Sitting of 11 June 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
PRICES'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords] (By Order)
ULSTER BANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time, and committed.
KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Wednesday 17 June at Seven o'clock.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second tune on Thursday 18 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Growth Rates
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many G7 countries will have had a lower average annual rate of growth than the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1992, using the latest International Monetary Fund forecast for 1992.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): None. But between 1981 and 1991, of the G7 countries, only Japan had a substantially higher average annual rate of growth than the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Quin: The Minister confirms that the answer is none. Given the low rate of growth that we have experienced since 1979, despite North sea oil, the current weak levels of investment and our record balance of payments problem, how do the Government expect us to obtain increased, long-term and sustainable growth in future years?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady misinterprets my answer. She chose her years carefully to obtain the answer, but she knows that during the 1980s the United Kingdom had a good rate of growth. Between 1981 and 1989, we had eight years of growth averaging more than 3 per cent. a year, and between 1980 and 1990 our rate of growth was faster than that of Germany, France and Italy. By comparison, in the 1960s and the 1970s, we were at the bottom of the league. There is no reason why we should not get back to those high levels of growth.
    Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly right about the growth rates in the mid-1980s. Does he agree, however, that if we are to return to those growth rates he must, first, cut interest rates further and, secondly, severely restrain the growth in public expenditure—and I mean severely? What are my right hon. Friend's policies in that regard?
    Mr. Portillo: I am sure that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been able to do in bringing down interest rates from 15 to 10 per cent. is an important precondition for recovery. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we should fulfil our pledge to reduce our public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product and, in the medium-term, to eliminate our borrowing. Those are important economic objectives.
    Mr. William Ross: If, as the Minister says, a decrease in interest rates is a precondition for recovery, when does he expect to fulfil that precondition and substantially decrease interest rates?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair about recent events. Since the autumn of 1990 interest rates have been reduced on nine separate occasions and they have fallen from 15 to 10 per cent. That is an important change and it is an important precondition for recovery.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend give me his judgment on the prospects for economic growth and confidence if the Opposition's policies had been put into effect after the general election?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has no responsibility for that scenario.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Chief Secretary accept that, in view of today's disappointing Confederation of British Industry survey on sales, an apparent post-election recovery has petered out already? Surely, given the continuing malaise in the economy and the constantly rising levels of unemployment and bankruptcies, action must be taken by the Government to stimulate the economy with an early cut in interest rates, such as has been advocated by the chief economist of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Portillo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has possibly not yet had the time to study what the CBI distributive trades survey shows. It shows a strong improvement in business confidence, which bears out a number of recent surveys of business confidence. Confidence is now at the highest level since August 1988 and the distributive trade sector improved strongly in May to plus 32 per cent. It is useful so soon after the election to have confirmation from the Labour party that it would not wish to follow prudent fiscal policies and that it would be interested in moving to lower interest rates, whether that was prudent or not. I am sure that the public, especially the investing public, will note that.

    Retail Prices Inflation
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of retail prices inflation in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) the European Community as a whole.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): In April, retail price inflation was 4.3 per cent. in the United Kingdom; consumer price inflation was 4.6 per cent. in Germany and 4.8 per cent. in the European Community as a whole.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the announcement on Tuesday that producer price inflation is at the reduced level of 3.6 per cent? Does he agree that that figure, coupled with the figure for wage inflation which is also falling, means that British businesses can look forward to an excellent future in a highly competitive position vis-a-vis the rest of Europe, in which we shall be poised to improve on our present position?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because producer price inflation is a good indicator of what we may expect in future for retail prices inflation. If we take out food, drink and tobacco, which were influenced by price increases in the Budget, producer output inflation was 2.7 per cent. in May, down from 5.4 per cent. a year earlier. That is the lowest rate of increase since June 1969. That is a very clear message and indicator of the way in which inflation pressure has abated in our economy. As my hon. Friend says, that bodes well for the future.
    Mr. Beith: Is the target for inflation now 2 per cent., as the Chancellor says, or zero per cent., as the Prime Minister implies when he talks about stable prices? Does the Chancellor recognise the tendency of inflation to increase in the British economy when there is growth, or is he no longer worried about that now that the growth forecast has been revised from 1 per cent. to 0.5 per cent?
    Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said that our ambition is to get price stability. The hon. Gentleman may remember that we had a discussion about that in the Select Committee and said that, because of changes in the retail prices index, 2 per cent. was probably the equivalent of price stability because the index did not capture all goods and services that come on to the market. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that we need to improve the working of the economy—the supply side—to ensure that we do not have a resurgence of inflation when growth is more firmly based.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that success in bringing down inflation is a prerequisite of lower interest rates? There has been a welcome fall in wage increases in manufacturing industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a similar fall in wage settlements in the public and service sectors?
    Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that the public sector sets an example and that wage settlements in the public sector are based strictly on what is affordable and what is needed to recruit and retain people in the public service. We cannot go beyond that or we would be asking the private sector to bear the whole burden of adjustment, which would be extremely unfair and unwelcome.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Chancellor accept that the underlying rate of inflation, which excludes mortgage interest—which he has favoured in the past over the retail prices index and which is a more appropriate comparison anyway—still shows us performing worse than Germany and worse than the European average? Even that has been purchased at a horrendous cost in terms of recession and unemployment.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman should make himself clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] No, he is contradicting himself. First he says that the underlying rate of inflation is too high and then he says that the policies to get it down are too painful. I have always made it clear that we want not only to get the headline rate down but to get the underlying rate of inflation down. That is coming down and the differential between our underlying rate, minus mortgage interest payments, vis-a-vis that of Germany has narrowed considerably in the past year.

    Racehorses
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about differing VAT levels throughout Europe on the sale of racehorses; and if he will make a statement.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): We have received many representations about the different rates of VAT within the European Community on the sale of racehorses. I understand the concerns of the bloodstock

    433
    industry about the potential position next year, and we are working with industry representatives to explore the options open to them.
    Mr. Alexander: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he bear it in mind that the Irish rate is 2.3 per cent. and that the French rate is 5.5 per cent? Will he bear it in mind also that large sums are involved in the sale of a racehorse and that it will be much easier for organisations such as Tattersall's and other dealers to take their entire operations to a country where the tax regime is much more favourable? Will my right hon. Friend look at this question urgently and make sure that our breeders and dealers are no worse off than if their business operations were in other parts of the European Community?
    Sir John Cope: We are indeed looking carefully at this question, but anybody who is considering moving his business operation should think carefully before doing so because, apart from anything else, the French have not got permission for their reduced rate, although they claim to have it. There is opposition to it from both the Commission and ourselves.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister consider giving the same sort of consideration to greyhounds and whippets?
    Sir John Cope: Of course.
    Mr. Paice: I thank my right hon. Friend for his obvious commitment to finding a solution. We greatly appreciate the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) when she held his position. She tried very hard to find a way to deal with this matter. The industry employs about 8,000 people. This country is pre-eminent in the industry and has a positive balance of trade. If we do not find a way through, we shall lose it all. Moreover, the Treasury will lose the VAT.
    Sir John Cope: One should not be too apocalyptic about it. Apart from VAT, the racing industry has a number of troubles. Nevertheless, I fully understand the points that my hon. Friend has made.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had recently with the mortgage lenders association regarding interest rates.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My right hon. Friend met the Council of Mortgage Lenders on 2 June. A number of issues were discussed on that occasion.
    Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he recognise that the average mortgage interest rate is still 10.98 per cent. and that since the Tories came to power in 1979 there have been only two months when interest rates were below 10 per cent? Does the Minister recognise that, for many people, continuation of the abolition of stamp duty will not be as important as getting mortgage interest rates below 10 per cent. and keeping them there?
    Mr. Nelson: It is a sign of success, rather than failure, that the Government's economic policies have led to nine successive reductions in interest rates, amounting to 5 per cent. The average mortgage interest rate is now under 11
    434
    per cent. On a typical £30,000 endowment mortgage, payments are down by £85 a month since October 1990. By any account, that is considerable progress.
    Mr. Colvin: The House is aware of the value of mortgage interest tax relief to home buyers, but has my hon. Friend considered the introduction of a more general housing tax allowance that could be made available to those who rent their homes as well as to those who buy their homes? That would help to bring down the net cost of renting and would also help to bring on to the market some of the 650,000 dwellings that at present are sitting empty.
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. We acknowledge the importance of the private rented sector. The cost of mortgage interest relief is considerable. The Government have already introduced a number of expensive and worthwhile measures to encourage the private rented sector.
    Mr. Battle: Will the Government admit that, according to their figures, since they introduced their relief scheme the number of people in mortgatge arrears who have been taken before the courts has increased every month this year? Will the Government now accept that the scheme has proved to be ineffective and a damp squib? Will they immediately consider a scheme to convert mortgages into rents to ease the mortgage misery faced by many millions of people?
    Mr. Nelson: That is certainly not the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which estimates that, as a result of the package of measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, there will be about 55,000 fewer repossessions this year than would otherwise have been the case.
    Mr. Nicholls: Contrary to what my hon. Friend has just heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the mortgage rescue scheme has been very successful in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend refute the suggestion, implicit in what has been said, that there could ever be a time when some homes are not repossessed? Is it not significant that fewer than 0.5 per cent. of all existing mortgage holders are in danger of having their homes repossessed?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the figure is less than 0.5 per cent., although the Government acknowledge that in each individual case that means real distress for the family involved. However, we cannot indemnify every possible position. The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend have brought real relief to many tens of thousands of people.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister recall that when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced his scheme just before Christmas, he claimed that it would help some 40,000 families? Most hon. Members understood him to be saying that that would be achieved by August. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that fewer than 10 families have been helped? If so, as both the problem and the money that the Government set aside to solve it still exist, why do not the Government announce an extension of the scheme?
    Mr. Nelson: I think that I can help the hon. Lady because her facts and her understanding are wrong. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has confirmed that, in its

    435
    opinion, the package introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will save not 10 but 55,000 people from repossessions. It is true that only a limited number of people are being helped by schemes at present, but that is also a reflection of the fact that many people have been saved from repossessions and so are able to continue to occupy their homes.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why there have been so many reductions in interest rates is that the markets have considerable confidence in the Government? Does he further agree that, to retain that confidence and to make further interest rate reductions possible, we need policies to ensure that public expenditure is restrained and that pay policies in both the public and the private sectors are moderate in the forthcoming pay round?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right; the Government are fully committed to constraining public expenditure and reducing inflation. That is the surest way to bring about further reductions in interest rates and mortgage interest rates.

    VAT
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of VAT in 1979 and in each succeeding year.
    Sir John Cope: From 18 June 1979 the highest rate of VAT, which was 12½ per cent. was abolished and the standard rate of VAT was increased from 8 per cent. to 15 percent. On 1 April 1991 that rate was increased to 17½ per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister acknowledge that VAT was 8 per cent. when the Labour Government left office but that it is now 17.5 per cent.—an increase of 119 per cent? Does not that bear heavily on poorer homes? The Government claim that they are reducing taxation and many people appear to believe that. Does the Minister agree that the conclusion to be drawn from that is that although the Government are not good at reducing taxation, they are most adept at black propaganda?
    Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention only to the standard rate of VAT in 1979. Of course, what matters is real disposable incomes, not just the tax burden. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies said, there were real gains in all parts of income distribution between 1979 and 1988.
    Mr. Dunn: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is no question whatsoever of the United Kingdom being forced to give up zero rates?
    Sir John Cope: I can indeed. Our zero rates are guaranteed by the sixth VAT directive and they can be changed only by the unanimous agreement of all member states. Obviously, we have no intention of agreeing to that.
    Dr. Marek: May I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time as the Paymaster General? Will he not be corrupted immediately by using selective statistics and admit that the burden of taxation has gone up and that, in spite of what it says, the Conservative party has increased the burden of taxation on the British people compared with the days when Labour was in office? Will he also
    436
    make the pledge that the Prime Minister made before the election, that the scope of VAT will not be widened one iota during this Parliament?
    Sir John Cope: I am happy to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in so far as I can add anything to it. Obviously, we stand entirely by what he said. On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I certainly have not been corrupted and I have no intention of being corrupted. The statistics that I gave are the relevant statistics and they are extremely important to the people concerned. In any case, the amount of taxation to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred concerned VAT.

    Building Societies
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates building societies objected to the unequal impact of the Income Tax (Building Society) Regulations 1986; and how many judicial reviews have ensued.
    Mr. Nelson: Building societies have raised this issue on a number of occasions. The 1986 regulations have been subject to judicial review, and further action is under way arising out of legislation last year.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is unparalleled interference in the conclusions of the courts; that there is an unequal impact on building societies, whereby the Woolwich is separated from the Leeds, the Loughborough, the Greenwich and others; that it is unjust to treat people in different ways; and that that approach will be unsustainable when the matter gets to Europe? Would it not be a good idea if my hon. Friend and his colleagues got together with some of the affected societies and drew the sorry business to a conclusion? That would probably be done at a cost of less than £100 million out of the £15,000 million of taxation imposed on building societies over the past five years.
    Mr. Nelson: I understand why my hon. Friend feels that the regulations were unfair, but I do not agree with him. The matter was carefully considered during debates on section 53 of the Finance Act 1991 and Parliament accepted that the 1986 transitional provisions did not involve double taxation. What is now in question in the Leeds case is not transitional tax due from building societies but mainstream composite rate tax, for a number of years payable by all CRT payers. The Government are right to put that beyond question by confirming the intention of Parliament.

    Exchange Rate Mechanism
    Mr. Martin Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the operation of the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend regularly attends meetings of the European Council of Finance Ministers with his Community colleagues. The operation of the exchange rate mechanism has been discussed at a number of past meetings.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Chancellor say whether a revaluation upwards of the deutschmark within the ERM would be good or bad for the British economy?
    Mr. Nelson: It is not for my right hon. Friend or for me to comment on prospective movements in exchange rates.
    Mr. Morgan: Why not?
    Mr. Nelson: What it is right for the Government to comment on is that we are committed firmly to maintaining our position within the exchange rate parameters, which we have done to the benefit of the country in terms of a sound exchange rate, and reducing the levels of inflation and interest rates.
    Mr. Renton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that sterling being within the exchange rate mechanism has added considerably to the stability of sterling in the past 18 months? Will he confirm also that it is the Government's wish to enter the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism in due course? Has my hon. Friend any idea when that might be practicable?
    Mr. Nelson: We will move in due course to the narrow band at the current central parity of DM2.95 to the pound. In the meantime, it is our firm intention to remain in parity with all the existing currencies within the exchange rate parameters.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister let the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answer this question so that he can make a statement not only about the exchange rate mechanism and whether it will be shifted, but about the principle of the common market in the Maastricht treaty? Let him stand up and tell us. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has answered—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend and I are at one on this issue as, indeed, on all others.
    Mr. Winterton: I fully accept that the ERM is an efficient anti-inflationary discipline, but does my hon. Friend accept that if we could react to the health of our economy, with inflation just above 4 per cent., interest rates in Britain could be reduced to 8 per cent. if we were outside the ERM? That would be of immense benefit to manufacturing and to mortgage payers in Britain.
    Mr. Nelson: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I do not agree and nor do the Government. Indeed, a strong case could be put that interest rates would have to be higher if we were outside the ERM rather than within it.

