beginning of my speech to the fact that closer working relationships must extend beyond the medical organisations to patients and to all interested parties. It is only proper in this year and from these Benches to indicate the policy of the next Labour Government in this area.
In the general area of public access to information, we shall introduce a freedom of information Act. So far as the health service is concerned, we shall consult

591
with community health councils and local authorities regarding the health needs in their areas and the drawing up of performance agreements. They will have the right to comment on the proposed strategies and agreements, as will the general public through the use of forums. We shall allow NHS employees to comment on the service and not attempt to gag them with confidentiality clauses in employment contracts.
We shall end the nonsense of the internal market. We shall work with local authorities, with community health councils, and with business and industry, to promote better health. Above all, we shall involve patients and consult them about the health service they want and certainly deserve.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to discuss the very good working relations that exist between the Department of Health and the medical organisations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it has been a good debate. I have noted also that many contributors to the debate have taken the layman's use of the word "medical" and have not confined themselves to referring to doctors' organisations. I shall therefore follow suit in responding, but I shall try to stick to the theme of the debate.
The Department of Health has long established procedures for consulting the various parts of the medical profession. In general these work very well. Quite apart from negotiating meetings, officials attend various committees of the medical royal colleges, usually as observers. There are also numerous contracts on a day-to-day basis with individual experts and professional associations. Indeed we could not function properly without good formal and informal working relations with the medical professions.
There are two main sources of formal advice to the department on hospital medical and dental matters: the statutory Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the non-statutory Joint Consultants Committee, both having their origins in the setting up of the NHS.
The Standing Medical Advisory Committee was set up in 1949 to advise the Secretary of State on technical medical matters. Over the years it has been an invaluable source of advice for Ministers, for the Chief Medical Officer and for the department generally, offering an authoritative medical view based on a balance of experience between individual specialties and general practice, between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, and between London and the rest of the country. Membership of the committee includes the presidents of the royal colleges and faculties together with the chairman of council of the BMA.
The department consults with the Joint Consultants Committee, or JCC, on all matters of concern to hospital medical service, save those to do with terms of service and remuneration. The committee comprises representatives of the BMA and the presidents of all the royal colleges of England and Scotland, the Faculty of Dental Surgery and the central consultants and specialists committee of the
592
BMA, the hospital junior staff committee of the BMA and the dental committee for hospital dental services of the British Dental Association.
The Chief Medical Officer, supported by representatives of the Department of Health, meets the full JCC every quarter. There are also four interim meetings during the year. The department is thereby able to give the profession an early view of new and revised policy affecting hospitals, and the doctors are able to raise matters of concern. Such regular and early consultation meetings are regarded as of the highest importance by the department. The successful implementation of government policies often depends upon them.
I can give a very good, recent example of the value of consultation with the JCC. When the new reforms were introduced concern was expressed in some quarters that patients of GP fund holders were receiving priority on waiting lists. Officials from the department met with the JCC and agreed guidance on contracts for health services between hospitals and GP fund holders—guidance which was published. This timely action ensured that fund holders' patients were not advantaged at the expense of others. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to that. I am glad that he acknowledges that we have fulfilled our undertaking that we would monitor the introduction of the reforms and take action where necessary.
On general practice, the profession and the department meet regularly and with a common purpose to improve the quality of care that patients receive. The Chief Medical Officer meets jointly the leaders of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the General Medical Services Committee to discuss professional issues. Other officials meet to discuss contractual matters, and do so in a businesslike and effective way, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, all is not always sweetness and light on those occasions.
This businesslike relationship can be illustrated by the setting-up last year of a Joint National Health Service Review Committee, consisting of Department of Health officials and GMSC negotiators. The committee provides a forum to discuss review issues, including the effects of GP fund holding. The Government have always wanted the profession to be involved in the development of GP fund holding; the committee offers such an opportunity.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the criticism levelled at the Government—many noble Lords have voiced it today—over the introduction of the new GPs' contract in 1990. However, the Government have shown their good faith in being prepared to listen to genuine concerns and acting upon them. I must emphasise to your Lordships that despite the fears expressed, the first year of the contract has been a success, with targets achieved and almost 1 million health promotion clinics held in the first year.
Having said all that, in terms of the practice of the profession, one of the most important areas in which we work with the profession is that of undergraduate and postgraduate education. I am surprised that more people did not dwell on that topic. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, had indicated at one stage that

593
she might join in the debate. I am sure that had she done so the ground would have been covered more fully.
In the field of undergraduate education the department's contacts with the relevant medical organisations have been further improved in recent years. Following a critical review of the mechanisms for joint policy development between the Department of Education and Science, the health departments and the University Grants Committee, a conference between the parties concerned in 1987 led to the formation of what is now the Steering Group on Undergraduate Medical and Dental Education and Research, chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health. All the interested parties are represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, made a plea on the subject of the pay of academic doctors. The Government believe that clinical academics should have parity of pay with their National Health Service counterparts. That has long been accepted. An undertaking was given by the Government in 1986 that if a pay settlement was agreed for clinical academics which provided increases equivalent to those in the National Health Service arising from the review body report, then the Government would provide the universities with additional funds to cover the cost of that settlement to the extent that it exceeded the pay settlement for non-clinical staff. The problem with that formula—I realise that the noble Lord knows it, but I believe that it should be on the record—is that the sum needed cannot be determined until both settlements have been reached. A new formula has therefore been proposed and is currently being considered. We trust that it will have rapid results.
Another excellent example of the way in which the department works closely with medical organisations is through the Medical Manpower Standing Advisory Committee. This was recently set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to advise him on future developments in the balance of medical manpower supply and demand in the United Kingdom. Although the committee does not have representatives of medical organisations as members, it has written to over 60 bodies inviting their views on medical manpower issues. I am pleased to say that the Health Visitors' Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is a vice-president and trustee, is included in the list.
The department has also been actively working with the profession in improving opportunities for women in medicine. Again it was not a subject raised in the debate. However, I should like to put on record that the department has taken action with the working party on part-time training which will review and develop the present arrangements for part-time appointments for senior registrars. A second group, called the Women in Surgical Training Working Party, aims to encourage women actively pursuing a career in surgery by establishing regional advisers and providing information on career progress of women trainees.
594
The department's Chief Medical Officer also has many contacts with the profession. He is, for example, a member of the General Medical Council, which meets regularly. Together with the medical director of the NHS Management Executive, he frequently meets with the 14 regional directors of public health for England and the Association of Directors of Public Health to discuss matters of mutual concern. The CMO also has regular, informal meetings with representatives of the academic and research sectors of the profession which are much valued by both sides. In addition he has consultant advisers who can advise him on their particular areas of expertise.
So far I have concentrated more on the regular well established links with the profession which do not arrive as of right but which have been vital in developing recent policy initiatives. During the year-long review of the National Health Service which resulted in the reforms currently being introduced—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy—the Government gave thorough consideration to a large number of submissions from a wide range of organisations including many representing staff and other interested groups. Their opinions and suggestions were taken fully into account in drawing up proposals for reforming the health service, even though, as my noble friend Lord McColl stated so well, those ideas were not plucked out of the air but represented good practice up and down the country.
Another example of consultation and listening to advice is in the launch of the consultative document, Health of the Nation, which was published in June. We have received responses from the BMA, the royal colleges, medical schools, many health authorities, community health councils, family health service authorities, local authorities and other interested parties. Those replies will be taken into consideration in the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper.
The profession has also been fully involved in the development of medical audit, whereby doctors meet to examine critically each other's work. Both the department and the profession share the goal of improving the quality of care patients receive; the Government have provided over £60 million this year towards the implementation of a comprehensive system of medical audit in the National Health Service. Supervisory committees have been put in place to ensure that all doctors can and do participate.
I have already given examples of the readiness of the Government and the Department of Health to listen to genuine concerns. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we always made it clear that we would monitor the changes and respond as and when necessary rather than delaying what have proved to be effective and necessary reforms. The establishment of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group is another example. It was in response to anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House that I introduced an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to set up the group. The Government had carefully considered arguments made by noble Lords and the concerns expressed among doctors about the possible effects of the reforms on clinical standards, and they acted

595
accordingly. The group, which was set up on 1st April 1991, has met and is giving an excellent example of closer working relationships between the Department of Health and medical organisations.
The first months of the reforms have already started to dispel any fears about a fall in standards. We welcome the British Medical Association's change of attitude to the reforms. But it is thanks largely to the dedicated work of doctors, nurses and all those who work in the National Health Service that the reforms are starting to deliver the benefits to patients and the National Health Service in general. More and more doctors are recognising the advantages of devolution of responsibility, allowing them to control and organise the services that they provide in the most caring and efficient way for patients. Indeed, I heard only last night from a nurse that she would never choose to go back to the old way of running the system and not knowing where the money was coming from. Patients too are more than pleased with the standards of the new trusts. A recent survey of 900 patients treated in eight trust hospitals conducted on behalf of the department by an independent organisation showed that 96 per cent. were quite satisfied with the quality of the services that they had received.
The Government have never pretended that all the problems in running the National Health Service could be solved at a stroke. As my noble friend Lord Auckland pointed out, some of the problems in the National Health Service are not just national but international problems. Yet there is ample proof that we are on the right track.
As noble Lords will know, a report entitled NHS reforms—The first six months was published only last week. It suggests that an additional 250,000 patients will have been treated in 1991–92. It points to further encouraging falls in the numbers of patients waiting over two years for treatment. So there is no doubt of the improvements that the changes have brought. In the area of primary care, GP fund holders also are demonstrating the benefits which their independence and innovation can bring to their patients and to other patients too.
In the course of the debate more than one noble Lord referred to the dental service. I disagree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the service is underfunded. Annual gross spending on National Health Service dental services has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms over the past 12 years. Dentists are earning more. In the first five months of the financial year payments to dentists were 11.2 per cent. up on the same period last year.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to the chairman of the GDSC being summoned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That seems to be entirely within the spirit of this debate. It is not as one-sided as it sounds. It was the representatives of the dental profession, whom we were consulting over the introduction of the contract, who indicated clearly that we should go ahead with the dental contract in the first place.
The family health service authority survey which we have just conducted—at the end of the first year of operation of the dental contract—pointed to areas or
596
pockets in which there was more of a problem than in others. I recently met the chairmen of the four London family health service authorities which have the lowest registration levels. Each of them assured me that when asked to find a dentist who provided National Health Service treatment, he was able to do so. Therefore the answer must be: go to your family health service authority and it will be able to help. However, the question of the new contract meaning a much heavier workload has been taken into account in the workload survey that we conducted, the results of which are still being analysed.
There is a difficulty on the general matter of remuneration because an averaging system applies. Dentists' fees are set at a level which is intended to enable the average dentist to earn a predetermined target average net income. That can only be realised—after the fact of course—by balancing actual income against intended income. The balancing mechanism for dentists operates three years in arrears and is similar to the system that operates for doctors. So it is fair to dentists and the taxpayer. Any suggestion made to dentists that this system should be changed has always been greeted with shock and horror. I hope that my noble friend appreciates that.
In 1988–89, net payments to dentists averaged £4,874 per dentist in excess of the intended level. We decided that a special factor related to the rate of processing of the dental practice board, which was exceptional and once for all, should be excluded from the sum to be recovered. We therefore waived £1,529 per dentist. That represented a constructive and substantial response to the profession's concerns as they were expressed.
We are discussing aspects of remuneration with the General Dental Services Committee and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have further discussions. In reply to the allegation that dentists are leaving the NHS, there are currently 26 per cent. more dentists practising in the general dental services in Great Britain than there were in 1979. After all, dentists are independent contractors who have always been able to do as much or as little National Health Service work as they wished. Although my noble friend alleges that in some areas and particularly in London and the South-East one in every five dentists registered fewer than 200 patients during the first year of the new contract, the average number of National Health Service patients for dentists at the end of the first year of the contract was 1,426 and 26 per cent. of dentists had 2,000 or more registered patients.
I emphasise that even before the new contract there were dentists on FHSA lists in London who did very little National Health Service work. Although some dentists have withdrawn from dental lists in London, most London FHSAs still enjoy a higher ratio of dentists per head of population than most parts of the country. Another example of the Government taking into account the arguments of the profession is the introduction of an early retirement scheme for dentists which was introduced on 1st April last year. It was

597
introduced at the request of the profession and is an example of fine tuning, as was the reimbursement of rates to which we rapidly agreed.
We have been in continuous discussion with the profession about the new contract and how it might be improved. There have been notable moves: for example, the introduction of reimbursement of business rates (to which I have already referred); improvements to the dental claims form; some changes to the fees scale; a relaxation to the requirement for issuing treatment plans; and the removal of root treatments from capitation. Progress is being made and although there may be a number of dentists who are unhappy with the capitation system, as my noble friend alleged, I suggest that there are just as many, if not more, who are content.
In answer to a specific question, the oral health strategy group has had useful meetings and will issue a consultative document. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly on Poswillo.
I must refer to another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, about CoHSE having regular meetings with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I remind the noble Lord that the TUC health services committee meets the Secretary of State once a year and ad hoc meetings are sometimes arranged. The membership is drawn from general secretaries and senior officers of health trade unions. There is no reason to believe that the interests and views of the health unions are not sufficiently represented.
I refer specifically to the question of sight tests since that matter was raised by several of your Lordships. I stress that recent surveys have indicated that the demand for sight tests is returning to normal. The optical profession has published a series of surveys in the past few months purporting to show that the demand remains low. However, many of the surveys use an artificially high baseline as their starting point, which gives a distorted picture of future trends.
In conclusion, since 1911 when the National Insurance Act first created a right to health care for employees on low wages, successive governments have seen the need for effective working relationships with the medical profession. The phrase which was then used then was "the need for an honourable partnership between the State and the Profession". For our part, we wholeheartedly support that in the interests of the people of this country. Nevertheless, there will be times when conflict arises, as Lloyd George, Bevan and, more recently, Kenneth Clarke have found out. Government must govern and no one group, however distinguished, can expect always to prevail.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her reply, although it is a pity that she ruined it right at the end. She has covered many of the points raised. I am extremely grateful to her for what she said and for the undertakings she has given.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My noble friend Lord Carter underlined a number of vital points which I hope will be looked at. The noble Lord, Lord
598
Beaumont, made a very interesting speech. He omitted to mention that I had referred to the HVA, but I have lived with poverty. If he reads Hansard, he may wish to write to confirm that.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke about dentists. Dentists' nurses are equally important and play an important role. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has compelled me to look at the work of the academics. I do not know much about it but he has tempted me to look at the matter. I am sorry to learn that the morale of academic doctors is low. Perhaps when we win the next election that situation will change.
The staff associations are concerned not only about their situations but also about the success of Britain's National Health Service. When they know about the debate held in this House, they will be extremely pleased with this House, perhaps rather more so than they are with the other place. After a very happy, pleasant and sensible debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Trident
5.4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyrose to call attention to the case against Trident; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as some of your Lordships will be aware, I am a nuclear disarmer. However, you do not have to be a nuclear disarmer to be opposed to Trident. There are an increasing number of people, including distinguished military figures and other people equally distinguished in other walks of life, who, although they may not accept the nuclear disarmament argument, are nevertheless of the opinion that to proceed with Trident at this time is a complete nonsense. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who cannot be here this evening, asked, "What the hell is it for?"
Although there are now said to be anti-Trident voices in influential quarters, the Cabinet decision has been to argue that the break up of the USSR makes it certainly no less necessary. Indeed, I have even heard a voice in the other place suggest that it is even more necessary to proceed with, to maintain and to complete Trident. That view is not supported elsewhere and it is not easy to sustain if one examines exactly what Trident is and what it can do. Perhaps that is why, instead of dilating the power of Trident, government spokesmen tend to ignore and, indeed, to minimise it.
In a letter which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was kind enough to write to me quite recently, he assured me that each Trident boat would carry no more than 128 warheads compared with Polaris which carries 48. As each Trident warhead can be independently targeted, that gives the four boats a potential of 512 targets. Why are we so vastly increasing the

599
destructive capability of our strategic nuclear deterrent at a time when the main ballistic missile holders are making drastic cuts under the START agreement. We are moving against the world tide in this matter and I have not yet heard a single argument which suggests to me that we are right to do so.
The Government are cagey about the destructive power of each Trident warhead but as the America D5, on which it is based, can have a maximum yield of 475 kilotons, we can assume that, even if we had only one boat, one missile and one warhead, the destructive capability would be equal to that of 36 Hiroshima bombs. That means that a single Trident submarine can carry a destructive power equal to 4,608 Hiroshima bombs. Let us think what that means.
Perhaps I should say that, since that calculation, I have noted that a source which I respect says the figure should not be greater than 3,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. That is because destructive power increases at a rather lower rate than the comparable kilotonnage. Be that as it may, the very existence of such a weapon is an obscene blot on the face of mankind and it could not be used without threatening civilisation itself.
The officer who presses the button might not only be committing his own suicide but also that of humanity. I say "might" because I am not among those, although they include some weighty scientific figures, who believe that nuclear war would spell the end of life on earth. Neither do I believe that the end would be sudden. However, I question whether human life would be worth living after a nuclear exchange and, indeed, some authoritative environmentalists fear that it is unlikely that our species would be among those able to adapt and survive the consequences of a nuclear exchange of a massive type.
Perhaps it is not entirely surprising that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked, "What the hell is Trident for?" The danger of possessing a weapon which cannot be used to the extent of its power, if it can be used at all, is that in extremis or by one of the inevitable misunderstandings of war, it might be used. Why are we preparing that enormous increase in our nuclear firepower, which Mr. King calls "minimal" presumably to prevent himself from thinking about what he is actually advocating? I am not surprised at that. It is terrible to contemplate the effect of a single D5 explosion in central Moscow. The fireball would be almost a mile wide. Steel and concrete buildings would be vaporised, as would hundreds of thousands of people, and many more thousands would be buried alive. Around 1½ million people would die from that single missile. No wonder government spokesmen shy away from talking about what they are really talking about.
Do we want Trident to kill Russians? They are our friends now. It just so happens that our strategic nukes are targeted on Moscow and other FSU cities. But let us put that question on one side for the moment. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will answer it when he winds up the debate, and perhaps he will not. We shall see.
Why do we want Trident? Is it because the Americans have dropped Polaris and spare parts for it
600
are no longer available? That is true. But why not drop Polaris ourselves? We have plenty of other nukes. Why replace Polaris with this terminable—I said "terminable", I meant to say terminal—monster? Is it because we want to keep our submarine strategic capabilities? Why? Is it because we want to retain the power to destroy the now non-existent Soviet Union single handedly from mobile seaborne bases? Why? We can be almost equally destructive with our airborne nuclear capability. Why should we want to do that? The Russians have already destroyed the Soviet Union themselves. It no longer exists.
Is the answer perhaps that we are so tied to the United States that when they move on to Trident D5 we shall have no option but to do the same if we want to stay in the crazy game? The Americans are showing strong signs of themselves wanting to pull out of the crazy game. Why is this the moment for us to be certain that we should get into it with a degree of strength that is beyond our financial and economic power to carry out without serious damage elsewhere, even to the Royal Navy?
Why? Echo answers, "Why". I read the debates in another place and did not find an answer. Neither has the noble and gallant Lord to whom I have already referred. Poor Tom King, whose performance in the debate last week was almost pathetic, hung on to the words, "nuclear deterrent"—it was not "nuclear deterrent", that is old hat; it was "nuclear defence" —as though by repeating those words he could bring into being what does not exist. There is no effective nuclear defence. Defence is not what Trident is about. It is about creating such a monstrous destructive power that any interceptor missiles which attempted to protect Moscow would be overwhelmed. That is the object of the exercise. I do not know why we have to participate in it. They are probably already useless.
In Trident we would have a weapon which, if a single missile exploded in Red Square, would have the terrible effects upon which I touched. We propose to have 512 of them. No wonder government spokesmen do not care to talk about what Trident really means. Why do we on this island need that power at this time? For a start, the Russians are almost certainly willing to de-target London. Therefore, why do we not offer to de-target Moscow in exchange, instead of upping the ante so colossally on our new friends? Is this the time to do that?
Mr. Yeltsin wants to join NATO. Are members of the club to target each other? Is not that nuclear madness? Surely now all efforts should be directed at reducing and not increasing a destructive power no man and no government are fit to handle. There is no halfway house in the world of nuclear power and nuclear weapons today. We either continue to produce more and more destructive weapons until one day we destroy ourselves, or we follow the pattern set by Argentina and Brazil and support what is essentially the aim of the START agreement; that is, to bring the numbers down at least to a manageable level even though not everyone will go along with me in saying that we can reach a level where all nuclear weapons can be phased out.

601
Of course, I agree entirely with those who say that we cannot destroy the knowledge of them. However, we must be constantly aware that the existence of these weapons in the present size and the present numbers is a constant threat to the entire civilisation, of which we are a not unimportant part.
The Government are attempting to make the matter an election issue. The attempt may well backfire. In any event, for good or ill, the election is likely to be decided by less important considerations.
As I said, to oppose Trident one does not need to be a nuclear disarmer. Trident is simply a gross step in nuclear proliferation. We are all supposed to be in favour of that. I am in favour of getting rid of the spread of nuclear arms at all levels. We are signatories to a treaty which opposes vertical proliferation as firmly as it does the horizontal spread of such weapons. We cannot halt horizontal proliferation while at the same time indulging in massive vertical proliferation. If we do not stop both sorts of proliferation we are done for. That is obvious. If we explain that to people they will understand it, accept it and support it.
The case against Trident can be stated in many other ways. It is fantastically expensive. The cost works out at around £2,000 a minute and the effect of that on the rest of the Royal Navy is well known in this House. Trident is unsafe. The American Drell Report was so alarming that the Government made their own inquiry. What is the result of that? Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us, or perhaps he will not.
At this moment we are in danger. Polaris is well beyond its use-by date and the House of Commons has expressed great anxiety and so on. There is enough for a speech lasting an hour or more. But perhaps the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked the unanswerable question, "What the hell is it for?" I believe that there are many people who have never supported nuclear disarmament and who would never join CND but who are ready nevertheless to say to any government that Trident is over the top; that now is the time to draw back from the abyss about which the late Lord Mountbatten warned us years ago. I hope that we shall hear this evening that there are such people in this House. I believe we shall. I beg to move for papers.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, regarding his views on this matter. He berates those of us who think differently for not having changed our position, as he sees it, given the change in the world situation. But the truth is that the noble Lord's position has remained totally unchanged almost from the day that nuclear weapons were invented. Indeed, not only has his view remained unchanged but also his speech, if he will forgive me for saying so. His arguments would perhaps begin to carry a little more weight if he could deploy some fresh ones.
The noble Lord referred to a number of distinguished military figures who think, perhaps
602
secretly, as he does. But he is mistaken in suggesting that there is more than one. I can think of only one noble and gallant Lord who remotely supports his view. That is of course the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who is unfortunately not in his place today. To the best of my knowledge there is not another senior military figure in the world who remotely shares the views of the noble and gallant Lord, distinguished though he may be.
The noble Lord also referred to what he sees as the excessive destructive power of the new Trident system. Ministers have repeatedly said that it is not necessary to use the total available destructive power of Trident. Of course decisions have not been taken as to how much of that power will be used and it certainly would not be announced when they are. But the fact is that Trident has the flexibility to enable less than the full destructive power to be deployed or used if that seems necessary at the time. Ministers have certainly undertaken that that will be the case.
Happily today we have in his place the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who until recently was Chief of the Defence Staff and therefore the Government's principal military adviser on these matters. Therefore, I shall not dilate on the technical issues on which he is infinitely better qualified to speak than I. I doubt very much whether the noble and gallant Lord will agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, when the former comes to speak to us in a moment.
The first question that we need to address in any discussion on this matter is whether we want to be a nuclear power at all. I believe very strongly that we do and for two principal reasons. The first is that by being a nuclear power and retaining a nuclear deterrent of our own—I mean of course an independent nuclear power and thus we retain an independent nuclear deterrent—we secure for ourselves above all a most important place in the councils of the world. Above all it means that we are a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. There are only five such permanent members. They are clearly the five most important members of the United Nations. It is only by virtue of our possession of the nuclear deterrent that we find ourselves in that happy position. There are other nations which are bigger than us in commercial and maybe also in political terms who would no doubt claim our place if we did not keep it for ourselves.
Perhaps I may mention again the importance of our being an independent nuclear power. Although it is true to say that our weapons are primarily assigned to NATO for NATO purposes, we have always said that we will retain the right to use our nuclear deterrent for national purposes when—I hope I have the words right—our supreme national interest so requires. Of course so far no such circumstances have ever arisen and I hope that they never do. Neither, for that matter, have we used our nuclear deterrent for NATO purposes. But we need to retain the right in extremis to use it for our supreme national purposes. I am very glad that we do.
That is an important point because throughout his speech the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, kept referring to

603
the D5 system. On this occasion we have chosen to purchase the Trident missile system, but we have not purchased the warheads. We manufacture them for ourselves and therefore the performance of those warheads is quite a separate matter from the performance of any other warheads that may exist elsewhere in the world.
The second reason why we need to be an independent nuclear power is that the effectiveness of a double-headed nuclear deterrent, if I can describe it as such—that is to say, the United States' deterrent on the one hand and ours on the other—is infinitely greater than the effectiveness of a single deterrent on its own. The reason for that is that it puts into the mind of a potential aggressor a much greater degree of complication than would otherwise exist when he is assessing the likelihood of a response should he visit his aggression on us.
For example, it might have been the case that the old Soviet Union had decided that it could attack the United Kingdom with impunity. Under the NATO arrangements an attack on the United Kingdom would have been the same as an attack on any other member of the alliance. It would have certainly resulted in a response from the United States whether or not the Soviet Union had used its weapons on us. By retaining its own separate independent deterrent the United Kingdom has added to the complications and the calculations which a potential aggressor must make. By so doing I believe that we have greatly reduced the likelihood that we should invoke or suffer an aggression launched on us.
If we have decided to be a nuclear power, as we have, and I believe rightly so, the next question is what system we should adopt. There are powerful arguments, which I dare say the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, will deploy, which point inexorably to a submarine-based deterrent, and a submarine-based strategic deterrent at that. That is what we have had for a number of years since the introduction of the Polaris system in the late 1960s.
It is particularly advantageous that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, will be speaking to us because at an earlier point of his career I believe that he was a distinguished pilot of the V-force. At that time our nuclear deterrent was carried by those aircraft. Now we have a submarine-based deterrent which is a good deal more invulnerable than was the air-based deterrent of all those years ago. What is more, we are now moving to the Trident system which your Lordships will appreciate has distinct advantages over the Polaris system, most particularly because of the range of the missile which confers important advantages on the invulnerability of the submarine platform.
Those are the principal points that I wish to make. I hope that the House will support the Government's policy in this matter. I hope that if ever we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, again, it will be with some new arguments rather than a rehash of the old ones.
5.28 pm.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who brings out many important arguments in his speech. Although we are well aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on nuclear issues, I must admit that I was still somewhat taken aback by his remarks today about Trident. He seems to cast Trident in the role of some big Satan which, regardless of all consequences, must be dispensed with and annihilated. Surely it is the people who own and operate nuclear weapons, not just the weapons themselves, whom we should be considering.
I have had about 30 years' experience with nuclear issues in the Armed Forces. In the 1960s, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned, I captained V-bombers which could have been launched within minutes on a retaliatory mission if ordered to do so. In the 1970s and 1980s I commanded formations of nuclear-equipped aircraft and became closely involved in Whitehall up to Cabinet Committee level, with the many policy issues concerning nuclear forces and with the requirements for new weapons systems, including Trident, and the replacement for the free-fall weapon, WE177.
Throughout those 30 years I saw the highly professional and responsible way all those connected with our nuclear forces have behaved. I have no doubt that we can continue to rely on such sound stewardship.
For me, all of that experience was against a clear-cut and accepted possible threat from the Warsaw Pact forces to the East. But the scene is rapidly changing. What do these changes mean for the philosophy and provision of nuclear forces? Whatever they may mean, there is no question that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has himself acknowledged, nuclear weapons can somehow be dis-invented or become an extinct species like the Dodo or dinosaurs. They exist, and all the indications are that more rather than fewer nation states are going to have the potential, if not the actuality, of nuclear forces at their disposal.
Apart from the two atomic bombs which were dropped on Japan at the end of World War II, no nuclear weapons have been used. All major nuclear powers to date seem to have come to recognise the principle, the key rationale, for the possession of a nuclear capability. It is to deter any attack, not just a nuclear attack, on their vital interests. All have taken great pains to ensure that control of the movement and operational use of nuclear weapons was held at the highest political level.
As we look to the future, can we be as confident about this aspect of ownership? It seems to me right that it should be given very great importance in all discussion about these weapons and not only with the republics of the former Soviet Union.
So far, nuclear owning powers have deemed it essential to underwrite the deterrent value of their nuclear weapons by requiring the Armed Forces concerned to exercise and practise all the procedures of command and control and operation. Indeed, paradoxically we have felt that the credibility of the

605
deterrent could be suspect without such activity in peacetime. There now seems to be creeping in the concept that third world possessors of these weapons could pose a threat to us or others without being seen to exercise their command and control or operational tactics in peacetime. In other words, we see them as being possible instigators of nuclear warfare rather than possessing nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes, as we do. And armed with long-range missiles the threat of nuclear attack, or blackmail, could be posed against us from afar.
That is, of course, only a very short sketch of a new world order of more prolific ownership of nuclear weapons. But taken with all the many valuable points being made in recent debates, and I expect by other noble Lords here today, it is enough to underline that, far from seeking to surrender our nuclear capability at this time, we should be concentrating on ensuring that it will remain a viable and credible deterrent well into the next century. Moreover, I do not think that it would be wise, as some have argued here and in another place, to seek to protect our vital interests by relying on the nuclear umbrella of another state, even the United States.
For them, as for any other nuclear power, the decision to use their nuclear weapons in the event that their deterrent value has faltered, particularly against another nuclear state, must in the final analysis be driven by a perception of what is the vital national interest at stake. I do not believe that we can expect any long-standing NATO arrangement to safeguard us from every third world type threat. So I believe, in spite of the many changes now happening and no doubt many others yet to surprise us, we would do well to retain—and to replace as necessary—our nuclear weapons to ensure operational viability.
Some argue that in the new scenario the exposure of the submarine's position by firing a single missile while on patrol could be accepted to meet the requirement for a sub-strategic response. But this idea might lead us to another conclusion. If one does not wish to safeguard the position of the operational boat short of firing a full salvo, one does not need to have the assurance that a fourth boat would provide. Three boats would do. In extremis, missiles could be fired from territorial waters, or even alongside.
However, I do not advocate a three boat force. Our continuous deterrent capability could be lost at a stroke if a serious defect were to strike at the submerged or sea-going safety of the few boats available at any one time to the operational cycle. Four boats is the minimum number needed to sustain the required capability for a 25 year or 30 year lifespan.
While it provides the big deterrent stick only if we have a separate nuclear tipped sub-strategic capability as well, does Trident retain its full credibility as our strategic deterrent force? Certain key characteristics for a sub-strategic system have been identified which complement Trident: for example, an alternative carriage and delivery vehicle; different basing and flight profiles; recall and re-targeting after takeoff; and swift response against targets which can be at long
606
range and/or widely separated. All such characteristics add strength and confidence to a deterrent policy. One cannot have half of a deterrent policy and expect it to be credible. That choice would be a ludicrous use of taxpayers' money.
Thus I believe that we need a sub-strategic option. We must retain the flexibility and choice of response which an aerial delivered selectable yield weapon will give. Such a mix gives this country a truly credible potential in an uncertain world.
I hope that any government will continue to sustain a four boat Trident force and an aerial delivered sub-strategic capability. Nuclear deterrence has served the security of these islands well for half a century. Now is not the time to discard it.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the problem with the Trident programme is that while it had a certain terrible logic when it was initiated to act as a massive deterrent to the Soviet Union, that original purpose has virtually disappeared. There is, of course, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons in Russia, in the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan, but no one seriously suggests that any of those republics is remotely interested in an offensive war against the West. There is more danger that they will be in conflict with each other—a Yugoslavia with nuclear weapons, as former President Gorbachev put it last year. In the present world situation instead of increasing global security Trident will in fact destabilise it. It will make it more rather than less likely that nations other than the former USSR will further develop their nuclear capability.
It was made clear during last week's very well informed debate on nuclear proliferation, introduced by my noble friend Lord Kennet, that the acquisition of nuclear weapons or the means to make them, particularly by Middle-Eastern states, was a real possibility as a result of the breakup of the USSR. That was because Russian nuclear scientists could be employed at higher salaries in hard currency and perhaps because Russian fissile materials or complete weapons could be sold openly or clandestinely. For instance, it would be very difficult to detect, even by satellite, the delivery of such weapons by night across the Caspian Sea to Iran. I understand that there are already rumours of tactical weapons being sold to Iran. It is very tempting for a nation, such as one of the former Soviet republics which is extremely short of hard currency, to do that.
The importance of strengthening the nonproliferation treaty was agreed by every speaker in last week's debate. Practical means of doing so, such as giving more teeth to the International Atomic Energy Agency, were suggested. I risk repeating what I have said on previous occasions by reminding noble Lords yet again of Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. It requires signatories to,
"pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
To increase our strategic potential ten fold, which carried to its conclusion is what Trident will do, hardly seems compatible with that undertaking solemnly