    Inflation
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer of 21 May, Official Report, column 494, what evidence he has suggesting that inflation will fall to 1½ per cent. by mid 1993.
    Mr. Nelson: The forecast for producer-price inflation is underpinned by the prospect of further marked improvement in unit labour cost performance. Lower wage settlements have still to feed through fully into earnings, and productivity will continue to recover.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that if producer-price inflation dropped to 1½ per cent., it would mean that the economy was flat on its back? Is it not also
    438
    true that if the economy took off, inflation would inevitably rise because Britain has lost its productive capacity?
    Mr. Nelson: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that economies such as Germany and Japan, which have low producer-price inflation, can hardly be described as flat on their backs—far from it. Low inflation of both retail and producer prices is more likely to lead to sound economic growth.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that long-term low inflation and long-term growth depend on our international competitiveness, which is a lot better now than a decade ago?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Confidence is returning. That is reflected most markedly perhaps by the substantial and buoyant levels of inward investment.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Chief Secretary have a word with the Prime Minister when he returns and tell him to desist from the practice of continually switching to the measure of inflation which gives the Government the greatest short-run presentational benefits? They switch from headline inflation to core inflation to underlying inflation and now to the new measure of factory gate inflation. To most people in the street, that means that the price of factory gates has fallen but nothing else. I understand that the word "portillo" means factory gate in Spanish, unless my Castilian has been struck by lightning. Perhaps that is one reason why the Government use that measure—I do not know—but I should be grateful if the Minister would have a word with the Prime Minister and tell him to stop trying to deceive the British public.
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman's complaint should be with not the Prime Minister but his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked the question about producer-price inflation. I am entitled to reply by pointing out that producer-price inflation, which was down to 2.7 per cent. in May, is the lowest for some 23 years. That is surely good news which the whole House welcomes.

    European Community (Contributions)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community in 1991; and what it is expected to be in 1992.
    Mr. Lamont: The United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community budget in 1991 was £545 million. It is forecast to be £2.6 billion in 1992.
    Mr. Riddick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on defeating the wholly unwarranted and expansionary budget plan proposed by Jacques Delors earlier this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that so long as Britain makes such massive net contributions to help the supposedly poor countries of the European Community —Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece—we shall find it virtually impossible to meet the United Nations target for overseas aid to third-world countries in genuine need?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He will be encouraged to know that the majority

    439
    of European Community Finance Ministers agreed with him because they took the view that the proposals by the President of the Commission for an expansion of the Community budget were not justified. That must be right when one considers that the suggestion is that the Community should expand spending at the rate of about 5.6 per cent. per annum in real terms. Frankly, that is unaffordable. As my hon. Friend said, it is extremely difficult for Finance Ministers in each country to justify economy at home when such incredible extravagance is proposed at European Community level.
    Mr. Dalyell: Yah-boo apart, is the House of Commons not entitled to a serious answer from the Chancellor about the Chief Secretary's attitude to that matter?
    Mr. Lamont: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is strongly in favour of economy in the European Community budget. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman expects anything else.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government are serious about reducing public expenditure, as they ought to be in view of the forecasts of how it is rising, a good place to start is our net contribution to Brussels? Should it not be reduced rather than increased?
    Mr. Lamont: I have already explained the position that the Government and the majority of other Governments in Europe take. The Community ought to take into account the fact that, even within the existing own resources ceiling, there is plenty of room for increased expenditure. Under the existing guidelines, it could increase by more than 3 per cent. per annum in real terms. The ambitious plans for interference in European industry and trans-European networks are not projects that we can endorse. I accept my hon. Friend's point. There are many competing claims for public expenditure in this country, and Europe ought to take that into account before telling us that we should economise at home.

    VAT
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any recent representations to make changes to value added tax rates.
    Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend receives many representations on taxation.
    Mr. Bayley: As the Minister responsible for setting VAT rates, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the current percentage rate charged on the following products: a milk chocolate digestive biscuit, a deep frozen chocolate mousse, and a Kit Kat bar? If he cannot give an answer, will he get rid of the confusion by rating all such products at the general food rate of zero?
    Sir John Cope: It would probably be more useful if I told the hon. Gentleman that Customs and Excise are reviewing legislation on the VAT treatment of snacks to take account of developments in the market.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the opportunity on Tuesday to raise with Commissioner Scrivener her reported comment that she will take Britain to court next year if we have not charged VAT on food, electricity and gas? Has he received any
    440
    legal advice from Government officials on whether the Commission would have the right to go to the court to seek to oblige Britain to charge VAT on those items—which are zero-rated—under the terms of the Single European Act, which calls on member states to charge VAT at a harmonised level, as is necessary to complete the internal market?
    Sir John Cope: We have received legal advice and are satisfied that all our zero rates meet the criteria of the sixth directive, which is what matters. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it would take unanimity in the Council of Ministers to alter that, and we obviously would not agree.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The whole House will welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government intend neither to widen the scope of VAT nor to increase the rates. I invite him to give that assurance to the House.
    Sir John Cope: We have no plans and no need to raise or extend VAT, as my right hon. Friends have said on numerous occasions.

    Economic Policy
    Mr. Willetts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss economic policy.
    Mr. Lamont: I meet the Director General of the CBI from time to time to discuss a broad range of matters.
    Mr. Willetts: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest quarterly CBI industrial trends survey, which shows a big improvement in export orders and business confidence? Is he aware that since the general election, we have seen the biggest improvement in business optimism since 1988?
    Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend and, indeed, the evidence of the May survey was extremely encouraging. The script attached to it of the evidence from the CBI stated:
    "Evidence from the latest CBI surveys continues to suggest that the economic recovery is, at last, on the way … the CBI's latest economic forecast suggests that growth will resume in the second quarter of this year and continue throughout 1992 and 1993."
    That was the opinion of the CBI and it is welcome.
    Mr. John Evans: What response does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have to the statement of Sir Antony Pilkington, the chairman of the St. Helens glassmakers who had to cut the dividend for the first time and see profits collapse, that the Chancellor is killing British industry and that he has not met one business man who can see any signs of any economic upturn whatever?
    Mr. Lamont: It so happens that I had dinner with Sir Antony Pilkington last week and he assured me that he wholly supported Government policy.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When considering calls from the CBI and others to cut interest rates, will my right hon. Friend consider the position in the United States where interest rates have been cut to 3.5 per cent. but where recovery remains elusive and long-term market rates remain almost as high as in this country? Does that not illustrate that the real problem is a shortage of capital in international markets and an imbalance between savings and consumption, particularly Government consumption,

    441
    internationally? Bearing that in mind, does he agree that premature cuts in interest rates would exacerbate the problems by reducing incentives to invest?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point in reminding us that the function of interest rates is to balance investment and savings. It is necessary both to attract the relevant amount of capital and to encourage savings. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise that it is the long-term rate of interest which is particularly important for investment. Unless we have tight control of public spending it will be more difficult to get interest rates down. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is absolutely right that economy in public spending is essential.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects Britain's balance of trade to be in surplus.
    Mr. Portillo: The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" forecast for the current account was for a deficit of £6½ billion in 1992 and £9 billion at an annual rate in the first half of 1993. Forecasts for future years are not available.
    Mr. Hall: That reply from the Chief Secretary in no way answers my question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will ask the question again because that answer demonstrates the Government's dangerous contempt for our balance of trade deficit. Will the Chief Secretary answer the specific question: when will our trade next be in surplus? Will he tell the House whether he agrees with the advice of the President of the Board of Trade to the Conservative Government not to argue that the balance of trade deficit is easy to manage and would not be a problem for the Government to cope with?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's substantive question was answered in what I said. I told him that we made no forecasts beyond the first half of 1993. He asked about the sustainability or manageability of the current account deficit. At about 1 per cent. of gross domestic product it is indeed sustainable. At present we are seeing a substantial inflow of investment into this country. There is strong investment in particular from the United States and Japan, which tends to demonstrate that there is no difficulty in funding the deficit.
    Mr. John Greenway: Although that inward investment is particularly welcome, does my right hon. Friend agree that in terms of Britain's balance of payments our overseas investment into other countries has increased in value in the past year by substantially more than our trade imbalance?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will recognise that that inward investment helps the very significant growth that there has been in our exports. Our growth in manufactured exports is showing up now compared with world trade. During the 1980s the proportion of our manufactures fell as part of world trade. Since 1988, there has been a marked increase.
    Mr. Barnes: If the Minister will not give an estimate of when we shall next be in surplus, will he give us a guess?
    Mr. Portillo: I made this perfectly clear to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). We have produced a forecast for 1993. Our export volume is extremely high. We are now seeing some increase in imports which, because they tend to centre around basic materials, provide some evidence of recovery which the hon. Gentleman should welcome.

    Policy Priorities
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his policy priorities during the British presidency of the EC Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lamont: The United Kingdom's key priorities are the completion of the single market, enlargement of the Community, and working towards a conclusion on the Community's future financing.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that financial orthodoxy is one of the most important priorities for the presidency of the Community? I hope that he will follow that in the months to come.
    Mr. Lamont: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Remember to give short answers.
    Mr. Newton: I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is in his usual friendly form.
    I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Rio de Janeiro to attend the Earth summit and will have bilateral meetings later today with various Heads of Government.
    Mr. Darling: Why did the Secretary of State for Social Security need to issue a statement yesterday expressing his confidence in and support for the Prime Minister's policies?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security clearly thought—in my view, rightly—that his position had been misconstrued and that it was sensible to make that clear. I am glad to note that in some quarters journalists have begun to question the interpretation that had been placed on a meeting which had been interpreted as a conspiracy, but which appeared to have Government Whips present.[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House should come to order and let us get on with our business properly.
    Mr. Biffen: During my right hon. Friend's hitherto busy day, has he borne constantly in mind the speech made just under four years ago in which Mr. Jacques Delors said that 80 per cent. of economic decisions and perhaps even 80 per cent. of fiscal and social decisions should be subject to initiation at Community level? Does my right hon.

    443
    Friend agree that that is the unacceptable ambition of political centralism? Does he further agree that, in those circumstances, the reappointment of Mr. Delors would be provocative and counter-productive? May I say that my question was formulated without the assistance of the Whips?
    Mr. Newton: I think that I could have guessed that.
    The British Government's position on subsidiarity is that we are concerned to enhance and underpin the concept. The Maastricht agreement did precisely that, and the British Government will continue to pursue that objective.
    Mr. Hattersley: Why did the Government promise that after 1 April no patient would have to wait more than two years for hospital admission?
    Mr. Newton: The Government made commitments in the patients charter and in relation to the development of health service policies that the aim was to ensure that no one should have to wait more than two years for treatment. Huge progress has been made in that, with a drop of nearly 50,000 in the numbers awaiting treatment in the year running up to April. It is obviously a disappointment that there was a small increase in April. That is now being addressed.
    Mr. Hattersley: I will give the Leader of the House credit for getting the statement wrong by mistake rather than by intention. The document that went through every door in the land guaranteed—the Government's word—that after 1 April—the Government's date—no one would wait longer than two years. Did the Government ever really mean that, or was it just pre-election propaganda?
    Mr. Newton: Not merely did the Government mean it, but a huge improvement, to which I referred, has been delivered. That progress will be reinforced by the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has taken.
    Mr. Hattersley: Whether or not the Government meant it, they clearly failed in that ambition. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those citizens who believed that the Government were honest in the guarantee that after 1 April they would not have to wait for more than two years but who now find that they are having to wait for more than two years because the Government failed to keep a promise which was made purely for electoral purposes?
    Mr. Newton: A reduction in the number of patients waiting over two years from more than 50,000 to fewer than 2,000 in a year is hardly a failure of ambition.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fighting the international drugs trade is vitally important? Will he join me in congratulating the Prime Minister on his announcement yesterday in Colombia?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The illicit drugs trade is an international problem which demands an international response. What
    444
    the Prime Minister has agreed with the Colombian Government in the last few days represents a significant and valuable advance.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to the people of Northern Ireland why, despite the Government's promise that hospital waiting lists would be reduced, they have been going up rather than going down and today we have had the announcement of further hospital beds being closed although people are waiting for treatment.
    Mr. Newton: I have made the Government's position absolutely clear on that matter. Whether in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, the Government are determined to deliver the improvement in service set out in the citizens charter and the patients charter. Further progress has still to be made, but the progress already made is striking.
    Mr. Richard Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some local education authorities are discriminating against pupils who attend grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that any authority that treats children in that way is not fit to be called an education authority?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend and join him in deploring what has been reported in relation to some local authorities' attitudes towards children at grant-maintained schools or, for that matter, at city technology colleges. For once, I wish to pay a compliment to the Opposition Front Bench. I was pleased to read the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) yesterday, which suggested a responsible shift, for once, in the Opposition's position.
    Mr. O'Brien: How do the Government intend to reduce the waiting time for operations in hospital, as people are now having to wait over two years?
    Mr. Newton: I do not know how many times I have to say this to get it understood— [Interruption.] For those waiting over two years, there has been a movement of 400, in relation to a total number of operations running into many hundreds of thousands, and against the background of a reduction from more than 50,000 to fewer than 2,000 over the year before. We intend to maintain that improvement.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by NatWest to return £33 million to Maxwell pensioners is good news for those concerned, and also an example to others who hold Maxwell pension fund money?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. What has happened is a substantial vindication of the approach and effective package announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this week. I hope that that will be of especial comfort to my hon. Friend, as I know how much effort he has put in on behalf of Maxwell pensioners in his constituency.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Reid: Will the Leader of the House describe to my constituents in the Bellshill area some of the supposed advantages of the specialisation that would accompany the opting out of the local hospital? In particular, will he identify the services that could be regarded as non-essential or peripheral and may be curtailed or closed down according to the law of supply and demand? I should tell him that the local hospital is the Bellshill maternity hospital.
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have noted the reference to a particular hospital. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman's constituents is that if they are in any doubt they should come and visit the growing number of trust hospitals and talk to the staff and patients, who are experiencing the benefits.
    Mr. Gorst: As the British Government are a signatory to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government feel that they should do to protect the family life and privacy of the royal family who, after all, are entitled to the same consideration as other members of the community?
    Mr. Newton: I made some observations on that subject on Tuesday. I am sure that people both outside and inside the House will take note of my hon. Friend's concern, which has been added to that expressed in other quarters earlier this week.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: The Lord President of the Council will no doubt recall that in a previous Parliament I introduced the Consumer Guarantees Bill, which endeavoured to give rights to people who had purchased shoddy goods. The Bill was killed by Conservative Members. It had no Government support, but offers were made for guarantees to be considered. Will the new Government and the Prime Minister consider guarantees and give people real rights instead of the confetti of charters?
    Mr. Newton: I had better acknowledge that I am not familiar with all the details of the hon. Gentleman's proposed private Member's Bill, but the Government already have a considerable record in protecting the rights
    446
    of consumers of all kinds, and a continued determination to do so. Indeed, we have greatly improved the rights of consumers of public services.
    Mr. Cash: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), about Mr. Delors, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in line with the EC principle that everybody seems to like to move step by step, there could at least be a review of Mr. Delors' position, if not an announcement that he will not be reappointed?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, who puts his question a little more gently than did my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), will be aware that those are matters for consideration at the Lisbon Council. It would not be sensible for me to go further than I already have in respect of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watson: Following the decision of the Danish people to reject the Maastricht agreement, the Prime Minister and the Government have stressed their commitment to ratifying the treaty. Whether or not the people of the United Kingdom are also given a referendum —I, for one, am not afraid to trust them on constitutional matters—a fundamental cornerstone of the treaty remains subsidiarity, to which the Leader of the House referred in answer to a previous question. On the Prime Minister's return from Rio, will the Leader of the House urge him to accept that the principle of subsidiarity must also be applied within the United Kingdom, starting with a referendum to allow the Scottish people to decide their constitutional future?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no plans for a referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made perfectly clear on a number of occasions. The principle of subsidiarity already applies to the Government's approach to the United Kingdom, where much of the power is devolved down—at national level in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and at local authority level in England.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of us voted for the Maastricht deal as we felt that it was the best deal to be had, both for the United Kingdom and for Europe, and we have in no way backed off from that view? Does he agree that when we take over the presidency of the European Community in three weeks' time our partners will look to this country for positive leadership, backed up with the full confidence of the House, including Opposition parties and including the Whips? That is what we should be aiming to achieve.
    Mr. Newton: In my judgment there is widespread support from hon. Members of all parties for the emphasis placed by the Government, and achieved in the Maastricht agreement, on the concept of subsidiarity and the development of the Community through intergovernmental co-operation. The Government will pursue and advance those key objectives during the United Kingdom presidency.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JUNE—Second Reading of the Boundary Commissions Bill.
TUESDAY 16 JUNE—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate described as "The Problems Facing Water Consumers Since Privatisation" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuance) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 18 JUNE—Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
FRIDAY 19 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Progress in Committee of the Boundary Commissions Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 17 June 1992 to discuss civil aviation.
[Wednesday 17 June 1992
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 5080/90

Civil aviation: Community competence

(b) 8207/91

Civil Aviation

8051/91

8090/91

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-xvii (1989–90)

(b) HC 24-viii (1991–92)]

Dr. Cunningham: Can the Leader of the House confirm that it is still the Prime Minister's intention to make an oral statement in the House on his return next week from the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro? I believe that such a statement would be welcomed throughout the House.
When does the Leader of the House expect to be able to table motions to establish the Select Committees of the House? The Opposition believe that there should be a Select Committee to cover each Department of State. We cannot accept in this Parliament what prevailed in the last-when, in defiance of Standing Orders, there was no Select Committee to deal with Scottish affairs throughout the entire Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to meet those two principles, there is no reason why the Select Committees cannot be established very quickly.
Will the Leader of the House tell us his intentions and can we have some advice next week about the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House? Inevitably, the report was a compromise. Nevertheless, it was generally welcomed, and it would benefit the House if the right hon. Gentleman could find time for an early debate on it.
448
As a result of the Danish referendum and its consequences for the Maastricht treaty, may we conclude that there will be no further consideration of the Bill to ratify that treaty before the House rises for the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has asked four questions, the first of which was about a statement on Rio. I expect that on his return the Prime Minister will make a statement on the Earth summit. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has already been some discussion through the usual channels about Select Committees. Both he and I are anxious to press ahead as quickly as possible, and I note his comments in that connection.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what is known to most hon. Members as the Jopling report. I detect some difference of emphasis above and below the Gangway on the Opposition side. I am aware of the widespread interest in the matter and I shall soon make an announcement about the timing of the debate. Perhaps we can have further discussions about it through the usual channels.
Questions about the European Communities (Amendment) Bill are also matters for consideration, but I assure him—it is implicit in my statement—that there is no question of that Bill returning to the House next week.
Mr. William Powell: Further to what my right hon. Friend said about the Jopling report, is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction because he has failed yet again to announce, even tentatively, the business for the week after next? That was one of the easiest recommendations of the Jopling report for him to accept. There is continuing consternation that he has failed to announce the date upon which the House will rise for the summer recess—a matter of the utmost importance to many hon. Members with families.
Mr. Newton: I genuinely note what my hon. Friend says. I observe, perhaps rather wryly, that some of the difficulties are illustrated by the uncertainties that have attended parliamentary business over the past 10 days.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Following the statement by the Prime Minister on his return from Rio, may we expect an early debate on a substantive motion on that matter? It would be helpful to know whether there is any prospect of that before the summer recess.
What progress, if any, has the right hon. Gentleman been able to make on the recommendation from the Top Salaries Review Body on secretarial allowances and Members' pay?
Mr. Newton: On the first question, I think I said last week that the sensible course would be to await the outcome of the Rio summit and the Prime Minister's statement following that. Perhaps we could then consider a debate by discussions in the usual way. I hope soon to inform the House of our intentions about publishing the report from the Top Salaries Review Body on the Members' office costs allowance.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members are concerned about the Select Committees and that there is a

449
real desire that Select Committees should monitor every Department? Will he undertake to make a statement next week on this?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to make a statement with that degree of precision, although I should certainly like to do so. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern, which I am sure is shared by the shadow Leader of the House and by other hon. Members.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to summon the Secretary of State for Health to the House to answer questions about security in our nation's hospitals? On 25 May Mr. Gordon Woodhatch, one of my constituents, while a patient of the Royal Free hospital in my constituency, was murdered. My correspondence to date with the Secretary of State, the first letter demanding an independent inquiry, produced one letter, the final phrase of which was that day-to-day security was the responsibility of the hospital's managers. That is not an acceptable response to such a serious crime. Five hours before the murder, a nurse in the accident and emergency department of the hospital was attacked. These are two more of the growing number of incidents in our hospitals of attacks both on patients—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order I have to draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we are not having a debate. Her question must be specific and in good order, as it was originally, and directed to the Leader of the House.
Ms. Jackson: My apologies, Madam Speaker. It is just that this issue has caused such concern not only to my constituents but to the relatives of my constituent who was killed that I shall be grateful for the Secretary of State's response.
Mr. Newton: I respect the way in which the hon. Lady has brought to the attention of the House what is clearly an important case both for the hospital and for the people involved. From my experience as Minister for Health some years ago, I can assure her that this matter is generally taken seriously, and I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the specific question lurking at the beginning of the hon. Lady's remarks, I note that I shall not have to summon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the House next week because, according to my notes, she is due to answer questions on health matters on Tuesday.
Sir Dudley Smith: When will the charge-capping measures be laid before the House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the Department of the Environment has got it wrong and that Warwickshire should not be in the dock?
Mr. Newton: That appears to be another comment that I need to draw to the attention of one of my right hon. Friends. I cannot answer the specific question, but I anticipate that measures will be laid before the House at the earliest possible opportunity after the necessary process of observations by and consultations with the councils concerned has been gone through.
Mr. David Trimble: Further to the request on Select Committees made by the shadow Leader
450
of the House, I refer the Leader of the House to the correspondence that he has had with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in which he suggested that the Government were reconsidering the position of the territorial Select Committees for Wales and for Scotland and of the one that there should be for Northern Ireland. What is the nature of the difficulties, and when will they be resolved?
Mr. Newton: I am aware that I have written recently to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I am somewhat surprised at the construction that has been placed on my letter because no such construction was intended when I wrote it.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from a tiny eccentric minority, the overwhelming majority of Members want to get on with the Jopling reforms of the sittings of the House? Why cannot my right hon. Friend announce a debate within the next two or three weeks and give us an assurance that the reforms in the report will be put into effect when we come back from the long recess?
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope to be able to announce such a debate within the time that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When the Committee is considering the Boundary Commissions Bill, will the Government table an amendment to ensure that, as the register of 1991 to be used in the Boundary Commissions review is corrupt with 1.5 million people missing from it, an alternative will be used?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give undertakings from the Dispatch Box about the tabling of Government amendments to a Bill that has only recently been published. The hon. Gentleman may feel it right to make his point in the debates on the Bill. In my experience, the great majority of people not on the register are not there because they have chosen not to be. I do not see how they can be forced to do what they do not wish to do.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not ridiculous and frankly embarrassing that at a time when the Government might very well gain some all-party guidance on the settlement of the Maastricht dispute, and when people are coming here from every western and eastern Parliament to understand the mysteries of British parliamentary democracy, we do not have a Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and are unlikely to do so until the autumn? Surely there must be a case, whatever the arguments between the sides, for setting up at least the Foreign Affairs Select Committee so that we can get on with the business of the House.
Mr. Newton: I have the message. It is one that I have already received from a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I would only add that it is neither my aim nor my intention that these matters should wait until the autumn.
Ms. Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House allow next week for a debate or statement on the scandal of the large and empty building facing the House of Commons—county hall? Will he bring the Secretary of State to the House to discuss the matter? He is considering

451
sending civil servants to docklands, but should not we be considering county hall, and in particular the London School of Economics' proposal to use that valuable site?
Mr. Newton: At this rate I shall be issuing summonses to virtually all my right hon. Friends. Instead, I shall undertake to bring the hon. Lady's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on education? In view of the hostility that has been shown by many Labour councils to schools that have opted out, may we have an early debate to clarify the Labour party's policy? It would appear that there has been a welcome shift in its opinion.
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a good idea, but perhaps we had better leave the Opposition to decide what matters they wish to bring to the House.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Since at two well-attended meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee hon. Members from both sides clearly said that there should be consultation with the various organisations in Scotland on the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, will the Leader of the House explain why next Wednesday will see the Second Reading of that Bill? Is it not possible to look again at the possibility of a Special Standing Committee to enable consultation to take place; otherwise we shall have a second-rate law reform instead of listening to the first-rate arguments that have been put forward?
Mr. Newton: It seemed to the Government in the light of what happened that this was the most appropriate way of carrying forward decision-making on the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill. It does not seem to us at this stage to be an appropriate matter for a Special Standing Committee.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: As a television programme on Monday night will demonstrate open racketeering in drugs in gyms throughout Britain, will my right hon. Friend find time for us to debate the drugs issue?
Mr. Newton: I cannot respond immediately to the request for a debate on the matter, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government take the matter seriously and we shall look carefully at the programme to which he has referred.
Mr. Greville Janner: I welcome the Home Secretary's release of the Hess papers. However, as the Government still appear to be holding on to the papers from the Alderney concentration camp in the United Kingdom, may we have a debate on the Government's general policies on the retention and release of such historical papers? The entire file is missing, and there seems to be no reason for that—it cannot be a matter of security. The issue should be debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise the debate that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants, but I shall ensure that attention is given to his point about a particular set of papers, and I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the release of the Hess papers is in line with the Government's move, with the general assent of the House, towards the greater release of information.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend has discussed the timing of the debate on the Jopling report. Will he give an undertaking that we shall be able to vote on substantive motions in that debate, or does he propose merely an Adjournment debate? This week, more than 100 additional Members have signed the motion calling for a debate and almost 200 in all have signed it.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will probably recall that I said some weeks ago that it seemed to me—I think that I had the general support of the House—that in a new Parliament, with a substantial number of new Members, the sensible course at this stage was a debate on the report as a whole.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the tragic case in my constituency of a 15-year-old boy who is only now recovering from a serious heart attack caused by solvent abuse? Given that 149 people, mainly young people, died last year from solvent abuse, and given that we have had a campaign in the House for more than a decade—my predecessor the late Jimmy Dempsey was very much involved, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall)—is it not time we had a serious debate on this important issue so that the consensus which I believe exists in the House can lead to long overdue legislation?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's concern. From duties that I have performed previously, I am familiar with his long interest in these matters. Although I cannot promise a debate, I can assure him, his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends that the Government take these matters seriously.
Mr. Barry Porter: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend on the question of Select Committees —on reflection, I am not sorry. Everyone wants Select Committees to be set up, yet they are not being set up. "As soon as possible" seems to mean some time before the autumn. We can know all about Rudolf Hess, and we can know all about MI5 and MI6—so perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us what the blockage is in the usual channels. Ordinary hon. Members might be able to unblock those channels if we knew what was going on.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I have used, either implicitly or explicitly, the word "blockage". A number of issues have needed to be considered. I hope that it will be possible to carry the matter forward quite soon.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it has cost taxpayers £500,000 in salaries since the Select Committees last met? Will he consider whether, if there is a further dragging of feet, the Government should take a leaf out of their own book? This week, they announced that those who had not behaved properly over the Maxwell affair should contribute to rebuilding the funds. Will those who are responsible for the blockage about which we have just heard dip into their own pockets and make good that sum to the taxpayer?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can either immediately adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion or accept the implication that there has been improper

453
dragging of feet. I note that his distinguished voice has been added to the pressure coming from all parts of the Chamber.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the security clearance of staff in the Refreshment Department? Many of us saw reports in the press over the weekend about an international hitman with HIV who served hon. Members on the Terrace. In this enlightened age, we are not meant to worry about being served by a waiter with HIV, but many of us object strongly to being served by an international hitman who should have been spotted in the security clearance. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter and make a statement?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that the report caused concern in minds besides his. The Serjeant at Arms and the House authorities are looking closely into what happened and will take any practicable steps that can be taken to avoid a repetition.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Further to his reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on the Second Reading of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain at the start of the debate next Wednesday just why the Government believe it inappropriate to bring in people to make representations on behalf of others for whom they wish to speak? There are many people in Scotland who feel that it is obvious that such an opportunity should be given and cannot understand why the Government reject the idea.
Mr. Newton: I shall not need to ask my right hon. Friend to do that. I am sure that he will seek to do so. If he does not, I feel sure that the hon. Lady will ask him to do so.
Sir John Wheeler: In considering the re-establishment of the Select Committees, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that it is more important to get the subject matters right rather than to set up Committees for each Department? In the last Parliament it was agreed that the Home Affairs Select Committee should be responsible for the Lord Chancellor's Department as well. It is the working arrangements that matter most, not a Select Committee for each Department.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has been the very distinguished Chairman of a Select Committee. I note with respect the view that he expresses. I have not heard the suggestion, if this is what is in his mind, that there should be a special Select Committee for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As 10 days are available that had previously been allocated for consideration of the Maastricht Bill, could time be allocated to debating three reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests? Reports were requested, in the main by this House, on the register of commercial lobbying organisations, on the rules affecting Select Committee Chairmen and on the rules affecting Members. As Select Committees have not yet been chosen on a departmental basis, surely it would make sense to draw up the new rules on Chairmen and Chairwomen before the Select Committees are established. The rules
454
were drawn up and examined by the Select Committee on Members' Interests to protect the House and people outside from corruption in here. What is holding up the Government?
Mr. Newton: I am mindful of the fact that this matter has been raised during business questions for the last two or three weeks. I very much note what has been said, but I cannot add to what I said last week.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I agree with everything that has been said about the need for the immediate establishment of Select Committees, that is not the subject of my question, for which I am sure that my right hon. Friend is grateful. The Government intend to introduce legislation relating to the enfranchisement of leaseholders and all matters relating to commonhold. Can my right hon. Friend say when that very important Bill will be introduced? He has clearly intimated that it will not be introduced next week.
Mr. Newton: The two subjects to which my hon. Friend referred will be dealt with slightly differently. The leasehold enfranchisement provisions are expected to be included in the Housing, Land and Urban Development Bill, which I anticipate will come before the House in the autumn. Commonhold will be dealt with separately. I do not wish to hold out hopes that it will be practicable to deal with it in the current Session.
Mr. Frank Cook: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 233?
[That this House deplores the conduct of Government supporters engaging in practices such as the cloak and dagger approaches made by the honourable Members for Stockton South and Lanbaurgh to headteachers in constituencies other than their own in calling them to 'a private meeting to discuss recent changes in legislation on 12th June between 5.30 and 7.00 at an hotel in Teesside, unidentified, where there will be a presentation by the grant maintained trust'; notes that the honourable Member for Stockton South has approached the Head of Norton School in Stockton North but ignored the Head of Bishopsgarth in his own constituency; notes too that this is an unsolicited initiative activated by an experienced honourable Member of this House in deliberate contravention of its code of honour which requires honourable Members seeking 'to take up a matter that affects another honourable Member's constituency to inform that honourable Member', Madam Speaker, Official Report, column 145, 9th June 1992; agrees with Madam Speaker's hope expressed on that occasion that her admonition 'is taken to heart by every honourable Member, whether new or of long-standing'; and calls on all honourable Members to desist forthwith in the interest of maintaining the good standards of behaviour in this House that have stood the test of honour throughout the centuries.]
The early-day motion stands in my name and the names of 55 hon. Members. If the Leader of the House has not seen it, will he look at it? It refers to what, in my view, is a serious transgression of Members' privileges. Some hon. Members are interfering in the constituency affairs of other Members—a serious matter. This was not an isolated incident. In fact, Madam Speaker was required to make a statement on it only two days ago.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he had prior knowledge of this widespread practice? If he did, will the right hon.