607
agreed by the Government. The parallel of the drunken pastor preaching abstinence, which was quoted by my noble friend last week, seems apposite.
The United States and the former USSR have agreed to begin the process of nuclear weapons reduction through the INF and START treaties. President Yeltsin has undertaken to honour the agreement entered into by the Soviet Union. Britain and France, however, have not so far agreed to reduce their strategic weapons by one iota. On the contrary, we shall be increasing ours by a colossal margin if Trident goes ahead. Why should Iran, Israel or any other country pay much attention to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when we are so flagrantly violating one of its basic articles? I suggest that the Trident programme has gathered such momentum that despite all logic it seems unstoppable—almost as if it were a missile itself. It is not too late to take a long hard look at how it might be brought harmlessly to earth, and in such a way that the investment already made is not entirely lost.
At this point I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply several questions about the cost of Trident. The whole programme was recently estimated to cost £21.2 billion. Is that the latest estimate? Does that include running costs and, if so, what are those thought to be? How much has already been spent? What will be the cost from now on of fitting out the three vessels already under construction until they are ready to travel to the United States to be equipped with missiles? What total sum have we agreed to pay the United States for the missiles? How many will be purchased? What is the additional estimated cost, first, of building the proposed fourth submarine and, secondly, of equipping it with missiles? I have given the noble Earl notice of those questions, although I apologise for the fact that it was rather short notice.
Even if we agree that strategic nuclear weapons are needed, we have to ask whether we need an independent strategic capability. I cannot accept the scenario that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. After all, we are dependent on the United States for the supply of the missiles themselves. Without close relations with the United States Trident is a non-starter, so why do we not rely on the United States as an ally and a full member of NATO to operate the strategic option on our behalf until strategic weapons are phased out altogether, as was the declared intention of President Bush and President Gorbachev? Boris Yeltsin has agreed to that aim.
To wind down the Trident programme gently would be perfectly possible if we were to complete the three vessels already under construction but in effect put them into cold storage or mothballs without fuelling their nuclear generators and without installing their missiles. In the extremely unlikely event of a major nuclear threat occurring, they would still be there. I am sure that we would have plenty of warning. In case that did not emerge—I hope it never will—perhaps there are peaceful purposes for large, nuclear-powered underwater vessels, though I cannot think of any at the moment. The shipyards of Barrow would be kept busy for the next year or two completing the vessels already begun while active
608
planning for redeploying the yards was undertaken. The workers of Barrow would join the other workers in the defence industries of the United Kingdom who need alternative work. My suggestion would allow some time for the diversification process to be planned. It would cost far less than continuing Trident as planned at the moment. The defence diversification agency that will be established by the next government, who I am sure will be a Labour Government, will insist on exactly that kind of programme. But that is another story and another debate.
In conclusion, I suggest that to persist with the full Trident programme will result in a grotesque overkill capacity. It will be throwing good money after bad and far from adding to our security will encourage non-nuclear nations to acquire their own weapons.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I hope that our public arguments have evolved beyond the stage of unilateral disarmament. It is an unfulfilled hope, because the views of unilateralism are still being aired. But those voices which go on denying that super power stability ever had anything to do with nuclear deterrent policy are sounding a bit shrill, a bit less righteous. So, this afternoon, the argument is not, and should not be, about the principle of deterrence, but whether Trident is appropriate.
Of course we understand that the noble Lord whose Motion it is is unequivocal in his position towards the UK nuclear capability. I do him the honour of respecting his consistency. He has never wavered. Perhaps if we had foregone the deterrent, if we had asked to be excused from NATO obligations, if we had willingly given up our seat at the Security Council, we would have been happier people. I conjecture otherwise. But I am falling into the trap, as the noble Lord sees it, of linking nuclear independence with the high ground of moral authority.
However, the argument of nationhood, history and power is not our concern today. I am convinced that the need for, and the success of, NATO's nuclear deterrent policy since the 1950s is not in doubt. The threat posed by the USSR was well understood and the potential response very effective. The threat to national security is now very unclear and likely to remain so. Under those circumstances it would be most unwise to compromise our existing and planned defence capability.
Apart from the residual nuclear weapons capability of Russia and the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States on whose territory strategic nuclear delivery systems are deployed, there is a strong possibility of further nuclear proliferation in the near future. India, Israel and South Africa are believed to have an advanced nuclear weapons potential. Iraq's activities in pursuit of a nuclear capability are now well catalogued; Iran is believed to be engaged in a clandestine enrichment programme; and Algeria has received nuclear technology from China. I might speak also of North

609
Korea. The first quarter of the 21st century could well see the emergence of 10 or more nuclear powers to join the present five.
In order to ensure our security in a world of many nuclear powers, we must retain a credible full-time, not part-time, strategic nuclear deterrent. The basis of deployment of the UK's submarine-borne deterrent ensures that there is always at least one boat "on station" at all times capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to any target within its range. In order to achieve that objective on a continuous basis, four boats are required—one on station, one returning to base, one in transit to station, and one undergoing refit. In comparison with the four British submarines it is believed that the US Navy currently plans to have 18; the French six; and the USSR, or whatever succeeds it, about 60 at the time of implementing START. That means that around 20 Russian submarines are at this moment on station, on deep patrol. Each one is a huge, autonomous war capable machine. I should like to ask: where do they now think of as home? We have recently been worrying about recruiting Russian nuclear scientists. I suggest a far more evil and immediate possibility—the clandestine acquisition of even one of these machines by a nuclear-aspiring government.
The command structures in the Soviet armed forces are looking more fragile every day: the very reasons which make the submarines so hard to find mean that they—above all, weapons systems—are boxed in only by the disciplines of ideology and national loyalty; that is, the disciplines on board. The first is in tatters and the second in pieces. In that picture, what a prize one of these will be, and what stakes to play for. We have the credible chance of some of these boats becoming mercenaries of a so-called new world order beyond imagining. When the cold war ended, we thought that we had buried the dragon. What we did was to sow the dragon's teeth.
It has been suggested that the fire power of the Trident fleet of four submarines, each carrying 16 missiles, each missile carrying up to 14 warheads—a maximum of 896 warheads—is disproportionately large for a British nuclear force in the post-cold war environment. The first point to be made here is that those who make the suggestion have no way of assessing the variables involved in the calculation of a minimum deterrent—the reliability, accuracy and penetrative power of the missiles and their warheads, as well as the effectiveness of the anti-ballistic missile defences of a potential enemy.
However, even if the argument is accepted, the Trident system is almost infinitely flexible. The number of missiles can be reduced; it would be possible, although more complicated, to reduce the number of warheads on each missile, and the Trident submarine can be used as a platform for sub-strategic instead of intercontinental missiles. In any case, it is important always to remember that there will normally be one submarine, not four, on station.
A critical element of the British deployment is the refit cycle. These vessels are designed to operate without a major refit for at least 10 years, at which
610
time their complex systems require a total overhaul, taking 12 to 15 months to complete. The submarines, the vessels themselves, represent an estimated 20 per cent. of the whole Trident system, the logistics of which depend on a fleet of four boats to ensure effective operation.
It has been suggested that cancellation of the fourth vessel in 1992 would save the full cost of construction of one vessel, estimated to be £500 million. That is simply not the case. Under the system of long-lead funding, significant construction work has already been completed. Fabrication of the pressure hull, manufacture of the missile tubes and tactical weapons equipment, and the propulsion plant including the reactor and main machinery is well advanced. Cancellation of the fourth boat would also have a direct impact on the cost of the three already on order. In addition, substantial costs would be incurred by VSEL and their sub-contractors, who would be obliged to lay off thousands of their workforce already committed to the Trident project, the scale of which was confirmed in the MoD review, Options for Change.
VSEL which, in the era of British Shipbuilders, was obliged by the current Government to make a commitment to a four-boat programme to the exclusion of other work, is especially vulnerable. The importance of this company's survival to the well-being of the community of Furness in Cumbria is well known and cannot be ignored. In those circumstances, the total cancellation costs may well add up to half the purchase price of the completed vessel.
Our present system was designed to counter, and is extremely effective against, a limited ground-based defence as specified within the ABM Treaty. Trident D5 was selected to replace Chevaline in the mid-1990s when the Polaris boats, the missiles and the front ends, would be reaching the end of their operational lives.
The US Congress passed the Missile Defense Act 1991 in November, authorising the DoD to develop an ABM-compliant site by 1996 and also to negotiate amendments to the ABM treaty to permit three topics: first, additional missile defence sites; secondly, the increased use of space-based sensors for battle management; and, thirdly, greater flexibility for technology development of advanced ballistic missile defences. Success in any of those negotiations would free the successor to the Soviet Union to nullify the effectiveness of Chevaline.
Trident—it follows—becomes essential if deterrence is to remain an arm of policy. Particularly significant is the fact that penetration aids—that is, decoys designed to counter radars—are likely to be completely ineffective against space-based sensors using long wave infra-red. Chevaline is only effective now because of decoys: it would have little value against infra-red space-based sensors.
All we can do is skim over the arguments which, for me, forge the unbreakable logic of Trident. The arguments are technical, geopolitical, financial and, above all, a recognition of the real world. They derive from assumptions which many previous sceptics now

611
share. If anything that I have said takes the process of conviction just an inch further, my contribution will not have been wasted.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is a little depressing to hear the arguments from the supporters of Trident still rooted in the concrete of the cold war. However, there are a number of arguments which have been raised this afternoon that I should like briefly to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whose speech I may say we have heard before, referred to there being five nuclear powers today. But that is not so; there are now eight known states with nuclear weapons. That number is certain to increase in the near future. The logic of the noble Lord's argument is that it should increase. He is telling the rest of the world that the only way to secure influence in the world is to have nuclear weapons. If that is a lesson for us, it is also a lesson for the other 150 nations in the world.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, both talked of the necessity for four Trident submarines for minimum safety. But is it not the case that by the end of this year only two Polaris submarines will be operational? Is it not also the case that today the "Renown" is in the dockyard at Rosyth attempting a refit which is endangered by leakage and that by the end of the year the "Revenge" will also be there and it is doubtful whether it can be refitted? That will leave just two of them. Are noble Lords saying that for the next three years before Trident comes on stream this country will be vulnerable? It does not seem to me that that argument stands up for the fourth Trident.
It is depressing to note that there does not seem to have been a recognition of the new world in which we are living. We are still talking about nuclear weapons being a deterrent. But did they deter the Argentinians? Did they deter Saddam Hussein? Did they deter in the Vietnam war or in Afghanistan? Moreover, are they deterring what is taking place in Yugoslavia, and did they deter the illegal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia? In all those cases nuclear weapons were owned by those states—that is, both those supporting the resolutions of the United Nations and those taking their own line—and in no case was any deterrence apparent; of course it could not be.
Let us take, for example, the case of Iraq. Only two years ago it was being armed by this country. The gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Social Security was in Baghdad negotiating for Britain to help in the arming of Saddam Hussein.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not correct. At the time there was a joint supply of weapons to Iraq and Iran under the guidelines that had been issued earlier by my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to intervene once again to say what was happening about the supergun. We are still waiting to
612
hear to what extent members of the Government knew about it. That knowledge is already being gravely questioned.
I want to point out that there is a powerful military and industrial complex throughout Western countries which is actively and purposely arming states which may become nuclear states or which may, as they are doing today, obtain increased fire power from conventional weapons. That does not go—after all, Britain is the second largest arms exporter in the world —with any conception of developing peace and harmony in our troubled world. There does not seem to have been any consideration of the new world situation that we face.
We hear that the United States has now switched its targeting from Moscow and the Eastern European states to the third world. How does that help peace? Surely the £20 billion that has been spent on Trident could be much more wisely invested to deal with poverty in the third world and persuading third world countries that it is not nuclear arms that will give them influence; it is co-operation, with our help, to build up their standard of living. I welcome the appearance of my noble friend Lord Judd on the Front Bench. I feel confident that he will support what I have just said about the investment in peace to destroy poverty.
The world faces new dangers. Surely we can look to our country and government to take a lead in controlling and eventually disposing of nuclear weapons which we all agree pose great danger to the peace of the world. We have let down President Gorbachev and thus have split up the controlling command of Soviet nuclear weapons; but if, instead of modernising our nuclear weapons and increasing them to 512 warheads, we had endeavoured to help the former Soviet nuclear scientists to transfer their skills to civilian production, we should have been working for a much safer world than we have done by giving a lead, as my noble friend Lord Rea pointed out, in weakening the non-proliferation treaty and appearing to be cynical in our adherence to it. As he pointed out, it is our responsibility to reduce our nuclear weapons if we are to persuade other people to join that non-proliferation treaty.
I want to mention one particular issue of which I have given notice. In addition to the Trident programme, on 16th November Britain conducted its 44th nuclear weapons test in Nevada. That flies in the face of current moves towards disarmament and can only increase the anxiety felt around the world that the nuclear weapon states, including Britain, are failing to take responsibility for curbing nuclear proliferation. Twelve months ago, 74 of the 118 signatories to the 1963 partial test ban treaty voted in favour of moving towards a comprehensive test ban. Only the United Kingdom and the USA voted against. Why? If Britain and the United States had offered to conclude a comprehensive test ban with the Soviet Union while it was a single command, there was a good chance that we could have entered into a new age of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons. The threadbare argument advanced for Britain's continued nuclear testing—that it is necessary to improve safety and that a comprehensive test ban is not verifiable—is no

613
longer credible. Nuclear testing is for developing new and more refined nuclear weapons. That goes right against the whole ethos of the non-proliferation treaty.
I believe that the Government have found that out in the past few days while Mr. Hurd has been in India and was told that India would not join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty because it did not feel that we were abiding by it. India considered that we were being hypocritical. That hypocrisy is a danger to the future peace of the world.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, if there is a case to be made against any weapon, surely it is to be made against the Soviet-designed SS20 Sturgeon with its 10 independently targeted warheads and range of 4,500 nautical miles, fitted to Typhoon-class submarines, together with all the variants fitted to other Delta, Golf and Yankee class boats about which we have heard so much in recent years. They total some 74 and are assigned to the Northern, Black Sea and Pacific fleets. If there is a case to be made, it is a case for Trident as fitted to the Vanguard class boats.
As I have done before, I declare my interest in the Trident system, which covers the broad range of missile handling, platform engineering and support. The recent ominous proposal made by President Yeltsin—that the strategic portion of the Black Sea fleet should be under central control—is an admission of the nuclear ballistic missile capability of that fleet, despite statements from other sources—perhaps Ukrainian—that the Black Sea fleet is non-nuclear. Whatever the truth, there is a strong reason why we should not look at the missile alone.
What I have to say will be in support of the system, and Trident is part of a whole-ship system. The Vanguard platform is dedicated to the Trident missile, and what is vital to them both is our submarine building capability, our design and manufacturing capacity, our naval base and refit capacity and, last but not least, the manning capacity of the boat.
We are fortunate that we have the resources to compete on quality rather than quantity terms and that we are in the quality race and not the arms race now and, consequently, have the ability to field the minimum strategic and flexible deterrent capability which will meet our foreseeable defence needs, at least until the known nuclear threat has been eliminated. That is in no way happening yet and is not likely to happen until the former Soviet nuclear strategic and tactical arsenals have been denied to the successor breakaway states, together with launch sites and other facilities, and have come under a central control with powers of negotiation.
As the Secretary of State has said, we must address the problems of the substantial strategic nuclear arsenal that will be around for 20 years or more. Good political intentions may exist, but capability remains, and it is about that we must worry.
The one development which has made Trident into a credible deterrent, quite apart from the warhead advantage, is the standoff capability, coupled with the
614
high speed submarine platform. When in 1980 the Soviets introduced their SS20 missile with 10 multiple warheads, the years of Polaris's credibility became numbered, and those who followed the case for collaboration rather than independence, as the French have done, will see that we have made the right, cost-effective choice by opting for the Trident II D5 missile.
I come back to the point that we must match equipment to resources available and quality needed. I believe that there is nothing obscene or reprehensible in having powerful and flexible systems and equipment for nuclear deterrence, as we have to watch the threat which remains in the nuclear field. The case for the D5 missile was clearly laid out in the 1987 open document to preserve credibility against the new defences in the ex-Soviet Union, which are still there, with control supposedly in the hands of President Yeltsin and General—or is he now Marshal?— Shaposhnikov.
The cruise missile alternative which would have been based on the US Tomahawk was rejected because it was restricted to firing within the confines of the Norwegian sea, whereas Trident has all the North Atlantic for concealment. The cruise missile was also rejected on grounds of technology, the necessity for a larger submarine force and poor in-flight survivability. The only other possible contender, which was the French M5 missile with all its uncertainties and cost penalties, was rejected.
I believe that the Trident-Vanguard system should be seen in the context of strengthening the underwater warfare capability of the Royal Navy and in the context of ensuring that we maintain the submarine building capacity we have and that we complete the new Clyde naval base facilities and those at Rosyth to meet our long-term requirements. Also, we should maintain nuclear design and manufacturing facilities as long as the nuclear threat remains.
Elimination of the threat will only be achieved through negotiation from a point of strength. Therefore I believe that the Government's choice of maintaining the Trident missile and Vanguard system is right and that it is also right to have four boats so that one can be on patrol all the time.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this afternoon we have heard quite a lot about the case against Trident, and that is the reason for our debate. I do not wish to spend a great deal of time elaborating further because it has been touched on in some areas far better than I could do. Perhaps I may quickly canter through the main arguments that I can see against Trident.
First, Trident as a nuclear weapons system is a threat to human life: whether it goes off on purpose or accidentally, the net effect will be to kill millions of people. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House could wish that on our planet. Secondly, its possession by this country is effectively a signal to every other country in the world that it is a good thing to have. That is therefore an incentive to its proliferation.

615
Thirdly, it is expensive and many people would argue that it is a waste of money. Fourthly—and this is one of the areas on which not many speakers have touched strongly—it distorts defence thinking. It distracts us from looking at the real threat to the security of our nation and prevents us looking at the most effective ways of dealing with threats to our security.
Another reason that has not been touched on so far by any other speakers, so far as I am aware, is that the philosophy of the possession of nuclear weapons distorts our whole energy policy. I hope that most people, unless they are deranged, would agree with Reagan and Gorbachev that the ideal is to get rid of all nuclear weapons right around the world. I am continually frustrated by people who will not address that question and say, "Well, it is impossible, we can't do it; therefore we must have nuclear weapons and we must make sure that ours are bigger and better than anyone else's". I hope that the people using that argument will start addressing the real problem: how do we, as human beings, work with other human beings around the world to rid our planet of nuclear weapons? I am sure that if we all addressed that question we should soon find a satisfactory answer.
I suggest that, although we might soon find an answer, we should not take precipitate action. That would send the wrong signal to our friends and potential enemies. In the past 10 years we have seen two examples where our intentions and those of our allies were misread by effectively military dictators. The net result was that our servicemen died in the Falklands and Kuwait. We must all address that scenario and re-dedicate ourselves to considering how we can prevent that kind of thing happening again.
We are in an election year and we know that this debate is set within the context of electioneering. I remind your Lordships that since the war we have had Labour and Conservative Governments but it is only during the past eight years since 1983, under a Conservative Government, that we have seen our servicemen losing their lives because of aggressive action that was taken against our interests. I hope that the British people will think about that when it comes to polling.
One of the things that annoys me a little is the way in which some speakers mentioned the workers at Barrow in their argument for a fourth Trident boat. That comes rather badly from Government Benches that have seen two slumps and two major rises in unemployment in this country but have sat back and done nothing about it. They offer to the workers at Barrow at best a few years' work for the sake of building a fourth Trident submarine, which in real terms is not strictly necessary.
I shall not argue about whether we should have a three or four boat fleet. We need to address the future of the workers of Barrow more effectively than just offering them another boat. At best that would make their jobs secure for a few years. Rather, we need to think in terms of developing a long-term future for the workforce at Barrow. When I say "long-term" I mean in terms of 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, not the three, four or five years of which the Government speak.
616
I have touched upon the need to protect and defend, and to prevent death among our servicemen. However, at the end of the day we have a much wider responsibility. We have a responsibility to many millions of men and women around the world to prevent their deaths by even the accidental, far less the purposeful, use of nuclear weapons. I hope that we can use this debate as a process of education and a process of trying to find some way forward which enables us to get rid of nuclear weapons all around the world by the year 2000. That was agreed as a laudable and achievable objective by President Reagan and President Gorbachev.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, this is for me a repeat performance of a debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I crossed swords 11 years ago. That debate occurred on 20th July 1981. Both of us had made our maiden speeches and we were making our second speeches in this Chamber. We had therefore both drawn the two shortest straws and were speaking respectively second last and last in the debate. In that debate I made two errors of forecasting. First, I forecast that there could not be a continuous Conservative government in this country from 1981 to 1992. Secondly, I forecast that the Soviet Union would be as great a threat in 1992 as it had been in 1981. That, of course, is not the case and we cannot speak now of a similar Russian threat. However, what we must surely speak of is a similar Russian capability. Today, whoever is in charge in Moscow, we have in our oceans the following Russian ballistic missile submarines.
We have 12 Yankee class, 48 Delta class and six colossal Typhoon class boats, each of which is twice the size of Trident. Each comprises 26½ thousand tonnes of naked power with 20 missile tubes per boat. There are seven MIRVED warheads per tube, each of 120 kilotonnes. Typhoons can in addition fire through their torpedo tubes 200 kilotonne weapons. In all, I have calculated that Russia has 66 nuclear ballistic missile boats. I believe my noble friend Lord Birdwood made the total about 60, while my noble friend Lord Ironside made it more like 74. However, both of them omitted the additional capability of the cruise nuclear missile boats, of which there are 61. I therefore calculate that the total is 127. That represents an awesome military capability. It is the more awesome because it is at the moment uncontrolled.
In the nuclear debate in another place last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence described how he had received from the Russians the shortest lived assurance of all time. It came from a General Lobov. When he was asked who was in charge of nuclear weapons, the general replied that he was. However, two days later he was sacked. Our old adversary is beset by revolution. Revolutions throw up new leaders then quickly overthrow them. In France at the end of the 18th century Lafayette, Saint-Just, Danton and Robespierre came to prominence before Napoleon. Who is to say there will be no Napoleon in Russia in a few years? A mighty

617
general and emperor could control that huge nuclear arsenal. He might try to placate his people with the great opiate of foreign conquest. Even if the Russians returned to stability and disarmed in a well organised way, they would still have, 10 years from now, 20 times more warheads than we have now.
Trident is our long-term shield. It will protect us against all nuclear aggression over the next 30 years. No one can forecast what type of Russian government there will be in 30 years' time. It is hard enough to forecast the position in 30 days. If we add to the Russian threat the likelihood that Russian nuclear hardware and know-how might be sold to such countries as Libya and Iraq, the situation becomes about as secure as that of Damocles under the sword. It then follows that we must have one Trident submarine on station at all times. That means a four-boat fleet. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has said that, as have my noble friends Lord Birdwood and Lord Ironside. It is a little more surprising, however, that the Guardian has said much the same thing. The Guardian stated in an article last Thursday:
"Some expert opinion holds that a three-boat fleet could achieve the same result. But the margin for accidents becomes very low. If one boat met with an accident or experienced serious technical problems in refit there would only be one boat on station for half the time. A four boat force provides insurance against an unforeseen emergency".
The same article also stated:
"Cancelling the 4th Trident would save only £500 million of the £19.4 billion being spent on Trident Procurement".
I should like some information from my noble friend on the Front Bench as regards that figure of £19.4 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, puts that figure at £21 billion. I remember that in 1981 the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Nott, told us that the Trident programme would cost £8 billion at 1980 prices. Allowing for inflation I believe that figure is about £13 billion at today's prices. It is certainly not £19 billion. It is even more certain that it is not £21 billion. Therefore there seems to have been an overspend. Could that be connected with what is referred to as the stretching out of the building programme?
Is it not the case that the original programme anticipated ordering one boat per year from 1986? Indeed the Vanguard was ordered in 1986 and the Victorious in 1987. However, the Vigilant was not ordered until 1990 and the fourth boat is still not ordered. I must ask my noble friend why we seem to have dragged our heels. Had we kept to schedule the debate on the fourth boat would be irrelevant as it would already have been three years abuilding in that mighty covered yard at Barrow. In general I foresaw the need for four Trident boats back in 1981. In 1992 I am convinced that that need is even greater.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, a number of Starred Questions have been tabled this Session about Trident. Whenever its utility is questioned, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, replies that it is our nuclear deterrent that has preserved peace during the past 40 years and we must have an up-to-date deterrent in the
618
foreseeable future. When he says that, there is always a growl of approval from the Benches opposite. However, that is quite untrue. What preserved the peace during the past 40 years were NATO and the overwhelming power of the American nuclear deterrent. I am glad to say that some parts of that deterrent were deployed in the United Kingdom. This is where I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The noble Lord is a noble, high-minded idealist whereas I am a low, cynical realist.
I believe in the power of NATO and I believe passionately in the nuclear deterrent in America. I also believe that when the archives are opened we may well find that it was President Reagan's initiative—thought in some quarters to be insane—of instigating Star Wars that was the last straw that broke the morale of the Soviet defence ministry.
On those grounds I have a different standpoint on the question of Trident. However, it seems to me laughable to say that our own nuclear deterrent is the thing that has preserved Britain in the past 40 years. Is it really the case that Germany, Holland and the rest of the EC countries, with the exception of France, were markedly less secure and more at risk than the United Kingdom? Is it really argued that the USSR would have attacked Britain alone and risked nuclear retaliation from the United States?
The noble Earl always goes on to say that although the USSR has now split into independent republics, we live in such an uncertain world that Trident is necessary and that we must have four submarines so that one will always be afloat, prowling and ready to turn its nuclear weapons against the aggressor, watching, as Keats put it,
"…with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite".
Which way will this nuclear weapon be turned? The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, had the temerity to ask the other day whether it will still be targeted on Moscow. That is a perfectly reasonable question. If not on Moscow where will it be targeted? When I once asked in my ignorance why we had not sent nuclear submarines to the Gulf, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, with his characteristic courtesy and consideration, wrote to correct me. He said that we would not deploy nuclear submarines in the Gulf because under treaty we had undertaken never to use them against any non-nuclear power. That does indeed restrict our options.
I am a historian. I predict that some 50 years from now historians studying Britain in the second half of the twentieth century will judge that this country ruined itself economically trying to keep up with the Joneses in the United States. We need conventional arms, not only for our armed forces but to help our export trade by selling those arms abroad. We cannot sell nuclear arms abroad. Unlike our competitors in Europe we need a navy because we are an island. Other countries in the European Community do not need a navy. That is why our defence costs will always be higher. But keeping the three services going and a nuclear deterrent, and being ready at the drop of a hat

619
to send our forces to fight in wars from Korea to the Gulf, has beggared us. We must learn to beat some of our arms into ploughshares.
Which arms? I do not want to prognosticate about what field marshals or chiefs of the defence staff think on this issue. But when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, being so categoric I told myself that I must re-read what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said should be our defence policy. His speech in the debate on defence last Session gave me a rather different impression. I am quite certain what the reply would be if I put the question to the most distinguished scientific adviser to the Government in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who has often said that he can see no possibility of a nuclear strike on enemy capitals ever being carried out. Does one first warn the diplomats in those capitals so that they can evacuate their embassies before we strike?
Of course, there will be all sorts of disturbances in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and probably in the Far East and Africa during the years following the collapse of the USSR as a major hostile power. But can anyone pretend that the threat to our security is as great as in the days of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev?
When Sir Nicholas Henderson retired in 1979 from his post as ambassador to France he wrote a despatch in which he said how difficult it was to represent our country when its economy was in such a poor state and when it was rent by so many strikes and disturbances of one kind or another. He emphasised that it is economic power on which ultimately military and political power depend. That is why I say that if future governments turn their attention to making British industry efficient and to investing in industry rather than in unutilisable long-range nuclear weapons, this debate will not have been in vain.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point. The thesis he has offered seems to be that the cost of our strategic deterrent has been the difference between poverty and prosperity. Is he aware that the cost of our nuclear deterrent is between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. of our total defence expenditure? Is he really suggesting that that is the difference that he has outlined?
Lord Annan: My Lords, I merely say that savings have to be made somewhere. Some people would judge that the savings should not be made so much in conventional forces as in nuclear forces.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, following my maiden speech in this House last October the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked whether it was not better to have the Royal Scots than the alternative. Also, in the noble Lord's kind and generous comments he mentioned that he did not entirely agree with my every word. Today, with respect to the noble Lord, I am not able to agree entirely with him.
As noble Lords have heard repeatedly in this House and in another place, we are faced with a period of
620
danger and uncertainty. We must be certain that our nuclear forces are credible, comprehensive and cohesive.
Former United States President Richard Nixon wrote in his book Seize the Moment, which went to press only last September, that:
"While we should celebrate the current turn of events, we should not give in to euphoria. In a world of competing states, clashing interests and national conflicts are inevitable".
I found it interesting that the former president went on to say:
"Revolutionary upheavals may change how the world looks, but seldom change the way the world works".
Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlined the current nuclear situation in the states which formerly constituted the Soviet Union. He estimated that it would take 10 years safely to halve the current nuclear power in those states. Even then there would be 20 times more warheads than in the United Kingdom. In addition, we would potentially face four aggressors as opposed to one, the former Soviet Union. I am sure that your Lordships all welcome the efforts of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in his current efforts to centralise the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
Considerable anxiety over the break-up of the Soviet Union was underlined by a recent article in the authoritative defence magazine Jane's Defence Weekly. It explains that there were 1.7 million skilled weapons technologists in the former Soviet Union, of whom 30,000 were specialists in developing nuclear weapons. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned in his excellent speech, those specialists are a natural target for recruitment by third world countries which are and may be eager to develop a nuclear capability. Although there is no hard evidence to prove that scientists have taken their expertise elsewhere, we can be assured that with the economic chaos in the Soviet Union only time and money will show the brain drain.
That potential proliferation of nuclear capability adds to the considerable uncertainty about a number of emerging nations such as Pakistan, India and North Korea. The example of Iraq, as we have already heard, is only one instance of why the Trident programme is vital to form our own independent nuclear deterrent.
Again, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others have mentioned, it has been argued that we do not need to replace the four Polaris boats with four Trident boats and that three will suffice. As noble Lords have heard today, in order for our nuclear deterrent to be credible it must be comprehensive, cohesive and flexible. We can all expect and hope for future arms control agreements. If we are required to make further cuts from the minimal operational capability we shall quickly become less credible to potential aggressors. It is certainly not clear what our future commitments to the European Community will be and whether our independent forces will be reduced as a result.
Noble Lords have also heard today that the potential of nuclear proliferation could conceivably result in elements of our deterrent force being