455
Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to apologise and redress the situation immediately? If the Secretary of State did not know, will the Leader of the House ask him to instruct or to require the Members responsible to desist forthwith so that the good standards of discipline that have stood the test of time can be maintained?
Mr. Newton: I have seen the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are all aware of the longstanding convention that hon. Members do not take up constituency cases that arise in another Member's constituency, but I cannot make a judgment on whether the subject of this early-day motion is covered by that convention.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that an early statement is made about the setting up of the Social Security Select Committee? I understand that many hon. Members would like the chairmen of banks and financial institutions to come before the Social Security Select Committee and explain why they are sitting on Maxwell pensioners' investments. Moreover, there are 30,000 Maxwell pensioners out there who would like to hear explanations from the chairmen of the banks about when their investments will be released for their benefit.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that the Maxwell pensioners will have been encouraged by the response of one bank following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services earlier this week.
On the question of Select Committees, I do not think that I can add to what I have said on a number of occasions.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have an early debate on housing policy? That would provide an opportunity for Ministers to say whether they intend to allow local authorities, including Bradford, to use the cash from the sale of council houses to build new council houses with gardens—which so many people desperately want and deserve.
Mr. Newton: There was a debate on housing matters last Friday and there will be a further debate later in the
456
Session when we consider the Bill to which I referred in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I do not think that I can promise the insertion of a further debate in quite the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in calling for a debate on grant-maintained schools? We could then consider the remarkable progress made by such schools in Hanwell, Greenford, Ealing and Northolt in my constituency. In such a debate, could we take note of the amazing savings in such areas as school cleaning? One school is saving £40,000 a year and putting it straight to the benefit of children.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, and his important points about the progress made in these matters in his constituency, and about the advantages of grant-maintained schools.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen the reports about another 720 redundancies at British Aerospacee in the dynamics division at Blostock, Stevenage and Fulton? Those redundancies follow earlier job losses at British Aerospace. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—or the President of the Board of Trade or whatever he calls himself—to come to the House next week and make a statement on the future of this vital industry?
Mr. Newton: I have seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on to the statement.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not hear points of order at this stage, but I shall certainly hear his point after the statement.

Red Routes (London)
4.1 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about priority routes in London. In January, my Department published consultation proposals and requested comments by 31 March on a red route network. About 12,500 copies of the consultation document were distributed and just over 1,200 responses received. I have considered those and I am now ready to announce the decisions.
The pilot scheme in north and east London, which started 18 months ago, is already proving the enormous value of red routes in bringing better management to London's strategic traffic routes. Among the most significant benefits are that overall journey times have improved by 25 per cent., bus journey times have reduced by more than 10 per cent. and reliability increased by a third, so that more people are using the buses and, indeed, London Transport expects to introduce an express service on the pilot route next month. Of particular significance is the fact that road casualities fell by more than 200 in 1991, a fall of some 36 per cent. compared with about 12 per cent. in London as a whole. Contrary to much ill-informed comment, far from there being less parking available, there are now 620 free legal parking spaces on the route where none existed before.
In the light of that experience, I am laying an order before the House today which will designate some 300 miles of red routes throughout the capital. The first of those should be in operation by the end of next year. There will, of course, be full provision for consultation at the various stages of the design and implementation of the network.
Many reactions to the consultation exercise, notably from London Transport, pointed out that the proposed network was based on primary routes. Although those are the most suitable for longer distance traffic, they exclude some roads which carry the heaviest flows of buses. In west London, for example, the primary routes are the M4, A4 and A40, but the most important route for buses is the Uxbridge road, which links all the main shopping centres. I believe that we can greatly assist the movement of public transport in areas such as that. I shall therefore be consulting on the designation of further priority routes.
I have also decided to make significant changes to the proposals for the centre of London. The main objectives there are, again, rather different from those of the primary route network. We are seeking to help the movement of buses and local commercial traffic rather than to serve longer distance movements. I shall therefore be consulting on this central network having regard to the special characteristics of the area. In the meantime, I shall designate only the inner ring road, which roughly encompasses the area around the main railway stations, with one addition. Tower bridge, which forms part of the inner ring road, has a weight restriction on it and we need an alternative route, so I am also designating a route via London bridge.
Elsewhere, the red route network will be as proposed in the consultation document, except the following roads which I am not including: the A22 Godstone road, up to Purley cross, the A40 Holland Park avenue, Notting Hill Gate and Bayswater road, the A110 and A 104, from the
458
Cambridge road to the North Circular, the A243 Leatherhead road, up to the A3, the A304 and A308 Fulham road, the A219 Putney hill and Putney High street, and the A307 Kew road, alongside Kew gardens. I have arranged for maps and schedules to be available in the Library showing the routes to be designated, and I have, of course, written to all London Members.
This whole exercise has shown that red route measures are flexible and bring positive benefits to all concerned —residents and motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, bus users, shoppers, and local businesses. I am confident that red routes will work across London as a whole and that support for them will be even more widespread when they begin to take effect.
Mr. Peter Snape: The Minister alleges that red routes have brought positive benefits to various groups, particularly local businesses. Will he tell the House why a survey by Islington council shows that 80 per cent. of businesses have lost custom since the introduction of the pilot study? Will he explain why the Islington chamber of commerce has reported that 20 per cent. of local businesses on the local red route claim to have lost more than half their trade since its introduction? Have not the Government already done enough damage to small business prospects without adding to their difficulties?
Has the Minister considered the safety implications of red routes, particularly in residential areas? Surely the policy on vehicle numbers and speed runs directly contrary to his professed concern for road safety, particularly for pedestrians, cyclists and children. Will the Minister assure us that there will be traffic calming measures, funded by his Department, particularly in residential roads alongside red routes?
The Minister claimed that more people are using buses and that reliability has increased since the pilot scheme was introduced. Will he therefore explain why, in paragraph 2 of its response, London Buses Ltd. claimed:
"The proposals offer no benefits to bus services in many areas."?
In paragraph 3, London Buses went on to state:
"There is a real danger that improved traffic flow on roads in the Priority Route Network will attract more vehicles onto these and other roads."
Attracting more vehicles, particularly motor cars, seems to be the result of further widening the scheme. One of the reasons why red routes have been dropped in the centre of London is the likely adverse impact on bus services. If the Minister and his Department were really serious about encouraging bus patronage, he would be proposing expenditure on bus lanes, bus priority measures at traffic lights, and targeted parking enforcement at bus stops and along bus routes, all of which would bring a better return than the measures that he has so far announced.
On his appointment, the Minister made some encouraging noises about co-ordination. Will he accept from me that he would get a better response from London Members if he brought forward better measures to tackle the city's chronic transport congestion rather than an inadequate and short-sighted scheme which will lead to more cars, more lorries and more pollution?
Mr. Norris: I think that I can answer all the hon. Gentleman's points. On the point about business, it is true that Islington produced some figures on business which

459
showed, not entirely surprisingly, that there had been some drop in business in the past year among shopkeepers in Islington. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware, however, that the research conducted by the Department to determine business improvement of deterioration was conducted on the most sensible basis of all—a simple survey of patronage. The hon. Gentleman may also be aware that the greatest drop in patronage occurred in that section of the proposed red route which Islington council, for reasons of its own, chose not to implement as a red route.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware, too, that the second greatest reduction in patronage occurred on a section of the red route where we had provided free parking spaces where absolutely none had existed before. There is no evidence whatever of loss of patronage. I suspect that in due course the traders of Islington will come to see that that is entirely correct.
The hon. Gentleman talked about safety. A couple of weeks ago in the House the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made the extraordinary suggestion that the reason why there had been such a spectacular reduction in accidents on the red routes was that traffic speeds had become so great that people were scared stiff of going near the road. That seemed to be the most extraordinary scraping of the barrel.
The truth is that because red routes manage traffic sensibly it is possible to combine modest improvements in speed—from 11 to 14 miles per hour approximately, which would not exactly worry Nigel Mansell—
Mr. Snape: Or the Minister's BMW.
Mr. Norris: or, indeed, my BMW—with significant reductions in accidents.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned traffic calming measures. On the pilot route, the Department deliberately experimented with all the available traffic calming measures that it is proposed to use. Not all of them would necessarily be employed on every mile of the network once the full 300 miles are in place, but certainly appropriate traffic calming measures are part of the red route proposals and will, of course, be funded by the Department in the usual way.
There is more traffic on the red route—about 11 per cent. more—but when one examines that 11 per cent. it is interesting to note that 9 per cent. derives from traffic which was previously rat running on roads parallel to the red route. Those cars are attracted on to the red route and away from the residential rat runs. There is an addition of about 2 per cent. in overall use. I do not believe that that is any cause for concern. It is part of the red route philosophy not to increase the capacity of roads, but to use any excess capacity to provide parking where possible.
Lastly, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that I am, indeed, trying to make positive noises about how bus priority measures can encourage more use of public transport and thereby help to prevent congestion. Buses are not the cause but the victims of congestion. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a substantial programme of bus priority measures is already under way in my Department, not all of which have yet been taken up by the boroughs. I am keen to encourage such measures in future years because they represent excellent value for money.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I give my hon. Friend the Minister the benefit of the doubt about the benefits that will flow from his announcement, but the perception of my constituents is very much the opposite. Although the benefits may become apparent, in the short term there will be massive disappointment, notably among residents in Pimlico, about Belgrave road. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Department will monitor closely what happens and that if it turns out that it was wrong it will be prepared to amend its proposals at a later date?
Mr. Norris: Of course, if the Department is wrong it will change its mind, as Departments always do. More to the point, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that, for reasons best known to other political parties, people used red routes as a political stick to beat Conservative candidates, especially during the general election. The basis of their attack was frequently gross misinformation about what red routes were.
Belgrave road is included in the network, but the amount of change will be slight and I have no doubt that overall it will be of great benefit to those who live and work there.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Many people will need persuading that red routes mean a green Government. As the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said, the reality is that many of our constituents in inner London, especially small businesses which have suffered from higher rates, higher rents and the recession, fear that the red routes will put them out of business altogether. Given that red routes are presumably part of a wider Government strategy, which should aim to reduce the number of vehicle journeys and vehicles on the roads of London, does the Minister accept that he should not implement the designated routes nor proceed with details —such as whether there should be one yellow line or two and the siting of parking spaces—until he has read the report on consultation on traffic management in London, which ends tomorrow and began in March, and until he has met people affected by the proposals in my borough and elsewhere?
Mr. Norris: On the fears of business, I suspect that during difficult trading times business people at every level will cast around for the things that the Government do to them that they think might harm their businesses. That is not unnatural or unreasonable but, in the only case that matters—where the red route has been established—there is no evidence that there has been any deleterious effect on business.
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is desirable to reduce the overall quantum of private vehicles. That will be achieved in two ways: first, by tempting people out of private cars and on to more efficient public transport, which is demonstrably quicker than the private car at getting them where they want to be, and that is what bus priority measures are intended to do. Secondly, to reinforce what I said earlier, part of the concept of red routes is not to increase capacity but to streamline use of the road. For example, we shall use any extra capacity for parking, to make community life more acceptable, rather than to push more cars down the road.
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement, he would have heard me say that there will be an opportunity

461
for consultation when the traffic director produces his plan, following the original proposals, and when detailed plans are drawn up with each borough.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I entirely welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Can he give some sign to the House of when designation will be provided for the A2 and A20 roads which serve south east London and thereby north west Kent? Red routing those roads would give my constituents, and many thousands of constituents served by my Kentish colleagues, the chance of a decent, short journey into work.
Mr. Norris: I have announced the present network, which will come into force towards the end of next year. I am always happy to consider representations from any quarter, especially from my hon. Friend. However. I also made clear that, because of my concern that red routes are not the only answer to congestion in London, there will be other opportunities for consultation on, for example, major bus routes, which I hope will also be of assistance to my hon. Friend and to his constituents.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency there has been a great deal of protest from local residents and businesses about the Archway red route pilot scheme? Many local businesses have closed. Local business people to whom I have spoken blame the red route for that difficulty. Are not red routes bad for the community and for local businesses?
Mr. Norris: I do not want to be flippant and merely to say no, but no is the answer to the hon. Lady's question. She says that many people in Archway road protested vigorously about red routes. Many of those protests were made before they understood what the pilot meant. I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that I have travelled on the route many times since I have taken responsibility for implementing the larger network. As more people recognise that, on the Holloway road section, for example, the road is an infinitely more acceptable local community road than it was before—it is now much safer to cross —people, whether they are traders, residents, pedestrians or bus users, will realise that red routes are a considerable advantage to the community. I expect that to be the case on the Archway road and elsewhere on the 300 miles of the network.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Is the Minister aware that there will be dancing in the Fulham road tonight? Indeed, he will be the toast of SW6 this evening. My constituents are extremely grateful that the Fulham road proposal has been dropped, that he has listened to their arguments and, in particular, that he has shown that the Government are a caring and listening Government when it comes to these proposals. Will he confirm that the change in the red route proposals does not mean any dimunition in his determination to improve London's bus services, and in particular bus services in west London?
Mr. Norris: I doubt whether I shall often have that sort of approbation from any quarter of the House and it is welcome on my first foray. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and even more grateful to those who will be dancing in the Fulham road tonight. However, they should be aware of the traffic hazards of dancing there rather than in residential roads adjacent. My hon. Friend is right to point out that red routes do not in any way diminish our interest
462
in a bus priority. I have often made it clear that giving buses an easier, more effective path on which to complete their journeys is in many ways the best way of all of tempting many private motorists out of their cars and on to the public transport network. Buses are not the cause, but the victims, of congestion.
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury): When the Minister says that there is no evidence whatever that businesses on the pilot red route which runs through the middle of my constituency have suffered, he is wrong and, I suspect, deliberately so. The Department of Transport's so-called survey, to which he referred, consisted of two officials standing on a street corner trying to do a head count of people going in and out of the shops on Upper street. That is not a scientific or accurate way to assess the impact of the red route. If the Minister had talked to local business men and gone and seen the evidence that they and I have seen with our own eyes, he would know of the fall in trade that has resulted. If he talked to local residents, he would know, too, that they do not appreciate or like the red route. If he took care not just to look at his papers and bogus surveys but to talk to the people affected, he would know that the red routes should be scrapped, not extended.
Mr. Norris: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is hooked on his original opposition to red routes and now that they are patently successful finds himself in a somewhat embarrassing position. My Department has no difficulty in presenting the evidence of the patronage survey. Its conclusions are clear: there is no demonstrable link whatever between red routes and any reduction in business. I do not doubt that business has reduced over the period—I suspect that there may be several reasons for that—but, as I said earlier, there is no evidence whatever to link red routes with any reduction in business.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the sort of people who are now objecting to red routes are the same sort of people who 20 or 30 years ago objected to the introduction of single and double yellow lines, which practically everyone now accepts are essential?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has made his point extremely effectively and I entirely agree with him.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Does the Minister recall an answer that he gave to me two days ago about traffic volumes and speeds in central Greenwich, revealing that the average speed of vehicles even in off-peak day time is only 11½ mph? Does he recognise that that has no relationship whatever to the measures involved in red routes because there is not a parking problem, but an excessive congestion problem in that area? Does he further recognise that any effective solution depends on measures to reduce the volume of motor traffic and to encourage the use of public transport systems? Will he therefore recognise that the red route initiative is not the solution to London's traffic problems? Will he introduce measures to improve the reliability and frequency of bus and train services to meet the needs of public transport?
Mr. Norris: In the light of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked today and previously, I should have thought that he would be more interested in the two clear conclusions of the pilot scheme. The first was that average speeds have risen from 11 mph to 14 mph, which is not