621
deployed to several theatres of operation. Those are a few of the reasons why it is essential to have at least four Trident boats.
From a cost point of view, the Trident has been bought from the American shelf at a considerable saving to this country. Once in service the Trident system will consume less than 2 per cent. of the defence budget. The price of the fourth boat is very small compared with the overall cost.
Those of us still on this planet in 30 years' time can look forward to a country protected from the fear of nuclear attack on an independent basis during what is bound to be a period of considerable change. It is to be hoped that future generations can enjoy the fruits of a viable nuclear deterrent which has encouraged further arms control agreements and, most importantly, the implementation of strong command and control measures wherever there is a nuclear force. We cannot conceivably expect to achieve these goals without a nuclear deterrent and without Trident.
Yes, my Lords, I finish where I started. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, on these Benches we agree of course that while other countries have nuclear weapons Britain must have a minimum deterrent. We agree that the Trident programme should go ahead and that there should be four boats instead of three. But rather than tread well-trodden paths again I should like to concentrate on two major points on which my noble friends and I disagree with the Government's deterrent policy.
The first objection we have is that the Government are following the persuasive advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and are preparing a new tactical air-to-surface nuclear missile system when that role can be performed satisfactorily without significant cost by Trident, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has said. Whether the sub-strategic role is necessary at all is highly doubtful. The Government have put forward two justifications, which were set out by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on 21st November as follows:
"As the NATO defence Ministers have recently affirmed, sub-strategic forces are required to provide the necessary political and military link between conventional and strategic nuclear forces".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1016.]
But even if that were true, which on these Benches we deny, does NATO really need a British sub-strategic system? The Americans and the French have that system. All three Western powers have strategic deterrents as well. But that is not good enough for the Government. They say, "But there might be an aggressor who is not deterred by the three strategic deterrents, who is not deterred by the French and American sub-strategic deterrents, but who might be deterred if in addition Britain had a sub-strategic system". That is ludicrous. It makes no sense at all. The scenario is not credible, and I am glad to say there are signs that Ministers are now dropping this part of their argument for TASM.
The second argument for TASM is also flawed. This is that in a world where nuclear weapons are
622
proliferating the threat of a nuclear attack by a minor power might require a counter-threat from Britain, acting alone; and that Trident is too powerful to make that counter-threat credible. I think that is a fair summary of the Government's second argument. They say that therefore we need another, smaller, sub-strategic system. But that argument ignores the extraordinary flexibility of the Trident system. A single submarine can fly a colossal salvo of 120 warheads, or, if required, it can land a single warhead —at 5,000 miles range if necessary—400 feet from the centre of the target. Meanwhile it can keep its remaining missiles available for the strategic role. Why then are the Government insisting on procuring this air launch system?
I was fascinated to hear the noble and gallant Lord arguing that the submarine might be vulnerable. Let us compare the vulnerability of the submarine which has fired a missile. The noble and gallant Lord said that the missile might be tracked by the minor adversary power; it might be monitored, and the minor power might then send a retaliatory missile in the opposite direction with extreme accuracy and sink the boat before it had time to get away. That is scarcely possible; but let us bear it in mind and let us think of the vulnerability of the alternative suggested by the noble and gallant Lord—the vulnerability of aircraft or airfields the location of which is precisely known by any adversary. Let us consider also the difficulty of basing TASM in a foreign country. Who is going to take it? The Germans are not. Where will it be? Above all, TASM will cost £2 billion or more, whereas if Trident is used, as it can be in this alternative role, it will cost nothing at all.
Of course one's heart bleeds for the RAF, and bled in the 1960s, when it lost its nuclear role with the Vulcans to the Navy with the Polaris submarines. Their hearts were wrung and we sympathise with them, but that is no reason now for supporting the air-launched TASM as against the far superior alternative of the Trident in the sub-strategic role.
I turn now to the second main objection that we on these Benches have to the Government's Trident policy. The Government say that Britain needs a minimum deterrent. So do we: but what is a minimum deterrent? We say it means the capability to inflict unacceptable damage and casualties on any possible adversary. At the present time a single Polaris submarine has this capability. The same will be true of a Trident submarine with the same fire power. It too will be able to inflict unacceptable damage and casualties on any possible adversary. But that is not enough for the Government. For reasons which they refuse to explain or even discuss, they insist that Trident's fire power must be substantially greater than that of Polaris so that we could if necessary, acting independently, penetrate the Soviet ABM defences.
On 14th October in the other place the Secretary of State was asked why more warheads were needed for Trident than for Polaris, and he replied:
"The number of missiles and warheads needed to overcome anti-missile defences, is the determinant".— [Official Report. Commons, 14/10/91; co. 58.]
The Minister of State for Defence for Procurement, Mr. Hamilton, said at a later date that the programme

623
of improvements to the Soviet ABM system reinforced the need for Polaris to be replaced by Trident in the mid-1990s. Now what are the Soviet ABM systems to which Ministers refer? Everybody knows what they are. The Russians have known it for years. There is only one Soviet anti-ballistic missile system. There is only one allowed to it under the ABM treaties. That is the system which defends Moscow. That is what Ministers are talking about.
Even if, absurdly, the Russians abrogated the treaty and began the immensely costly business of constructing new ABMs, the Government would still not need to increase the fire power of Trident (although they could do so very quickly if they wanted) because the Trident submarine would still be capable of inflicting unacceptable damage and casualties.
The Government insist on pitting our nuclear deterrent against the only city in the world that has ABM defences, leaving aside Russia's undefended centres of power. Moscow is no longer the capital of the Soviet Union or the nerve centre of a unified empire. Yet the Government are proposing to spend huge sums on extra warheads with the exclusive aim of being able to destroy one particular city. This is called the Moscow criterion, and it is lunacy. It is no wonder, as we heard at Question Time on Thursday last, the Government are trying to suppress discussion of this subject. It is no wonder that the noble Earl, Lord Arran—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place—tried to prevent me from raising the subject. However, it is a subject that should be raised. It should and will be discussed. As with TASM so with the Moscow criterion; the Government are misdirecting the Trident programme. They are wasting public money; and the electors are entitled to know about it.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, there is much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, which deserves careful consideration, not least what he said about the flexibility of Trident and the dangers of costly duplication. I join with those who pay tribute to the consistent remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkins and indeed to his integrity and humanitarian concern. I believe that this House, and indeed Britain, are the better for his contribution. I also believe that in this debate we have been fortunate to have the insight and experience of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I believe that we have to consider seriously his professional advice.
There has always been an honest, intellectual and moral case for pacifism. However, if pacifism is rejected, we are in an altogether different discipline. One of the greatest responsibilities of government is to define the threats to our society and to guard against them. To fail to meet those threats could effectively mean that all our military expenditure was wasted. But threats will change and vary. Minds set are therefore dangerous. Flexibility is essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, no single weapon or category of weapons of itself provides effective defence. Effective defence demands the resources for a complex mix of strategic and tactical
624
military capabilities within the context of a priority commitment to collective security, arms control and disarmament. However, all that must be integrated with effective economic, industrial and social policies and with food security. Healthy social and economic fibre and good national morale are highly relevant to defence.
I am not altogether convinced that there is a clear-cut distinction between nuclear and modern non-nuclear warfare. Let us consider World War Two. Let us remember the fire storms in Tokyo. Think of Dresden, my Lords. In the past year think of the millions at risk of slow starvation, disease and stunted physical and mental development as a result of conflict in the third world.
There have been 150 conflicts mainly in the third world since World War Two. In World War Two the civilian casualty proportion of total casualties was 52 per cent. The UN has recently calculated that in modern so-called conventional wars throughout the third world, the civilian casualty proportion of total casualties is 90 per cent.
We must also remember that nuclear weapons were first produced in the context of a prolonged conventional war. We cannot unlearn what has been learnt, even after we have achieved far-reaching arms control and disarmament. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Monkswell tellingly pointed out that it is war itself which has to be prevented. Hence the importance of collective security and deterrence—principles which I argue will continue to apply in a greatly demilitarised world.
But what of the threats today and the means required to meet them? They are unpredictability, and nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation. My noble friend Lord Hatch pointed out that there are already at least eight nuclear states. Regional local conflicts are out of control, and terrorism, potentially, before long will be on a nuclear, chemical and biological scale. There are 27,000 nuclear warheads in the midst of all the turmoil of the former Soviet Union, 13,000 of them in Russia and the remainder in other republics. There are tactical nuclear weapons at up to 100 sites in 13 different republics. As my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, pointed out, there are 3,000 to 5,000 insecure and underpaid scientists and countless laboratory technicians in the former Soviet Union with experience of plutonium production and uranium enrichment and more than 2,000 scientists with experience of weapon design. All that is uncomfortably adjacent to the volatile and explosive Middle East.
Clearly, this dangerous, if not alarming, situation demands a renewed and relentless commitment to strengthen existing non-proliferation measures by, if need be, the introduction of sanctions and by denying those who refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty the right to buy any nuclear materials even for peaceful purposes. The time is surely ripe for more intrusive inspections to enforce the treaty. All that must surely now be underscored by a long overdue comprehensive test ban treaty and by the urgent collection and destruction of tactical nuclear weapons

625
within the former Soviet Union, where necessary with expertise and funds supplied by countries in the Group of Seven.
Equally, pending effective arms control and disarmament, while this dangerous and unpredictable situation is not the time to undermine our deterrent capability, of which three Trident submarines to replace Polaris are a vital part, it is also not the time to tie up scarce resources inflexibly in a fourth expensive submarine for which the case has yet to be convincingly established, or indeed to increase the number of warheads from 192 to 512 as effectively proposed by the Government.
That is why the Labour Government will not proceed with the construction of a fourth vessel unless they find themselves confronted with cancellation charges which mean that there could be no real savings. However, we are determined—there has been reference to this important issue in the debate—to do everything possible to help to secure a viable, long-term economic future for the people and community of Barrow. Meanwhile, funds are desperately needed for a new Marshall Plan to assist the promotion of economic and political stability in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. A Labour Government will certainly help to provide that.
Before I conclude, because of the immense importance of the issues raised, there are several points on which clarification by the Government is desperately needed. Has, or has not, a definite and final order been placed for a completed fourth Trident submarine? If so, how much would the cancellation penalty charges amount to? What is the case for the fourth vessel? Why is it a priority when well into the next century a vessel could always be on patrol with a fleet of three? If, with its two or three warheads per missile, Polaris is at present able to penetrate the recently improved ABM system around Moscow, why is it proposed to increase the number of warheads to eight on Trident? Is some significant change in ABM treaty limitations anticipated? Has the United States' initiative on global protection against limited nuclear strikes affected the situation? In this context, does the ability to be able to destroy Moscow remain a priority? Why, my Lords? How does that compare with the industrial and military significance of other cities and military installations without ABM defences in the former Soviet Union and indeed beyond?
The Minsk Agreement between members of the Commonwealth of Independent States allocated central command over the former Soviet Union's strategic nuclear forces to the Russian Republic, committed members to observe all the former Soviet Union's arms control obligations and undertook to negotiate further arms reductions with NATO. What progress has been achieved on all that? Similarly, what progress has been made in collecting and destroying the tactical nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union?
The development of Trident constitutes a major strengthening of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. It is able to carry between eight and 14
626
warheads as compared with two or three on Polaris. Its multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles have the capacity to destroy between eight and 14 widely separated targets. As things stand, by the year 2005 British and French nuclear weapons will be equivalent to one fifth of the United States' nuclear forces compared with one twentieth in 1985. Surely, that enhanced deterrent capability provides the United Kingdom with the opportunity, indeed the responsibility, to take a lead in the arms reduction process, a role that it has been sadly reluctant to play in recent years.
Will the noble Earl tonight commit the Government to that course? This month the Prime Minister goes to the United Nations. It would be an ideal opportunity for him to launch a new drive for arms control and disarmament.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, for nearly a quarter of a century the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear force has formed the cornerstone of this country's defence capability. Polaris, which first came into service in 1968 to replace the old V-bomber forces, has maintained continuous deterrent patrols since 1969, undetectable in the depths of the ocean.
Polaris is now approaching the end of its service life. From the mid-1990s the Government intend to replace it with a force of four Vanguard Trident missile submarines, which will extend this country's ultimate guarantee of security well into the next century.
In confirming that intention, the Government's position is four-square with that of its NATO allies. At the Rome Summit on 7th and 8th November, NATO leaders agreed on a new strategic concept for the Alliance, which will enable NATO's defence policy to keep pace with changes in the overall security environment in Europe. The most important conclusion of this new strategic concept was:
"The Alliance will maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary, although at a significantly reduced level. Both elements are essential to Alliance security and cannot substitute one for the other".
The new strategic concept later clarifies the nuclear forces that the allies agree are required:
"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies".
Those who argue against Trident are thus opposing themselves not only to the position adopted by all three main political parties in the UK (admittedly, with varying degrees of conviction), but also to the unanimous views of the 16 NATO heads of state and government. At the best of times, that would seem eccentric. And these are not the best of times. They are times of profound international change, uncertainty and risk, nowhere more so than in the nuclear field. Over a matter of weeks, we have seen the break-up of the world's biggest nuclear power. No one in your Lordships' House will feel a vestige of regret for the collapse of Soviet power. But none should delude

627
himself about the dangers that flow from it, dangers rather left to one side in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
What is happening in the East is a profound transformation, with who knows how far to run before a new stability is achieved. The challenges which the new leaderships face are formidable. Democracy remains novel and insecure. The economies of the various republics are all in a more or less parlous condition. Who knows what forces of extremism or nationalism could crowd in if the new order is seen to falter? The old union has fallen apart into its constituent republics; but further fault lines are evident within those republics too. Confusion continues over how the relationship between these new sovereign and independent states should work, and what the new commonwealth should in practice amount to. The republics remain massively over-armed, with Russia much the biggest military power in Europe. The transition to realistic and affordable levels of military capability will require huge organisational and leadership skills.
The situation is without precedent. No one outside the former Soviet Union knows for sure how many nuclear warheads are present there; the best estimates are in the order of 27,000. Perhaps 13,000 of those are strategic: missile warheads and weapons for strategic bombers that could strike the United Kingdom. Those strategic weapons (excluding those at sea in missile submarines) are located in the four new states of Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan.
Under START, and President Gorbachev's undertakings on reductions in tactical nuclear weapons, as much as half or more of the total arsenal should be destined for destruction. But this is a major logistical challenge that will take years to resolve—perhaps a decade or more—even without the revolutionary upheavals now in train.
The rest of the former Soviet arsenal—sub-strategic weapons ranging from nuclear torpedos through air defence missiles to artillery shells—was in earlier days dispersed in some 100 storage sites, across 13 republics of the former union.
Recently, there has been evidence that nuclear weapons in outlying republics were being withdrawn. Such consolidation of nuclear holdings is a step in the right direction. But the fact remains that if the new authorities in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia obtained independent control of the strategic missiles on their territories, all four would instantly become bigger nuclear powers than China, and all but Byelorussia would surpass the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, overwhelmingly important for the West that unified control of these weapons should be maintained.
Recent weeks have seen some encouraging developments in that regard. Russia is now accepted as having inherited the international rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union, symbolised by its assumption of the UN Security Council seat. That continuity of responsibility has been reflected by formal transfer of the presidential nuclear briefcase from Gorbachev to Yeltsin on 25th December—an unusual Christmas present. The four nuclear former
628
republics agreed at Alma Ata to submit START to their national legislatures for ratification. At the same time Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia agreed to consolidate all their sub-strategic weapons at central facilities in Russia by July 1992, for dismantling under joint supervision. Ukraine and Byelorussia have reaffirmed their wish to rid themselves by early, specified dates of all nuclear weapons and to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states.
So much is satisfactory. But other aspects of the situation give rise to profound concern. There has been ambiguity surrounding Kazakhstan's plans and intentions. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has just had some welcome assurances from President Nazarbaev. But we look for a clear commitment to join the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. Some 1,800 nuclear warheads are at issue here. Uncertainty prevails over who actually owns the weapons. Doubt persists over how long current arrangements can endure; Marshal Shaposhnikov's appointment has been only temporarily extended.
The hard fact is that expressions of intent, formal agreements, even treaties will be useless unless practical nuclear command and control hang together. We know that the system is strong and resilient, with disciplined forces trained to respond only to properly authenticated messages reaching them in the right format through the right command channels. We know, too, that physical security arrangements "on the ground" are thorough and elaborate. But such arrangements will count for nothing if the society within which they operate, and the armed forces which administer them, fall apart.
The arguments between Moscow and Kiev over the future of the Black Sea Fleet illustrate the dangers all too clearly. Such fundamental differences, as well as the enormous and interlocking economic problems that the new states face, bring out how hard it will be for their leaders to find and maintain common ground in their new relationship as commonwealth leaders.
Within the armed forces, too, processes of disintegration are at work. The system of conscription has virtually collapsed. Soaring inflation has overwhelmed military pay. Hundreds of thousands of troops are without proper housing. Ill discipline and outright criminality are rife. In some instances food supplies have broken down and units are having to barter fuel supplies for food.
Against that background the potential for nuclear proliferation hardly needs pointing out. The prospect of leakage of nuclear materials and components, if not actual weapons, out of the crumbling former union is not some theoretical risk but a real and immediate danger. A migration of nuclear expertise is, if anything, even more worrying. There are literally thousands of nuclear scientists who could make a significant contribution to other countries seeking to develop their own weapons. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Wedgwood reminded us, the risk of proliferation has never been greater.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood mentioned Iraq. Iraq provides a sobering example of how easily a

629
wealthy, determined and unscrupulous regime can progress covertly towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. It is a NPT signatory and subject to the IAEA inspections and safeguards that that involves. But the arrangements permitted by the NPT depend on the Iraqi Government's declaration of all its nuclear materials for inspection purposes; and the scale of the clandestine programme dwarfed the legitimate and acknowledged civil programme.
Only following military defeat were IAEA inspectors able to uncover the extent of past deception. Noble Lords will know that incontrovertible evidence has been found that Iraq had developed a crude warhead design which could have become a viable weapon as early as next year.
Leaving aside Iraq and the states of the former Soviet Union, there are a further nine countries which we assess as either possibly possessing nuclear weapons now or having the scientific and technical capability to produce them within five years—and which have at some stage (even if not necessarily in the recent past) shown an interest in doing so.
The Government are active in addressing those manifold risks. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has today been in Moscow, following visits to Alma Ata and Kiev, to press our anxieties at first hand with the new leaderships. President Yeltsin will be in London on 30th January on his way to the meeting of the Security Council in New York which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will chair and which will provide an opportunity for world leaders to address the issues.
We stand ready to assist the former Soviet states in disabling and dismantling nuclear weapons. US officials are in touch with leaders of new states about this and other issues; we are also in very close touch with the US Administration to co-ordinate our efforts with theirs.
We are pressing for a tightening of the IAEA safeguards regime, including the greater use of special inspections whereby light could be thrown on undeclared but suspect nuclear facilities. But the limits of our ability to influence events must be recognised. We can tackle the potential risks but have no absolute control over whether or not they become actual. We must insure against the worst. Insurance in this context is adequate nuclear deterrence. The Government believe, in common with NATO, that now is not the time to drop our guard. We therefore remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of our strategic nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future but at the minimum level necessary to preserve peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to nuclear testing. The UK test last November was the 21st since 1963, the year of the partial test ban treaty. In the same period since that date the United States has carried out over 600 tests, the former Soviet Union has carried out about 460 and France has carried out over 130. The tests are needed to ensure that the weapons are safe and effective. For as long as our security depends on nuclear weapons we must continue to test.
630
The noble Lord also made a point about the United States' targeting of missiles. The United States has not switched its targeting to the third world. Perhaps the noble Lord has in mind an independent study, but that study does not represent US government policy.
It may be helpful if I explain in more detail what the Government mean by a minimum deterrent. We plan to replace the four-boat Polaris force with four Trident submarines. The fourth boat provides assurance that over the life of the force there will always be one boat on station at all times. That is the advice consistently given to governments over a period of 30 years.
For the deterrent to be effective, the system needs above all to be able to overcome modern anti-missile defences and still present the prospect of damage which no potential aggressor could consider as acceptable. That is the criterion which provides the minimum requirement for a deterrent to remain credible, not a comparison with the number of warheads or missiles possessed by other countries. That is the point which I would make to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Rea, when they question the increased capacity of Trident over Polaris when it first entered service.
Trident will need to be able to overcome defences that did not exist when Polaris entered service and which could be further improved, even within the current constraints of the ABM Treaty. The improvement known as Chevaline has increased the capability of Polaris, but it should not be forgotten that Trident will need to remain credible well into the next century in the face of all manner of possible future developments. The Government have repeatedly made it clear, contrary to what was implied by my noble friend Lord Birdwood, that we will not use the full capacity of the Trident D5 missile. We will, however, ensure that it carries the number of warheads that is necessary for it to remain an effective and credible deterrent. Anything else would be irresponsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others talked about the cost of Trident. I cannot accept the figure of £21.2 billion which the noble Lord mentioned, nor, indeed, the £19.4 billion mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mersey. The current cost estimate of Trident is £9,863 million at 1990–91 prices, of which £5,100 million has already been spent. That current cost estimate represents a total real reduction in Trident costs since 1982 of over £1.8 billion. We expect the running costs of Trident to be broadly similar to those of Polaris. They should be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget.
The cost of missiles is about £944 million. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the numbers which we intend to purchase. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate for me to give an estimate of the cost of the fourth boat while negotiations with the contractor are still under way. The cost of fitting out the three vessels under construction is not readily available.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also raised the matter of Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. For as long as

631
our security depends on nuclear weapons we shall maintain a minimum deterrent. That is entirely consistent with our commitments under the NPT.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to weapon safety following the conclusions of the Drell Report. I can give him the assurance that Trident 2 missiles and nuclear warheads will not come into service with the Royal Navy until they have undergone a comprehensive series of trials, assessments and formal safety approval procedures. As previously announced, a review of UK nuclear weapon safety is under way. The review team, led by the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser, will present its findings shortly. The report will inevitably be classified but a statement of the conclusions of the working group will be made public at the appropriate time.
I have spoken about our strategic capability but the same considerations apply also to our sub-strategic capability. NATO's position is clear. These forces provide an essential link between the alliance's conventional and strategic forces. As the alliance Defence Ministers in the Nuclear Planning Group declared last October, NATO will:
"continue to base effective and up-to-date sub-strategic nuclear forces in Europe".
In the words of the US President:
"We will, of course, ensure that we preserve an effective air-delivered nuclear capability in Europe. That's essential to NATO's security".
That is the background to our commitment to ensure that once our current WE177 nuclear bombs reach the end of their life another up-to-date sub-strategic capability is available to take their place. In that regard and others I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
In talking of our sub-strategic capability perhaps I may turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He asked why we should not rely on a US sub-strategic capability. Our independent deterrent provides what NATO recognises to be an invaluable second centre of decision-making within the alliance. To do that our deterrent must be credible. To be credible it must include an effective sub-strategic capability.
Trident is certainly a flexible system, capable of a limited as well as an all-out strike. But if we use Trident in that way there are several risks. There is the risk that such use may be misinterpreted as a strategic strike. Also, the firing of even a small number of missiles risks giving away the submarine's position and exposing it to the other side's anti-submarine warfare forces. Thus, even a limited use of Trident for sub-strategic purposes could imperil our strategic capability. A separate system will provide the Prime Minister with a greater range of options in time of war. Moreover, the separate system provides a hedge against the unexpected. As I said to the noble Lord in a Question he asked last Friday, it is unwise to have all our nuclear eggs in one basket.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I could intervene to ask whether the Minister is suggesting that a Trident submarine on patrol is more vulnerable than the aircraft and airfields needed by TASM.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows full well, we regard the submarine as being less vulnerable than almost any other system. But that does not negate what I said regarding the value of keeping our sub-strategic capability separate from the submarine systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned TASM and asked whether it would be extremely expensive. Clearly cost will be one of the factors to be taken into account when we choose between the available options for the WE177 replacement. No decisions are required immediately. The WE177 will approach the end of its service life around the turn of the century.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, described the dreadful consequences of a nuclear attack. Those consequences could just as easily be inflicted on London, but on a much greater scale. Our relations with the fledgling commonwealth of independent states are good. Trident will ensure that even if the worst happens and we return to the bad old days of the cold war, such an attack on this country can be deterred. The question of whether Russian missiles are at present targeted on London is irrelevant. While the missiles exist they can be targeted on us quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also remarked that there can be no halfway house in the world of nuclear weapons. I agree with him. The Government will ensure that adequate and credible strategic and sub-strategic forces are maintained, though only at the minimum level necessary. The position of the noble Lord's Front Bench is somewhat different. It would keep the pretence of a nuclear deterrent but not the substance, putting our defences in peril.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, advocated a part-time deterrent. One wonders what kind of deterrent he is thinking of. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about disarmament. The new alliance strategic concept published at NATO's Rome summit reaffirmed the need for the alliance to maintain nuclear weapons to protect peace and prevent war. At the same time the strategic concept recognises scope for reductions in which the UK is playing a full part. NATO is scrapping its nuclear artillery and Lance missiles and cutting its nuclear bombs, amounting to an 80 per cent. stockpile reduction overall. The UK is cutting its RAF nuclear strike squadrons from 11 to eight; it is giving up nuclear artillery and the Lance missiles; it is reducing substantially the stockpile of WE177 nuclear bombs and it is removing tactical nuclear weapons from Royal Navy ships in normal circumstances. Moreover, we have said that if in time the United States and Soviet arsenals were substantially further reduced and if there had been no significant improvements in defence capabilities, we would consider how best we could contribute to the arms control process.
I have tried to answer most of the questions put by noble Lords. If I have missed any that are important I shall be happy to write to noble Lords later.
Commitment to nuclear deterrence means a readiness to take the necessary decisions. Only by taking the requisite decisions many years in advance can we maintain in the service weapon systems which are effective and therefore credible as deterrents. One

633
must reckon with an interval of perhaps 10 or 15 years between the decision to proceed and the actual in-service date of a new nuclear system. With such an interval before the consequences become apparent, it is all too easy to hope that the future will contrive to take care of itself. That is the primrose path of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but it is not one that this Government are prepared to tread. With a geo-strategic revolution still in progress in the east and the menace of nuclear proliferation to the south, we are determined that this country should face the security challenges of the next century with nuclear forces adequate for all eventualities. If at that point we do not have the weapons we need it will be too late. They cannot be pulled out of a hat, or out of mothballs, at time of need. We cannot play with nuclear deterrence, treating it as some kind of marginal activity to be pursued or set aside as the whim dictates. We cannot turn it on and off like a tap. Either we believe in it and do it properly or we are engaged in a charade of self-delusion toying with the very future of mankind.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am sorely tempted to use the few minutes left me by the noble Earl to reply to the debate. I shall not do so. I believe it is not customary. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has been kind enough to say that I am an idealist in terms of policy. However, in terms of custom and procedure I am a conformist. For that reason—that it is not the custom to reply to a two-and-a-half-hour debate—I shall not do so.
However, I shall see whether I can find some other way of replying. There are a number of things I should dearly like to say. I shall write and ask, or something of that sort. I thank all noble Lords for participating in the proceedings. It is customary at the end of this kind of debate to say what a high level and interesting discussion it has been. There have been occasions when I felt that that comment was undeserved. Tonight such a tribute is well deserved and I thank all those who have taken part, whether they spoke for or against. I must say that I was rather more impressed with those who spoke for.
In the sure conviction that we shall return to this subject and that the tenor of the debate will move to my side, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
7.28 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 64 [Grants to councils]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 144A:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert:
634
("(c) any such terms and conditions which affect any institution differently from other institutions which are members of the same class shall not come into force until a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, both when we considered this subject in 1988 and when we consider it now, there has been a general sense of misgiving about allowing the Secretary of State a power to give specific directions to an individual institution.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before the noble Earl starts into his remarks, can I ask whether Amendment No. 144A is the leading amendment in a group or whether it is being moved separately?
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a single amendment. I beg the Minister's pardon for the lack of clarity. We had a lot of discussion today. We perhaps tried so hard to clarify matters that we failed. For my part in that I am sorry.
I was saying that there was a general misgiving about the power to give directions to a particular institution. When we discussed Clause 53 in Committee, the Minister said that one of the objections to making this power subject to the affirmative procedure was that it would involve the possibility of the instrument being hybrid, which would mean a lengthy procedure. That is a point in favour of it rather than against it. The powers of parliamentary sovereignty are in a mess. In its wisdom Parliament has decided that when it exercises those powers against a particular person or institution and treats a private interest differently from other private interests which are members of that class, it will use all the safeguards which are connected with the Private Bill procedure.
That is a good thing. If the Minister wishes to have the power to give directions or terms and conditions to a particular institution, he is doing something which of its essence is hybrid. Therefore, he should do it subject to the procedure which Parliament has worked out for controlling hybridity and not by the much more arbitrary and uncontrolled procedure of ministerial directive. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Earl has moved this amendment as a single amendment. If the House is content, when the noble Earl has finally finished with the amendment perhaps I may move the next amendment, which is Amendment No. 145. That is the peg on which we shall hang this very large group of amendments. However, I shall now deal with the noble Earl's amendment.
The Secretary of State's powers to attach conditions to grant are a quite normal instrument of policy. Those of us who have been involved in politics over the years can think of literally tens of times when we have known perfectly well that a condition is attached to a grant of some kind. Therefore, unlike the Secretary of State's direction-making powers, which are intended for use under exceptional circumstances and which I know have been the cause of very considerable disagreement in your Lordships' House —and we shall be debating again this evening—in

635
principle it would not be appropriate to subject these condition-making powers in Clause 64 to parliamentary control.
Leaving the principle aside, my real worry is that this amendment is misconceived. Put in more vernacular language, I am not sure that it will work. Clause 64 enables a Secretary of State to attach conditions of grant to a funding council, which may impose requirements to be complied with by institutions falling within a specified class. I endeavoured to indicate at an earlier stage of the Bill the reasons for having that power. One aspect of its use would be in relation to pay and conditions of service settlements.
In that context some institutions might comply with the requirements, which would be the conditions, while other institutions might not. So the conditions may impact differently on individual institutions. But neither the Secretary of State nor anyone else will know in advance whether there will be a different effect on institutions, let alone which particular institutions will be affected differently from other institutions on account of their different reactions to the requirements set out in the conditions. In other words, the conditions would be of a general effect but they would impact differently according to the reaction of the different institutions.
Turning to the noble Earl's amendment, against that background an amendment involving parliamentary approval before such conditions could possibly come into force would be impractical. That is what worries me. In a sense this is an amendment which is putting the cart before the horse. Parliamentary approval would be needed before it would be possible to see what the effect of the conditions was on each individual institution.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, Amendment No. 144A seeks to introduce a safeguard against an abuse of power arising under the linkage between Clauses 64 and 77. If Clause 77 were not to stand part or if it were left out on a Division under Amendment No. 173; or if it were to be amended as proposed by Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C, which I understand have the broad support of your Lordships' House, then there would be no justification for the introduction of this safeguard. However, if Clause 77 were to stand part as drafted, or amended as proposed by my noble friend the Minister, then it would be essential that some such safeguard should be introduced.
It may not be possible to resolve these matters until Third Reading, when there will be time to debate the amendments to Clause 77 at a more civilised and convenient hour. Therefore, it may be that the Government can give some intimation during this debate, if so advised, as to whether they will accept in principle Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C, which, together with my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, might well dispose of a serious constitutional issue concerned with an abuse of power under Clause 77. However, that may only be in a long-stop situation and in the nightmare scenario
636
envisaged by my noble friend Lord Belstead (Official Report, 16/1/92; cols. 449–50.) That situation is not circumscribed by statute.
With great respect to my noble friend—and I say that sincerely and not tritely—he has made no justification for establishing in this Bill any such precedent as to how to order our affairs under our unwritten constitution. Section 134(7) of the 1988 Act provides that,
"The conditions subject to which grants are made … shall not relate to … payments by the council to any specified institution".
Clause 64(2) (a) provides otherwise. I referred to that during the debate on Clause 53 (cols. 453–40.).
As your Lordships know, this is a very serious constitutional problem. The Secretary of State exercises his administrative control by imposing terms and conditions on grants under Clause 64 and by giving directions under Clause 77. The linkage between these clauses, together with Clause 53, constitutes conglomerate powers of control and direction without precedent in peace, war or any emergency. That was conceded by my noble friend Lord Belstead in our debates on Clause 53.
The essence of this problem arises with Clause 77, which is the tail which wags the Clause 64 dog, and in particular as regards Clause 77(2). Clause 77, put in plain English, gives the Secretary of State power to override virtually any decision of the council and in particular a council's distribution of the overall grant between councils.
Speaking for myself, the crucial question is whether Clause 77 is to be amended as proposed under Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C—what I call the Conservative Back-Bench amendments—which include my name and already seem to have met with informal approval in your Lordships' House. Add to them the amendments of my noble friend Lord Belstead—Amendments Nos. 170 and 171—and the composite would perhaps be a very happy marriage. Or, is Clause 77 to be left out? Here lies an issue. The unions want it left out. I have a letter from the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics which wants it left out and I have a letter from the Amalgamated Union of Teachers which also wants it left out. However, in my respectful submission that is not the right approach. The Conservative Back-Bench Amendment No. 169 is a fair resolution of the problem.
In any such situation there would be no inconsistency if Amendment No. 145, amended by Amendment No. 146, were carried into Clause 64. But if Clause 77 were to stand part only as amended by Amendments Nos. 170 and 171—the Government amendments—then an amendment such as Amendment No. 144A might well be appropriate. And why? It would serve as a safeguard against abuse of power; to impose special terms and conditions on any particular institution in the same class and institution. This linkage between Clauses 64 and 77 was described by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, at Second Reading as producing a monstrous result and by my noble friend Lord Limerick and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, as an overkill. They were views