463
such a remarkable rise as to constitute any hazard. The other conclusion was that the accident record on the red routes is little less than spectacular. There has been a 36 per cent. reduction in accidents during the pilot period.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits of the red routes include a reduction in pollution and casualties, improvements in bus, cycle and pedestrian facilities, and the transfer of traffic from residential side streets to the through routes? Does he agree that it is important to understand that the red route is not a uniform 24-hour-a-day scheme? It is a framework within which one can operate sensible and flexible enforcement of parking regulations to allow for all the business, residential and commercial needs of the frontages and the needs of the people who use the routes. Therefore, one can put at rest the concerns which have been wildly exaggerated by the Labour party.
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend's summary is entirely right and fair. The key to red routes is that they do not seek to solve problems which do not exist.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister not realise that the coincidence of his statement on red routes and his emphasis on buses will cause great cynicism in West Ham, where London Transport today announced the closure of the large West Ham bus garage, which has served public transport for nearly a century? Does he not realise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, London wants a co-ordinated public transport system, and that the imminent privatisation and deregulation of buses will make things worse in London? The red routes are an expensive addition to bureaucracy, which will not provide the answers that we want.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Bus patronage on the red routes increased by 3 per cent. —1,700 more people every week use the number 43 bus. London Transport is considering the introduction of an express bus because the red routes facilitate more effective public transport. I thought that that was something that the hon. Gentleman would want to encourage.
Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate the Minister on his commitment to bus priority measures and to improving the quality of public transport in London. Does he accept, however, that, important as buses are, it is even more important to improve the reliability and qualitity of the London Underground and its existing routes, such as the Northern line?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will know that, in the next three years, about £3.7 billion is committed to the enhancement of London Underground, as part of our commitment to a decently modern metro. My hon. Friend knows of my concern for the Northern line and that London Underground proposes that it should be the next after the Central line to benefit from substantial upgrading.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say, on behalf of the London group of Members of Parliament, that we can probably do business with the Minister on this and other issues? However, is he prepared to talk to the representatives of small businesses in London, particularly
464
the London Chamber of Commerce, so that he can hear at first hand what they say about the loss of business? Will he also speak to the police about the need for more traffic wardens? The police have said that the number of traffic wardens should be increased from 1,800 to 2,200 in order effectively to police red routes as well as double yellow lines and other parking restrictions. Unless the Government provide more resources, the red routes will not work.
Mr. Norris: I have already undertaken to meet both groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I hope that we shall be able to work constructively on issues such as traffic management, which should not be party-political issues, but common-sense ones. On enforcement, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Good enforcement is the key to the effectiveness of the red route network. I have arranged to see the commissioner to discuss that and I shall also discuss it with my colleagues at the Home Office.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that he will be toasted tonight not only in Fulham but in Kenley and Whyteleafe after his decision not to red route the A22 Godstone road? It is recognised that the A23 needs red routeing, as a result of congestion in Coulsdon, but will he confirm that that will not mean 24-hour no parking and disaster for the local shopkeepers?
Mr. Norris: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the confirmation that he seeks, and I am grateful to know that yet another area of London will be bathed in champagne ere nightfall. The Godstone road was excluded because there are no existing traffic measures there now. Where a problem does not exist, it is pointless to try to solve one, which is precisely why it was excluded from the definitive scheme.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Is the Minister aware that so-called priority routes give no priority to the local community, to local business or to the environment? While we welcome extra resources going to London Underground, that is not a great deal of help for my constituents in Lewisham, East. Is he aware that for residents in the Downham area, many of whom are elderly and rely on local shops, the effect of the further collapse of local businesses will create even more difficulties for people living in that part of my constituency? What confidence can he give them that there will be better public transport as a result of his policies?
Mr. Norris: I do not accept the hon. Lady's assertion that there is no priority for the community. Indeed, I entirely reject it. Under the pilot scheme, there have been 17 new or enhanced pedestrian crossings, four new cycle points and entry treatments on all side roads. We have achieved substantial accident reduction. I do not know what is the hon. Lady's definition of enhancing the community, but mine suggests that this measure very much enhances the local community.
Mr. Roger Sims: As a regular user of two of the designated routes, I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement and the prospect of having a more straightforward drive to and from Westminster and my home constituency. He will appreciate that along some parts of the route, such as in my constituency, there are some concerns and perhaps misunderstandings about the implications of the red route. What will the consultation

465
process involve? For example, will it involve residents associations as well as chambers of commerce, and will he take into account the fact that some small businesses and shopkeepers do not belong to chambers of commerce but might also have views to express?
Mr. Norris: There are essentially two elements to the consultation that will now take place. On the general plan, there will be consultation on the overall plan and criteria to be drawn up by the traffic director. There will then be an opportunity for consultation as each borough, with the traffic director, draws up its detailed plans. That consultation opportunity will be available to the groups referred to by my hon. Friend, and I hope that they will consult and let their feelings be known at the appropriate time.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the Minister aware that the police in Waltham Forest have said that, although the number of accidents has gone down, the number of fatalities has gone up along red routes? Is he further aware that the borough council has made it clear that Grove Green road in Leyton is wholly inappropriate for red routeing because it is a residential area and red routeing will simply mean the generation of more commuter traffic coming into London? As his removal of routes has obviously followed representations from Conservative Members, may I ask him to show that he is even-handed by taking out a route when a Labour Member makes representations to him?
Mr. Norris: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman presumably knows that Hammersmith and Fulham council—for all that it appears to have adequate supplies of champagne—is a Labour authority. He probably knows, too, that Richmond upon Thames is a Liberal authority. He must also know that the inner London boroughs which lobbied me about the inner core network are in many cases Labour authorities. So the political complexion of an authority is of absolutely no relevance.
I can only restate the clear evidence that there has been a very considerable reduction indeed in the number of accidents on the red route, a reduction of about 36 per cent. compared with a reduction of 12 per cent. in London as a whole. As for dragging extra traffic on to the roads, a point to which I referred, there was about 11 per cent. extra traffic on the pilot route, but 9 per cent. had been rat running on roads adjacent to the red route and the other 2 per cent. was additional traffic. I do not believe that that will constitute the hazard that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Richard Tracey: As chairman of the London Conservative Members group, I thank my hon. Friend for his statement of clarification. I also pay tribute to the sensitivity of the consultation process begun by his predecessor, Christopher Chope, which my hon. Friend has now brought to a conclusion. My response to what was said by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would be to say that in my borough of Kingston upon Thames representations have been made equally by all parties for the A243 to be removed from the list. Obviously, the A243 was a case of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It was inappropriate and unnecessary to include the road in the original list of priority routes, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend has now accepted the sense of the arguments from all sides and removed it.
Mr. Norris: I know that Conservative Members will be grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words about Chris Chope, who did an excellent job in the Department—I hope that he will be back here soon, doing an equally good job.
What my hon. Friend said about representations having been made from all political parties, both for and against the proposals, is entirely right and underlines what I said earlier. His general observations are right, too—flexibility is the key in finding a solution appropriate to the problem rather than inventing a solution where a problem does not exist.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: There will be no parties in Croydon, North-West tonight, and if the Minister comes to my constituency no one will ask him for the last dance. Nevertheless, in all seriousness I ask him to visit my constituency and talk to people and shopkeepers in Norbury and Thornton Heath, who fear the red routes' impact on local businesses. Shops will close as a result of the policy, and shops are vital to local communities. Will the Minister postpone the measures in Croydon and elsewhere and commission a full-scale environmental, social and economic impact statement? In all fairness, will he do that—and visit my constituency?
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is repeating the same canards that have been enunciated by his hon. Friends, and he is equally wrong. There is no evidence whatever of any impact on the general economy, and a considerable amount of evidence that the overall community is greatly enhanced by such schemes. I believe that when the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Croydon see the impact of the red routes they will be even more impressed with the general performance of the Government—and that the hon. Gentleman's own tenure there may be short.
Mr. Dudley Fishburn: Does my hon. Friend accept how welcome his proposal for a red route in my constituency will be? There it is appropriate, and traffic will flow more freely along the Cromwell road.
Does my hon. Friend further accept how doubly welcome was his wise decision to withdraw the proposal for a red route along Holland Park and Notting Hill Gate, where it would not have been appropriate? By accepting the wise and rejecting the foolish he has earned the gratitude of my constituents.
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, which simply underline the point that we have already made: where red routes are appropriate they have been designated, and where not, they have been excluded.
Mr. Keith Hill: Is the Minister aware that his announcement will be greeted with horror and outrage in Streatham? Is he further aware that Streatham residents have well grounded fears that the red route through Streatham will split our community, damage local business and add to already unacceptable levels of pollution in Streatham high road? For all the much proclaimed success of the pilot red route scheme in Islington, can the Minister name one local community in London which will welcome the introduction of the red routes announced today?
Mr. Norris: The residents of Streatham will object to the introduction of red routes only if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends go on enunciating the nonsense that we have heard from them this afternoon. Opposition

467
Members are simply ignoring the evidence before them. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Streatham do not want a 36 per cent. reduction in accidents, or less pollution —because faster moving traffic pollutes less than static traffic—if they do not want the improvements available in pedestrian and cycle facilities, by all means; perhaps I have got them wrong. My view is that they will welcome those things, and that when they see the red route in action will realise that—with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman—he is talking nonsense.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speedy way in which he has tackled the issue? Is he including the notorious bottleneck on the Mile End road between the Blind Beggar and the Black Bear which causes serious hold-ups for my constituents travelling on the Al2, A 13 and A127, and for travellers going out of London on to the M25 and M11?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend's constituents in Billericay will be substantially advantaged by the red route programme. As she rightly suggests, for many of them —particularly those travelling down the A13 and Al2—traffic will move more quickly and they will be able to reach their destinations more speedily. I hope that she will accept that I shall have to consider the detailed points that she raised and write to her. She will understand that red routes arc not urban motorways, but will allow traffic to move more quickly, efficiently and safely. I hope that she will tell her constituents in Billericay that nobody is suggesting that red routes are the answer to all our prayers.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous opposition in my constituency of Tottenham to red routes, particularly in the Haringey Green lanes district, where there is a unique blend of Greek and Turkish Cypriot shops which depend on passing trade? Is he aware of the effect that red routes will have on those businesses? Can he confirm that the majority of those who responded during the consultation process were opposed to red routes in my district? Why does the will of the local people—the residents and shopkeepers —count for less than the will of those who pass through the district? Why has the Minister red routed only that part of the Green lanes district which contains Greek and Turkish Cypriot shops and not the section which contains British Home Stores, Marks and Spencer, and the shopping centre?
Mr. Norris: I am sorry, but I shall have to disappoint Opposition Members. There is no great secret about the matter. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) will know that the basis for consultation for the proposed route system was the primary route network. That is the cause of the Green lanes anomaly—as a result of an application, part of it is designated and part of it is not. I am considering whether it might be appropriate to extend the red route in Green lanes. I find it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument as he seems to be arguing both for and against red routes. There is no contest between locals and passers-through, and if the hon. Gentleman had listened sensibly and objectively to the statistical evidence available, he would realise that the red route scheme benefits both sections of society.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: If the Minister would like to see people dancing outside the Churchill hall in Finchley road tonight, he should scrap the proposed red route there. If he is unwilling to accept my evidence, will he be good enough to accept the evidence that I have received from a consortium of small businesses in Finchley road which has stated that if the red route goes ahead it will be catastrophic? It is already difficult for commuters travelling along the Finchley road to acknowledge that there are communities on either side of it. It is already extremely difficult for many of my elderly constituents to cross the road at the designated crossing places; if the red route is imposed, it will be even more difficult. If the Minister would like to know what a community is, it is surely somewhere in which an elderly pensioner can cross the road to meet her daughter and grandchildren who happen to live on the opposite side.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady is right and has given a perfectly acceptable definition of an improved community. She is wrong to suggest that a red route will not deliver that. She should go and have another look at Archway road, which is not far from her constituency. If she does so with a clear mind, she will see the obvious benefits to pedestrians and others in the local community.
Ms. Jackson rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Has the Minister finished his reply?
Mr. Norris indicated assent.
Ms. Kate Hoey: There will be great opposition in Kennington, Clapham, Stockwell and the Oval to today's announcement. Will the Minister explain what the benefit is to the communities living in Kennington, the Oval or anywhere near the main road used by so many Members of Parliament travelling back home to their constituencies at night? How will it help people living in the community if commuters travel that little bit faster?
Mr. Norris: The first thing that the hon. Lady should know is that the concept of the red route scheme does not suggest that it should last 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A red route would make little or no difference to hon. Members leaving the House late at night. The advantages to the hon. Lady's constituents will be those that I have enumerated from the Dispatch Box several times this afternoon: fewer accidents, less pollution from fewer stationary vehicles and from vehicles which, when moving, will do so more quickly, better access for pedestrians, and more cycle points. I do not know how many more times I shall have to explain to Opposition Members the clear advantages of the scheme. I suspect that the problem is that they simply do not want to listen.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Clearly, the Minister does not understand that it did not take any effort from Opposition Members to convince people that the red route system was not a good idea. When the pilot scheme was the only red route in existence, constituents from all parts of London came to us in overwhelming numbers to express their views. Community groups stated that the routes should be resisted at all costs. Is the Minister aware that people along the South Circular will regard the announcement as the latest attempt to shovel vast volumes of traffic on them as it follows on the heels of the south

469
circular assessment study? We are still awaiting the subsidiary recommendations of that investigation. Communities will be rent asunder by a scheme which is designed—as it is obvious to anyone listening to the statement—to get people from outer London through the inconvenience of inner London by degrading the lives of inner Londoners.
Mr. Norris: I believe that Opposition Members—who have cynically exploited people's ignorance of what the red route programme actually means and cynically ignored the available evidence to show that the routes are a considerable success—have been hoist by their own petard. They are in a difficult position and I sympathise with them. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a case against red routes out of the prospect that there may be a 2 per cent. increase in traffic on main roads which have been improved in order to accommodate more vehicles. His argument simply will not wash.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the Minister accept that the people of Hackney do not want red routes, which are at best a gimmick and at worst damaging to local businesses? They want money for the Hackney-Chelsea line so that there is a tube link to central London and they want bus conductors to he brought back so that mothers in Hackney can have help getting pushchairs on and off buses.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady may, for her own purposes, choose to dismiss red routes as a gimmick, but no one who takes an objective view of them will do so. They are a considerable aid to improved traffic management and traffic flow. The hon. Lady knows that the Department views the Hackney-Chelsea line scheme with considerable approbation, and is considering how to advance it as soon as possible—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Lady suggests that finance is an issue, and of course it is. She will appreciate that that is why we are already spending £3.7 billion over the next three years on the upgrading of the London Underground. One of the marvellous advantages to be gained from deregulating London buses will be that some operators may choose to offer a premium two-man operation service of which the hon. Lady can avail herself.

Points of Order
4.48 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When Members are disappointed at not being called, I suppose they can be unreasonable, and I appreciate that the Speaker's lot is not an easy one when it comes to timing. However, I wish to raise a serious point of order which relates to the fundamental issue of Back Benchers' rights. We all value the system of business questions, because it may provide the only opportunity for hon. Members to raise important issues.
May I draw two facts to your attention? Last Thursday, at eight minutes past 4, you curtailed business questions at a time when a number of hon. Members wanted to ask questions. Despite having to endure a long speech from me on Mauritius, the House went on to the Adjournment at 8.45. It is unsatisfactory for a number of hon. Members to be denied prime time to put urgent points even though the House moves to the Adjournment at 8.45. The same thing happened on 14 May, when questions were curtailed at 3.59 and the House adjourned at 8.45. I am told by my indomitable friend the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is the deputy Chief Whip, that that has happened on several occasions and that he has made representations.
I understand, Madam Speaker, that of course you would say that, because the Government have asked for permission to make a statement, the ending of business questions is not up to the Speaker. That may be the case, but you have the authority to extend business questions as you please and the Government could wait. Secondly, I think that your advice from the learned Clerks would be that Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd took the view that he would tell Ministers whether they could make statements. We have elected you to one of the most senior positions in this country; surely you can tell an Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Transport, not the highest factotum in the land, when he can or cannot make a statement.
There may be urgent matters leading to a request from the Prime Minister, the Head of Government. That is a different matter, but when a junior Minister asks to be allowed to make a statement, surely the Speaker of the House of Commons can say yea or nay. It should be a rule, as it used to be a convention, that there should be no statements on Thursdays. I do not doubt that the questions of my hon. Friends were important, but Monday is the transport day. Why could the statement not have been made between Monday and Wednesday rather than curtail business questions? This is all about Back Benchers' rights.
Mr. David Winnick: On a related point—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me first answer the hon. Gentleman. I assure him and the House that the Speaker does not have the authority to determine when statements are made. Although the hon. Gentleman was not delighted at a statement on a transport matter, hon. Members who represented the areas in question were pleased to be here to respond to the statement. In the last two Sessions, on over 30 occasions, statements were made on a Thursday, which, of course, is the day on which we have business questions.

471
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Speaker's lot is not always a happy one. I have to judge and, on balance, decide when business questions should end. I take into account the number of people who are standing and the number of hon. Members who asked questions on previous business statements. I carry out a great deal of research on timing and Members' areas of interest before I draw business questions to a close. Finally, in ending business questions, I am not unduly influenced by the Government determining that they want to make a statement on Thursday. It has to be my judgment, and I make it in fairness and justice to the House and to all hon. Members.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is on a completely different subject and relates to the Register of Members' Interests. Page 386 of "Erskine May" contains a relevant comment. Although the House has been in session for several weeks, there is no Select Committee on Members' Interests. The register is being compiled by the Clerk, but until the Committee is selected and meets, it cannot authorise the publication of a register for this Parliament. Until that register is published, it should be clear that, if a Member has an interest to declare before voting in the House or in the Committee, he must declare it. Page 386 of "Erskine May" states that the register can be sufficient indication of an interest and that a declaration does not have to be made. Plainly, in the absence of a register, a declaration will have to be made on every occasion on which it is necessary.
Madam Speaker: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but the rule about declaration is rather separate from the subject of registration. This occasion gives me an opportunity to urge all hon. Members, especially those who are new, that when speaking in Committee or in the Chamber it is always wise at the beginning of what they have to say to declare any financial interest relating to the subject under discussion.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with whom I normally agree. There has been a major move on business questions away from what was the "legitimate" question purely on the business as announced for the following week to Members raising almost any constituency matter with a request that it should be considered the following week. That difference has arisen over the years. Understandably, Leaders of the House used to dismiss such questions with the plain phrase, "Not next week," thereby discouraging the matter. Perhaps you would consider discontinuing or curtailing the change.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I recently made a firm statement asking Back Benchers to put only one question to the Leader of the House, so that I could call as many hon. Members as possible. I said that, if their questions were precise and to the point, and if the Leader of the House answered briskly, I would be able to call all those hon. Members who were standing.
Mr. Winnick: On this point, Madam Speaker, I know that in no way will you interpret my remarks or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as a criticism of the Chair. When many Members are rising, you have to decide who to call. The business
472
statement on Thursday provides a vital opportunity for Back Benchers to raise many matters, however inappropriate the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) might consider them. If we did not consider them appropriate, we would not raise constituency, national or international issues within the framework of the business for the following week.
There was one statement today. Will you be on your guard against two or three statements on a Thursday leading to a cut-off time for the business statement of 4 o'clock? That was the cut-off time today, but that is not a criticism, Madam Speaker. As far as possible, will you decide that 4 o'clock should not be the cut-off time, so that sufficient time will be allowed to call those who want to ask questions?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to leave that to me, but I assure him that 4 o'clock is not the bewitching hour.
Mr. Tony Banks: Mr. Speaker Weatherill was accustomed to call every hon. Member who was standing to attract his attention during business questions. That did not happen every time, but it did on most occasions. That is what made business questions such a valuable item of business—I am not complaining, as I was called in business questions last week—because it meant that it was almost guaranteed that we would be called if we wished to ask a question. Is it your intention, Madam Speaker, to go back to Speaker Weatherill's normal custom and practice or do you intend to do what I believe that you have done in every business question time so far, which is to curtail questions while hon. Members were still rising to catch your eye? It would help if we knew that.
Madam Speaker: It is untrue that Speaker Weatherill at all times called all hon. Members who were standing. I am a long-standing Member of the House and I have watched proceedings carefully. As I said earlier, all hon. Members must leave it to my judgment. I am here to protect the interests and rights of Back Benchers, and I intend to do that. Let me make one point clear. Brisker questions from all hon. Members would help me enormously.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—you will know that my questions are invariably very brief.
May I draw your attention to a report produced by the Select Committee on Members' Interests and to its implications? It has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and is the one that deals with the chairmanship of the Select Committees.
You will have noted today exchanges at the Dispatch Box. The Leader of the House is under pressure to table a motion to form the Committees, but when the Select Committee produced that report, it did so on the understanding that the House would have the chance to debate the report before Select Committees were created in the new Parliament because we wanted to avoid the difficulties that arose in the last Parliament, which led to the Chairman of one Select Committee being criticised.
As you protect the rights of hon. Members, Madam Speaker, will you put it to the Government that, if Parliament sets up a Select Committee and it makes such

473
critical recommendations, they should be taken into account by way of a substantive resolution before, as in this case, the Select Committee is formed?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a matter not for the Chair but for the Government. I see that members of the Treasury Bench are here and have no doubt noted what he said. We must now move on to debate the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
A number of hon. Members wish to speak in the next debate and unless speeches are limited on a voluntary basis, not all hon. Members will able to speak.

Science and Technology
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
5.2 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government have requested a debate on science and technology today for two important reasons. I hope that the first one does not need stating. I know that I shall have the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) with me when I say that science is, or at least should be, an essential and central part of the national life. Apart from the select band of which he is a distinguished member, the House has not done enough to emphasise that. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the debate. I should also mention two former Members, Sir Ian Lloyd and Sir David Price, who were among that select band that kept alive the flame of science, together with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others.
The second reason for the debate is that the Government have recently made important changes to the way in which they handle science and technology issues in Whitehall. The objective of the change is to give science and technology a higher profile at the centre of government. As my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Hailsham, the last Minister to hold the post that I now hold, said:
"Scientists need a senior Minister to look after their affairs, not in the sense of running after them, but in the sense of being a friend at court."
That is how I define my task, and it is one that I shall relish. That is why the Prime Minister decided that an office of science and technology should be set up at the heart of Government.
I am grateful to the noble Lord Sherfield, whose voice has carried considerable weight on these matters for a number of decades, who said in another place last week that, in his view,
"the outlook for policy making in science and technology is better now than it ever has been."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June 1992; Vol. 537, c. 977.]
He believes that we have got the institutions right.
I hope that the Office of Science and Technology will provide a powerful central focus for science and technology. It has a budget of more than £1 billion. It is responsible for the science budget and the five research councils. It is headed by the chief scientific adviser, Professor Stewart, Fellow of the Royal Society, who is known to many in the House and is widely admired.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister clarify, at the beginning, what the new position of Professor Stewart is in relation to Sir Peter Kemp and others? Is it true that his position is downgraded? What is his position in relation to those who have grade 1A, like Sir Mark Richmond?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is no question of Professor Stewart's position being downgraded. I was just about to go on to say—I hope that this will make the position clear to the hon. Gentleman—that Professor Stewart retains his right to personal access to the Prime Minister, a right that chief scientific advisers have always had. I hope that that makes it clear that his national position, as chief scientific

475
adviser to the Government, remains what it was. Sir Peter Kemp is the permanent secretary to my office and is administrative head of the Department.
I am glad to say—this relates to what might be another anxiety of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) —that the Prime Minister will continue to chair the ministerial committee on science and technology. The new office melds together the science branch of the former Department of Education and Science and the former science and technology secretariat of the Cabinet Office into a strong science policy unit. It is responsible for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology. I also have the ministerial support of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has wide knowledge of science issues from his time at the Department of Education and Science, and from his constituency.
Science and technology issues cut right across government, and it is only sensible for the Government to take a central perspective on these issues. Above all, we need to focus on the output of our research and development programmes. Government funding in this, as in other areas, is necessarily limited. Therefore, the policy would benefit from an across-the-board look. What is important is not the individual interest of one programme, one Government Department or one pressure group. The real strength of the new Office of Science and Technology is the ability to bring together all Government support for science and technology in a way that maximises the national interest.
As a nation, we must ensure that we produce the people whom we need both to sustain that science base and to contribute to the wider economy. To this end, I shall be working closely with colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whose Department will continue to be responsible for its schemes to promote technology transfer and innovation. I shall be looking at how we can provide maximum benefit from the substantial resources that Departments devote to research and development without falling into the trap, long ago identified by the late Lord Rothschild, of trying to direct from the centre, throughout the Departments, an integrated jumbo plan for science, which would be unachievable and would lead to far too much centralisation. There may be some, like the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who will be aware of the fact that I feel the shade of the late Lord Rothschild, for whom I worked when he produced his report, sometimes peering over my shoulder. That is not always a reassuring arrangement.
My job is to see that arrangements for applying science in Departments are properly carried out. My responsibility is to scan the arrangements in the Departments and, if necessary, engage in dialogue with Departments where I think that there may be weaknesses, or where I believe that priorities are not being identified properly. I shall not give them an excuse to slough off their responsibilities for science and technology on to the centre. That would be a step backwards.
Mr. Dalyell: Does Lord Rothschild haunt the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is a benign ghost; a formidable but benign ghost.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his new job and the creation of his new Department. In considering how the Government can receive the best advice on how to ensure that all Departments work together to advance the cause of science, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come to set up a standing Royal Commission on science, such as that on environmental pollution, or that the Government should consider whether the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which has done a good and well-respected job, could have its remit widened to encompass all matters of scientific advice and be charged with the permanent responsibility of deciding what should be considered and making public recommendations to the Government, Parliament and society?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come later to my proposals in terms of analysis and the generation of new proposals and new policies on a Government-wide basis. Before the House goes into the area that the hon. Gentleman raises —not that it is a matter for me—it may wish to consider its arrangements for Select Committees. That is not the Government's responsibility, but anything that the House does to help raise the profile of science and technology will be welcome.
The establishment of the new Office of Science and Technology provides a valuable opportunity to shape science and technology policy in the United Kingdom for the years to come. As I have already seen, the arrangements make sense from an international perspective. For the first time for many years we have a Minister who can meet on an equal footing other European and international representatives of science and technology in their countries. I had an opportunity to do exactly that at a meeting of the G7 science Ministers at Leeds castle recently, the so-called Carnegie group. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for being here today to represent his great Department's important responsibilities for technology transfer and innovation—
Sir Peter Emery: On his birthday.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the House will want to wish my hon. Friend well and many happy returns on his birthday.
It was, with all respect to my hon. Friend and other Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, somewhat confusing that at practically every international gathering a different middle-ranking or junior Minister represented British science. Therefore, representatives from other countries got to know a wide range of British Ministers, but were somewhat confused by our idiosyncratic approach to the matter.
That is brought into sharp focus because we are about to assume the presidency of the EC Research Council. I attended a meeting of the Council in Luxembourg at the end of April and look forward to chairing meetings of the Research Council during our presidency, during which time my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will lead the British delegation.
That brings me to the EC research and development framework programme, which now involves annual commitments of some 2 billion ecu, which will take centre stage at the Council. The Office of Science and Technology will take the leading role in developing the United

477
Kingdom's negotiating strategy to ensure that the programmes have clear objectives, are properly evaluated and meet the United Kingdom's needs.
In particular, we shall soon be discussing with our European partners the shape and content of the fourth research and development framework programme. The United Kingdom is playing an active role in influencing the preparation of the debate. We were one of the first member states to submit a paper to the Commission on what the fourth framework programme should look like. I followed that up at the first meeting that I attended in April. I said that the emphasis should be on developing generic technologies with a broad range of applications in several industrial sectors, rather than subsidising research and development in specific industries.
That is not a call for an expansion of the EC research budget: that is already considerable and has grown rapidly in recent years. It is an attempt to introduce a more systematic and objective approach to deciding what the priorities for support within the funds available should be. Of particular importance is the need to scrutinise programmes to see what their outputs and benefits are. As with our domestic expenditure, we have to ensure that we are getting proper value for money and that the Community will benefit to the maximum possible extent. It will not be a secret to some hon. Members that we and other Ministers have in the past questioned the management of some EC programmes. Those views received an encouraging measure of support at the Council from a wide range of other countries.
We are taking a lead in developing those ideas within Europe and I shall be meeting Vice-President Pandolfi later this month. Professor Stewart has proposed to the Commission that the Community should develop criteria to help us identify the generic technologies that will be important for European industry during the next 10 years or so. That initiative should complement the United Kingdom's research activities. That will be discussed by the Commission and member states next month. Pursuing that theme will be a key objective during our presidency.
The United Kingdom can rightly take pride in its fine tradition of excellence in science and technology, a tradition which retains it full vigour. United Kingdom scientists continue to carry out science of world class. We are all aware of Stephen Hawking's outstanding work on the evolution of the universe and the nature of time. It was surely encouraging to those of us such as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South who, in his interesting open letter to me, emphasised the importance of raising the profile of science more generally throughout Britain—which I strongly support—that Stephen Hawking's book sold such a phenomenal number of copies, giving the lie to those who say that there is no interest in science in Britain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I both read the book and found it straightforward and rather easy.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that Stephen Hawking's ability to communicate depends on a sophisticated machine, the cleverest part of which is a transputer which was designed in Britain and is manufactured in Britain? How does he react to the news that an irrevocable decision has been taken and from next Tuesday the transputer will be manufactured in France and Italy?
Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing his particular interest on such an effective side wind. The headquarters of INMOS is in my constituency, so I am well aware that that French-owned company is having to make some difficult decisions. However, it is clear that those decisions must be taken on a European-wide basis. Such a worldwide facility must base its decisions on the miantenance of a European facility for such production. I would not want to intervene in that decision, but I hope that the result is acceptable to the hon. Gentleman and to me. It would he wrong of us, when we are, as I hope many will say during the debate, seeking further integration of the European science based industry, to look too parochially at some of the decisions that then have to be taken.
I have referred to Stephen Hawking, but admirable work has also been done by others. Michael Green's superstring theories shed new light on the composition of matter and there is Alec Jeffrey's work on DNA fingerprinting. The United Kingdom has also made major contributions to work on gene therapy, which may in time offer a better quality of life to many people whose lives are at present marred, often tragically, as I used to see in my previous job, by diseases such as cystic fibrosis.
I was delighted to see that a recent authoritative study put the Medical Research Council's laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge second of all such facilities in the world and first on some significant measures. That is quite a tribute.
As the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development draws to a close in Rio, we should also remember the important contribution that United Kingdom science has made to environmental research. I remember well that it was the British team in Antarctica who did the original work which discovered the ozone hole that appears over the Antarctic each spring. Subsequent work with European colleagues on the similar phenomenon over the Arctic had a major British content. British scientists are in the van in climate research. That has been consolidated by the establishment of the Meteorological Office's Hadley centre and the Natural Environment Research Council's James Rennell centre at Southampton. The United Kingdom also has a commendable reputation for underpinning work in the area of biodiversity with such institutions as the natural history museum and the Royal Botanic gardens at Kew.
Mr. Dalyell: The Chancellor will recollect that I had two Adjournment debates on the natural history museum. Is he satisfied that the maintenance of the collection of 25.5 million specimens, going back to the time of Captain Cook's voyage, is now adequately financed?
Mr. Waldegrave: The funding for the natural history museum still comes from the Department of National Heritage. The museum is happy with that arrangement, although I do not say that it could not spend more money. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of systematic biology and taxonomy which, although perhaps not as eye-catching as some other science, underpin a great deal of work and are relevant to many of the biodiversity concerns which have been discussed in Rio.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Does the research work carried out at the natural history museum come