637
which represented the broad consensus on all sides of the House. I see many noble Lords present who expressed such views.
My noble friend the Minister asked for time to consider and in good faith has tabled Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 to seek to meet the argument. However, those of us whose names appear on the Conservative Back-Bench amendment consider that the full thrust of the argument which rested upon the linkage between Clauses 64 and 77 has not been met by my noble friend the Minister.
So, is it realistic to consider tonight, or at all events to divide tonight, on this or any other of the grouped amendments under Clause 64, all of which are designed to serve in their own way as a safeguard against abuse of power until it is known which, if any, of the grouped amendments to Clause 77 may be accepted by Government, in particular the Conservative Back-Bench amendment?
I apologise for the time I have taken. It is not a simple matter to explain. However, I hope it will be of assistance to your Lordships.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on a purely procedural point at this stage. The order in which amendments appear might be described as disordered. That is not by any means the fault of the critics of the Bill, but rather the way that the department has chosen to play its hand. The only point I wish to make is on Amendment No. 172A which is in the leading name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is to apply the affirmative procedure to Clause 77.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already touched on that by mentioning the element of hybridity which the Paymaster General brought in at Committee stage. My only suggestion of a purely procedural nature is this. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is going to move this amendment separately. I shall speak to it separately and my submission will be that no question of hybridity arises at this stage. I say that in the hope of shortening matters in case either the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to continue with that or the Paymaster General intends to develop the point in his general argument on his amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may briefly say a few words. I understood the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was to move Amendment No. 144A, which is the first amendment on our Marshalled List, as a single amendment—an issue which the noble Earl lucidly and briefly explained—and that we were to discuss it. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway then said—and I quite understand why my noble friend spoke as he did—that it was difficult to know what to do about the amendments under Clause 64 until we knew what was going to happen under Clause 77.
All I can say in reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as I understand the procedures of your
638
Lordships' House, has every right to move Amendment No. 144A as a single amendment if the noble Earl wishes to in just the same way as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave us notice only a couple of minutes ago that when we get to Amendment No. 172A he wishes to speak to that as a single amendment. Whatever the grouping is, no one can stop any Member of your Lordships' House who feels strongly about an amendment from saying that he or she will wish to speak to it individually when it is reached.
Therefore, I feel that as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to take this amendment singly we ought to take it. However, may I give your Lordships an assurance before I sit down. I can respond to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway by saying on behalf of the Government that if and when we have disposed of Amendment No. 144A I shall certainly move government Amendment No. 145 pretty briefly. That will be the peg on which we shall hang our portmanteau debate on Clauses 64 and 77. During that debate it will certainly be my intention to come clean—or as clean as I possibly can—in answer to any of the amendments put to me, including Amendment No. 169C.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I owe the Minister an apology. When we spoke on the telephone at midday today, he was right. I shall respond very briefly to a considered reply which he gave to my amendment and for which I thank him. I take the point about general conditions impacting differently on particular institutions. As I understand it, though I speak with timidity in so complicated an area, that is not actually covered by the hybrid procedure. It was not what I was trying to make this amendment bear on.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that we are not yet ripe to reach a resolution in this matter. I brought it before the House so that it could be considered. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 145:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert:
("() Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) other than the duration of such courses or programmes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will well remember, we had a lengthy debate on Clauses 64 and 77 in Committee, at the end of which I undertook on behalf of the Government to bring forward amendments which I believed would satisfy the concerns expressed. That is the intention of Amendment No. 145, which I move now, and of Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, to which I also speak, which are similar government amendments to Clause 77.
Clause 64 remains founded on the proposition of the Education Reform Act 1988 that the Secretary of State needs a condition-making power, and Clause 77 is founded on the proposition that he needs a direction-making power. The condition-making

639
power is to promote policy developments in higher education. The direction-making power is to give the Secretary of State a longstop power of intervention in order to protect the taxpayer's interests in the considerable sums of public money flowing to higher education in the form of grant to the funding councils.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Clause 64. Its scope, I know, continues to cause concern. Section 134(7) of the Education Reform Act fetters the Secretary of State's condition-making powers by precluding him from attaching conditions in relation to the funding of individual institutions. It precludes the Secretary of State from setting as a condition that university X or polytechnic Y should receive a particular amount of funding. Is the position the same under the new structure represented by Clause 64, and in particular subsection (2) (a)? That is a reasonable question for any noble Lord to ask. I believe that it is the same under Clause 64 as it was when we left the Education Reform Act in 1988. If subsection (2) is read as a whole, I do not see that paragraph (a) can give rise to a power to attach conditions institution by institution. The paragraph is about attaching general conditions which apply equally to all institutions within a class or description. It is also about different impacts on institutions according to whether they meet the criteria specified; in other words, it is about general conditions but individual compliance. However, the key point is that while there may be a different impact on institutions, the Secretary of State cannot possibly know which ones in advance. That is the difference—the crucial difference —between these conditions and ones which would specify a particular level of funding for a particular institution.
A number of questions were raised about the Secretary of State's power of direction when we discussed Clauses 64 and 77 in Committee. Some noble Lords suggested that, rather than giving a direction in Clause 77, the Secretary of State should simply sack the chairman, the chief executive and other members of the funding council. Quite apart from difficulties in establishing whether the circumstances leading to a potential direction were such that individuals could be deemed to be "unfit to discharge the functions of a member of the funding council", I have to say that, in any case, such a course of action would be no less draconian than giving a direction under Clause 77. It would be more disruptive to the other business of the funding council. Under Schedule 1 as drafted, it would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
We nonetheless had a spirited and fundamental debate on Clauses 64 and 77. As a result, I undertook, on behalf of the Government, to table government amendments which would, I thought, respond to criticism from many noble Lords of the open-ended nature of the powers conferred in the Bill by imposing important constraints. Amendment No. 145 and Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 provide that the Secretary of State may not frame conditions or directions by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research. That includes an institution's ability to offer particular courses or
640
programmes. It applies to their content and it covers the way in which they are taught, supervised or assessed.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on to explain his amendments, will he be kind enough to explain the significance of the word "otherwise" in Clause 64(2) (b)? It seems to me that that word negates the significance of what he has just said.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree. Subsection (2) can apply only to the giving of directions of a general nature. The general directions will then impact individually on individual institutions according to their reaction. That is my reading of subsection (2). Perhaps I may return to that point in a moment if there is anything to add.
The amendments provide that the Secretary of State may not frame conditions or directions by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research. That includes an institution's ability to offer particular courses or programmes. The amendments make certain that there can be no question of a Secretary of State prohibiting an institution from teaching a particular course. The Secretary of State could not intervene in the subject emphasis, for example by insisting that a history degree should concentrate on British history. Nor could he intervene in relation to any particular political, economic or sociological emphasis being given to the teaching of a particular course.
While it had never been the intention of the Secretary of State to do any of those things, the amendments do meet the concerns expressed by putting beyond doubt that neither the Secretary of State nor his successors could possibly do so. I believe that with Amendments Nos. 145, 170 and 171 the Government have moved very significantly to meet the concerns expressed both at Second Reading and in Committee about the scope of the Secretary of State's necessary condition and direction-making powers. Against that background I commend them to the House.
Before I sit down perhaps I may say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I should like to hear why he is putting a particular construction on that word. If the noble Lord can assist me with that when he speaks I shall do my very best to give him a reply.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that this does not count as my contribution to the debate but I am still slightly lost as regards the Minister's contribution. Did I understand him to say that he would deal with his comments on the other amendments after they have been spoken to by other noble Lords? I had rather assumed that he would speak on those amendments as part of his introductory remarks. Am I right that he will speak on those later? Is that his proposal?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to answer that question. Under the rules of the House the Minister has the right to reply at the end of the debate. I thought that it would be my job to try to reply to the many amendments in this group and

641
explain why the Government liked them or did not like them and to say whether they were prepared to do business on them or not to do business on them. It is tricky for a Minister to speak to amendments before they have been moved.
Earl Russellmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, Amendment No. 146:
Line 5, leave out ("other than the duration of such courses or programmes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I take the Minister's point about responding. It will be widely recognised as to the convenience of the House and therefore in order if the Minister should have leave to respond to the debate from time to time as points arise.
I should like to thank the Minister for giving me advance notice of the government amendment. Parts of it are excellent. I warmly welcome the non-interference with the academic content of courses. I did not suspect the Secretary of State of actually wanting to take that particular power. But I think that it is thoroughly good to have it spelt out in the Bill that he should not have it. It is not good for Secretaries of State to have that power; it might tempt them in the future.
However, the exception in the government amendment is what really worries me. It refers to,
"the duration of such courses".
Therefore the effect of an amendment which was heralded as a concession, and which does indeed contain a concession, is nevertheless to confer on the Secretary of State a power that he did not previously possess. The total effect is at least arguably worse than it was before. I say that because, under the government amendment, we give the Secretary of State a new power. My objection to that power is, first, that he is not competent to possess it. That is illustrated in part by the actual wording of the amendment. It is the wording of someone who is more familiar with American than with British universities.
I once spent about an hour with my departmental secretary discussing a similar wording in the student poll tax regulations. We were completely unable to make it apply to the facts of the case. The Secretary of State comes to us from the Department of Health. Therefore, he will be familiar with the restriction that Ministers do not make clinical judgments. It is my argument that, similarly, the Secretary of State should not make academic judgments. If the Secretary of State for Health was able to decide by directive, as part of his claim to be accountable for public money, which conditions should receive operations and which should not, I think that there would be considerable concern. I believe that the cases are parallel.
I admit that it is at all times proper for the Secretary of State to consult, to request, to ask and to persuade. He may if he wishes to do something, like changing the duration of degrees, consult with the people concerned in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in Committee. There will be a considerable urge to comply. Over the centuries, the academic profession has not been a particularly heroic one.
642
Martyrdom has not been one of its great urges. It has at all times had an urge to conciliate the powers that be if possible. But refusal remains a right.
The Secretary of State has in fact attempted to persuade on precisely the question of the length of degrees. It is not something which arises absolutely out of the blue. Perhaps I may quote from the annual report of the Council of the British Academy, which arrived on my desk last Friday. The British Academy is not precisely a revolutionary body. The Council observed that:
"The Academy also made representations to the Universities Funding Council about their letter encouraging universities to consider innovations such as the introduction of two-year degree courses and a four term year. The following points were made: British Degree courses were if anything too short—shorter than in many other countries (which had already caused difficulties within the EEC regarding equivalence of academic qualifications); to make them shorter still would increase the pressures for specialisation in schools, whereas a greater breadth of sixth-form studies was needed; the addition of a fourth term to the academic year would have serious consequences for the research of members of staff; a proliferation of MA courses to supplement undergraduate studies could be expected to follow".
It is no part of my purpose to ask the House to decide who is right; it is simply my purpose to ask the House to note the existence of a disagreement and to consider who is competent to settle it. As I think that passage shows, the Secretary of State has, through his agents, attempted persuasion and failed. Therefore, he now attempts to lay before us powers which would authorise him to take away the right of refusal. I do not know whether he intends to use those powers or whether he intends to use them as a negotiating instrument to gain a consent which would not otherwise have been forthcoming. But, in either case, it is an attempt to override professional judgment.
I shall not assert for a moment that professional judgment is infallible. I believe that every professional will understand the story of the judge's children who saw crate after crate of champagne being carried into the house and asked, "Mummy, what are all those bottles for?" She replied, "Daddy has been upheld in the Court of Appeal." We are all subject to professional review and we all know the anxiety that it may create. But the Secretary of State simply does not know what constitutes degree standard.
My second proposition is that what is proposed will diminish the quality of the degree and its standing. The hallmark of a degree is the approval of a coherent, academic community which is able to recognise a standard which is not absolutely identical and which, like the European exchange rate mechanism, fluctuates within narrow bands. As soon as a degree is awarded under a directive under the Bill, it will carry a certificate that it is not hallmarked. I do not see why such a degree should be recognised in any other country. If President Mitterrand were to exercise such a power, I do not see why I should be bound to exercise a degree conferred under it.
My third point is that what is proposed is, I think, a major constitutional impropriety. Here the academic community would be most unwise to make out that it is only its own fight. The Minister may reply that he who pays the piper calls the tune. No doubt that is

643
correct; but he is unwise to exercise that prerogative if he happens to be tone deaf. I can imagine a tone deaf music hall patron concerned for the productivity of his orchestra directing it to play all the slow movements in Beethoven's symphony at double the mark tempo.
In Committee, I referred to the parallel point of the authority of military commanders over operational decisions in the field. I sensed a slight resistance from the opposite side of the House. Perhaps people thought that I was being fanciful. But in the Independent last Thursday I read that civil servants intervened in the operational decisions of the management of the Gulf War and convinced the generals that they were hell bent on caution.
One final barrel: it is a matter of pleasure to me that we have a Prime Minister who is a cricketer. I congratulate him on his election to the MCC. Any power over the laws of cricket which he may properly exercise as an individual member of the MCC, I am happy for him to exercise. But if he should put before us a Bill to allow him by ministerial directive to change the LBW laws, I hope that there will be people here to cry, "No ball!" I can imagine the comments of an Australian umpire faced with an appeal under such a law. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, Clauses 64 and 77 have generated widespread concern. Advice that I have received, upon which I shall expand in a moment, in relation to Clause 64 leads me to the conclusion that that clause is not so pernicious as some of us at first suspected. I shall try to indicate why I believe my noble friend the Minister may well be correct in the interpretation which he has offered in response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers.
I should like to focus first on Clause 77(2) which is the truly unacceptable and illiberal power which goes far beyond the 1988 Act. Before doing so, however, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend who has worked hard in relation to those two clauses. I have read carefully the observations he made in Committee, and I must say that his amendments to the clauses are as good as his word in relation to the debate in Committee. It may well be that that proves sufficient in respect of Clause 64, but, unfortunately, with Clause 77 any number of amendments serve only to betray the fundamental deficiency of the clause. Deficiency may not be the word because it has such a high degree of overkill that even when considerably amended it is still a dangerous clause.
Clause 77(1) repeats exactly the wording of Section 134(8) of the 1988 Act. That wording may or may not be desirable, but the fact that it stands in the 1988 Act may reconcile one to it to some extent. Clause 77(2) introduces entirely new powers of intervention in the affairs of a particular institution. That is explicit in the subsection. These are unrestricted powers which are therefore unacceptable. The word "overkill" may be applied. That must surely be a paradigm case of the Henry VIII type clause—to use the terminology which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has employed on a number of occasions.
The objection, even with the amendment proposed by the Minister, is a substantial one. It means that, if
644
not this Government, the next Government, or if not the next Government, some future Government, will be given the instruments to intervene in the affairs of particular universities. Why do the Government want the new amendment? The answer must surely be because of a recent case in a university located well to the west of here which to spare blushes we must term the University of the West. There it was necessary on financial grounds to intervene. The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, had made it clear that the provision of accounting officers may give sufficient powers to deal with such events; but, mindful of the Secretary of State's wish that he should have a power of intervention as a power of last resort, Amendment No. 169C deals with that issue.
Those of us whose names stand to Amendment No. 169C, which should perhaps be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 169B, have taken the issue and assumed that the Secretary of State needs power of intervention when something has gone seriously wrong financially. That is the point. We can accept that if a university is going bankrupt or is on the brink of going bankrupt through maladministration or some such thing, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State should have powers of intervention, and that clause gives him those powers of intervention. He has, in effect, to make a declaration that something is wrong. He then has the complete power to move in as he chooses. I do not see what more he can reasonably ask. The only restriction is that the grounds for intervention should be default in the financial affairs of the University of the West, or whatever.
I apologise that the word "after" in the amendment is superfluous, but that is not an important point. Subsection (3), which relates to judicial review, may be an unnecessary addition to the amendment because the power probably exists in any case.
We may accept Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 tabled by the Minister. They could stand together with Amendment No. 169C. I refer also to Amendment No. 169B. They clarify Clause 77(1) in that it should not refer to any specific institution. I hope that that amendment gives the Secretary of State the powers of intervention as a power of last resort which he seeks. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend what further grounds the Secretary of State could conceivably have for wishing to intervene personally in the affairs of a particular institution.
I should like to return to Clause 64(2) because, as I say, I have been advised that that provision is not as pernicious as I and other noble Lords think. The nub of the problem is that it differs from the wording of a comparable section in the 1988 Act; namely, Section 134(7), which provides:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
It would be nice if the provision remained in that form. Why the change? To some extent the Secretary of State is fighting past battles. It clearly relates to the judgment of Mr. Justice Simon Brown in the case involving the Association of College and Polytechnic Teachers in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. From that judgment it appeared that it was

645
difficult for the Secretary of State to intervene in practice, as had been hoped, when he had made a general condition and an individual university had fallen out of line.
I turn now to Clause 64(2). I am advised, and my noble friend the Minister has just stated, that we construe "each" to mean all. I hope that he will correct me if I fall into any kind of error because what I say in relation to Clause 64 is predicated upon that assumption. If that is the case, and I believe it to be so, it is possible for me to support, and in that case assist my noble friend, in the construction of "otherwise". Since this point is so important, I shall read the advice that I have received from a legal colleague in my college. He writes:
"I think 'otherwise' is unobjectionable, the point, as I see it, is this—that in paragraph (a) 'each' is used in the sense of 'every', and so 'each institution falling within a class or description specified', would be every institution offering (say) degree courses in history, and let us suppose that there are 20 of them. But grants are made by the council"—
here we come to paragraph (b)—
"to a "particular institution", so that the grant to a particular institution which does offer a degree course in history will inevitably be subject to 'terms and conditions' in respect of an activity carried on by that particular institution, to wit history".
I am not sure that it is easy to follow such matters on the wing. I believe that I now see the inwardness of Clause 64 in that respect. I am happy with my noble friend's observations.
However, I am sorry to say that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an important point. If we believe, as I now do, that Clause 64 says what the Minister intended it to, then I am afraid that his amendment, which of course was made at the express request of noble Lords—I refer to Amendment No. 145—carries with it a sting in the tail. That is where I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right, because he goes on to say that it would now seem perhaps superfluous to say,
"Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses".
They could not possibly be framed by reference to particular courses of study if that means in particular institutions, if we accept the assurances offered to us by my noble friend the Minister; but then we have in the amendment,
"other than the duration of such courses or programmes".
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the "other than" now excepts,
"the duration of such courses or programmes"
from the assurance which Clause 64 gives. We are getting into quite a tangle. If we believe the Minister —as I unreservedly do—on Clause 64 of the Bill, then his helpful amendment perhaps has a deleterious effect. That is clearly a complexity.
The main point of my observations—I apologise to the House for speaking at some length—is to indicate the danger of Clause 77(2). I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues will be able to accede to what has been effectively argued by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and accept Amendments Nos. 169C and 169B.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 169C. I have not so far contributed to the debates on Clauses 64 and 77 but I was involved three years ago in the debates on the Education Reform Bill. I listened as carefully as I could to what was said at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. I have heard the Minister's arguments in support of Clauses 64 and 77 and the wide powers demanded for the Secretary of State. I too have sympathy for the argument that the Secretary of State must have reserve powers to deal with nightmare scenarios, even if I doubt that they will be used frequently.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his willingness to go some way to meet the anxieties that have been expressed. His Amendments Nos. 145 and 171 do that. However, I am afraid that for me they cannot go far enough and hardly could, as legislation by exclusion is not a satisfactory way of dealing with ministerial powers.
Arising from his arguments, I have one question for the Minister: where, on the face of the Bill, is there any indication that the powers asked for in Clause 77 are reserve or long-stop powers? I would not expect those words to be on the face of the Bill, but I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the draftsman to indicate some equivalent in legislative language. I get no impression from Clause 77 as it stands at the moment, or as it is proposed that it should be amended, that these are reserve powers. Have I missed that elsewhere in the Bill? If not, what objection is there to some reassurance that the powers are meant to be long-stop powers on the face of the Bill?
I believe that Amendment No. 169C, proposed by my noble friends Lord Renfrew, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Beloff and Lady Young, meets that case. It specifies, as we heard, the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may make directions and it allows for judicial review of his actions, should they be controversial. I shall certainly support that amendment, if it is pressed, although I very much hope that it will not be necessary and that it will commend itself to the Government.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had an extremely valuable intervention from my noble friend Lord Renfrew on Clause 77. As I attached my name to two amendments, Amendments Nos. 146A and 171A—the first being to Clause 64 and the second to Clause 77—I wish to speak briefly to them and then deal with another amendment grouped with them, Amendment No. 169A, which raises an entirely separate point. As we have only one opportunity to speak on Report, I cannot let this opportunity pass because the amendment is grouped with the other amendments.
I wish to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Belstead for bringing forward his amendments. I know very well how much effort he personally put into producing them. It would be churlish of me in the extreme not to say that they are welcome and I am grateful. I believe that all of us who have been following matters agree.
Unfortunately, the amendments do not go far enough. I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been given, I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord

647
Russell, said in an earlier debate, as well as with what my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Renfrew said earlier.
It is perfectly true that both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his colleague Mr. Alan Howarth have made it clear that they do not intend in any way to interfere with academic freedom. However, at the end of the day it matters only what is on the face of the Bill; it is not what the Minister says or what anyone else's interpretation may be. The sad fact is that the amendments, which my noble friend has brought forward, do not go far enough. They are amendments by exception and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that this is not a satisfactory situation.
Clearly, there are loopholes and my amendments cover three of those which affect academic freedom. There is the issue of the admission of students. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State will introduce quotas or something similar, but there are those who are concerned that it is a possibility. There is the appointment of academic staff. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State is considering this, but as I understand it, it would be a possibility. As to the point about the duration of courses raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that again, it seems to me, needs to be addressed and it is covered in my Amendment No. 146A.
I do not know quite what is the worry of the Government about the duration of courses. I wonder whether it is the recent report from the Advisory Council on Science and Technology which suggested that a number of science courses ought to be extended from three to four years. If that is the worry, it seems to me first that it is not unreasonable that the funding councils have some flexibility to respond to recommendations which they believe to be in the long-term interests of the country. However, whether or not that is the case, the Government would surely have the ultimate control over whether or not courses became four years through the funding councils. That would be the appropriate way to deal with the matter. It is the way, I believe, in which similar situations have been dealt with perfectly satisfactorily in the past. So the present condition-making power is not necessary.
I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend has to say on Clause 64. If the problem can be met, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew said, it would be a great assurance. However, as everyone has said, Clause 77 is the real worry, particularly subsection (2). My noble friend Lord Renfrew explained clearly what Amendment No. 169C means. I believe that this is an opportunity—and I hope that my noble friend will consider it carefully—to meet the twin concerns. The Government are concerned about financial accountability. That is something which I fully understand. No government of any political complexion will not require a long-stop power, especially if they give something like £5 billion to higher education. Therefore there needs to be some explanation.
On the other hand, there is the real concern about academic freedom. Our intention in Amendment No. 169C, and the accompanying Amendment No. 169B, is to meet that point. If the amendment is not drafted
648
entirely correctly, we would like my noble friend to take it away and consider it carefully. I believe it would meet what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable anxieties of the Government. At the same time it would meet important and reasonable anxieties of higher education.
I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 169A, which raises a completely different issue. That issue is also important. That amendment has been grouped with the amendments we are discussing, but it concerns an issue which has not been discussed at any length in Committee or before. The purpose of the amendment is, I hope, clear. It is that directions must not apply to funds to universities derived from non-government sources.
Those of us who took part in the long debate on the 1988 Act will realise that we have been round this course once before. However, this is an extremely important issue for the universities. It is, to me at any rate, encouraging that universities have been so enormously successful in raising income from a large variety of sources. Public funding remains the main source of income but now, because of the high quality of universities' research, they have been able to attract considerable funding from industry and commerce, charitable bodies and overseas organisations, as well as from research councils and government departments. It is, however, particularly the money that is raised privately that is important.
It has been an extremely important part of all our discussions that the funds that are derived from non-government sources remain separate and are not taken into account in all these matters. I cannot believe that my noble friend and his colleagues do not want universities to raise money privately. The universities benefit from that and that process must be in the interests of higher education generally. It is perfectly apparent that if, having given the money, donors believe some part of it will be taken away or donors will be told how the money is to be spent, they will simply not give the money. Many people who have worked to raise money and who have given money will feel that they are being let down. In the future fund raising will be almost impossible.
I hope that my noble friend will think hard about Amendment No. 169C. I hope he will consider carefully whether he can introduce a provision on those lines on Third Reading. I also hope my noble friend will consider Amendment No. 169A, which concerns a separate issue.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, remembers that in Committee I referred to the duration of courses. I refer in that connection to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. My remarks were occasioned by the fact that the Secretary of State was reported as saying that he wanted to have the power, if necessary, to stop departments of architecture extending their courses to a period of about seven years. There is a question of principle here. I wish to

649
give an example to the noble Lord. The example might also be of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness spoke for her party or only for herself but I recollect her saying there was great merit in abolishing A-levels and going over to a system of an international baccalaureate which would involve more broadly based courses. There are strong arguments for doing so in the sense that many people believe excessive specialisation in sixth forms is one reason why too few pupils continue to study maths and science. Consequently there is a shortage of such students in higher education. Let us suppose that that policy were to be put into effect by a government in the future. What effect would it have in the universities? It would certainly have no effect at all on the professional studies of lawyers or of architects because they do not study at school anything which is specifically in their line of country. However, the policy would certainly have an effect on medical and engineering students.
Medical students need to spend two years in the sixth form following pre-clinical studies as a necessary prologue to the pre-clinical studies which they carry out in their first year in medical school. Will the Minister say whether he thinks it is right that the Secretary of State could intervene and say, "We cannot afford that kind of thing", disregarding the opinion not merely of universities but also of professional organisations—for example, the medical council and the engineering institutes?
I asked the Minister another question in Committee but he did not reply to that in his long list of replies to the points made at that stage. I referred to another case. I asked whether it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to point out to universities that for some years he had noted the admirable example of the University of Buckingham, which offers a BA degree which only takes two years and which has been accepted by the Privy Council. However, there are four terms in each year. In other words that course comprises eight terms as opposed to nine terms. Will the Secretary of State be empowered to say, "I am afraid I must ask all universities to go over to that pattern"? There may well be a strong case for him to say that. Does the noble Lord think it is right that the Secretary of State should have such a power?
I have a further point to make. I warmly welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. She was absolutely right to say there are certain areas in universities in which the decisions of academic staff are sacrosanct. In 1968 or thereabouts, for example, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals had the great good fortune to have as its chairman Sir Derman Christopherson. He had to deal with the whole question of the participation of students in university government. There was a great deal of confusion but he managed to persuade the National Union of Students at that time to agree to a concordat. There were three areas in which no student would have the power to sit on a committee or even have the power to offer advice or participate in the decisions taken by committees. The three areas were
650
the admission of students, the appointment of academic staff and the running of examinations. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said that if we are to have government by exclusion, those areas should be excluded. If it would be considered wrong for students to participate in those areas, it would also be wrong for government to participate in those areas. I hope the Government will understand that these points are not trivial. They are at the heart of university governance.
I now turn to the financial aspect of intervention. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, read in the newspapers this morning what Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer was reported as saying. Sir Peter said there had been a scandal in the University College of Cardiff. A self-indulgent and self-important principal had caused that institution to run into debt to the tune of millions of pounds. Sir Peter said that the Universities Funding Council or the University Grants Committee—that body changed its title during the period in question—had perfectly good powers to deal with that situation. However, it was not those bodies that failed to deal with it. The Secretary of State, for reasons of his own, declined to intervene decisively in that matter. I say to the Minister that the Universities Funding Council has the powers to deal with these matters.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I begin by welcoming the fact that the Government have put down amendments to Clauses 64 and 77 which are at least an improvement on the previous situation. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it would be churlish not to welcome them. However, I must make it absolutely clear that so far as concerns these Benches they do not go nearly far enough. Even with the amendments the Bill upsets the long-established and widely accepted careful balance of powers and responsibilities between the Secretary of State, the funding councils and individual institutions. No convincing reasons have been put forward by the Government as to why those long-established arrangements should be changed.
We have heard a great deal about powers of last resort and long-stop powers. I must agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said on that aspect. We have also heard about nightmare scenarios. On that point the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, was a little more generous to the Government than I can be. I shall not repeat what I have already said on the subject in Committee and in the debate on Clause 53 during Report Stage last week other than to say that it seems ludicrously far-fetched to imagine that funding councils whose members and chairmen are appointed by a responsible Secretary of State should go seriously off the rails at the same time as individual institutions might go off the rails in terms of becoming financially irresponsible.
I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister in relation to what he said in relation to Amendments Nos. 145 and 171. On Amendment No. 145 he began by saying that the Government needed the changes in relation to the condition-making powers which the Secretary of State wants in order to

651
promote policy developments. He went on to say that there was no difference between the current proposals in the Bill under Clause 64 and those in the 1988 Act. I cannot remember which clause he mentioned but I think that it was Clause 134(7). If the 1988 Act is perfectly adequate why do we need those changes? I wonder whether the Minister would explain that. Perhaps he could also explain, if there is a difference, what the amendment adds. I remain a little confused on this matter.
I was also slightly confused by what the Minister argued in relation to Clause 77 in respect of direction-making powers. The noble Lord referred to something I said in the earlier debate on the matter in Committee when I argued that if a funding council went completely off the rails it must become apparent that the chairman of that funding council was unfit to run it. No properly appointed chairman who was doing the job as he or she should would allow that to happen. Therefore, it would be the first duty of the Secretary of State to replace that chairman. The Minister said just now that that would be more draconian than making directions. I find that confusing and cannot believe that the Government really mean that.
I return now to the other problems with the Government's amendments. If all that the Government can do is to come up with an amendment to exclude certain areas from being subject to direction it means that everything which is not listed in the exclusions is vulnerable to ministerial intervention, as other noble Lords have already said. What the Government should have done instead is to specify in the Bill the exact grounds on which the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene.
Even with the amendments the Government will still have sweeping powers to interfere, if they choose, in the way in which individual universities are run. It is not good enough to say, "Ah, but we have no intention of using those powers except as a last resort", as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already said. It is not possible to anticipate or determine what some future Secretary of State with a particular axe to grind might do about, for example, the kind of students who should or should not be admitted, the kind of academic staff who should or should not be appointed, or about departments which the Secretary of State has taken against and wishes to close. Lists of exceptions cannot encompass every possibility. An interfering Secretary of State could always find ways of exploiting loopholes.
Turning to the other amendments which have been tabled, I strongly support Amendment No. 146A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others. That amendment at least extends the exclusions to the admission of students and the appointment of staff and removes specific interference in the duration of courses. I accept entirely that if we are to expand higher education and make it accessible to a greater number of students there are cost constraints on courses becoming longer. However, I believe that the Government already have control over course duration in terms of the public funding they
652
provide to the funding councils. If that is incorrect perhaps the Minister will put me right when he responds.
With respect to Clause 77, which is causing most concern although I am not as sanguine as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was in relation to Clause 64, the crucial amendments are Amendments Nos. 169A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and others. All three amendments have the support of these Benches. Unless Amendment No. 169A is accepted the Government could issue directions in respect of funds derived from sources other than the Government. Here I should declare an interest as head of an institution which has recently launched an appeal and is raising money from a number of trusts and foundations as well as from the private sector. It would be wholly unacceptable for the funds that my college has raised from those sources to become subject to direction by the Government. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I suspect that were that to happen most donors would be reluctant to give financial support and that those sources of funding would dry up. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said.
We also welcome Amendments Nos. 169B and 169C because they impose constraints on the Secretary of State interfering in the work of individual institutions and they make explicit the right of universities to resort to the courts when the Secretary of State exercises his last resort or long-stop powers under Clause 77.
If the Government are serious in what they say about the limited use they wish to make of such 'powers they will surely accept the amendments. However, while supporting the amendments we believe that the best solution of all would be to leave out Clause 77 altogether. Therefore, while we support the amendment put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others, we remain unconvinced that Clause 77 serves a useful purpose. We believe that it is inconsistent with the democratic traditions of this country in which we favour giving as much autonomy as possible to public bodies; consistent, of course, with their being properly accountable for public funds. Government by diktat from the centre is unacceptable in a society which values pluralism. The powers of Ministers must be constrained in the interests of devolving responsibility to those directly concerned with running public institutions.
I hope that at the very least the Government will accept the amendments in the group we are now debating to which I have drawn particular attention. However, it would be far better to be sure that the precious values of academic freedom were protected by abandoning Clause 77 altogether. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already said, it is what is on the face of the Bill that counts, not the promises of current Ministers that they will not misuse those powers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to support everything that my noble friend Lady Young

653
said in dealing with the three amendments to which she particularly referred. I can put what I have to say both shortly and simply. One of the most irritating features of governments of all shades and colours is the assumption which they so frequently seem to make of "We know best". During the time that I have spent in both Houses of Parliament I have wondered why governments should frequently create so much unnecessary trouble for themselves.
Far be it from me to make any irreverent or disrespectful comparison between a committee of vice-chancellors and a hornets' nest, but I cannot see why an important government department should apparently be willing to take on a body of such people and to unite them with such ease. The Government, in taking their present attitude—here I should like to say that I entirely exonerate my noble friend Lord Belstead from what I am about to say because he has obviously had a major struggle with the forces of darkness in achieving the progress that he has—are saying two things: we greatly respect academic freedom but it is necessary for us to stay in control, if not of everything, then at least of something.
We have given up control. The amendment which my noble friend has moved has abandoned specifically —and on the face of the Bill one must welcome this —the possibility of using certain powers which it was previously going to have. If I understood my noble friend correctly, as I hope I did, I thought he said that the Government could not, would not have used those powers. I strongly suspect that the powers which remain in the Bill fall very much into the same category. I cannot understand how the Government can persuade themselves that it is wise to say that they must keep control over such things as the duration of a course at the same time as voluntarily giving up the power to control either the content of that course or the manner in which it is taught. That seems to be slightly eccentric, to say the least.
Then there is the point that, apart from the admission of students and the recruitment of teachers, they want to hang on to the power to direct subjects covered by funds which are provided from other sources. I agree particularly with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness who has spoken from the Front Bench opposite that there is absolutely no justification for that.
To take powers which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, will probably never be used and which are just there as a kind of safety net, as a long stop, is a habit which has been endemic in governments for years. In my experience, none of them has been able to make a reasonable and respectable justification of such a course.
I plead with my noble friend to listen, if not to me, to the words of my noble friend Lady Young, who said it all and who reasonably and calmly urged upon the Government the need to escape from the consequences of their own folly.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we have not spoken since the noble Earl sat down after his first amendment, and we just want strongly to support the changes that are proposed. To go further than that,
654
this is all about academic freedom, which is absolutely priceless. If that is lost the heart and soul of university life and what academic life is all about are lost. There may be some catastrophes, there may occasionally be things that go wrong, but that is a small price to pay for academic freedom and for not introducing intervention from the centre.
What this amounts to is that we should go very strongly indeed not for the powers of the Secretary of State which would be limited only in certain specifics but for the powers of the Secretary of State which should be limited to certain specifics, that he should not have an overall power to intervene except for certain named matters but that he should have no power to intervene except in certain specific cases. There is a world of difference between the two, and in the end academic freedom will rest on getting this right.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was right that the Minister had said that it would be more serious to sack the chairman of the funding council than to intervene in the university, it means he can have no idea of what academic freedom is about. If they think that getting rid of the head of what is, after all, a quango—personally I am not against them, but most people are—compares in importance with interfering with the rights of academic institutions to run themselves it is quite clear that the Government do not understand what we are talking about.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to reply, I should like to add my support in particular to Amendment No. 169C. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to it as a Conservative Back-Bench amendment, but it has also been commended by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, from the Cross Benches and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, from the Opposition Front Bench.
When we were debating Clause 53, which is analogous to this, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said to me that the Government wanted,
"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". —[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 449.]
A little lower down he said:
"It is most likely that what I have in mind would involve an institution getting into financial difficulties".
If those are the Government's concerns, I cannot understand why they are not fully met by Amendment No. 169C in particular, and I very much hope the Government will come round to that view when the noble Lord comes to reply.
9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like to point out to the House that we are debating a matter which affects not only higher education, the subject of this long debate, but also the way in which the British Government operate in respect of this important branch of the nation's activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been rightly complimented on his willingness to listen to your Lordships on previous occasions and on the work that undoubtedly went into producing the three amendments that he has himself put forward today.