479
under my right hon. Friend's sphere of influence? Basic research goes on there into, for example, tropical diseases and marine biology.
Mr. Waldegrave: It depends. There are two ways in which my responsibilities can be fulfilled. I have responsibility for the research council budgets. If project funding came from a research council, it would come through my budget, although it would be validated by scientists and not by me. The chief scientific adviser will want to take into account the broad priorities of science as part of the general picture of the work done.
The credit for the work I have mentioned goes to the scientists concerned and I know that the House will want to applaud them. The Government's role is to help to establish the conditions in which such achievement can flourish. The Government have sought to do that, both in their education policies and in their funding of the science base. There have been some major and beneficial changes in recent years, of which we have yet to see the benefit. All people up to the age of 16 in maintained schools now study science, mathematics and technology. Since 1979, there has been a huge increase in science and engineering graduates coming out of the higher education institutions. Substantial resources for science have been made available by the Government in recent years, consistent with meeting our other priorities.
I do not want to bandy statistics with the House, but I point out that over the past decade there has been an increase of roughly 25 per cent., after inflation, in the United Kingdom's science budget—the specific budget for which I am now responsible. Government funding for higher education has increased in real terms since 1989–90. The rising profile of the science budget over the next three years will, importantly, give the research councils an excellent basis for the planning and management of their research programmes, which they welcome. By 1994–95, the Government plan to spend about £3.5 billion on civil science and technology, an increase of a useful 3 per cent. in real terms over spending in 1991–92.
Scientific achievement is not simply a matter of spending. The key, as ever, is how to achieve the best results from the resources available. A study by the Institute for Scientific Information in the United States —I know that there are other ways in which to measure scientific achievement, but bibliometrics, as I have learnt to call the study of publications, is one way—shows that, during the 1980s, the United Kingdom remained second only to the United States in the number of scientific papers published and their citation by scientists. That shows that the output and quality of the United Kingdom science and technology base remains extremely high. However, the picture is not all rosy.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The Chancellor has made an interesting observation about the output from our scientific community. In my constituency, there are two important establishments which are part of Liverpool university. One is extremely well known to the President of the Board of Trade, because he takes advice there from time to time on matters relating to trees, and the other is an important veterinary school. The academics at that institution have bombarded me recently with pleas
480
for help. Questions have been passed to the Department for Education about their working conditions and the deterioration of morale in the institution.
That does not seem to square with the picture of the future that the Chancellor has elaborated. I should be grateful if he would pass on those observations to his colleagues in the Department for Education, with the added weight of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has a direct interest in one of the establishments.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I know a little about the veterinary side, because one of the other three centres, after the reorganisation of the veterinary schools, is in Bristol. Although that reorganisation was painful, it was right. Support for science involves making difficult decisions which sometimes involve concentration. As a Member of Parliament who represents a university seat, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is, I am aware that there is a question of morale in the science community and I hope that a great deal of my speech today will address that.
I was going on to say that there are problems. Some of the issues we shall have to face in the period ahead will concern the question whether, as well as very much increasing the output of science and technology graduates, we have clear enough institutional arrangements for developing a career structure for those whom we need to keep within science. At the same time, we must make it clear to many of those who will not find a full-time career in academic or research science that they are extremely valuable members of the community who should find more senior posts in industry, in the City and in the House where we could do with a few more scientists. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing his expertise to our debates, which will be a benefit.
Sir Peter Emery: I agree that there is a lack of scientific knowledge in the House. May we assume from my right hon. Friend's remarks that he welcomes what the Select Committee on Procedure recommends—that there should be a departmental Select Committee working with his Department? We could then further a greater knowledge of science and technology in the House with a degree of criticism—I am sorry, I mean not with a degree of criticism. We could work with his Department to further a greater knowledge of science and technology, which all hon. Members would like.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's intervention was much improved by the insertion of the word "not". This is a matter for the House, for the usual channels and for those other mysterious and scientific bodies. I hope that the House will take some steps to reflect the change in departmental organisation. Anything that Parliament does to raise the profile of science must be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Mr. Dalyell: How does the Secretary of State respond to the Royal Society of Chemistry, which, incidentally, has a very valuable pairing arrangement with Members of Parliament? It said that 20 per cent. of chemistry A-level students were found to be taught by people who were not directly qualified in the subject and that one in 20 school science teachers have no higher education qualification in science. Is that not a serious point?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, although it is not directly within my responsibility. Surely the very fact that we are now increasing the output of graduates in the science subjects gives us the opportunity to correct the long-standing imbalance. I remember that the position was roughly the same 10 years ago when I worked in the Department of Education and Science. We now at least have the manpower and womanpower to correct the situation if those graduates can be found jobs in the teaching profession.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Chancellor intend to recommend that a Select Committee should be set up?
Mr. Waldegrave: I must tread carefully. I should not be thanked either by the House or by others who are more experienced in these matters than I if I were to recommend that the House should set up a Select Committee. Points of order might be raised in all parts of the House. Nevertheless, I look forward to having a productive dialogue, however the House may organise it. I should be surprised if a Select Committee were to be set up. If, however, the House comes to that conclusion, I hope that it will bear in mind that there is a powerful Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place. My Department is very small. If there should be two Select Committees, I hope that they would organise their work in a co-ordinated way so that not all the time of my officials was spent upon dealing with them.
I am grateful for those interventions, because I was about to deal with those areas where the picture is not so rosy. Hon. Members seemed to be anxious to keep me off that part of my speech, which is unusual. It is not enough just to invent. The key is to translate the invention into innovation, where it really counts—in the marketplace. It is in that area that we have undoubtedly been less successful than our competitors. Collaborative programmes such as LINK and EUREKA have grown and are contributing to the commercialisation of long-term research. There are now 30 LINK programmess involving a considerable sum of money—£350 million, of which half comes from the Government. Some results seem to be winning through.
In the case of EUREKA, which encourages European collaboration closer to the market, the United Kingdom had the highest number of new projects announced at the recent ministerial conference—43 projects. That is considerably more than either France or Germany. That is encouraging. However, we need to consider carefully what more can be done. Ultimately, it is the success of our companies in innovating and competing successfully that will provide the wealth that is required, not just for them but for Governments to plough back into research. Without the successful commercialisation of innovation, we shall inevitably slip further behind our competitors.
My party's election manifesto said that we would encourage the establishment of centres of technological excellence linking industrial research organisations with universities and polytechnics. Officials are examining how that might best be achieved—for example, taking into account the proposals from the working group on the Prince of Wales's innovation initiative for the establishment of intermediate Faraday centres.
My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, working together, have already addressed one
482
aspect. Last week the Government announced five pilot partnerships between higher education institutions and industrial research organisations which will enable postgraduate students to undertake their studies on work of direct interest to industry in organisations that deal with a wide range of industrial problems.
Mr. Tony Worthington: There will be a broad welcome in all parts of the House for the Faraday centres, but how does the Chancellor relate to the Scottish Office in this respect? Of the five establishments that were announced, none was in Scotland. It is a source of mystery to me how his new office relates to the Scottish Office and how innovation would take place in Scotland within this framework.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am responsible for the research councils' budget. That is a national budget. The research councils place project money with the higher education and other institutions throughout the United Kingdom. In that sense, I have a national responsibility. On a lighter note, the chief scientific adviser comes from the island of Islay in the western Hebrides, so I am not allowed to go very far wrong. My responsibility is to co-ordinate these matters with the territorial Ministers.
I believe that the improved arrangements will help. Coupled with the co-operative awards in science and engineering studentships, the new engineering doctorate and the teaching company scheme, there is now a range of opportunities for students to be directly involved with industry at a formative stage in their careers.
Proposals for intermediate centres go further than that. They embrace a partnership seeking to encourage more industrially relevant research and to help the two-way flow of ideas as well as people through the innovation chain. Such technology transfer is, of course, very important. We recognise, however, that the creation of intermediate centres of excellence would not be the whole answer. It is necessary to ensure that all levels of industry have ready access to sources of advice and help appropriate to their needs.
This must be seen in a local and regional as well as a national context. The needs differ between types and sizes of firms and, as well as access to new technology, there is much current proven technology which can be transferred with advantage between sectors and from larger firms to their smaller counterparts. We are also examining how this technology transfer can be improved and ways in which other mechanisms can be linked to the intermediate institute concept.
The United Kingdom has a commendable record of achievement on science and technology, but we need to build on our strengths and also learn from those of our competitors. In the months to come, I shall be carrying out consultations with the scientific community and with industry on how the United Kingdom's fine record on science and technology can be further improved. In this area, as in others, there are clear advantages in exchanges of views, pooling of priorities and wide consultation. I have already seen a number of the key players in the scientific community, such as Sir Michael Atiyah, president of the Royal Society and a number of scientists eminent in their own fields. I have also had a useful and constructive meeting with representatives of Save British Science. In this consultation there will be a crucially important input from Government Departments with

483
strong interests in science and technology, above all the Department of Trade and Industry but also other Departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. We shall continue to consult widely to help form views on the way forward.
Over the coming months, we shall be seeking the views of a wide range of individuals, companies and other groups. Today's debate is the first important stage in this consultation process and I look forward to listening to what hon. Members have to say.
The questions that we shall be asking of the science community, of industry, of this House and of another place, and of informed commentators must include these: do the Government have the right advisory structures at the centre? The Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology play important advisory roles respectively on the science budget and on science and technology generally. There are also my own advisers in the Office of Science and Technology.
Next, do we have the right links between academia and industry to encourage to the optimum exploitation of the science base? I have already mentioned that we are examining initiatives to bridge the gap between the higher education institutes and industry, as proposed in our election manifesto.
The amount spent on research and development in industry funded by industry rose by 37 per cent. between 1983 and 1990. None the less, it is still in industry's research and development contribution that we lag internationally behind some of our competitors. How can industry be encouraged to match the best of our international competitors in terms of the resources it devotes to R and D? Why are there such huge differences between the R and D committed by different industries?
We have very good basic science in Britain. We seem to have a rather poor record, with some notable exceptions, in the transfer of science to the marketplace. Is this because we are working in basic science areas which have turned out to have less marketable derivatives than those pursued by our rivals?
Mr. Dalyell: What is the position of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils?
Mr. Waldegrave: The ABRC's position is as it was, except that it is now responsible to me rather than to the Secretary of State for Education. It is the advisory body, though not with a statutory base, which advises me on the distribution of money to the research councils.
Is it because we have been less good at support for whatever we like to call the science in between basic and applied—strategic, or generic, or whatever? Should there be more, or less, Government leadership in that area? Are our training opportunities in science and technology for our industral work force—which have steadily improved —yet good enough? Is my own instinct—that the status of our engineers and scientists is not high enough—correct? If it is, what can be done about it?
Next, we need to pay full attention to the international dimension of science. Do we get enough out of international co-operation, particularly in the European
484
Community? Could we do more to help us secure the optimum R and D for our money and the best useful fit with our national programmes?
Do we get the very best value for money out of the substantial expenditure we devote to science and technology? We need to ensure that there are adequate systems in place for concentrating resources on those areas that merit priority. Are we tough enough in facing down existing lobbies which may represent past priorities, whose pressure may prevent new developments which do not yet have effective lobbies?
I have learnt already that there are several answers to each of these, and other, questions, all offered with equal vigour. I propose to listen and think about the answers and I hope to talk to as many people as possible before I come to conclusions. This debate is indeed a start in the discussion I want to take place, but in due course we must reach some conclusions on which to base a strategy that will stand for a number of years, as chopping and changing policy in those areas is demoralising and wasteful.
Accordingly, the Government intend to publish a White Paper, probably in the early part of 1993, setting out ideas about the future of science and technology in this country—to be, of course, informed by what we shall have heard and what people will have told us. At present I feel that that may be largely organisational, although it will, I hope, discuss ideas about the exploitation of science and the application of technology. It will offer no panaceas, nor hold out promises that cannot be fulfilled. Very considerable resources are already available—resources to be measured, incidentally, not just in money but in terms of tradition, bricks and mortar, equipment and, above all, dedicated individuals. What we need to look at is how we can maximise the effectiveness of our arrangements so as to give the country the best value we can from those resources.
In taking this work forward, I shall be working closely with my colleagues across Government, and especially with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, given his Department's important research and development programmes and wider responsibility for industrial innovation, and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, whose role in relation to the supply of scientists and engineers and in the management of research facilities in universities is crucial.
My aim will be to take stock of our achievements thus far in science and technology and see how we can build on them. The establishment of the Office of Science and Technology provides an excellent opportunity for doing so.
The creation of the Office of Science and Technology has been widely welcomed. I am grateful to those Opposition Members who have been generous enough to greet the changes in a positive way, and especially the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. Doubtless we will argue about the institutions, the priorities and the money. However, I hope that we can make common cause in the House about one matter: I believe that in spite of the efforts made in the past by the select band of friends of science in the House—I referred to some of them earlier and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) is another—there is still far too much ignorance of and even hostility to science in our country. It is becoming fashionable again to sneer at scientists and to blame them for ills which are in part the result of choices made by electorates and political systems.

485
Britain, of all countries, cannot afford an anti-science culture. We need to live by our wits as traders and manufacturers. Science and technology represent the application of those wits in their highest form. Part of my job is a normal ministerial one—to get the institutions and decisions reasonably right—but part of it is wider and can be achieved only with the help of the House and Parliament, of the media, of the schools, of indeed every thinking person in our country. It is to beat the drum for science and technology in Britain. We are one of the greatest of science nations. Rural, pre-scientific bliss—if it ever existed—is not an option now. We need to maintain our tremendous scientific strength and we need to use it even better. That, I hope, can unite us all.
5.43 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I welcome this first speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his capacity as science Minister and I congratulate him on his appointment as Minister responsible for the Office of Science and Technology. It is right to bring together in the Cabinet Office the responsibility across Government for science and technology issues, and the specific responsibility for the research councils.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his good sense in adopting the Labour party's proposals. I hope that the new consensus will extend further to the content of science policy. That is certainly the overwhelming wish of the science and technology community in both industry and academia. However, that consensus will last only if the Minister can develop a coherent strategy and secure the resources to carry it out, in so far as those resources come from Government. That coherent strategy must cover, most importantly, industrial research, but also the science base, medical, social, economic, environmental and defence research.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I very much welcome the scope of his ideas and the direction on which he has embarked. He referred to forward plans for the science budget. He is aware that, in the normal course of events, those plans will be reviewed and the outcome will be examined with intense concern by a great many people in industry and in the scientific world.
I welcome the Minister's emphasis on output. I am sure that he has already read Edwin Mansfield's paper in Research Policy in February 1991, in which he estimated that the annual rate of return from academic and scientific research in the United States is no less than 28 per cent. per annum. No comparable estimate has been made for the United Kingdom, for the simple reason that the data do not exist on which it could be made. That is another area where the Minister needs to improve the basis of policy-making.
The Minister ended his speech with a number of questions that he is putting, and will continue to put, to the science community. Those are questions that I have been putting to the science community for a number of years. I hope that it will be of some assistance to the House, and perhaps to the Minister, if I cite some of the replies that I have received.
The Minister asked whether the Government needed a new advisory structure; whether we had the right links between academia and industry; and how industry could be encouraged to match the performance of our competitors overseas. He promised a White Paper in early
486
1993, which is probably about right, because it will allow time for consultation. I hope that he will extend the scope of its contents beyond the organisational, to include quite a substantial part of policy and strategy.
As the Minister said, the OST will need to work closely with other Departments, especially the Department of Trade and Industry—and, I would add, the Treasury. The Minister emphasised that link in other aspects of the work of his office, and it is equally important in the scientific area. He must positively encourage other Departments to take responsibility for research in their own areas. The OST can play a useful and acceptable role in stimulating effective departmental research, providing common research services, developing a science base and encouraging the adoption and transfer of new technology. It cannot expect to get the resources for the science base unless it makes that wider contribution throughout Government.
To play that wider role, the OST and the chief scientific adviser and his staff must be appropriately recognised. It was ludicrous that, before the election, the chief scientific officer was only a grade 2 post, whereas the Minstry of Defence chief scientist and the heads of the science and engineering and medical research councils were all grade 1A. In Whitehall terms, I understand from MOD sources, that meant that its chief scientist did not attend the chief scientific adviser's meetings. I hope that the Minister can confirm that he is either making or has made the chief scientific adviser a grade 1 post. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the present incumbent of the post came from Islay; I always understood that he came from Barra. There is a deep and stormy sea between those two lovely islands.
The Minister and the chief scientific adviser will have to join in the submission of public expenditure bids for the research councils. However, they will also—as the chief scientific officer has already been doing—need to discuss with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury the research and development budgets of all Departments.
The apparent conflict of interest between being specifically responsible for the research councils while having the task of advising the Treasury on the distribution of research and development across the whole of Government and in particular Departments can be removed if it is recognised that, although the science budget has probably to lead total civil research and development in the short term, within two or three years the reality is that, without a coherent strategy, the science budget will lag behind the total civil research and development. The two are inextricably linked.
The weakness of advice and advocacy on the science budget in recent years, as pursued both inside and outside the Government, has been that it has been isolated from the mainstream economic and industrial policy-making of the Government. The OST has available, through the research that it supports, the information and analytical capability to present a more coherent case for science. If the Minister were to use that resource simply for the benefit of the science budget, his arguments would not be well received by his colleagues. He has to enable and encourage Government as a whole to use the information and analytical methods that the research community has developed without overselling or exaggerating its capabilities.
The reality, if we think in hard economic and industrial terms, that the Government must face is that, without a