655
However, I was struck, as perhaps were other noble Lords, by the fact that in speaking originally to the first of his amendments he gave it as his opinion that it would have satisfied the anxieties which your Lordships expressed on an earlier occasion. By now he is well aware from the speeches that have been made from all quarters of the House, and from the amendments on the Marshalled List, that the assumption that these amendments would do the trick was wrong. One therefore comes to the fundamental question. I believe that it affects the way in which British Government operate. Why was no effort made between the Committee stage and the Report stage to achieve agreement on amendment which would satisfy those anxieties?
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to this matter in a somewhat jocular fashion. But, seriously, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, representing the universities, had made it clear that it would have been willing to participate in a discussion to try to meet the Government's needs and the anxieties expressed about Clause 77 but the offer was not taken up. The Minister must explain to the House why it was decided to proceed in that fashion.
If it were argued that it was difficult to consult such a body, is it not normally the case that when a set of institutions comes under scrutiny for the purpose of legislation its representatives are consulted? One may or may not like what the Department of Health does but one cannot say that the BMA and the royal colleges are never consulted. One may not always agree with some of the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but he consults as a matter of course with the Bar Council and the Law Society.
Why should higher education be excluded? There were other less formal methods if it were felt that that was too great a government commitment. The noble Lord or other Ministers of the department could have consulted his noble friends on these Benches who have some contact with and experience of the academic world. I do not say that he should have consulted me, but I could have told him that I had been asked by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, which is one of the those institutions—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Chancellor, will support me—to make it plain that the University of Oxford does not accept the view that the amendments go far enough to satisfy its anxieties about academic freedom. I could have imparted that information. I am sure that there are others with closer and more recent contact in the university world who could have explained that.
Instead we now debate at length—I apologise for adding to it—a series of amendments which have been grouped together. I can see that there were certain arguments for the grouping but there are also arguments against it. The amendments suggest different ways in which the problem could be approached. The most satisfactory way for many of us —I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made it clear—is by Amendment No. 169C, which makes it quite clear that powers are given in order to intervene in the interests of the public purse, and for no other purpose. That is one method.
656
The other is to take the exclusion route. I warned your Lordships at Committee stage that legislation by exclusion is not likely to be satisfactory. However, if one takes the exclusion route, one says, "Let us accept the amendment put forward by the Minister that courses will not be interfered with and let us add to it things which are of equal and sometimes greater importance to the universities than courses". We have to consider what has happened in other countries where governments put money into universities. Experience in this country and abroad suggests that, while politicians are rarely anxious about the content of courses and do not understand or know much about them, they have been known to interfere with the way in which students are chosen. They have been known to interfere—the recrudescence of neo-Nazism in Europe reminds us of it—with the criteria which have enabled individuals to be appointed to or, in the German case, to retain university positions.
The position was made perfectly clear in your Lordships' House at previous stages. If the Secretary of State does not have time to read Hansard of the House of Lords, there must be people in that department—rightly now occupying Sanctuary Building, since it needs sanctuary—who could précis the debate for him, and say, "This is what the universities appear to be anxious about. This is the kind of amendment or procedure—either by exclusions or concentrating on finance—which will be acceptable to them".
Instead of that, we have brought before us, and must debate, two or three amendments from the Minister which, as numerous speakers have pointed out, do not meet the case. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, may therefore be right to express the hope that everything will be put right on Third Reading. I would argue that it could have been put right by now and that to wait for Third Reading to make sure that academic freedom is not tampered with by this or any future government is trying the patience of this House to an excessive degree. I hope therefore that there will be a genuine acceptance by the Minister of the points made, particularly those made by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the request from the Minister that I explain my question to him during my interruption to his speech. Before I do so I should briefly say that, although I support all the amendments in this group—because I think that they all help in some way to deal with the problems about which we are worried—I support especially Amendment No. 169C. That amendment attempts to deal positively with a matter which, in my view, the Government have signally failed to deal with negatively, because it cannot be dealt with negatively. I should like most sincerely to thank the movers of the amendment and especially the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose drafting skills are apparent in its wording. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept an amendment which allows the Secretary of State to intervene when to use the words of the amendment:

657
"there has been a want of due care in the conduct of the financial affairs"
but not otherwise; and which requires him to consult the appropriate funding council and receive representations from the institution concerned. Without that, in my book at any rate, he would be guilty of injustice and maladministration.
If the Government are not prepared to accept an amendment along those lines, it seems to me that noble Lords will be entitled to draw the conclusion that the Secretary of State —as many noble Lords feared—intends to interfere in academic matters. The length of a course, admission of a student or appointment of a teacher or researcher are academic matters which he has no business to venture into.
The Minister asked me to explain to him my question about the use of the word "otherwise" in Clause 64(2) (b). I still find the drafting of that part of the clause most obscure. I feel that it is very bad drafting. However I have now consulted my noble friend Lady Warnock on the Bench behind me. She is much better at logic than I am. She ought to be as a philosopher. She offers the following paraphrase, which, with her permission, I shall read out. It is very brief:

"(a) The Secretary of State may impose requirements which each institution has to meet before any support has been given to the activities it carries out; and

(b) apart from that, no conditions may be imposed".

That is clear enough compared with the tortuous wording of the Bill.
Assuming that the noble Baroness has got it right, which I am sure she has, I withdraw my question to the Minister. I also accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, had to say. I therefore agree that Clause 77 is the more important item. Fortunately, most of my intended comments refer to that clause in any case.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we are where we are because Mr. Justice Simon Brown decided that the Government could not any more accept conditions precedent. If we want to know what the Government are likely to do if they get their policy and their way, we can look at what they were doing before that they will stop doing and we can look at what they say they want to do if they get those rights back again.
What they did before was to withhold money from those who would not operate systems of appraisal. That is what they did before and they will stop doing it. In Committee (at col. 1033 of the Official Report of 16th December) the Minister said:
"Another example of the use of a condition precedent might be for the Secretary of State to say to the funding councils that they should not release a particular portion of funding to institutions which do not over time receive a satisfactory report from the unit which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics will be establishing to look at institutions' internal quality control systems".
Therefore, you do not get the money if you do not satisfy the system of internal quality control. That is something else which the Government want the power to do.
We can guess that one of the main reasons for the Government wishing to retain the power is because they want to do something about the existing length of
658
courses. We assume that they want to reduce their length. One advantage of a debate of this kind is that the Minister can tell us what the Government want to do about courses. The Minister has not told us that. When he moved his own amendment which includes a sentence that is the subject of a subsequent amendment taking out that sentence, we thought he might tell us why he wishes to see the inclusion of that sentence. However, he did not do so.
Most academics and universities oppose the Government having the powers which they seek in their amendments because they believe that they will affect course content, research programmes, teaching methods and examination standards; in other words, all the things which the Government say they do not wish to influence. If we did not believe that the compulsory institution of a system of appraisal would affect course content, research programmes, teaching methods and examination standards there would have been no opposition. If we thought that the quality control criteria might not affect course content, research programmes, teaching methods or examination standards we should not oppose that.
Several noble Lords have already argued that a reduction in the length of courses—for example, the introduction of two-year degree courses—would not be acceptable because it would affect course content, research programmes teaching methods and so on. In other words, academics and institutions of higher education oppose those kinds of powers only on academic grounds. The Government may say, "We do not believe those arguments; we believe that you are more concerned about your workload". However, that is the nature of the debate.
Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister what will happen if this amendment is passed, the Bill becomes an Act, and the Government start to use those powers as regards the duration of courses. For example, let us suppose that a university believes that what it is being told to do will affect academic standards. Would it merely have to say that and the Government will then back off saying, "We are sorry. We did not realise that it would affect academic standards"? Or, does it have to go through a system of judicial review? Does it have to persuade a judge to say, "You are quite right; it affects academic standards". In other words, there will be a long and protracted debate about whether or not the Government's actions affect academic standards. What is the procedure for resolving those future disputes?
Finally, can the Government give examples of reductions in the length of courses which do not affect academic standards or any of the particular, precise uses which they intend to make of those powers of conditions precedent which they believe will be academically free? That is what I ask the Minister.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am totally lost as to what is our procedure, as I believe I indicated implicitly to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when I spoke earlier. We are discussing a wide-ranging group of amendments but the only amendment now before us which has been moved is the Government's

659
amendment. I take it that the two amendments to the amendment were also moved, but that has not been said.
My difficulty with regard to what is taking place is that I accept that the government amendments, suitably amended, are better than the Bill as it was. However, they are very much third or fourth best compared with the outcome which I seek; namely, the acceptance of Amendment No. 169C. However, I am not clear—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell us when he replies—about how we interpret a tacit acceptance of the earlier amendments if we do not want them but do not wish to vote against them, given that the Bill as it stands would be even worse.
There are at least two amendments in this group which have not been spoken to. Do I understand that they no longer count in the group? That is further complicated by the fact that normally when one speaks to a group of amendments the person moving the amendment states to which amendment he is speaking. That means that if the first amendment is carried, the other amendments in the group which are being spoken to will also be carried. That cannot apply to this case especially as the Minister said that he was not speaking to all the amendments.
I need the Minister's help on this matter because it affects how some of us will vote in due course or, indeed, whether we should vote. I was even more confused by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he said, having spoken to an amendment which has not yet been moved, that he did not propose to move the amendment even though I had indicated, and my noble friends had indicated, that we should vote for that amendment.
I do not criticise the Minister because he was anxious to have an integrated debate and I supported that. I am now completely lost as regards our procedures and I felt I should raise that problem at this stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can ask him, on the question of procedure, whether he understood the position for which I was seeking to contend; that is, that it was virtually impossible to vote on these matters tonight. If the Government indicated how they viewed the various amendments then the matter could be resolved at Third Reading. However, it may well be that it cannot be resolved tonight.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, first, perhaps, I owe the House an apology and a word of explanation regarding matters which arose from the speech of my noble friend Lord Beloff. He asserted that nothing had been done between Committee stage, which was before Christmas, and Report stage, the final hurdle of which we are dealing with this evening, in regard to Clauses 64 and 77.
The watchwords, when we were discussing these matters in Committee, were the two words "academic freedom", repeated this evening from the Front Bench of the Liberal Party, by noble Lords opposite and by other noble Lords. As I was in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House, I felt strongly and said to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that we
660
needed to bring forward amendments which would fulfil the undertakings I had given at the previous stage. Incidentally, it was suggested at that stage that it was a pity that I had not brought forward amendments then. I felt therefore that we should get on with the matter and not undertake endless consultation, desirable though that may be.
However, I say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that it was not as though there had been no consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed Clauses 64 and 77 with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals before Christmas and, whenever it was possible, I had informal discussions with Members of your Lordships' House regarding the work that we were doing in trying to bring forward these amendments, of which Amendment No. 145 is the one I am presently moving and the peg on which this long debate has hung.
Secondly, perhaps I can say a brief word in regard to Clause 64. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who, in both an elegant and kindly way, not only asked me a question but gave me the answer to a question I had been unable to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is correct, not for the first time in your Lordships' House. Although there are some details which I could add if I read out a page of brief, I do not believe there is much that I should add.
However, I must answer the direct question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, regarding why Clause 64 is included. I take that head on and reply that Clause 64 is different from Section 134 of the Education Reform Act 1988 and is included to put beyond doubt the Secretary of State's power to make general conditions which may have a different effect on individual institutions. That impact can be different although the conditions are general.
The wording of Section 134(6) and (7) was effectively discredited by the judgment in the case brought against the Government by the Association of College and Polytechnic Teachers. It is about setting conditions precedent. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, can forget more about industrial relations than I shall ever learn, but I hope he will forgive me when I say that there is one matter on which I would cross swords with him. If the noble Lord talked informally around the House on different Benches, I do not know that he would find many noble Lords who would join him in saying that setting a condition precedent before wage settlement negotiations is necessarily always a bad thing.
Perhaps I may go on to the meat of my answer. First, I remind your Lordships that this evening I spoke to at least three amendments on academic freedom.
Our intentions on this side of the House were to try to meet the apprehensions of your Lordships as regards Clauses 64 and 77. I have heard the reaction which there has been to them; namely, that your Lordships almost universally have accepted the amendments but have said that they do not go far enough.
As I listened to the debate I remembered the immediate reaction of some of your Lordships when I gave an undertaking in Committee before Christmas.

661
It was that not only were the Government not going far enough but that any amendment put down should also exclude conditions and directions in respect of the type of students to be recruited in institutions of higher education and the type of staff to be appointed. Amendments Nos. 146A and 171A, in the names of my noble friends, Lady Young and Lord Renfrew, address that particular point.
It seems to me that any legitimate intervention by the Secretary of State under powers in this part of the Bill is almost bound to impact on students and staff in one way or another. There are also circumstances in which it is possible that the Secretary of State may have a perfectly legitimate policy which would do the same. For example, my noble friend Lord Cavendish, dealing with that part of the Bill which affects students with disabilities, has made clear that the funding councils will be expected as a condition of grant to ensure that they have specialist advice on the education of students with disabilities. That statement by my noble friend was much welcomed.
Funds have been earmarked in the past by Secretaries of State for Education in respect of staff restructuring and what are sometimes known colloquially as "new blood posts." All are legitimate policy interests for a government to pursue through these powers. The difficulty is that all are framed by reference to students and staff but they relate to staff and students generally and not to individuals.
However, there is one particular circumstance in which the Secretary of State might be said to have an interest in an individual. It concerns a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and others in Committee; namely, the question of accounting officers. The head of a publicly-funded higher education institution is the accounting officer for the public funds made available to that institution by the funding council. The accounting officer of the funding council is responsible for the funds put at its disposal, but it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible to Parliament and to the taxpayer for the Government's higher education policy and the funds provided by Parliament to support it.
The existence of the institutional and funding council accounting officers cannot give the Secretary of State an absolute guarantee in financial matters which are their responsibilities. It has been known (reference has been made to it this evening) for institutional heads sometimes effectively to fail in responsibilities. In such cases action by the funding council has been able to resolve matters happily.
As I have said, the power of direction is needed against the remote possibility of what I have described as a nightmare scenario, with the funding council accounting officer failing to fulfil his responsibilities as well. If the head of an institution were to be found in dereliction of his duties the Secretary of State's overriding responsibilities to Parliament are such that he needs the power to influence the public funding of that institution subject to parliamentary scrutiny, provided for in the Bill.
Lord Annan: My Lords, should we really legislate on nightmare possibilities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can do no more than to say that at the end of the day, given the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, to Parliament and the general public, for taxpayers' money, that it is necessary. The ground was gone over exhaustively in 1988. It is not for the first time that I say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who dealt with that part of the Bill on that occasion, made it clear that the direction-making power would only be used in very exceptional circumstances. I fully acknowledge that that should be the limit of the Secretary of State's powers in relation to individuals.
However, that is already the case. It is important to bear in mind the context of these powers which are essentially about public funding and accountability. The accounting officer example that I have just given is precisely about that. The appointment of other individual staff and the admission of any individual students is clearly not.
The Secretary of State could not, under any circumstances, use his condition-making powers to effect the appointment or admission of an individual. That, I am advised, would require conditions to be made in respect of the activities of individual institutions concerned, but that is ruled out under Clause 64 of the Bill.
With regard to directions, any attempted intervention by the Secretary of State in the filling of a particular staff post would, except where the post carried major responsibility for the administration of funds provided by the council such as that of the accounting officer, be so far removed from the Secretary of State's funding responsibilities that it would almost certainly exceed the legitimate scope of his powers. The Secretary of State would be riding roughshod over the autonomy granted in these matters with the universities under their charters and their statutes and the polytechnics and colleges under their instruments and articles of government.
I have gone into detail because it is for those reasons that, although we are in no way unsympathetic to the anxieties which have been expressed about staff and students, the Government did not themselves put down amendments about either students or staff.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Beloff have their names to Amendment No. 146, which would remove the reference to the duration of courses in the amended Clause 64. It is important to emphasise on this point that conditions under this power could not of themselves determine the length of higher education courses. That can only be done by the institutions. Rather, this power is about the funding of courses where there are legitimate questions concerning the effective use of public funds. The higher education White Paper emphasised the Government's commitment to expanding higher education. It also made clear that while the Government remain committed to awarding higher education a fair share of public expenditure, the continuing drive for greater efficiency would need to be secure. That would not happen if additional resources merely served to fund the same number of students on longer courses.

663
The White Paper made clear that the Government see no case for an increase in the average length of courses. The power contained in Amendment No. 145 enables the Secretary of State to exercise influence in this area through funding while in no way allowing him to tell institutions what they may or may not do. The power would also enable the Secretary of State to earmark funds for specific purposes in respect of course patterns.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether I would give examples. At the Secretary of State's request the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council is at present making available £1 million in 1992 for 1993 to support a pilot scheme.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I would be greatly obliged if the Minister would explain further what he said about the Secretary of State's power over the duration of courses. Do I understand him to say that he cannot actually determine the duration of courses but merely refuse funds for the extension of a course? Or has he a direct power to forbid the extension of a duration?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I said more or less exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has just repeated—that the power which I am seeking to include in Amendment No. 145 would enable the Secretary of State to exercise influence in this area through funding but would not allow him to tell institutions what they may or may not do in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether I would give examples of any beneficial use of this power. The answer is quite a simple one. At present £1 million in the next financial year is going to support a pilot scheme involving the provision of accelerated and intensive routes to degree courses. I understand that the response from the higher education institutions in the form of bids for those funds has been enthusiastic. Often specific initiatives of this kind are needed to promote new types of provision. That would be put at risk by the amendments put down by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Beloff.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I do not think I said that I wanted the noble Lord to think of one advantageous example. I wanted something that did not affect academic freedom. If it is said that there cannot be a three-year course, does the noble Lord not agree that nothing could be more effective than saying that one can only have the money for a two-year course? Does that not do the trick?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is seeking to lead me onto the ground where it would not be possible for the Secretary of State of the day to decide at all on what the effects of funding would be. That is a fairly basic matter to which we shall probably come again on later amendments. For the moment I rest on what I have said. The noble Lord asked for examples that would be beneficial and sensible. I have given him one which is extremely beneficial and extremely sensible.
There is a third and penultimate area with which I should like briefly to deal. Amendment No. 169A
664
relates to the use of funds. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's condition and direction-making powers concern the administration of public funds. That answer derives from Amendments Nos. 147 and 172 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but we are also close to Amendment No. 169A to which my noble friend Lady Young spoke. Put simply, I am advised that the Secretary of State could not require the funding councils to act in breach of their statutory duties and so the Secretary of State could not require them, whether under a condition or a direction, in turn to impose conditions on institutions which related to the use to which they put funds derived otherwise than through the council. That would be prohibited by Clause 61(4). In the case of an individual institution which refused public funds, any direction from the Secretary of State to the funding council could relate only to funds received previously from the council.
Amendment No. 169A in the name of my noble friend Lady Young is slightly different because it seeks to confine the application of a direction to financial support from grants made by the Secretary of State. In practice of course the overwhelming bulk, if not all, of the funding councils' funds will come from the Secretary of State. If the funding councils receive funds from other sources, which they most certainly do not at present, the Secretary of State could not direct that those funds could be used in a manner inconsistent with any conditions subject to which they were made available; and there would surely almost certainly be such conditions.
That leads me finally to Amendment No. 169C. Noble Lords have without exception said that they attach importance to this amendment. I have been urged from all sides of the House to look upon it favourably and to treat it in a variety of other ways, all of which would be beneficial, the top of the list being to take it away to see whether agreement can be reached on it. There are aspects of the amendment about which I am not sure and on which I have some worries. First, the specific addition to the amendment that the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State shall be subject to judicial review arguably does not add very much to the clause. Indeed I am advised that the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill would be liable to judicial review. To single out one power could be confusing because it would give the impression that the exercise of other powers was not liable to judicial review. Therefore, arguably there is a criticism there.
Secondly, I and the Government want to be sure of the exact scope of the wording "substantially funded". Those words appear in line 4 of Amendment No. 169C which refers to,
"an institution substantially funded by one of the higher education funding councils".
Thirdly, I must say to my three noble friends that I think the test in the amendment of,
"reasonable cause to believe that there has been a want of due care",
is a pretty narrow and restrictive power. Although I am not at present standing at the Dispatch Box and saying for that reason the Government wish to turn

665
away from that particular form of drafting, nonetheless I think that it is a form of drafting at which we would want to look very carefully.
Finally, there is an aspect of the amendment which is absolutely fundamental. I put it very simply for my own benefit. While I accept that any direction would most likely be in response to an institutions's financial situation, it is in the nature of the power we seek in Clause 77 that it would come into use only in the most exceptional circumstances. That is why the government amendments attack the matter by seeking to limit the nature of any direction which might be given, whereas Amendments Nos. 169A and 169C would limit the circumstances in which a direction could be contemplated.
However, in uttering that criticism I realise that that is exactly the point upon which many of your Lordships feel that the Government are not right and that the amendment is. Therefore, in conclusion perhaps I may try out this suggestion on your Lordships. If the Government—and this is the offer that I make this evening—are seriously to consider Amendment No. 169C, but with the reservations which I voiced (and there may also be some other reservations), I suggest that we should do so, without commitment, seriously and in discussion with those noble Lords who are interested in the matter.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that that would mean that the Government could not possibly move Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 to Clause 77. In the circumstances, I could give an undertaking now that when we reach that stage I would not move those amendments. Nevertheless, I had to move Amendment No. 145 because it is, from the procedural point of view, the peg upon which the whole debate hangs. I shall shortly press the amendment and await your Lordships' reaction.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could clarify a point for me. If we do not make any effort to divide the House on Amendment No. 145—and I am not an expert on procedural matters so I have to accept what the noble Lord says—I take it that he would not use that as an indication that any of us consider that that would be a good outcome. I presume that he is merely using it procedurally in order to give us more time to sort out matters before we meet again for further discussions. That would be the only commitment if we do not divide the House and decide not to intervene further in the matter. Am I right in thinking that the process suggested is purely technical?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I rise only to speak in relation to the offer made by the Paymaster General. It leaves the situation in a highly unsatisfactory position. On Second Reading the noble Lord said that he had not been able to find a suitable narrowing formula. In fact the amendment in his name that has been tabled today is one that could have been framed at any time. The most junior clerk in the department could have given instructions to draft it to the most lately recruited officer in parliamentary counsel's office. That was not done. Nor was this
666
perfectly simple amendment put down in Committee. On the contrary, what was done was at the very last moment. In order to buy off opposition, the noble Lord offered to bring forward an amendment on Report. That was shortly before your Lordships rose. He said that it could not be brought forward before Christmas. In fact, it was available at the very end of the Recess so that those who had been critical of the provisions were deprived of the opportunity of taking counsel.
The noble Lord the Paymaster General, again faced with formidable opposition, now says at the last moment that he will consider, without any commitment. In my respectful submission, in view of what has happened, that is unsatisfactory. I hope that your Lordships will divide on the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. Before doing so, with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, I must say that I find this position all but intolerable. I agree with every word said by the noble and learned Lord. If he had not said it, I would not have had the courage to say it. I find it intolerable.
Secondly, is my noble friend taking on board Amendment No. 169B, a Conservative Back-Bench amendment that has found favour throughout the House? We did not know that it would, but it has. That applies also to Amendment No. 169C. I find it unacceptable that I should be, so to speak, beaten down a little at every stage. I am content that the Government whom I support should take the matter back.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question to make clear what the Minister is offering. Is he going to take back Amendments Nos. 169A, 169B, and 169C and possibly Amendment No. 146A? Many of us are not clear what he is taking back.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I have the leave of the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway have uncharacteristically been a little hard this evening. In Committee, I gave an undertaking that I would try to meet the anxieties which were expressed by bringing forward amendments on academic freedom. That I have done. They have not received the approbation of the House. I have said openly that government amendments to Clause 77 cannot be moved if we are to look at the other amendments.
I am advised that I can withdraw Amendment No. 145. That would leave the Bill as drafted. If we did that, that would be playing fair with the House. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that I am not seeking to move or jockey the House in any particular direction. The Bill would be left as drafted, but there would be an undertaking that I would look at the amendments which had been tabled by your Lordships to Clause 77. In particular, I would look at Amendment No. 169C because that attacks the problem from a direction that is different to that of the Government. Your Lordships expressed

667
some mirth when I said that it had entered my consciousness that the House felt that the amendment was doing it the right way and the Government were not. Therefore, on this aspect, I have said that I shall take the amendments away, particularly that one. On behalf of the Government, I offer to leave the Bill as drafted and not change it one iota but to look with the greatest care in the context of my speech at the amendments, which are mostly to be found on page 7 of the Marshalled List.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord the Paymaster General has moved his amendment, to which further amendments have been moved. They will first be put to the House by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. The noble Lord the Paymaster General cannot now try to stymie all the opposition by withdrawing his own amendment. That can come later but it cannot come at this stage. In my respectful submission, it is quite wrong to threaten your Lordships in this way.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister answered two of my questions. He said that he would take back Amendments Nos. 169A and 169B as well as Amendment No. 169C. He did not respond to my question about whether he would also take back Amendment No. 146A.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House to speak for perhaps the last time, it is to say that I shall consider this. I have spent a considerable time explaining that I am not in the least unsympathetic on the Government's side as concerns the apprehensions over the effects on staff and students of the powers in this part of the Bill. The Government themselves, however, did not, for the reasons I gave, put down amendments because we believed that any powers in this part of the Bill were almost bound to impact —often beneficially—on students and staff. The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David, is, yes, I shall look at the position and I hope that she will look at what I suggest.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may make a procedural point which may help the House. For my part, I wish to take up the offer of my noble friend to look at the amendments. I realise the caveat he made and the strength of feeling of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, the way in which the House works is that we return for the Third Reading in two weeks' time. I am quite certain that my noble friend has taken the clear message from all parts of the House from every single Peer who has spoken. Unless we receive satisfaction, we shall return to the matter at Third Reading. For this evening, I shall be happy to accept the offer of discussion made by my noble friend and then we shall see whether we can achieve agreement before the Third Reading.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, in view of what the noble Baroness has said, is the offer of the Paymaster General to take the amendments away another way of saying that he is prepared to recommend that the amendments be accepted? Taking them away is no
668
commitment, it only means that the amendments will be considered. If that is what the noble Lord means, then it is not going very far.
Earl Russell: My Lords, for the sake of clarification, will the Minister move Amendment No. 145 or not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said when I spoke previously, my intention is to withdraw my amendment and to leave the Bill as at present drafted.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I wish to make the point that if, as suggested, the Minister is able to give an element of commitment, rather than simply agreeing to look at the suggestions, I hope that the House will not oblige the noble Lord to press the matter to a Division if it is technically difficult for him to withdraw the amendment. I feel that, if he would give that indication, then the House could accept that he would prefer to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Question before the House is on Amendment No. 146 as an amendment to Amendment No. 145. I believe I heard the Minister say he would look again at Amendment No. 146A, which stands in the name of his noble friend Lady Young. In that case it is incumbent upon me to withdraw Amendment No. 146 and to welcome the Minister's undertaking to look at it again. However, I ask him to look a great deal more sympathetically than was the case when he replied a few minutes ago.
The Minister relied again on the question that concerns the legitimate use of public funds. However, there is the matter of whether the Minister obtains a degree for the use of public funds. The argument put to him is that if what he obtains does not have the approval of the academic community, it is not a degree, in which case the Minister would be paying money for nothing. I hope the Minister will look again at this matter very carefully as I cannot see any compromise without a concession on this point. For the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 146, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 146A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 147, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 145 be agreed to?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment No. 145, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 [Supplementary functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Daintonmoved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 48, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:

669
("(b) establish such expert competent committees as they think fit to give them advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above and such other functions as may be remitted to the committees").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may by now be somewhat weary of my interventions on the subject of the maintenance of quality which carries with it the notion of quality assessment of British universities. I make no apology for returning to this matter, for if quality declines so will everything in higher education. Everything that both this Bill and the 1988 Act sought to achieve will be rendered nugatory. Entrance to higher education in the future will be short changed. The existence of Clause 66, and especially subsection (2), suggests that the Government share this view.
Government Amendment No. 152 acknowledges one of the points I made in Committee; namely, that an assessment committee or committees should comprise a majority of competent people who are up to date in knowledge of what goes on in best university practice and in teaching and research around the world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for that concession. Alas the Government, against their own repeated protestations that they do not wish to see bureaucratic structures imposed on funding councils, have nevertheless insisted that a single quality assessment committee should be brought into being.
What is even worse, in the Government's Amendment No. 152 a further prescriptive and damagingly restrictive principle has been introduced; namely, that no member of the council may serve on the quality assessment committee. It is almost as if the Government were in this vital matter determined to attenuate the connection between the council and its committee, whereas all experience shows that awareness of the quality of the institutions with which the committee will deal must always be in the forefront of the minds of the council members. That cannot be achieved unless some council members are involved in the quality assessment. I believe that it should be one of their most important duties.
When I sought reassurance on those points at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he could not go so far "on his feet" and would write to me. Because I knew that the Government were not sympathetic to my view it was necessary for me to reintroduce my amendment, which now stands as Amendment No. 151A.
Having said all that, I should now like to propose a solution which would avoid including inappropriately bureaucratic mechanisms on the face of the Bill, to which I understand the Government are opposed in principle. It would simply give the funding council the duty specified in Clause 66(1) (a) of ensuring provision for quality assessment. The council could then carry out that duty in ways which it judged best, which I am sure would evolve over time and might well involve other councils. It will not evolve over time to meet emergent needs if it is set in tablets of stone on the face of the Bill. After all, we must remember that councils already have powers to establish committees for any purpose. Therefore,
670
without that subsection they could do all that they wish to ensure quality assessment by the means which seem best to them.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will feel able to respond positively to that suggestion between now and Third Reading. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the Government on the need for the funding council to exercise robustly its duties in relation to ensuring the assessment of quality in institutions. However, where we do not see eye to eye is in relation to whether it is right for legislation to require that the funding councils establish a series of expert committees as the principal means by which the funding councils fulfil their responsibility. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about the proposed nature of the single quality assessment committee proposed in the Bill, and it might be helpful if I set out the background.
The duty upon the funding councils will be to assess the quality of higher education at institutions. The Secretary of State's guidance will make clear that such assessment will need to cover all subject areas. That is a necessary prerequisite if, as is currently the case, assessments of quality are to inform the funding decisions of the new councils. Assessment in all subject areas and the results feeding into funding decisions is, after all, not a new proposal. It is currently the practice, as the noble Lord knows better than I, of the universities and polytechnics and colleges funding councils. That coverage is also necessary in order for potential staff and students to have a complete view of the quality of what is provided by higher education institutions.
The question is what mechanisms should the funding council use for the purpose of securing the assessments. Currently the PCFC has a programme advisory group for each of its nine programme areas. As part of their task of advising the council, they consider the evidence which is available on the utility of provision in each institution in their particular field. Their recommended allocations take account of those quality judgments. The senior HMI for the subject area concerned attends each meeting of the group and reports on the findings of HMI in respect of each institution offering the subject.
That is a perfectly sensible way for a funding council to operate and would be one possible approach for the new councils to adopt under Clause 66 as it stands. However, there are other ways in which the councils could proceed. As the duty to assess rests with the councils, they should be allowed to construct the most appropriate structure.
The noble Lord mentioned one of the options which he would favour, namely that the clause should be truncated and simply provide for a funding council without any frills. The difficulty with that is that it would not be possible for me to move the next amendment, which was tabled partly in response to a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at a previous stage of the Bill that current practitioners in higher education should be included on the quality

671
assessment committees—which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was kind enough to say that he also approved of—and that there should be a majority of those involved in higher education on the committees.
The last point—and I am personally sorry that it is part of the amendment which I am going to move to Amendment No. 152—is one point of which I know the noble Lord disapproves. He has expressed his disapproval.
Amendment No. 152, which I shall soon move, responds to the debate which we had in Committee by referring to the desirability of those members being currently engaged in the provision of higher education, and strengthens the independent voice of the committee by providing a majority of members not to be members of the council.
The Government believe that the requirement on the councils to take independent expert advice on the principles of and approach to quality assessment has been widely welcomed. Although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, feels there should not be the provision that a majority of members should not be members of the council, we are actually responding to what has been said by a majority of Members in this Chamber who felt the opposite.
Lord Dainton: I am in some difficulty because I am not sure whether I should speak now on my objection to Amendment No. 152 or whether I should wait until it has been formally moved.
Lord Belstead: I think perhaps the noble Lord should wait.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 152 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 153 and 154.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 152:
Page 48, line 29, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 32 and insert:

("(a) shall be persons falling within subsection (2A) below, and

(b) shall not be members of the council.

(2A) Persons fall within this subsection if they appear to the council to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education in institutions within the higher education sector and, in appointing such persons, the council shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was concerned at the previous stage of the Bill that there should be on the quality assessment committees a voice for current practitioners in higher education. This amendment meets that particular point. The second effect of the amendment is to require that a majority of members of the quality assessment committee shall not be members of the funding council. As I have acknowledged, although I know that this is not the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—and I understand the reasons why—it is a
672
matter which was favoured in Committee by my noble friend Lord Limerick and supported by a number of other Members. After considering the arguments carefully, the Government have concluded that a statutory requirement of this kind would provide an important guarantee of the independence of the committee's operations and advice. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to welcome this amendment. The noble Lord the Minister has said that this is in response to an amendment moved at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Peston. I think this is a considerable improvement on the Bill, and we are grateful to the Government for bringing it forward.
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches I should like to add my voice to the welcome offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Lord Dainton: I should like to make two points, based on practical experience. I am very anxious that we should avoid setting the scene so rigidly as to provide just one quality assessment committee and secondly that the committee should not have members of the council on it. That would impede the work which the council will have to undertake. My experience of serving on the University Grants Committee leads me to two conclusions. The first is that there is no point in their discussions at which a knowledge of an intimate kind of the quality of the institutions with which they are dealing is not necessary. It is always required. Secondly, a council of this kind has to find its own ways to adapt to changing situations. That is why I feel I have to speak against the notion of one committee specified the Bill. I prefer to see that removed and the council allowed to find its own way and react in a flexible manner to situations which none of us can foresee.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I have heard the noble Lord argue the point outside the House. With his almost unique experience from UGC days, the Government would be ill advised not to listen to him.
The noble Lord believes that we are locked into a single committee. When we discussed the noble Lord's previous amendment, I stated that the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council has a programme advisory group for each of nine programme areas. I am not sure, therefore, that we are locked into an entirely rigid position. For instance, we envisage it as one sensible way of going about the task of quality assessment.
I have already referred to the point about not having members of the quality assessment committee on the council. I know that I have not satisfied the noble Lord on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 are pre-empted.
[Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert:
("(4) Before the Secretary of State makes any grant under section 64 above each institution shall draw up and publish its arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the quality of the education that it provides.
(5) Such arrangements shall ensure that each faculty in each institution, shall publish:

(a) detailed profiles and indicative reading lists of the courses they provide,

(b) the names of the external examiners appointed to those courses,

(c) the teaching load of the faculty members concerned,

(d) graded pass lists for those who receive their awards as a result of attending one of the courses in question, together with lists of those who have failed,

(e) where appropriate (d) above should be given on a collegiate rather than institutional basis,

(f) the destinations of their students one year after receiving their awards.

(6) Such arrangements shall also ensure that each institution shall publish a report on the application of the provisions of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 relating to freedom of speech on campuses.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment follows and amplifies one tabled by my noble friend Lady Cox and myself at Committee stage of the Bill. My noble friend is now in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno Karabakh, which is under siege by Azerbaijan, delivering her second consignment in a fortnight of medical supplies. That is why the noble Baroness's amendment is not on the Marshalled List today. I am sure that your Lordships will wish her well in her very courageous mission.
I wish to make the usual disclaimers about the precision of the amendment's wording. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Renton for the fact that it does not yet reflect the excellent point he made in Committee that it should be the funding councils rather than the Secretary of State which require the reporting envisaged. I thought that it might be helpful to separate the debate on the amendment, which is intended to contribute to academic quality in our future university system, from the debate that we have just had about academic freedom. I would, however, again remind your Lordships that the academic freedom about which we care so much is not honourable unless it carries with it an unwavering commitment to academic quality.
In the debate on the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox and myself in Committee, several noble Lords were good enough to support the concept that institutions should be required to monitor and report on the quality of the education they provide. However, some noble Lords believed, or hoped, that the examples we gave where quality had failed were somewhat idiosyncratic. Doubts were also cast as to whether an amendment along these lines should be on the face of the Bill or whether its requirements should be left to the funding councils and to their quality assessment committees.
I believe that those requirements should be on the face of the Bill. I notice that a majority of the members of the proposed quality assessment committees are to be providers of higher education. In other words, they would be largely self-regulating in their daily work.
674
My experience on the Council for National Academic Awards and its committees over the past nine years, often as the only non-academic present, is that it would be helpful to them to have firm guidelines such as these from which to work.
As to the idea that our examples were idiosyncratic, we would deny that strongly. Indeed, I have some further areas of anxiety to share with your Lordships today. They underline my doubts as to whether quality in our universities is all that so many noble and academic Lords in this House obviously believe. I should confirm that my doubts concern mainly the subject areas covered by the humanities, social sciences and teacher training. In giving those examples, I wish also to touch on the question of waste. I maintain that wasteful courses cannot claim academic rigour and therefore quality. I state that quite separately from pointing out that it is bad for young people who may wish to enter the world of work to be allowed to spend the three or four preceding years in enforced idleness.
For instance, I draw your Lordships' attention to a current advertisement for a history teaching post at an Oxbridge college. The job carries a salary of over £30,000 per annum for the basic 24 weeks of term or less than half a calendar year. In addition, the successful applicant will have free furnished accommodation, free heating and light, free meals all the year round and a few other allowances and perks. For that, he or she will be required to give tutorials on a one-to-one or one-to-two basis for not more than 15 hours in each of the 24 weeks of term time and also give up to 16 lectures per annum. Any additional college duties will be rewarded with a further stipend.
I know about research and scholarly activity which teaching fellows are supposed to carry out but I should have thought that many, if not most, people who are not academics would find those terms of employment a little unbalanced. It is the kind of example which makes some noble Lords sit up and think when told that our university system is at breaking point for lack of funds.
One wonders how seriously to take the claim when it is set against the pay and conditions of similar professions. For example, one could consider the pay and conditions of ward sisters in the National Health Service. It might be thought that they are at a similar level in their profession as are tutorial fellows at Oxbridge. Ward sisters in outer London earn up to £17,600 for a 47-week year. For each of those 47 weeks they work a minimum of 37½ hours. They often work longer and at unsocial hours. Their responsibilities, which often include making decisions that may affect whether a patient lives or dies, are every bit as great as those of the tutorial fellow.
But it is when one comes to talk to many university students that one begins to fear that much of what goes on in our universities may be very wasteful. Over the past few weeks I have spoken to many students who feel that they are wasting much of their time. The worst case I found is that of a student at one of our leading universities—not Oxbridge—who is required to attend two lectures and one tutorial per week. He is also required to write two essays per 10-week term.

675
I suppose that I shall be told that that is yet another idiosyncratic example. I am quite sure, however, that when noble Lords talk to students, particularly in the subject areas that I have mentioned, much will be found that leaves them uneasy. Indeed, I have come across a group of about a dozen students who proposed to write to The Times saying how bored they were on their course and asking for its duration to be halved. I advised them not to write their letters until they had their degrees.
Another area which worries me is the waste and irrelevance in most of the business courses in higher education. That fear was confirmed by an article in the Daily Telegraph of 6th January this year which revealed that the Small Firms' Lead Body is calling for a major shake-up in the way in which business managers are trained. The article reflects what I was told, for example, by a girl who recently obtained a degree in economics from the London School of Economics. There she had three 10-week terms a year with only 12 hours per week of contact with teaching staff—360 hours per annum at a cost to the taxpayer of some £4,000. She is now a trainee accountant and has been sent by her partnership to a private college called Financial Training in preparation for her accounting examinations. The 10-week course there delivers 300 hours of personal tuition for about £1,500.
I know that the "student experience", as it is called, is widely considered to be of great value. But I wonder whether those figures do not suggest that there may be sometimes too much of it to be good for academic rigour and quality.
There is at least one other indicator which suggests that some of our universities, far from being starved of funds to the extent that they cannot do their job properly, may still be too comfortably off at taxpayers' expense. The number of first class degrees —if the latest edition of The Times Higher Education Supplement is to be believed—awarded by our universities has gone up by 10 per cent. in the past two years. It seems to me that that statistic forces our universities either to admit that they are more than adequately funded or that the quality of at least their first class degrees may be going down. Be all that as it may—and I think that it is the case—this amendment does not seek to make judgments. It does not attempt to interfere or proscribe. It merely seeks to make sure that the funding councils and their quality assessment committees are fully aware of what is going on so that they can take any action that they feel may be appropriate.
Finally, the amendment would require institutions to report on how successful they are being in securing freedom of speech on their campuses. The trouble with Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is that it goes no further than requiring institutions to draw up a code of practice. When freedom of speech is denied, it is left to individual students to take action. Although there have been many cases where freedom of speech has been denied since the 1986 Act, only one case has been brought to court to test it. The case was won by the student but costs were awarded equally and not against the college authorities. That has not
676
encouraged other students to take action. I believe that if institutions were required to publish their record in that important area of academic quality and freedom, they might take their duty under the 1986 Act more seriously. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has a great gift for enlivening our proceedings. He reminded me a little of a certain kind of old-fashioned shop steward holding forth on the proceedings of the Palace of Westminster. It is a fairly common illusion outside the Palace of Westminster that when we are not in the Chamber we are not working. I hope that I need not say to any Member of the House that that is not so.
The noble Lord quoted the case of a person teaching for 15 hours per week. It is a rough but fairly reliable rule of thumb to say that 15 hours of teaching is equivalent to about a 50-hour week. The noble Lord also made the profound mistake of confusing a vacation with a holiday. That is the time at which you do your work.
I also comment briefly on the noble Lord's point about the number of first and second class degrees. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence about that in the Times Higher Education Supplement, some of which the noble Lord may have seen. About 15 years ago a considerable body of anxiety developed because firsts were a great deal easier to achieve in some subjects than in others. It was twice as easy to achieve them in the sciences than it was in the humanities. There was a widespread feeling that that was an anomaly. On the whole, that is being corrected by making it easier to achieve firsts in the difficult subjects rather than harder in the easier ones. That explains the statistics to which the noble Lord drew attention.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as regards the number of hours which undergraduates work—and I hope that the distinguished academics will support me on this matter—when a student is set one hour's tutorial, he is expected to prepare for it. I can remember that that meant reading large chunks, if not the whole, of several books for one tutorial. Moreover, if a person has to be sat down and spoon fed by taking dictation in a lecture hall to get through his work at university, he should not be there in the first place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord who opposed the points made by my noble friend battened only on the figures as regards hours of work. He made an extremely good case. However, he rather gave the impression that everything is perfect and that there is no need to look at anything. That is the impression which he gave by dealing only with that part of the argument. By giving no consideration to the other points made by my noble friend, that is the impression he gave.
As I understand my noble friend, he is merely saying that the people who are in a position to make the decisions as to whether the money paid and the hours allocated to the work are correct should have some statutory reason for looking at the matter rather more carefully than perhaps has been the case in the

677
past. That seemed to be the message which my noble friend wished to convey. Unless one can put one's hand on one's heart and say that everything is perfect and that there is no need for the people who must make those adjudications to look at matters rather more carefully, then this amendment should be looked at more sympathetically than did the noble Lord in his debate-winning speech.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I sympathise with those remarks. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is entirely right about the kind of work involved if one teaches 15 hours a week. I agree with the view that at Oxford and Cambridge one would expect the undergraduates to be able to work on their own and not be spoonfed. Nevertheless, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has a great deal to commend it.
There are some good reasons why universities should be expected to set out those basic conditions. Most universities that I know set out some, but by no means all. I wonder how many universities actually publish the teaching load of the faculty members concerned. I wonder how many state the names of the external examiners appointed to the courses. Of course they are always published in the Reporter or wherever the official proceedings are, but they are not always evident to the students.
The other point with which I have sympathy concerns a period I well remember in 1963 when I was chairman of a committee looking at teaching in the University of Cambridge. When we did some sample surveys on three faculties we discovered some disturbing statistics; namely, that there were people who were college officers earning a stipend additional to their university stipend but teaching only three or four hours a week. I sympathise with the feeling that some publicity on those matters is a good thing.
There is nothing in the amendment which impinges upon academic freedom. It is a simple statement of facts. The noble Lord perhaps deserved to receive some elucidation from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I for one would not be against an amendment of this kind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is a question of what one puts on the face of the Bill and what one does not. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Pearson has once again raised important matters concerning accountability within higher education institutions. Let me say at once that the Government are at one with him on the need for institutions to maintain the quality of what they do and to publish information relating to that so that their performance can be looked at.
In a sense my noble friend's cry that what is being done must be clear is being attacked from two different directions in the Bill. In one direction the Government's proposal is that institutions should, themselves, establish a quality audit unit to monitor the standards of quality assurance mechanisms within institutions. Whether or not encouraged by the Secretary of State's reserve power to require the establishment of such a unit by the funding councils, the institutions have responded positively to the
678
responsibility envisaged for them. They are proposing that the unit should arrange visits to each and every institution to examine quality assurance systems and structures, together with ongoing monitoring. The reports of those visits would be published, and the three representative bodies have accepted that an institution's public funding could ultimately be affected by an unsatisfactory report if adverse aspects are not corrected.
At the same time, the funding councils will appoint external assessors to report on the quality of provision within institutions. They seem likely to look at aspects of quality assurance as well. Those reports, too, will be published along with annual sets of performance indicators covering a wide range of measures.
Without following the noble Lord down the road of all the proposals he mentioned, perhaps I may say that clearly some of the areas covered by the amendment need to be in the public domain. Higher education institutions educate students, and it is right that performance indicators should include data showing how well they do it. The first destinations are also an important indicator.
Finally, with regard to freedom of speech, I understand the point made by my noble friend that, despite the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, enforcement is a problem.
On that point it may reassure my noble friend that the Government have initiated consultations with parties concerned in education over the effectiveness of the freedom of speech legislation. At this stage I cannot say what conclusions will be drawn from the consultations, but I can confirm that Ministers at the department are alive to the issues and will take careful note of what has been said here today.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly those who supported me more than I expected. I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful to noble Lords who were critical of my intervention. My only hope is that if the spirit of this amendment can in the end be enshrined in good practice, a little light will be let in and everyone will be able to make their own judgment on who was right on the subject. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord told the House that he advised students who wrote to him not to write a letter to The Times. My advice would be that they should do so. They could not then possibly be failed!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 155:
Leave out Clause 66.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this amendment we propose to leave out Clause 66, which relates to the quality assessment committee. In Committee I described this clause as an umpire that could only give one side out. I said then that I could not mention such umpires, but I can now without any breach or abuse of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Gavaskar, commenting on the Indian tour of Australia, remarked that

679
they were playing against 13 men. That is the way in which some of the academic community feel about this clause.
I am not going to enter any further into the argument with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as to whether the threat to quality comes primarily, as I believe, from the lack of funding or, as he believes, primarily from the negligence and sloppiness of the profession. It is sufficient to my purpose to ask the House to note that that dispute exists and, having listened to both of us a few moments ago, I do not believe that the House can be in any doubt that a dispute exists. It seems to be contrary to the principles of natural justice to have a dispute existing and be able to hear only one side of it. The committee could not get an accurate view of what is going on.
The House may be greatly relieved to hear that I am not going to develop at great length the argument that the Secretary of State is not competent to assess academic quality. We have already spent long enough on that tonight. However, as a point of history, the House should note what a colossal moving of the goalposts this is. Until very recent times the Secretary of State had not thought himself competent to make an assessment of quality. It had been made by the academic community. It was not his business. So his attempting to do it would be under-described by calling it "moving the goalposts". It is not only moving them but like turning rugger goalposts into hockey goalposts in the process.
It is a real example of the creeping bureaucracy to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has many times drawn our attention and what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has described as the unending tendency of governments of all parties to believe that they know best. Inevitably —because they cannot judge everything individually —they will fall back on quantitative indicators. While there are some things that such indicators can tell one, there is a very great deal that they cannot. It is a little like conducting a beauty contest simply by collecting the measurements of the contestants and never letting one's eyes fall on them. It is a rather limited form of perception.
My biggest argument against this clause is that it has the effect of making the Bill, in the nice 17th century phrase, felo de se; because it is a clause which contradicts the central thrust of the Bill. I am convinced that the Minister would hotly resist me if I were to say that the main thrust of the Bill was to reduce quality. He would not be able to resist me equally were I to say that the main thrust of the Bill is to increase what the Government mean by efficiency; in other words, to reduce unit costs. The Minister has admitted that many times. It appears to me to have something very near a synonymous quality with reducing quality.
There is a certain offensiveness here about the contrary assumption because it involves assuming that money is spent by higher education institutions in a way without any relevance to their primary purposes. Therefore, less of it may be spent without affecting their primary purposes. That is quite a far-reaching assumption. Anybody who is going to make that
680
assumption needs to put before us a good deal more evidence for it than the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has done.
I shall not argue at great length any more—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, at Committee stage my noble friend Lady Cox and I put forward other examples which included a whole institution—which appears to have gone off the rails at the moment —and no less than three subject areas which at present seem to be seriously questionable. Therefore, I would not want judgment on this matter to be confined to the few remarks I made this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as I recollect that debate, the chief points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness concerned freedom of speech. On that there is agreement on all sides of the House. I accept that the noble Lord also found a certain number of academic Marxists.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not think the debate was purely on freedom of speech. It was on a department, or departments, prohibiting students from taking a different point of view from their teachers and that the whole reading lists, and everything else, was constructed to bring them to one conclusion and one conclusion only. Not one individual teacher—a department.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that nobody defends any such practice. There are cases in all professions where something goes wrong. I am certain that the noble Lord will not wish to maintain that his own profession is immune. I do not wish to maintain that my profession is immune. However, I think that efficiency, as defined by the Minister, is creating such a threat to quality that we are getting very close indeed to the point where it would be better if the job were not done at all.
If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, or anyone else, wants to deprive us of all funding, they have that right. We might then be free to go off and do a job where we would be better appreciated. Meanwhile, so long as we are trying to do the job we must have the tools, or else we cannot. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I do not entirely follow the logic of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It may not be for the first time, but generally I get his drift at the very least. He has argued with the greatest consistency throughout our discussions on the Bill that he is anxious that sufficient resources may not be assigned in order to ensure that quality is maintained. That is a very legitimate anxiety.
However, Clause 66 is about quality assessment and I do not in the least understand how it would suit the book of the noble Earl if quality assessment were left out of consideration. It seems to me that the noble Earl is perhaps giving up the ghost. It would be of the greatest sorrow to all of us if he were to give up the ghost in any sense. I hope that he will continue to inspire us with his observations. I do not think that he should give up, as it were, on quality and I am sure that he should be supporting quality assessment. Like him, I have some unease about the approach taken by

681
the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Fortunately, however, the noble Lord's amendment is not immediately under discussion at this time, and so one need not take that point further.
It is appropriate that the universities should be subject to scrutiny in terms of quality, which is the principle established by the clause. I very much hope that on further consideration the noble Earl will agree with me that if we are concerned about the provision of resources, as indeed we are, it is appropriate that the end product should be monitored. That is precisely what the clause ensures.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am also surprised that the noble Earl has suggested that this is somehow a move on the part of the Secretary of State to attempt personal assessment of the quality of teaching in universities. I remind him that the proposal in the Bill requires the funding council to set up a committee on the assessment of quality and not in any sense to involve the Secretary of State directly or his immediate civil servants in the process. Indeed I should like to reassure the noble Earl that there has been considerable consultation with the bodies representing higher education institutions about the process of quality assessment.
The pilot assessments of quality are taking place this month. Only about 10 days ago I was involved in training the first batch of assessors. I should like to reassure the noble Earl that they are people drawn from the universities and from the current polytechnics. The process has carefully drawn equal numbers from each of the existing sectors. They do not in any sense come from outside the system. People engaged in and experienced in teaching in higher education will be performing the assessments. I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It is extremely important that the organisations in higher education should be assessed in the way the Bill proposes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Earl has chosen to move this amendment. The deletion of Clause 66 would mean that there would be no statutory requirement upon the higher education funding councils to assess quality in higher education. I join my noble friend Lord Renfrew in being concerned that in this sense the noble Earl has given up on quality. I know that the noble Earl has not in any way given up on quality.
The assessments under the clause will have three broad purposes. They will inform potential students and employers through the publication of reports, they will enable the institutions to take account of the independent and objective views of those carrying out the assessments and they will inform the funding methodology of the new councils. I accept that assessment is about far more than a simple and mechanistic quality funding equation—I am thinking of the point I made previously. Carried out effectively, it should help to improve quality as higher education expands. There is a serious quality issue involved.
Before I sit down I should like to make a point of which I am sure noble Lords are aware. It is, however, worth putting on the record. The Secretary of State
682
will not be responsible for these assessments. The funding councils will be responsible. The White Paper made very clear that experts drawn from HMI and institutions would be needed to carry out the assessments and my noble friend Lady Perry has just told us about the pilot assessments that are taking place.
I realise that there are two points of view about Clause 66. I express the hope that, having given the matter an airing, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, about scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with scrutiny. But the noble Lord did not answer the point about the umpire who can only give one side out. The Secretary of State is not subject to scrutiny. The argument that the Secretary of State is offering a major threat to quality is one which the quality assessment committee cannot assess. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry; namely, that this will be done by a committee. But, again, such a committee cannot say what, in the opinion of many of us, desperately needs to be said.
I also take the point made by the noble Baroness that there has been consultation about Clause 66. I believe that she knows as well as I do that that consultation has come nearer to achieving agreement in some quarters than it has in others. However, I cannot understand the indifference to the problem of funding. Talking about academic freedom while funding is at its present levels seems to me a case of fiddling while Rome burns.
I thank the Minister for conceding, at the second attempt, that I have not given up on quality. I am struggling as hard as I can to preserve it. By his funding policy, I feel that the Secretary of State is thwarting my efforts at every turn. If I succeed in preserving it, it will be despite the Secretary of State. That gets under my skin. I commend the amendment to the House.
10.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 155) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 56.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kirkwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Beloff, L.

Annan, L.

Belstead, L.

Arran, E.

Bethell, L.

Astor, V.

Blatch, B.

Balfour, E.

Blyth, L.

683

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dainton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Flowers, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Guildford, Bp.

[Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.55 p.m.
Clause 67 [Higher education corporations: constitution and conduct]:
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 156:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("or student nominee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 156, which stands in my name, as does Amendment No. 158, and to the other amendments in this group. In them, we readdress issues which we have talked about on several previous occasions on this Bill, relating to both the higher and the further education sectors.
The basic question is whether we want a sizeable opinion. Some of us would say we want a working amount of student representation provided in the Bill, while others say that one student nominee is sufficient. I suggest, for a variety of reasons, that students are effectively the lifeblood of any institution of education. Thus, the number currently represented in the Bill is not sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, at Committee stage the area of this amendment was also discussed in relation to representation of other categories of person on the corporations of universities. Some of us found that an inconvenient juncture because we feel with great vigour that students are part and parcel of the university. They are its core, it is the students and the teachers who together constitute the university. There are those in other categories who may have their role to play and account should be taken of that, but the members of the university are the students and the academic staff. For that reason, there is a fundamental principle here to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly drew our attention.
My own Amendment No.158A is similar to that of the noble Lord, and it is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I do not see a great deal between the amendments; the subject could be debated in great detail, but perhaps it is too late to do so.
684
It is worth stressing that in the 1988 Act, as I understand it, there was provision for student membership as well as membership from other categories. Many of us are entirely in sympathy with the intention of the Government, which the Minister made clear, that in general terms representation on corporations of higher education institutions should be less itemised. That is in the sense that there are one or two here, one or two there and one or two from somewhere else. That is fine, but we need one or two students.
The matter was extensively discussed in the debates on the 1988 Act and there are other noble Lords present who remember them, although I cannot do so at first-hand. In the debate at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, quoted Mr Robert Jackson. In 1988 he was Minister with responsibility for education and he then emphasised that the Government valued highly the participation of students in governing bodies of institutions.
I am sorry that the Government give indications not perhaps of not valuing it highly, but valuing it no more highly than other categories which they have swept away. I have no objection to that, but Schedule 6 to the Bill is extremely parsimonious. On the possibility of student participation, it refers to,
"at least one and not more than seven (referred to below … as the 'co-opted members') shall be persons nominated by the members of the corporation who are not co-opted members".
If we follow through the rather tortuous wording of the Bill, that is the back door by which students may be admitted to higher education corporations. They may be co-opted by the real, "pukka" members of the corporation. That is not good enough, and it is why my amendment, which is not substantially different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, takes for students an exact parallel with the wording for teachers. Paragraph (2) (b) states:
"up to two may be teachers at the institution nominated by the academic board".
I have tried to follow that wording entirely and suggested that up to two may be students who would be nominated by the student body.
In Committee a number of noble Lords said they did not want student representatives as opposed to nominees. I believe that point is taken care of. The persons concerned would not necessarily be the student president or delegates. They would be full-time students elected by members of the student body. I should be sorry if the Minister, on behalf of the Government, saw fit to gainsay that principle at this stage now that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has conveniently separated this issue from those which complicated it in Committee.
11 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, I also strongly support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. On the general issue I do not know what I can say that others have not said, or that I have not said myself, as all the arguments on behalf of student representation on governing bodies have been marshalled, paraded, recalled to the colours, remustered and re-presented time after time.

685
The issue of the membership of both further and higher education corporations was discussed extensively in Committee and again on Report. The overwhelming majority of noble Lords who spoke from all sides of the House have been in favour of the principle of student participation. The basic arguments in favour of student involvement remain unchanged and I shall not repeat them.
Students are, in the language of the Government, consumers of education. As I would prefer to think of it, they are members of a community which prides itself on preserving its academic autonomy and its democratic procedures. As such, students surely deserve a say in the running of those institutions at the highest level. In Committee concern was expressed over the term "representatives". Noble Lords questioned whether this might mean that students would be mandated.
In the first of the amendments in this group, as it now stands, it is clear that a student nominee is what is being considered. After the 1988 Education Reform Act the DES issued model articles of government for higher education corporations. Article 6.2 stated:
"Members of the Board of Governors, shall not be bound in their speaking and voting by instructions given to them by other persons".
It is fairly clear that student nominees selected by other students cannot be mandated. They will be proper, ordinary, straightforward, up and down the wicket, common-sense members, like every other member of the corporation.
Government spokesmen have also made use of the argument that students will be on governing bodies anyway, as institutions will feel it necessary to include them. That, in my respectful submission, is a weak argument because, if the Government really believe that and can see the benefits of student involvement on governing bodies, they will surely not oppose this amendment.
It is, of course, not for me in any way to attempt to lead the mind of the Minister. However, if, when considering this group of amendments, the Government were prepared to look kindly on Amendment No. 158A, they might feel that was perhaps on balance preferable to the wording of Amendment No. 158. They might feel similarly that Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B might command slightly wider support than Amendment No. 160. However, that is a matter for the Minister to consider. The general thrust is surely clear. Students are currently serving as representatives of their fellow students on most governing bodies in higher education to everybody's entire satisfaction. These amendments seek only to retain their hard won status quo. Students on governing bodies have done well. Let us not now take away from them what they are all so rightly proud to have won.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for giving his views on student nominees. I know the arguments have been put forward before at all stages of the Bill. However, if a student is not nominated by other students, he will not have the benefit of the trust of the students in the
686
institution concerned. They may not think that he represents their views. Therefore it is most important that a student nominee should be elected by the members of the institution of which he is a member.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the amendments are grouped together because they make different points. Amendments Nos. 156 and 158 refer to an individual student nominee, whereas Amendment No. 158A in the name of my noble friend Lord Renfrew suggests the freedom, rather than the requirement, for a corporation to appoint up to two full-time students of the institution. I believe that that is an important distinction.
The president of my own institution's student union has on several occasions mentioned the difficulty he finds in being alone in a group of articulate and experienced adults who are members of the board. He has frequently said how much he wished that there were more than one student present at board meetings. The freedom to appoint two representatives is an important point and I should be sorry if as a result of the grouping that point were lost.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. Frequently two categories of student will be represented—the undergraduate and the postgraduate. Their interests are very different and what they can contribute to the discussion is very different though equally valuable. We need to carry both with us in the major changes which may be necessary in education from time to time in the next 20 years. Therefore, I strongly support the proposal that we should be thinking in terms of two representatives from the first because of the difference of view that needs to be represented.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we had an interesting debate in Committee about the Government's proposals to remove the statutory right of legal authority nominees, teacher nominees, general staff nominees and student nominees to be members of the governing body of a higher education corporation. A number of arguments were put forward, particularly in favour of student representation, and I undertook to convey them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I see that it is the right of students to be nominated which the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, now seek to restore.
My right honourable friend has considered the views expressed in Committee carefully but he has concluded that the provisions of the Bill should remain as they are. Several noble Lords referred to the quality of the contribution made by students and, as we have always acknowledged, I am sure that is the case in many instances. There is nothing in the Bill that will prevent a governing body having the benefit of that contribution and, as I said in Committee, the indications are that most governing bodies will wish to retain student members. Governing bodies are free, if they wish, to ask the student body to nominate someone and then to co-opt that person as a member

687
should the governing body wish to proceed in that way. I do not accept my noble friend's remarks about pukka or not pukka representatives.
The Government's intention is to reduce the element of prescription and to give greater flexibility to governing bodies to determine their way of working. After three years' operational experience that is a sensible way forward. As I mentioned in Committee, both the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Committee of Principals of Colleges have welcomed the increased flexibility. I can add that the chairmen of the governing bodies of polytechnics have also welcomed the increased flexibility.
I do not doubt that governing bodies will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are fully aware of the views of the various parts of the institutional community. The Government believe that they can be trusted to do so without having statutory requirements for nominees placed upon them. In view of those arguments I must resist the amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and I apologise for doing so. It never occurred to me that he would reject the amendments. That is why I did not speak earlier, so that we could get a move on. I am astonished.
Does the noble Lord remember his own remarks last week on the model articles and instruments for FE colleges and can he make what he said then fit in with what he has just said? It did not occur to me that this would be a contentious issue and I do not know whether the noble Lords who have moved the amendment are about to divide the House, but if they do not do so I shall certainly divide the House if this is the best we are to receive by way of answer on the issue. The noble Lord's answer does not meet any of the matters which have been put before your Lordships in the past few weeks. This really will not do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if he wants to divide the House. I have told him that my noble friend wants to keep the flexibility and he does not want to be prescriptive. We can disagree on that maybe.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord understands what I am saying. I am trying to work out why we bother with any of this sort of thing if he simply says, "I don't want to do something". Some of us are rather more used to rational argument and a certain give and take. I have not heard anybody support the Government's view on this matter. Is that not something that they might take into account?
This is not like the major issues we have been discussing. This is a minor but rather important matter that I thought was not in the remotest sense contentious. That is why I am slightly angry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if I may intervene, I did not come in earlier but I must say that I have spoken to a number of polytechnic directors who, were they here, would resist this series of amendments. I am not in the least surprised by what
688
my noble friend the Minister has said about the support he is getting on the position the Government are taking.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could help me. I recognise this is not the particular amendment with which we are dealing now, but the associated amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which is to the schedule, is to provide for two students. If I understood the Minister right, he said the reason why the Government were against this was that they did not wish to be prescriptive; yet they have in the schedule that up to two may be teachers. That is prescriptive. I cannot follow the logic of the argument.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, first, I did say that I had consulted and we had had some response to that consultation, and also I gave two reasons. I have given them twice, and I hope the noble Lord has absorbed them.
In respect of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, as I have just indicated, the Bill already makes provision for students to be co-opted members of a higher education corporation. It does not restrict governing bodies to any particular method of determining which students to appoint. A governing body may appoint students selected by members of the student body if it so wishes. Therefore the amendments would not appear to be necessary to permit the appointment of student members in line with the governing body's wishes. However, they put those student members in a different category for appointment. They would no longer be co-opted members, and because of that they would themselves be able to participate in the nomination of co-opted members. We believe that to be undesirable.
The Bill presently makes provision for co-opted members to be nominated by independent members and any teacher members nominated by the academic board. The Government believe that that is the right group of members to nominate co-opted members, and it should not be extended to include students.
With regard to what the right reverend Prelate said, the two teacher nominees are not representatives; they are nominated by the academic board. That is the difference.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could clarify why students should not participate in the nomination of co-opted members. Of course they will be a small minority if we are talking about two only, and there will be many more independent members, so the views of the independent members are likely to prevail when it comes to any final decision about who co-opted members should be. I am puzzled as to why students should not make a contribution towards such a discussion and such suggestions. Perhaps that could be clarified.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my understanding is that it is felt that this particular area

689
is one where maybe students would not be able to make much of a contribution because it would be in the nomination.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, it does not seem to be understood by the Government that students' presence on governing bodies of universities and other higher education institutions is not simply to give the students something; it is also to give universities something. Students are the most important element in the university. They have to be carried with one, whatever one does. The university is there for them, first and foremost. They can be carried with one most successfully, if one has a few, perhaps two, sensible students—and in my experience they are usually sensible students—who take part in the discussion. More important than taking part, they understand the discussion and can take the message to their fellow students saying, "Don't get excited about this. What is intended is as follows". They explain. They are the communicators between the governing body and the student body; and they do a very good job.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is Report stage. I can respond only once more. If the noble Lord had been following the debates, I have acknowledged all those qualities which have been referred to frequently during the conduct of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, to say that I am a little disappointed at the Government's response is probably the understatement of the decade. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for taking the issue back and discussing it. However, I am afraid the answer is not good enough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, stated that my amendment referred at least to one representative. That was a fallback situation to ensure that there was a nomination. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was a second bite. In my opinion, two would be the minimum number to make student representation practical. The amendment made sensible provision for those two students.
They are modest amendments. They have had wide general support. There is no real case for stating that students do not make a good contribution in this respect. I cannot understand why the Government have not accepted the amendment, or put forward their own amendment to meet the problems that have been raised by Members on all sides of the House. I have no option but to seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
11.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.156) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 43.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Adrian, L.

Flowers, L.

Annan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

[Teller.]

Dainton, L.

Grey, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Guildford, Bp.

690

Hamwee, B.

Ogmore, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Peston, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rochester, L.

Lawrence, L.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Seccombe, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cross, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ferrers, E.

[Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.24 p.m.
Schedule 6 [New Schedule 7A to the Education Reform Act 1988]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 75, line 42, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this amendment. In doing so I shall speak also to Amendment No. 159.
In Committee, in responding to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Limerick, Amendment No. 277A, I informed the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, after considering various representations, was prepared to table an amendment which would restore the maximum size of the governing body of a higher education corporation to its present level and make consequential changes to the permitted number of co-opted members.
This amendment seeks to make the necessary changes. In fact, I believe that my noble friend has noticed that, after consideration, the Government have retained his original wording. The increase by only two in the permitted number of co-opted members, rather than three, which might appear more appropriate, serves to correct an anomaly in the 1988 Act whereby the total of all permitted categories of member exceeded by one the maximum permitted size of the corporation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthornmoved Amendment No. 158A:

691
Page 76, line 4, after ("board") insert:
("( ) up to two may be full-time students of the institution to be elected by members of the student body;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords on this side of the House indicated to me that they would have had difficulty voting in favour of Amendment No. 156 because it dealt with transitional arrangements and was of no great general significance; but they would be willing to vote in favour of Amendment No. 158A, and we have already discussed the substantive issues relating to it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment but I am not anxious at this hour to enter the Division Lobby. I may have been willing to do so at a previous stage but I am not anxious to do that now.
As my noble friend is taking back one or two points for consideration, albeit without commitment, I ask him to consider this matter on the basis which we discussed previously; namely, that students should take part because they are the essence of it all. So long as they are not representatives - and that has been discussed - but are elected by members of the student body, in what better way or in what other way can we ensure their participation? They should take part. If the Minister accepts that, how are they to do so if the amendment or something like it is not accepted?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, when I dealt with the group of amendments which included Amendment No. 156, I covered the ground rather carefully on this matter. I informed the House that we have no difficulty as regards wanting student participation but we do not wish to prescribe. We wish to give the governing bodies the flexibility about which I have spoken.
I shall read carefully what has been said but I regret that I cannot give my noble friend any assurance beyond that. I am sorry that I cannot move from what I said in the earlier part of the debate.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are in some difficulty in that this amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 156 and indeed is linked with that amendment. It is the custom of this House not to press amendments that are linked. That is not necessarily the case where matters are grouped that are different from the original amendment. But we are in some difficulty on the linkage between this and the previous amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says. If it were the case that he, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Addington, were to find it more convenient for this amendment to be withdrawn in order that it may be brought back at Third Reading, I should be happy to follow their guidance. If it is in order for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to comment, I shall be happy to follow guidance.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I was under the impression that we were dealing with the whole group as an issue. If I had been informed that noble Lords opposite preferred the amendment of the noble Lord,
692
Lord Renfrew, I should certainly have given way in favour of it. However, I am in favour of bringing the amendment back at Third Reading if it is in order to do so. It is an important issue.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am not in a position to advise anybody on the procedures of the House. If it is in order that the amendment be brought back at Third Reading, I shall be happy to withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too am not convinced that it is in order. For the few years I have been in the House I thought that when amendments were linked and one was defeated, they were all defeated, just as the reverse is the case; that when they are linked and one is carried, the rest are carried with it —though in this case there would be a slight logical difficulty in doing that.
I have nothing against the amendment. In fact, my noble friend indicated that he preferred this amendment to the one on which we voted. However, as a matter of procedure I am not sure that we can either vote on it or speak of coming back to it. Perhaps we could be advised on that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment which has been moved and spoken to?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to be clear whether it is in order that it be brought back at Third Reading. If it is in order, I shall certainly withdraw it. It may be that I am not in order in moving it. However, I am a novice in this House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated, it will be helpful if I can receive the guidance of those who understand the rules of procedure, which I do not claim to do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have attempted to obtain brief guidance from the House. The amendment can be moved if it concerns a different point from the other amendments in the group. As I understand it, my noble friend can also withdraw it and bring it back at Third Reading.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I shall seek to do that. It is at present clear to me that it concerns a different point from that in the amendment on which we voted. On that I am confident. I shall withdraw it. That will give opportunity for those who have greater experience than I in the procedures of the House to advise me whether it is proper to bring it back at Third Reading. If so, that is what I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 159:
Page 76, line 5, leave out ("seven") and insert ("nine").
The noble Lord Said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend perhaps I may say that I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 157. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 160B not moved.]
Clause 69 [Government and conduct of designated institutions]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 54, line 18, at end insert ("but does not include any institution established by Royal Charter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 161 seeks to remedy an anomaly which has come to light in respect of the Secretary of State's existing powers and the proposed powers of the Privy Council under Clause 69 to modify the instruments and articles of institutions designated for funding by a higher education funding council.
A number of such institutions were established by Royal Charter and already come within the Privy Council's jurisdiction under the Crown's prerogative powers. Thus, both the existing and the proposed legislation make those institutions subject to parallel jurisdiction under both prerogative powers and statute. It is an anomaly which needs to be remedied, and the amendment seeks to achieve this by removing institutions established by Royal Charter from the scope of Sections 129A and 129B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Variation of trust deeds]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 56, line 2, leave out ("institution within the higher education sector") and insert ("such institution as is mentioned in subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained in Committee in response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renfrew that the Government were looking again at the scope of Clause 71. My noble friend explained clearly that as presently drafted Clause 71 would provide the Privy Council with a new power to modify the charter and statutes of universities. This was unintended, and the amendment the Government are now tabling confines the power of the Privy Council to modify trust deeds or other instruments only in respect of higher education corporations, or designated institutions other than designated institutions established by Royal Charter. In other words, no university is affected by this provision. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, after so many contentious words this evening it is a pleasure to be able to say that I am advised that the amendment completely meets the difficulties which were raised. I thank my noble friend the Minister for so completely meeting the difficulties in so satisfactory a manner.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I spoke to the original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I also thank the Minister for a very satisfactory outcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 163:
Page 56, line 5, at end insert:
("(1A) The institutions referred to in subsection (1) above are—
694

(a) any institution conducted by a higher education corporation; and

(b) any institution in relation to which a designation made or having effect as if made under section 129 of this Act has effect, other than an institution established by Royal Charter.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Power to award degrees, etc.]:
Lord Daintonmoved Amendment No.163A:
Page 56, line 14, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the committee established under subsection (7) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to the question of the designation of institutions as being competent to award degrees, diplomas and certificates. As the Bill now stands, the Secretary of State would be able to designate an institution as fit or unfit to make such awards. This is obviously a very important matter. I need not dwell on its importance. It is particularly important to institutions seeking designation, to potential students and to the public at large who will seek reassurance as to the fitness of any institution to make awards which seem to them to have any value.
There are two mechanisms by which that can be done. The Secretary of State cannot do it himself without advice. There are two ways in which that advice can be offered to him. One is by the device of having a committee set up for each institution; the other is having a committee which can compare and maintain the same standards and ensure that those same standards are applied to different institutions which are under consideration.
It is for that reason that we want a subsection added requiring that the Secretary of State shall establish a committee with the duty of advising him on the exercise of his functions in this designation process and that those persons shall be members who represent the interests of the funding councils and those of the institutions for whom they provide support.
It will be a thoroughly competent committee. The question arises as to whether it should be a standing committee which exists to apply consistent standards throughout to different institutions or whether it should be an ad hoc committee. I have no doubt about the matter. As we know, we lag behind the Scots in almost all matters educational and the Secretary of State for Scotland has already written to the vice-chancellors and principals of the Scottish universities stating that it is his decision, following representations made to him, that the committee should be a standing committee in Scotland.
That is a recommendation. The most important aspect is that there is a proper mechanism, whether it is standing or ad hoc, but preferably standing, to advise the Secretary of State on the application of consistent standards in the selection of institutions which shall be designated as worthy to grant degrees, awards or certificates. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am advised that this amendment as it stands would apply to institutions already accredited by the Council for

695
National Academic Awards. In other words, it would apply to the polytechnics as they now stand and in which case I strongly resist the amendment.
The Council for National Academic Awards was established by Royal Charter. It has conducted its business impeccably in the past few years in accrediting institutions which in all but the name have been awarding their own degrees. It has accredited them either for research degrees or for undergraduate degrees. To force those institutions to be subject to very long delays to be examined by a new committee before they could become degree awarding institutions would be extremely unfortunate. I am not sure whether the noble Lord intended the amendment to have that result, but I am advised that, in effect, it would do just that.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I thought that the Council for National Academic Awards was to go out of existence within a fixed period of time. Is it then the suggestion that there will be other institutions thereafter which will seek to be designated to have the power to grant degrees and certificates?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply and to speak a second time. The point I was making is that this amendment as it stands would apply to those institutions already accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards. In other words, it would apply to all the polytechnics. Although I agree with the noble Lord that for the future it will be important to have some mechanism—whether a committee or otherwise—which would deal with new institutions, I would consider it extremely unfortunate, and so would all my colleagues and the many hundreds of thousands of students in our institutions, if there were to be a delay in the process of the polytechnics becoming degree awarding by having to go through a new process of accreditation as proposed in the amendment.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, since I supported my noble friend Lord Dainton, in this amendment may I say that it is not our intention that it should have the effect described by the noble Baroness. If the exact words do have that effect then of course they must be changed at Third Reading, and we shall do that.
My noble friend has explained the purpose of these amendments. Clause 72 as it stands allows the Secretary of State in person, advised only by civil servants or by a "kitchen cabinet", to empower institutions to make academic awards. No doubt in practice he would appoint an ad hoc committee to consider each case on its own merits. But that is not good enough. There should be a standing committee to consider every new proposal and as far as is humanly possible to require a minimum acceptable standard of achievement, or a promise, before the power to offer degrees is conferred. That is the intention of the amendment—to deal with new institutions coming into the degree and qualification-giving circle.
I also have some anxiety about the converse problem. I should be grateful if the Minister would
696
enlighten me. Does this clause as it stands imply that unless an institution has permission from the Secretary of State it cannot offer a particular qualification? If so, that would be a very serious barrier against academic innovation. I shall give two examples. First, some years ago when I was rector of Imperial College we were asked by the Health and Safety Executive to set up short courses for its new graduate recruits. If I remember correctly, the teaching was to be shared between us, the costs to be borne by the executive, and the certificate to be awarded by the college to each student who performed satisfactorily.
Secondly, at Manchester, we introduced a diploma in advanced studies and science in response to the perceived need for intending PhD students to undergo formal courses of instruction during their first year of research. It was a most successful innovation and continued for many years, possibly even until today. I wholly fail to understand why the Secretary of State's permission should be sought in such cases and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that Clause 72 would not require that.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in favour of both the clause and the amendment. I read the clause to mean that the Secretary of State will have power to announce that an institution is now a degree-awarding institution. I do not believe that the problem suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, can possibly arise. The clause provides that, where institutions do not have the power to award degrees, the Secretary of State will be able to designate some of them to be able to do so. I do not see a problem there.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that, where institutions will be doing so for the first time, it would be much better if the Secretary of State had a committee to advise him rather than, as it were, purely doing it in-house at the DES. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made a valid point when she said that the polytechnics can in a sense claim that the Secretary of State has had a committee —namely, the CNAA—which has said that to all intents and purposes these are already near to and from now on should become degree-awarding institutions. She made the point that if the polytechnics had to wait for the new committee they might be delayed for a year. I cannot believe that that is remotely what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has in mind.
However, that is a minor matter of drafting. Essentially, the clause is about new institutions and the amendment is about advising the Secretary of State on new institutions. If there is confusion in regard to the polytechnics it is purely a matter of drafting. I see no major difficulty with the clause as suitably amended by the amendment.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, it is certainly not my intention in moving the amendment to interfere with satisfactory existing procedures, but the time will come when those procedures are no longer available. Therefore it should not be beyond the wit of man to

697
draft an amendment, if that is the general wish, to provide for the future when there is no CNAA. I would withdraw the amendment if an assurance were given that the necessary procedure would be provided for.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, before discussing the meat of the amendment, perhaps I may confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right. The Secretary of State's power is to confer on institutions the power to confer a range of awards as set out in the clause. He cannot stipulate one type of qualification and not another.
Following consultation with higher education institutions, the Government announced on 16th December the criteria against which institutions would be considered for degree-awarding powers, both for taught courses and for research. Those reflect the recommendations in the consultation paper, which were widely welcomed.
In general terms, these are that, for taught-course degrees, an institution needs to be a self-critical, cohesive academic community with a proven commitment to quality assurance supported by effective assurance and enhancement systems. An institution which would qualify to award its own research degrees would need to demonstrate that its arrangements were broadly comparable with those in universities.
The Government's announcement also explained how the Secretary of State would receive advice on whether institutions met the criteria. In line with proposals in the consultation paper, the Secretary of State will look to the CNAA to advise on whether institutions validated by it meet the criteria, up to the CNAA's formal dissolution. In parallel, ad hoc committees will be appointed to provide advice on institutions validated by universities. That approach was also generally welcomed.
The consultation paper had proposed that, if the ad hoc committee approach worked in the short term, it could be retained in the longer term. However, a number of different views were expressed in the responses, and the Secretary of State announced that he wished to consider these longer-term arrangements further with a view to reaching a decision in the spring. The three options are: first, retaining the ad hoc committees; secondly, asking the funding councils to advise; or, thirdly, seeking the advice of the Quality Audit Unit. There are good arguments for each, or for a combination of two or more. But, so far as concerns the principle underlying the amendment, all three will enable an appropriate range of interests to be brought together for the purposes of providing the advice. I can assure your Lordships that an institutional voice will be essential.
The Government see no value in setting down in legislation a structure for advising the Secretary of State on the issue. It is, after all, a new function. It would be far better to wait to see how the ad hoc committees perform and then reach a view. That would also leave open the opportunity for the structure to change over time. In the light of those
698
comments, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Before I sit down, I can say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has proposed to the Secretary of State that the Privy Council should have a role in conferring degree awarding power. The Secretary of State is very sympathetic to that proposal and envisages that he will be bringing forward an appropriate government amendment for discussion on Third Reading.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can answer a simple question. Is the intention behind what he proposed, by whatever means it is achieved, to ensure that there are constant criteria which we can all accept, which have to be met by an institution and which will be consistently applied, even though he referred to the fact that there must be ad hoc committees up to the point at which, for example, the CNAA disappears? At that time, will there be every intention of ensuring some continuity and consistency in the application of the criteria?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords; I think that I can broadly agree with that. Under this method we have the chance to see how the ad hoc committees perform.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163B not moved.]
Clause 73 [Use of "university" in title of institution]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 164:
Page 57, line 10, leave out ("by, or on the direction of or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 165, 166 and 180. In the light of the debate at Committee stage on an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, the Government have looked again at the provisions in the Bill concerning university titles. We have concluded that it is not necessary for the Privy Council to have the power to impose such a title upon an institution. As set out in guidance already sent to institutions, the Privy Council's role would be restricted to giving its consent to an application from an institution for a new title. The amendments will put beyond doubt the Privy Council's role in this area. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for raising the matter in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 57, line 12, leave out ("by the Privy Council or, as the case may be, on the direction of or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 57, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) No institution shall be called a university unless its academic staff are obliged by their contracts to engage in research, and given sufficient time and facilities to enable them to discharge that obligation.").

699
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 165B, 165C and 165D. The amendment before the House marks the breakdown of 800 years of partnership between the universities and the state. I hope that it is not an irretrievable breakdown. However, I must admit that I have my doubts on that point. For the whole of the history of universities in England there has, first, been no control on the Crown's power to designate a university.
Secondly, the Crown has taken the opinion of the academic community in deciding whether to designate any particular institution as a university. At no stage in the history of universities in this country has the Crown ever attempted to impose upon the universities its own definition of what is a university. That is now changing. In the concept of the non-research university, which this amendment addresses and seeks to render impossible, the Crown is not merely attempting to impose its own definition of what is a university; it is attempting to impose a definition which appears to many universities to be a contradiction in terms and frequently contradicts the charters and statutes of the universities concerned. It is a deliberate devaluation of the title of university, a little like what Members of the House some 350 years ago protested indignantly against under the title of the inflation of honours.
Let the Crown do what it will to institutions: it has sovereign power behind it in this House; but let it not call those institutions universities. It is a Humpty-Dumpty Bill. It changes the meaning of words.
In passing, I express my agreement with the point about benefactors made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I can, as it happens, illustrate that point personally. It so happens, with my children growing up, that I was in the process of remaking my will. I was about to bequeath a number of 17th century books which I possess to a college of which I was once a member, but I am not prepared to bequeath any such books to a place which might become a non-research university for it would have no use for them. I may well end up bequeathing those books outside this country.
Where we have non-research universities, I think we shall have a massive exodus of staff, for it is, after all, for many of us one of the main reasons for which we entered the profession. We shall have a considerable loss of students. After all, they tend to prefer teaching which is news to teaching which is not. It is a common and indeed human preference. They will also find that it will be a great deal less interesting.
We talk from time to time about rote learning, and in many fields, including my own, I do not know what value it has. But there is also such a thing as rote teaching. If one is not doing any work of one's own, one is not being forced by new evidence to change one's mind, not being pushed constantly into a state of uncertainty, and so there is a risk of falling into rote teaching. Here we reach a point where we must question whether the Secretary of State, who is, as we have heard before, accountable for public money, is receiving value for money.
700
It must be presumed that there is some value in all the education that is being provided. In some fields —I cannot speak for fields other than my own with any confidence—it may be valuable merely to learn the information; but I cannot believe, for example, that it is of any value to the country for people to learn by rote the reasons why the Parliament of 1614 was dissolved, especially as they would be learning by rote only one person's interpretation of that event rather than another's.
The value of most degrees in the humanities must rest upon the acquisition of critical skills, the ability to weigh arguments against one another and the ability to read conflicting books, and when those things are gone, I do not see what there is of value that is being done. When we reach the point of rote learning and rote teaching, the Secretary of State is spending his money for nothing. At that point a number of our institutions of higher education might as well be closed. It is not as far off as some of your Lordships think.
On Amendment No. 165B I will answer a point which was made by the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Peston, in Committee. That amendment directs that a body should not be described as a university unless it has sufficient library and laboratory resources. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was a mistake to consider the definition of a university in terms of costs. If its costs were not adequately met, it was merely a poorly resourced university. Up to a point, that is true. We are here dealing with the familiar point of whether a difference of degree, when it is large enough, may become a difference of kind. If I experience first a pinprick, then a knife stab, we could say that the difference was only one of degree, but it is big enough to constitute also a difference of kind.
In the debate on the humble Address, I used the analogy of a bicycle without wheels. I do not believe a bicycle without wheels is actually a bicycle; it is a bicycle frame. By analogy, I argue that we are in danger of reaching the point where what we have is not a university; it is a university frame.
There are two points which we cannot sacrifice. One is that there should be a meeting of minds in teaching; the other is that there should be a library in which critical scrutiny of books is possible. Both are severely under threat and in one place at least, which I shall not name, they have disappeared to the point where I believe that the place concerned ought to lose its university status.
Amendment No. 165D provides that:
"No institution shall be called a university without the consent of the Royal Society and the British Academy".
I do not know whether this amendment has found the right way of addressing the problem; probably not. But we can no longer leave to the Crown, represented by the Secretary of State, unfettered discretion over what constitutes a university. The consent of the academic community, which used to be taken for granted, now needs institutional protection. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Annan: My Lords, I see that this is the latest effort by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to force the Government to increase the funding to universities. I remember that during Committee stage he said that the B.A. degree began to decline in 1985 and that he had been forced to reduce the number of essays that he set his pupils for lack of funds, lack of library books. He warned—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say I had been forced to reduce the number of essays. I said that there was acute pressure to do so and many people had been forced to do it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I think he said that if one reduces unit costs, then one reduces the amount of work done. I thought that at that time he was in favour of quality committees as a way of forcing the Government to produce more funds for universities. However, today he moved an amendment against that.
I wish to say to the noble Earl in all sincerity that I do not believe that anyone who has listened to him during the long debate which went on before this Bill has any doubt about his devotion to his subject and to research. He is a master of the history of the Civil War, of the English Revolution, its causes and consequences. That is not an easy field to be a master in. Some of the best minds among British historians have been working in that field for the past 40 years.
I do not think anyone could possibly doubt the devotion which the noble Earl shows to his pupils and his understanding of their difficulties today. However, I hope he will forgive me if I say that he does not seem to me to understand what it is the Government are up against and are trying to do today. As I understand it, the Government are trying to increase the number of people from the age of 16 upwards who can acquire some kind of higher or further education. This will cost a large sum of money. I remember saying three, four or five years ago that the universities had to recognise they were no longer the first priority in funding, and that funding would probably go first to the polytechnics and then to other sectors to train our young workforce. Somehow the money must be found to provide that training and that is why universities have been so squeezed in recent years.
I ask myself sometimes when I listen to the noble Earl what date he would wish to return to as regards funding. Is it 1985? No, it is probably not 1985. Perhaps he wants to return to the funding position in 1979, or 1973 before the oil crisis. Perhaps he would prefer to return to 1968 when money was pouring in to the trough and the dons were swilling it with both feet in the trough. That was the post-Robbins expansion when the money was really flowing. Whatever date the noble Earl chooses, he will find if he consults Hansard of this House that university vice-chancellors and professors in every subject were saying that the funds were totally inadequate for the purposes of the universities, that the brain drain was intolerable and so on and so forth. This happened
702
over the years. These complaints are always made. I do not deny that universities are squeezed today, but I believe that in one sense they have sometimes brought this on themselves by crying wolf far too often many years ago.
I put it to the noble Earl that he makes these complaints but I never hear him suggest how he might alleviate the situation. I know this is a small point but lectures can be put on video. That saves the time of the lecturer. He must, of course, record his lecture and he would have the hour he would otherwise have spent in expounding the lecture to take a class to expound difficult points in the lecture or to answer questions put to him by his pupils.
Then again another way in which one can improve the situation, in the humanities at any rate, is by decreasing the number of options. In the 1930s the options in a history degree were comparatively few. There were options, of course, but once one allows the multiplication of options, one faces difficulties in providing books and in providing the teachers for those options. It is possible for the noble Earl to say that he stands by the Von Humboldt principles of Lehrfreiheit and Lehrnfreiheit; that is to say, the teacher is free to teach whatever he wants and the pupil is free to go to whatever professor he likes.
However, if one does that, one will not be able to have single subject degrees, carefully structured in the way they often are in universities. One will approach something like the American system of undergraduate education where one takes courses, often one may think at random. Whether that provides as good an education as the British system is open to question. However, one has to choose. I do not think the American system is at all economical in the way of using teacher resources. The noble Earl may ask about library books and say nothing I have suggested helps libraries on which many humanities subjects depend. Here one has to do some in-fighting in one's own university and try to persuade people to work with one to influence the resource or planning committee, or whichever committee carves up the cake, however small the cake may be. Often one has to say, "Vice-Chancellor (or Principal), we cannot go on as we are. We must cut down the number of subjects, departments and faculties in our university".
Already, I understand, in the noble Earl's college there is a proposal that the department of mechanical engineering should come to an end. That is a step very much in the right direction. When I read that I wondered whether all engineering departments in King's College might be closed down and the students distributed among Imperial College, University College and Queen Mary and Westfield College, which are bigger engineering schools. If one could do that over a short period of time one would release funds. The noble Earl must not take me up on that point. I do not in any way suggest that I know what should be done in his institution. Of course I do not. I merely suggest that one of the options the universities have been slow to take up is cutting down the commitments which they took on in much more generous and affluent days.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I hope that he is not suggesting for one second that we are prescribing matters to such an extent that one would know exactly what work one would do before one started a given course. If we restrict the number of options we could ultimately restrict them to such an extent that one would know exactly which essays one would write before embarking on a course.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not think that that is so at all. Students will very soon begin to realise that the correct answer is not the one which apparently is the standard one which comes out in the lecture course. Of course not. How does one judge whether students have initiative? One judges them by the kind of dissent which they show from the established view.
One cannot dictate to the Government on the subject of resources. How can one say, as the amendment says, that academic staff should be given,
"sufficient time and facilities to enable them to discharge that obligation".
What the devil are sufficient time and facilities? Again, another amendment states:
"No institution shall be called a university unless its library and laboratory facilities are sufficient for its purposes".
That is an open-ended commitment. No government could possibly accept such a commitment.
Finally, I notice the noble Earl's plea that:
"No institution shall be called a university without the consent of the Royal Society and the British Academy".
I admire the Royal Society more than words can say. The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Adrian, may correct me if I am wrong, but it was only a comparatively short time ago that it was very rare indeed for any professor or scholar in engineering to be a Fellow of that society. The Royal Society has changed, but if that provision had been in operation in the 1960s, or the 1950s, I wonder what the result would have been. The British Academy is the same. Although the revolution in the teaching of English took place in the 1930s and literary criticism became the main way in which faculties and departments of English taught the subject, only one professor—Professor Frank Kermode—was elected a Fellow of the British Academy until very recently indeed. Under the influence of the good leadership of the present president the situation is now changing. One cannot rely even on those eminent bodies to be the only judge of whether a university is a university.
Finally, on the question of universities, perhaps due to my mother's American blood, I have always been somewhat sceptical of the idea that a university is a sacrosanct body. In America all bodies of that kind are called colleges. You go to college. Of course some, like the universities of Harvard or Berkeley, California, are great campuses of international fame, probably the best universities in the world, but some of the colleges calling themselves universities belong to what in America is called academic Siberia. They are not distinguished places but they perform some function, and nobody is under any illusion as to what the standards in the different places are.
12.15 a.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but the noble Lord says they perform some function. Could he be more precise about what that function is?
Lord Annan: Yes, my Lords. For instance, some of the campuses in the State University of California are community colleges. Of course they are not at all of the kind of standard to which the noble Earl is used in his institution but I see no reason why they should not be part of the State University of California. It seems to me that here you allow public opinion to judge, and public opinion is very rarely wrong about the differences between different institutions. So I cannot bring myself to vote for this amendment.
Lord Belstead: I always enjoy listening to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and listening to the debates on his amendments, but I had rather a sinking heart when I looked through the Marshalled List and saw this particular group of amendments. I wondered what the merit could be in attaching to the power to award the university title a series of amendments which indulge in nothing more nor less than special pleading for more funding for the university sector.
The spin-off has been that we have been treated to a splendid speech from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which has been refreshing. I think the strictures which he has delivered have been delivered in a kindly and generous way, but they have gone home.
The fact of the matter is that these amendments will not do. I will content myself with but one example of why I think that. The first of the amendments would require that all academic staff in an institution should be obliged and enabled to engage in research before an institution could adopt a university title. It would require research to be taking place in every single area of an institution's activity and to be carried out by all the academic staff employed in those areas. With very great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that is not reasonable and it is divorced from reality. Although it has been quite fun listening to the remarks about these amendments, if I may say so, I do not think that they are worth the paper they are written on.
Earl Russell: The Minister says that an obligation for all university staff to be engaged in research is divorced from reality. It happens to be the present position, which I had supposed to be some form of reality. It is working at present. You would not guess from listening to the Minister that I am defending the status quo and the Minister is defending a very far-reaching change.
I listened with enjoyment to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I felt a little like Joe Chamberlain in his Liberal Unionist incarnation. Your Lordships are well aware of the long-standing rivalry between King's and University Colleges. I recently transferred from University College to King's College. I think there was a little institutional competition going on behind the noble Lord's speech.
I shall take up one or two points that he raised. I repeat once again my position on the quality

705
assessment committee. I was prepared to accept it if it were an umpire that could give both sides out. I failed to achieve that in Committee. I am not prepared to accept it as an umpire which can give only one side out.
I know all the points about improvement that the noble Lord makes. I know all about infighting on library resources. I spent most of last term doing it. I do not come to this House and ask for a special directive from the Secretary of State when I wish to do that. That is why the noble Lord has not heard me doing it all that often. He has not been in the right place.
I entirely accept his point that one cannot dictate to the Government on resources. Equally, the Government cannot dictate to universities or other bodies with which they deal how much those resources will buy. To be the purchaser and also able to control the seller's price is a central feature of a command economy and it is the command economy tendency of the Government's working in this area which is doing so much harm.
I take the point that the noble Lord made: that people have said before that funding was inadequate. It was true. But we again have the argument that a difference of degree may become a difference of kind. Up to this term it has been axiomatic among my colleagues with whom I have discussed the matter that, whatever happened to universities, closure was the worst option. This term I no longer find people taking that for granted. Since last November I have participated in some 20 or 30 discussions with academic colleagues as to the point at which closure becomes preferable to continued survival on present terms. I am not sure how far off that point is, but there is an increasingly general agreement that such a point exists.
However, the central point which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made and which deserves a serious answer was about the commitment to taking an increasing number of people into higher education. That is an all-party commitment. My own party is as committed to it as anyone else. But what we have to be sure about, and I do not believe that at present we can be sure, is that what they are taken into is higher education.
I am reminded of Aristotle's story of Apelles the painter, who was taken hostage. Pressure was put on his captors to release him, which ultimately they did. But before they did so, they cut off his right hand. It was ruled that they had returned Apelles but not Apelles the painter. Therefore a punitive expedition was organised against them and they were put to death.
It is in that spirit that I ask whether, when we provide higher education to people, it is genuinely higher education. If it is not, I have a real doubt whether it is worth while. I have heard the argument that higher education must change for the sake of expansion. Up to a point I can see the force of that argument. But there is a point beyond which it
706
becomes dangerously close to saying that because higher education is so good, therefore nobody shall have it.
I appreciate that I do not have the support of some quarters of the House. However, I am reminded of the story of Robert Cecil, who was hunchbacked. Queen Elizabeth used to describe him as "my pygmy". He once said to somebody who was a known leaker of information, "Which name I mislike not, only for that it is Her Majesty that gives it". It is in that spirit that I say that there are certain matters to which I can consent only because I consent to the majority principle. It is a principle that one cannot invoke too often. This is the third time that I have invoked it since I have been in this House. I hope not to do so again for some time. I must ask the opinion of the House.
12.25 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 165A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 6; Not-Contents, 42.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Rochester, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Hooper, B.

Annan, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Blyth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Reay, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Dainton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Flowers, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

[Teller.]

Guildford, Bp.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.33 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 165B to 165D not moved.]
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 166:
Page 57, line 24, leave out ("change, or direct or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 167:
Page 57, line 27, leave out ("whose name includes the word "university") and insert ("which is entitled to include the word "university" in its name").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168. This is the high point of the evening. I do not wish to become involved in a deep philosophical debate on what is a university. I assume, for the purposes of the

707
Bill, that Clause 72, which deals with degree-awarding powers, is central. There are also the degree-awarding powers of the institutions which have charters.
Representatives of the polytechnics have drawn to my attention—it is the reason for tabling the amendment—that Clause 73 deals with the use of "university" in a title. What has been put to me, and therefore I put it to the Minister, is that Clause 73 concerns bodies that apply for, and no doubt receive, a title. The question is, if one receives the title, does one receive anything else?
I took it for granted that, unlike your Lordships when we come here—and I forget the full definition of what we are given—if one receives the title one does not receive anything else. What matters is the degree-awarding power in Clause 72 which is not contingent on the title. However, there is a slight complication to which I shall draw your Lordships' attention. It concerns the last part of Clause 73, which says:
"Any educational institution whose name includes the word 'university' by virtue of the exercise of any power as extended by subsection (1) above is to be treated as a university for all purposes".
I hope in a sense that that last part is as vacuous as all the rights and privileges that we receive when we come here, because none of us has ever found out quite what they are; in other words, that it does not mean anything. The reason I say that is that if it means something,
"to be treated as a university for all purposes",
if one has the title "university", what happens to those institutions who choose—I am not saying any will though I have advised one or two to do so—not to use "university" in their title? Will they not then be treated as a university for all purposes? More to the point, will that in some sense detract from the powers to award degrees in Clause 72?
I tabled the amendment in the hope that I would be told that,
"to be treated as a university for all purposes",
is a meaningless expression; what matters is the power to award degrees, but that that will bear no connection whatever to whether anybody applies for a title and that nothing will depend on whether anybody applies for the title "university". I hope that will be the answer. If not, my amendment will turn out to be a good deal more serious than I at first thought. I am seeking elucidation, but I have also outlined what I hope will be the answer to my question.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord for the reasons I shall give, though I cannot accept the amendment.
Subsection (4) ensures that all institutions which include the word "university" in their title cannot be challenged by the argument that, whatever their name, they are not in law universities. But that is all it does.
Amendment No. 167 would re-introduce confusion into this area by providing that an institution which met the criteria to adopt a university title but which for some reason chose not to do so should nonetheless fall within the scope of subsection (4). Every time such an institution asserted that it should be treated as a university it would be necessary to establish afresh whether it satisfied the criteria applied by the Privy
708
Council in permitting an institution to call itself a university. I do not think that would simplify subsection (4); it would render it meaningless.
However, there is a third and I hope more encouraging point I wish to make. An institution which meets the university title criteria but which chooses to retain its present title will be perfectly at liberty to describe itself in those terms. It will need to consider, among other things, whether the marketing advantages of a "university" title outweigh those of its present title. But it can do so firm in the knowledge that all institutions funded by the new higher education funding councils will be treated in the same way, funded by a common funding methodology and assessed by a common quality assessment unit. It will make no difference for those purposes whether an institution is called a university.
I hope that the assurance I have just given is the one which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I take it in particular that under his assurance he means Clause 72. For example, if a body such as the South London Polytechnic still called itself the South London Polytechnic, it would still be judged as an appropriate degree-awarding body. That is the point I have in mind, and there is no doubt about that.
My second question is that in the assurance the Minister gave, I want the further assurance that that is true by statute and not by action on the part of the Secretary of State. In other words, not calling oneself a university still gives one everything one wants under Clause 72 and all the funding as the Bill is written. I did not for one moment think that my amendment was one that should be included in the Bill. What I wanted was a correct interpretation of the Bill for institutions which might decide not to call themselves universities. In other words, am I right in saying that there is no problem? I do not want to prolong the matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Whether or not an institution which meets the criteria for a university title chooses to adopt such a title will not affect that institution's power to award its own taught course and research degrees.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 169:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause: ("University colleges
.—(1) Where an educational institution or a body corporate carrying on such an institution—

(a) is within the higher education sector, and

(b) has power by virtue of any enactment or instrument to change its name, and either

(c) satisfies the Secretary of State that it has for a period of not less than five years been conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by any university existing at the date this Act comes into force or the Council for National Academic Awards or an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title

709
by virtue of section 73 of this Act and that it is currently conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title whether by virtue of section 73 of this Act or otherwise, or

(d) is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of section 72 of this Act as competent to grant degrees

Then the institution or body corporate carrying on the institution may use the expression "university college" in is name
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any institution or body corporate carrying on an institution using the expression "university college" in its name has ceased to conduct courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title or (as the case may be) is no longer specified in an order made under subsection (1) of section 72 of this Act as competent to grant degrees then he may issue a direction forbidding the institution or body carrying on the institution from using the expression "university college" in its name.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I bring your Lordships back to the title of "university college". I speak particularly for those smaller academic institutions which perhaps do not have as many friends and spokesmen in this House as some of the larger institutions. Sometimes, when I look around the House, particularly at this hour of the night, I wonder whether everybody present is the head of an academic institution, if not a vice-chancellor.
I believe that your Lordships will know the concern. Whereas this Bill is welcomed in general terms because it removes the binary line between the universities and the polytechnics, there is concern among the smaller academic institutions that it is merely transferring the binary line and drawing it under the polytechnics with consequent disadvantages for the smaller institutions. There are many colleges with fewer than 4,000 students whose degrees are validated by universities or the CNAA. Therefore, they are doing work comparable to that of universities.
If they cannot use the title "university college" the anxiety is that they will be perceived to be sub-standard higher education institutions. That could make it more difficult for them to attract students and so disadvantage them. In November the Prime Minister told the annual conference of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council:
"This Government is about extending the power to choose. We want to see all forms of higher education have the same status and esteem. We want higher education institutions competing for students on equal terms. We do not want choice influenced by some imaginary or historic status. Rather choice should be based solely on the calibre of the staff, the quality of the institution, the attractions and relevance of the courses; the strength of the institution's record".
In the light of that, with which I wholly agree, we look for more flexibility in the use of the title "university college." I have previously pointed out that a number of existing universities started out on life calling themselves university colleges long before they had 4,000 students. It is an avenue which has served us well in the past. I hope that we are not going to close it now
710
Perhaps I may convey to your Lordships an anxiety which has arisen in connection with recent circulars from the Department of Education. One circular, issued on 16th December, indicates that in the light of the plans for a new framework the Minister does not expect to approve further plans for polytechnic status. That has caused some dismay because some colleges seeking accreditation had already arranged for visits from the CNAA. Those visits are now in question. It appears also from the circular that Ministers are saying that any future applications along these lines will have to include facilities for research degrees. It appears as though someone has seen the horses approaching and not only closed the gate, but added another bar on top. That is causing considerable dismay. Will the Minister agree that in fairness and justice it will be better for the present PCFC criteria to continue until the provisions of the new Bill are in place?
I refer more particularly to the discussions I had with the Minister about this matter when he was kind enough to meet me. We discussed my representations to him, which were particularly the anxieties of the Church colleges. However, I want to underline that I am speaking not just for the Church colleges but for other colleges which have the same anxieties. After our meeting the Minister wrote to me saying:
"I have taken this up with my ministerial colleagues in the DES, but I am sorry that I am not yet able to give you an answer".
I had expected to hear something further. Therefore, I was rather dismayed to discover that a circular was issued only last week on this very matter about which I had not been informed—I had picked it up quite by accident—in which it appears that the department has said that the title "university college" is to be used only where a college is a constituent part of a university.
I am sure that the Minister will understand if I say that I am somewhat dismayed that in the middle of conversations with him, and where from his own letter I had expected to hear further, I then discover that a public circular has been issued. I find that very difficult for parliamentary debate. I recognise that the Minister has many responsibilities and I am not in any way implying a personal criticism of him, but I am sure he will understand my sense of dismay over the matter.
In order to help your Lordships, and in particular the Minister, I cite an example of a way in which flexibility can operate without the need for rather rigid rules. The Minister may be aware that the College of Ripon and York St. John, by agreement with the University of Leeds, calls itself the "university college" of Ripon and York. The degrees awarded are those of the university. Students are students of the university and for all academic purposes the college is subject to council and senate regulations. But the college maintains its Christian foundation. It has its own governing body, it appoints its own staff and admits its own students. Therefore, I find it very difficult to know whether that actually fulfils the definition as to whether or not it is a constituent part of the university. That model indicates that there would be much to be gained by having a greater flexibility and openness in the use of this type of university college.

711
I recognise that my amendment may not be the most appropriate way forward, but it is a way in which we could make progress and at least open up the possibility of a much more flexible approach on this issue. It is in that hope that I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, at Committee stage I had my name to a similar amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. It is only my own slowness that accounts for my name not being on the Marshalled List now.
I repeat my support. The right reverend Prelate has already said everything there is to be said, but I should like to underline that these colleges will be accountable to higher education funding councils in exactly the same way as universities and they will be subject to the same performance indicators and quality assessment procedures. It seems wrong that students in the sector who do not attend universities should be accorded less recognition and status than their contemporaries in the other higher education institutions.
I heard about the circular only today. It is extraordinary that this should have been going on while conversations were still continuing and in the light of what the Minister said at the end of his reply to the right reverend Prelate in Committee. It sounded then as if this matter was still under serious consideration. I hope that we shall have a little clarification, particularly about the college at Ripon. Other colleges are closely linked with universities. Edge Hill is closely linked with Lancaster. It would be nice to have clarification and an explanation.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. We need some definition here. Unless the matter is cleared up and the status of these small colleges is clarified, there is a slight danger of having a left-over of the binary divide.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the admiration of colleges of higher education which has rightly been voiced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford is fully shared by the Government. Colleges, including the Church colleges, have been extremely successful in maintaining high academic standards and in increasing their student numbers. They have proved particularly successful at attracting those who do not have traditional academic backgrounds.
But the issue we have to address in this amendment is whether it is appropriate for all or some of such colleges to be able to adopt a "university college" title. I sought to explain in Committee that Clause 73 already empowered the Privy Council to approve titles which included the word "university" and that there was nothing in the Bill to rule out a change of title from college of higher education to university college. The issue was essentially an administrative one.
I indicated then that the Government would announce their view on the matter once the Secretary of State had had the opportunity to consider the arguments put forward, in particular by the Standing Conference of Principals, which represents the heads of colleges of further education. Therefore, the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate in
712
Committee was under serious consideration, as were the arguments coming from the standing conference. The Minister with responsibility for higher education, Mr. Alan Howarth, has in the meantime met a number of college principals to hear their views at first hand. The Secretary of State then announced his decision by way of a Parliamentary Answer which included the text of a letter from the Department of Education and Science to all institutions. I most certainly owe the right reverend Prelate an apology. He should have received a letter from me, as should the noble Baroness, confirming that this decision had been taken. In fact I wrote over the weekend to the right reverend Prelate, but that does not put the matter right.
The Secretary of State's letter to all institutions included these words:
"The Secretary of State has considered the points made on this matter and has concluded that there should be no change in the current policy. Extending the availability of 'university college' to independent institutions which are not part of a university would cause confusion with established 'university colleges'. The Secretary of State believes nevertheless that Colleges of Higher Education which do not qualify for a university title will be able to maintain their successes over recent years".
My right honourable friend felt that to allow all colleges of higher education to refer to the word "university" in their title when they were not actually constituent parts of a university would make it difficult for a potential student to know whether any particular university college was part of a university or whether it was not.
Of course, there are already established university colleges at the universities of Kent, Durham, Lancaster, York and Wales. I should be interested to look more closely at the college of Ripon and York St. John, which was an example given by the right reverend Prelate. If I may, I should like to write him on that issue. I believe that the matters involved are complex and not entirely straightforward. My understanding is that the circumstances of that college are rare.
Perhaps I may emphasise and reaffirm that, in the Government's view, the standard of education in the colleges of higher education is no different from that in the universities and polytechnics. The issue here is simply that an institution's title should clarify the nature of that institution.
In conclusion, I should like to reply to a point made by the right reverend Prelate on the polytechnic designation issue. As regards polytechnic status, I am advised that it is important to remember that, while that will no longer be possible, the route to university status remains open. It is also the case that that requires an institution to have power to award research degrees as well as taught-course degrees. But the research criteria do not require colleges to overcome any hurdles which polytechnics have not already satisfied.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding so thoroughly and carefully to the points I raised. I am also most grateful for the fact that he is prepared to look further at the unusual model of the college to which I referred.

713
While looking at it, I hope that he will recognise that it indicates that there should be varieties of approach and not just an over-rigid one. I trust that he will be able to consider that point.
I find the Minister's reponse about the applications for polytechnic status slightly less reassuring. However, at this hour of the morning, I have no option but to thank the Minister and to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 169A to 173 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Joint exercise of functions]:
Lord Daintonmoved Amendment No. 173A:

Page 58, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 78, to which the amendment refers, brings us to Part III of the Bill, which relates to miscellaneous and general provisions. The first subsection of Clause 78 allows funding councils to co-operate where this is a perceived advantage. As such, it is not only innocuous but it is also in praise of virtue and against sin. I should imagine that, even without that phrase, the councils would be able to co-operate if they so wished. Therefore, I am not so sure that it adds anything. However, it certainly does not subtract anything.
Subsection (2) cannot be so nicely categorised. The amendment proposes its deletion from the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State, once again, power to direct councils jointly to appoint a single person to investigate the arrangements made by each higher education institution in Great Britain for maintaining academic standards. I was greatly surprised when I first read the subsection and, after some six weeks, I still remain so. It seems to me that the idea underlying it—that is, unless the Minister can give us some assurance—is that, left to themselves, higher education institutions would not strive for the highest academic standards possible within the limits set by the available resources.
I am bound to say that, after a lifetime spent within two large civic universities and in the service of Oxford and Cambridge, I have been made conscious of the strong motivation among academic staff who are striving for quality, which is simply that the better students, whom all university teachers want to recruit, are attracted to those institutions where, other things being equal, the academic reputation is highest. That is the purest example, I suppose, of academic market forces.
How to sustain and improve the good practice needed to achieve those high standards needed to attract students is another matter. Much has already been done in that direction through the well-established external examiner system and the learned and professional societies, which in a wide range of fields such as science, technology, medicine and veterinary studies, are bodies which are also empowered to grant a licence to practise and are therefore especially keen on high standards. Latterly,
714
universities have, in addition, co-operated to establish collective academic audit arrangements, which are working well.
In those circumstances—bearing in mind the duty of quality assessment to which Clause 66, which we have already debated, imposes upon all councils—to give to the Secretary of State the power to appoint, as the subsection prescribes, a single person to assess the arrangements made by each higher education establishment seems to me unnecessary and supererogatory to a degree which can be described only as absurd and counter-productive, unless I have totally misunderstood the intentions of the clause. It is counter-productive merely because it will make those who have to deliver that quality—no one except the teachers delivers it—feel once again that they are not trusted constantly to strive for the best. If that were not enough, there is not one single person living whom I know who is capable of performing the assessment for all the higher education institutions in Great Britain at anything except the most superficial level.
I feel that, ideally, one could do without Clause 78 altogether, but, if we have to have it—we have the encouragement of the councils to co-operate and, as I have said, the first subsection is at least in favour of virtue and against sin—the second is peculiar, and I look forward to hearing some explanation for it. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I support the amendment because Clause 78(2) utterly baffles me. I cannot for the life of me understand why a Secretary of State should desire the power to instruct funding councils jointly to appoint a single person to assess the arrangements made by institutions for maintaining academic standards.
The Bill sets up funding councils which have powers in the matter of academic standards, and rightly so, of course; it also obliges them to have quality assessment committees whose job it is to perform assessments of academic standards. What on earth is that single person to do that the quality assessment committees cannot do? The answer must be that that person is to do the job if the funding councils refuse to do it or have it done.
The Bill is riddled with a barely disguised, almost paranoiac, lack of trust in the bodies that it proposes to create. Why should the Secretary of State be willing to trust his specially appointed inspector when he cannot accept the judgment of his funding councils and of their quality assessment committees? Should he not appoint a succession of inspectors each inspecting the work of the previous one? The whole concept is absurd and unworkable. The only solution is to drop it, which Amendment No. 173A is designed to do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lords who introduced the amendment plainly feel that behind the provision there is great distrust by the Government. Perhaps there is a misinterpretation. This has come up before. In legal language a "person" is not a reference to a single person. Section 5 of the

715
Interpretation Act states that the singular includes the plural. "Person" therefore means persons in the plural.
The Government believe that institutions themselves should be responsible for setting up an organisation to scrutinise internal quality control systems and to ensure that they are satisfactory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is not in her place, said during the debate at Committee stage:
"The prime responsibility for both quality and standards must rest with the universities themselves, both new and old". —[Official Report, 16/12/91; col. 1116.]
The Government agree with that and, I would add, consider that such a responsibility rests also with all institutions in the new higher education system.
The Government are pleased that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals have responded positively to the Government's invitation to establish a body to scrutinise institutions' quality control systems. In our view it is far preferable for institutions themselves to ensure that satisfactory systems are in place than for the Secretary of State to have to intervene.
Precisely because the Government look to institutions to monitor internal quality assurance systems the Bill does not provide for a unit of this type to be established. The Secretary of State does, however, need a reserve power in case the institutions do not succeed. Clause 78(2) enables him to require two or more councils to make provision for the assessment of institutions' arrangements for monitoring academic standards; in other words, to establish a quality audit unit.
I am surprised, incidentally, that noble Lords had such difficulty in identifying this provision during the Committee stage debate. The purpose of this clause was explained clearly in the Notes on Clauses. I am similarly surprised that some noble Lords were seemingly not aware of the proposals submitted to Ministers by the representative organisations of the institutions. Those representative organisations made their proposals public in a press release dated 15th October 1991.
While recognising the institutions' determination to create a unit, and welcoming the progress made to date, it would not be right for the Government to assume that the outcome will inevitably be successful. The Secretary of State must retain the power, in the last resort, to ensure that a satisfactory unit is established and he has concluded that the best way of ensuring that is for him to have the power to direct the funding councils, acting jointly, to arrange the necessary provision.
To delete Clause 78(2) would deprive the Secretary of State of an important reserve power that he may need. It would also give the wrong signal to the institutions. The Government hope and believe they will succeed, but if they do not it is right that the institutions should know what alternative the Government intend to pursue.
After the speeches I have heard from noble Lords I believe that there might have been an element of misunderstanding. I hope very much that I have been able to reassure them.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I am afraid I was unaware of the reference to the work which was done in October 1991. I was completely unaware of the underlying suggestion that it was directed towards encouraging the universities to do this work for themselves. I should like to be reassured that that is the intention and it is only as an extreme last resort that it would be called upon by the Secretary of State, who would direct the councils.
I still do not see why he has to direct the councils to combine to do that. It seems to me that one council might be required to do it for those bodies which it funds and the other council in Scotland would do it for those which it funds. It does not seem to me that it is necessary for them to combine to do it. That said, I am to some degree reassured by what the noble Lord said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Efficiency studies]:
Lord Flowersmoved Amendment No. 173B:
Page 59, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) In this section the expression "management or operations" does not include academic activities carried on by an institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to remove the possibility that the Secretary of State may interfere in academic matters under the guise of improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It excludes any academic interpretation of the phrase "management or operations". The amendment confines itself to that modest action.
However, I wish to point out that I consider the whole clause objectionable because it is unnecessary. I am in no doubt whatever that every university in the land believes that the UFC—or the UGC as it was before—has access to the books of the institution and can, and will, appoint experts to advise it on management or operations if it so chooses. Every university—and I am sure polytechnic—knows it has to provide whatever information is required, provided it does not thereby compromise academic decisions.
Why does the Secretary of State require a clause to provide a power which already exists? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me, even though the amendment itself is addressed to a more specific aspect of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this clause enables the funding councils to arrange studies whose principal purpose is to assist institutions in improving the efficiency with which they manage their finances. This provision is no different from one which currently exists in Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act as applying to higher education corporations. It merely extends the PCFC's existing powers to all higher education institutions reflecting the removal of the binary line.
The purpose of an efficiency study is to assist an institution in achieving its own objectives more effectively and efficiently, thus releasing resources for other purposes. There is an important distinction to be drawn between looking at what an institution is doing and telling an institution what it may or may not do. This clause is about the first provision I have just

717
mentioned, not the second. It is not about interfering in the autonomy of an institution to decide its own objectives—including academic objectives—or to manage itself as it sees fit.
Therefore the clause really is not about academic freedom. If it had been, the Government would have brought forward amendments similar to others which have been discussed earlier. Rather, it is about the funding councils, which have responsibility for allocating large sums of public money to institutions and for ensuring value for money, having the right to take an occasional close look at how those resources are being managed. In a higher education institution it really would make no sense for such a study not to extend to the management of resources spent on academic activities, and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment. But, as I have said, it is not the function of an efficiency study to seek to determine those academic activities. It is possibly that point which caused the noble Lord anxiety. With the reassurances I have given, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, in a moment I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I asked the noble Lord why it was necessary for the Secretary of State in this Bill to take powers which already exist. I am sure the funding council can already do everything this amendment provides for, as the UGC and the UFC have done so for a long time.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have already said this provision is no different from one that currently exists in Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act—I imagine that is what the noble Lord refers to—and that it extends the existing powers of the PCFC to all higher education institutions reflecting the removal of the binary line. If there is something beyond that I have not understood, I shall have to look into it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I shall not press this matter. However, I am not referring to the Education Reform Act. These powers have existed for years and years. They may not be powers laid down by Parliament but they are practices followed by the UFC and by the UGC before it. They are well understood by every university and, I am sure, polytechnic. However, I shall not press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173C not moved.]
Clause 85 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment No. 173D not moved.]
1.15 a.m.
Clause 86 [Interpretation]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 61, line 45, after ("or") insert ("(in their capacity as a local authority)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 86 provides interpretations of a number of terms for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment concerns the interpretation of "local authority" which at present is defined as
718
meaning a county council, a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.
The common council can act in capacities other than as a local authority and the effect of the amendment would be to provide that the common council falls within the definition of a local authority only when acting in its capacity as such. Where the common council, other than in its capacity as a local education authority, holds property on trust and that property happens to be used for the purpose of an institution which is to fall within the new sector, clearly it would not be appropriate for such land to transfer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendments Nos. 175 to 178:
Page 79, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert:
("( ) for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Secretary of State may direct for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education—

(a) at schools,

(b) at any institution maintained or assisted by them which provides higher education or further education (or both),

(c) at any institution within the further education sector, or

(d) at any institution outside the further education sector and higher education sector, where a further education funding council has secured provision for those persons at the institution under section 4(2A) or (2C) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

and any transport provided in pursuance of such arrangements shall be provided free of charge."").
Page 79, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert:
("( ) for subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) Arrangements made by a local education authority under subsection (1) above shall make provision—

(a) for pupils at grant-maintained schools which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils at schools maintained by a local education authority,

(b) for persons receiving full-time education at any institution within the further education sector which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils of the same age at schools maintained by a local education authority, and

(c) for persons receiving full-time education at institutions mentioned in subsection (1) (d) above which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements—

(i) for persons of the same age with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 41(9) of this Act) at schools maintained by a local education authority, or

(ii) where there are no such arrangements, for such persons for whom the authority secures the provision of education at any other institution.", and").

Page 79, leave out lines 37 to 42.
Page 79, line 48, leave out ("within the further education sector") and insert ("mentioned in subsection (1) (c) or (d) above").

719
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are amendments to Schedule 8 to the Bill. They serve two important purposes. Most importantly, they clarify the extent of the local education authorities' duty to provide transport to students with learning difficulties in the further education funding council sector. The need for clarification in this area was highlighted during Committee stage, during which it became apparent that the Bill as drafted does not make sufficiently clear where the statutory responsibility lies for providing transport for students with learning difficulties who are placed in institutions outside the further and higher education sectors by the further education funding councils. The proposed amendment will place a clear duty on local education authorities to provide transport in such cases.
The remaining amendments are purely presentational: they are designed to clarify the way in which the provisions relating to transport are set out in the Bill and hence by amendment in the Education Act 1944. As such I hope that they will be welcomed and that your Lordships will feel that the amendments are on the right lines. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 176, which is in response to an amendment which I moved in Committee. It tidies up the confused position on transport responsibilities in a very satisfactory manner. It is particularly welcome that the provision for students with learning difficulties is extended to the age of 25.
I have one worry. At present some local authorities provide transport for part-time students. By specifying full-time students the amendment may have the effect of discouraging that. That would penalise the most severely disabled students, those who are least able to study full time and most in need of transport help. Can the Minister comment briefly and say whether part-time students are meant to be included? Is he prepared to consider making a minor change to the wording at Third Reading so that they are not excluded?
That is a detail, although a very important one for the students concerned. On the broad front I should like to echo my enthusiastic welcome for the amendment, particularly the extension to the age of 25. I thank the Minister very warmly for being so constructive and helpful in this matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter which my noble friend Lord Cavendish dealt with in negotiation with the noble Baroness and other colleagues. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for staying until this late hour and for pursuing the matter to a conclusion which the noble Baroness feels is successful.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for giving notice of her question. The amendment does not include part-time students, but local education authorities will continue to have discretion to make provision for them. As that leaves the law as it is at present, that is as far as we feel we ought to go.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.178A:
Page 80, line 9, after ("Acts") insert ("1944 to 1992").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, together with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 179A and 179B. The amendments add the words "1944 to 1992" to the references to the Education Acts —there are three references to the Education Acts—so that they correspond to the relevant definition in Clause 90(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.179:
Page 80, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert ("Section 77 (inspection of educational establishments) shall cease to have effect in relation to any institution other than a school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a Government amendment has already been moved inserting a new clause after Clause 52. This concerns the inspection of local authority institutions other than schools by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools in England and Wales and by local education authorities. Inspection of schools would be outside the scope of the Bill. The effect of the new clause after Clause 52 is to supersede the provisions of Section 77 of the Education Act 1944 except in so far as they apply to schools. For that reason, this amendment to Schedule 8 to the Bill provides that Section 77 of the 1944 Act shall cease to have effect in relation to any institutions other than a school.
I should like to add in response to apprehensions expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in the debate on Amendment No. 122 that the replacement of the provisions in Section 77 by the clause after Clause 52 does not in any way prejudice local education authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendments Nos. 179A and 179B:
Page 85, line 39, after ("Acts") insert ("1944 to 1992").
Page 85, line 50, after ("Acts") insert ("1944 to 1992").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.180:
Page 88, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert ("for paragraph 1(4) there is substituted—
"(4) A corporation may change their name with the consent of the Privy Council."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No.164. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No.181:
Page 95, leave out lines 38 to 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No.179. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past one o'clock.

  IRAQ: ECONOMIC BLOCKADE OF KURDISH AREAS
  IRAQ: ECONOMIC BLOCKADE OF KURDISH AREAS
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DEPORTATIONS AND ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DEPORTATIONS AND ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
  GULF WAR: PROSECUTION OF WAR CRIMINALS
  GULF WAR: PROSECUTION OF WAR CRIMINALS
  GULF WAR: COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES
  GULF WAR: COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 10th/ 11th JANUARY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 10th/ 11th JANUARY
  HOSPITAL TRUSTS: MEMBERSHIP
  HOSPITAL TRUSTS: MEMBERSHIP
  MOTHERWELL: SOCIAL FUND ALLOCATION
  MOTHERWELL: SOCIAL FUND ALLOCATION
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING: CONSULTANTS' REPORT
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING: CONSULTANTS' REPORT
  COUNTY HALL
  COUNTY HALL
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SCHEDULE 14(4)(2)
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SCHEDULE 14(4)(2)