487
sustained improvement in non-price technological competitiveness, there is a substantial risk that the country will face acute balance of payment difficulties around 1996, forcing major increases in taxation, cuts in expenditure, and another major recession in the run-up to European monetary union. If Maastricht or EMU does not go ahead, the risk, of course, is likely to be greater because of the added uncertainty. [Interruption.] Have we resolved the question relating to Barra?
Mr. Waldegrave: The chief scientific adviser's wife comes from Barra.
Dr. Bray: How easy it is for matches to be made across even those stormy seas. The right hon. Gentleman has interrupted my chain of thought about the likely difficulties that we will get into if the improvement in technological competitiveness, which I accept has been making some progress in recent years, does not make much faster progress in the next few years.
To reduce the risk to more acceptable levels, the improvement in technological competitiveness needs to be sufficient to increase exports of manufactures at a compound rate around 2 per cent. per annum or £2 billion per annum faster than would be achieved by the growth in world trade and in relative prices. Some encouragement can be drawn from the recent improvement in exports of manufactures, to which all Ministers frequently refer, but at least as fast a pace as that needs to be maintained for a decade to see us out of the wood.
The OST, directly and through the research that it supports in the Economic and Social Research Council, is able to join the DTI and the Treasury in monitoring the improvement in technological competitiveness and following through its policy implications. That kind of economic assessment is hazardous, but it is an unavoidable undertaking. The Treasury does not regard the medium-term financial strategy and its short-term forecasts as a reliable guide to the medium term in general or to supply side effects. But it has no other way of treating them, and it is not putting any effort into developing any way of treating them.
The OST and the DTI are inescapably concerned with the medium term and with the supply side. Unless they are able to argue such matters, they will not get anywhere with the Treasury. They can succeed in their task only if they equip themselves to handle microeconomic policy and the links between it and macroeconomic policy at least as well as the Treasury handles macroeconomic policy. While the OST and the DTI are building their in-house capability in that respect—I have mentioned, for example, the ability to do exercises such as Mansfield's in the United States—they will need to use external capacity which, in any case, should be built up to service industry in general and company strategies.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a further problem? With the cut in defence expenditure, there is likely to be a further decrease in R and D which has been going into industry, which has increased the percentage of Government R and D expenditure across the board. That money should go into civilian R and D and not just be lost or gobbled up by the Treasury.
Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but information on the extent to which that is happening is simply not available at the moment. I do not see how the Government can formulate a coherent policy on that matter unless they are able to follow the rates of technology transfer, the present state of technology in use and so on.
Sir Peter Emery: That point should be passed on to the Select Committee.
Dr. Bray: Indeed, that would help.
More widely, the Government need to find a big bang in manufacturing—some measure which would have a bigger and better effect on manufacturing industry in the 1990s than deregulation and the big bang had on financial services in the 1980s—not a black hole, but still less a white dwarf. The Government will wish to look in the same direction as they looked in respect of financial services, working through competition and the market rather than through subsidy.
The President of the Board of Trade is very sensibly talking systematically, as the Chancellor is doing, to a lot of people in different industries. I gather that, on Tuesday, he saw the chief executive officers of major chemical companies, and yesterday he saw City analysts who specialise in the chemical industry, and chemical industry trade associations. They have important roles, and often they have strong opinions, but the Minister's job is not to second-guess them. He has a different role. It is to ensure that the whole works effectively as a competitive system. The Minister has to carry industry with him, but if he is to succeed, sometimes industrialists will have to take a deep breath and take the plunge.
Competition works through information and disclosure. Firms do not always like either, but they are essential in an efficient market. The DTI, in its pursuit of that holy grail or big bang for manufacturing, could give notice that disclosure requirements will be greatly increased in, say, four years. That could include a requirement on firms to disclose costs and profitability on each product and market area, not only to competitors but to shareholders, employees, customers and suppliers.
That would give firms time to get their technology improved and get their costs down to globally competitive levels. New tertiary information businesses would develop a modern information economy—closer to that which exists in the United States, for example—to process that information into operationally useful forms that would sharpen competition and increase efficiency.
There is much current interest, growing fastest, as usual, in the United States, in the roles of information and strategic behaviour in industry. It is impressive to see how they operate in practical, down-to-earth ways in firms and industries which are rapidly improving their performance. For the United Kingdom, that somewhat cerebral approach would have to be packaged and sold—compare, compete and win strategies, perhaps—but Ministers and their consultants are good at that sort of thing.
Most firms pursuing effective strategies to increase their technological competitiveness have a number of requirements from the environment in which they operate. In this country, they are undoubtedly greatly handicapped by high interest rates. Firms borrow for other purposes than to invest in plant and machinery, but that is critical in improving technological competitiveness.

489
The high level of German interest rates, which is likely to continue for the next few years, was not anticipated when investment allowances were run down to reduce the rate of corporation tax. We may be able to reduce interest rates to a little below German rates but if we are to create a climate more favourable to competitiveness-improving investment, the case for increasing allowances for investment in manufacturing plant and machinery should be re-examined. The micro-to-macroeconomic case must be made by the DTI, with the support of the OST.
Training is also critical. The OST can give important support to the Department of Employment by ensuring that the local training and manpower policies of training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils are well informed about the emerging technologies and skill requirements of local industry. That is a key area of information disclosure and micro-to-macro analysis in which steps could be taken immediately.
The strategy of a firm must be specific, operational and as simple as possible.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is a 100 per cent. tax allowance in the first year for research expenditure? Surely that is the greatest possible help that can be given to firms.
Dr. Bray: I shall talk about research and development tax incentives specifically in a moment. I was referring to the ordinary investment allowances in plant and machinery.
A firm's research expenditure must be seen in the context of its overall strategy and innovation policies. It is useless to treat R and D expenditure on its own. The National Economic Development Council innovation working party did a useful job in producing a model innovative company and providing a tool kit which companies can use to develop their own strategy for innovation. Research and development and technology transfer have to fit into the wider framework.
Research and development are, however, of particular interest to the Chancellor, so I shall deal with that and technology transfer. International comparisons at the economy and industry level suggest that the minimum increase in civil research and development, consistent with the increase in technological competitiveness that we should seek, should be from its present level of 1.7 or 1.8 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. in five years.
Most of the increase needs to be in industrial research and development, with increases elsewhere to maintain a sustainable scientific effort. The effect would be to bring United Kingdom civil research and development in 1997 near the levels reached in Germany and Japan in 1987, from which they have since moved on. Put like that, it does not sound very ambitious, but it will take a great deal of work.
The point that the Chancellor made about the inadequacy of industrial research and development was illustrated dramatically by the research and development scoreboard published in The Independent on Tuesday. The ranking of companies by total research and development spend is sobering enough. ICI, the biggest United Kingdom spender, comes only 35th in the world league. Only 22 British companies spend more than £50 million a year on research and development.
However, when one looks more closely and chooses matching pairs of companies, looking at research and
490
development as a percentage of sales to correct for differences in size, Britain certainly does well in chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Let us compare the percentage of sales spent on research and development: ICI 4.77 per cent. compared with Du Pont 3.36 per cent.; Glaxo 13.98 per cent., compared with Merck 11.48 per cent.; Wellcome 14.30 per cent., compared with Schering 15.16 per cent. But then things begin to slip: GEC 7.20 per cent. and Siemens 10.81 per cent.; British Aerospace 2.49 per cent. and Boeing 4.83 per cent.; BP 0.94 per cent. and Elf 1.94 per cent.; Unilever 1.84 per cent. and Procter and Gamble 2.91 per cent.; British Telecom 1.95 per cent. and AT&T 4.94 per cent.
Certainly there are qualifications to be made, but, equally certainly, the general picture is inescapable. How can British industry expect to compete technologically when it spends so much less on research and development than its overseas competitors?
Mr. Jim Cousins: Will my hon. Friend give the House the benefit of a comparison between ICI and Hanson, which wished to take over ICI? Hanson's expenditure on research and development seems to tell the story of British industry in one, yet that company wanted to take over ICI.
Dr. Bray: Thankfully, that argument played an important part in fighting off Hanson and stopping it from pursuing its interests in making a bid for ICI. Mercifully, that danger has been removed for the time being. I agree with my hon. Friend that the behaviour of the conglomerates in supporting research and development needs careful examination.
A way of reducing the inadequacy of the general level of research and development in industry is to introduce a tax credit. It is a neutral and efficient way of achieving that aim. Previous Government rejections of research and development incentives seem to have been based on the out-of-date Inland Revenue survey "Fiscal Incentives for R&D Spending" published in March 1987. The literature that was reviewed in that survey led to the redesigning of fiscal incentives on more effective lines, especially in the United States and Australia.
The Opposition's proposal is for a 25 per cent. tax credit. It is not a tax allowance. It is on top of the current 100 per cent. tax allowance which a normal business expects. A 25 per cent. tax credit should be introduced for the increment of research and development over a base year. That is close to the current United States scheme, and we are informed that it would be allowable within European Community rules.
According to estimates in a Brookings paper, the effect would be modest but useful, perhaps increasing business expenditure on research and development in industry by some £600 million, or 10 per cent., at a cost in tax revenues forgone of £100 million. Combined with other influences, the effect would, of course, be larger.
The introduction of a tax credit is an important step which I hope that the Government will consider much more carefully than they have done so far. There is also a good case for examining the general structure of technology transfer programmes, to which the Chancellor referred when he considered the Faraday programme. Certainly, the proposals made by the Prince of Wales working party on innovation would build wider bridges between basic science nd industrial development. A

491
comprehensive network of intermediate institutions would be established, linked to universities and developed from the former research associations, other contract research firms and Government laboratories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to the absence of any Scottish element in the proposals, but a good bid was put in by the national engineering laboratory of the Department of Trade and Industry and the university of Strathclyde. That was only one of many worthwhile proposals which were not brought into the scope of the pilot scheme.
Many of the intermediate centres would specialise in one industry or technology. The essential element of the Prince of Wales's working party's proposal is that, if the centres effectively combined contract research and postgraduate training, they would qualify for Government support for their own programmes of strategic research to underpin their contract research. That is not an element of the present pilot scheme being run in a few particular institutes.
If we take together all the ways of increasing industrial research to which I referred, and with natural growth, the expansion that normally takes place within a company, the research and development tax incentive and the Faraday and other DTI programmes, the total increase in research and development intensity would still leave British industry a long way behind our industrial competitors. The extra has to come from increased efficiency, competitive stimulus from increased disclosure, and synergy from the interaction of all the initiatives that the Government take and industry pursues. Those wider influences must therefore be taken seriously.
With a new dynamism in industrial research, and with new networks enabling the economy and society to innovate more sensitively, the need to strengthen the science base becomes inescapable. It has to produce the necessary flow of well-trained researchers and give access to the advances in the international science community on which industry and society depend. Japan, Korea and Singapore have learnt that—can we not learn it?
The dominant size of the science base in the United States and the more comparable efforts in France and Germany are relevant. The latest estimates are that, in 1987, academic and academically related research was 0.398 per cent. of GDP in the United Kingdom, whereas it was 0.496 per cent. in Germany and 0.453 per cent. in France. The declining trend in the past 20 years in the relative position of the United Kingdom science effort underlies the present deeply felt malaise in United Kingdom academic and academically related research.
Expenditure on the science base, as a share of GDP, needs to increase by 20 per cent. in the next five years, to the level in Germany and France in 1987. I urge the Chancellor of the Duchy to consider that measure, because it measures the number of scientists. Our performance during the past 12 years, and projected in the current Government expenditure plans, maintains the science budget as a constant share of GDP.
Support in research and funding council channels for a dual support system need to be increased. If the
492
Chancellor of the Duchy is to get anywhere near the target that I set for five years hence, it will mean a £150 million cash increase in the science budget next year.
If the country embarks on that increase in research intensity and that major effort to improve the technological competitiveness of industry, we may well ask whether we will be run into a road block due to a lack of scientific manpower. The education system certainly needs to be improved, but there are sufficient reserves from the rundown of research and development and the rundown in defence research to maintain a high rate of growth in civil research and development.
We need to pay special attention to the professional development schemes launched by the Engineering Council, which need to be developed for research scientists. That is normal practice in good firms, but it is not pursued in the research community, the research councils or the universities. Such a systematic approach is needed to provide scientists with an attractive career structure.
The problems of the advisory structure, which the Minister mentioned, have to be seen against what he wants it to achieve. Does he want it to point the way to achieving the necessary improvement in technological competitiveness, or does he merely want it as a housekeeping operation, to maintain present levels of efficiency and improve them where possible, with the present resource use that industry is able to provide? He will come up with different answers as to what the advisory structure should be.
I agree with Conservative Members that, now that science and technology issues have been put under the responsibility of a single Minister and office, it is high time that we had a Commons Select Committee on science and technology. The Lords wish to continue with their Select Committee. It has been suggested that there might be some way to combine the two Committees, but while they could share common services, it is the view in both Houses that the Committees would need to function independently.
A different purpose is served by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—a commendable initiative by Members from both sides of the House. A motion on the Order Paper requires the House to approve the use of Commons funds for its future development. However, the office is not a Select Committee and will not function like one—it will not report to the House or make recommendations on policy.
Another question concerns fundamental and baffling scientific problems, which are beyond the scope of laymen, where one needs to go to the best informed peer group to get an honest, unbiased view, in so far as that can be secured. I refer to such problems as the epidemiology of Aids, determining how fast the BSE epidemic is growing and whether it can cross species boundaries, and global warming. The Government, Parliament and the public are entitled to hear the scientific peer group's judgment, as free as possible from departmental and political interests.
The Chancellor referred to his conversation with the president of the Royal Society. I am sure that it would not be breaking a confidence if I were to point out that our proposal to the Royal Society that it should be invited by the Government to give wholly independent advice on scientific issues of major public importance was suggested to the Chancellor by the president, and I hope that he will give that careful consideration.
Mr. Waldegrave: I thank the hon. Member for giving way, as I want to comment on that matter immediately —perhaps I should have done so in my speech. Sir Michael Atiyah put his proposals to me for bringing together the Fellowship of Engineering and the royal colleges to advise the Government and the nation on such important issues, and I was able to tell him that I welcomed his initiative.
Dr. Bray: I welcome that, and hope that the Chancellor will follow through the expenditure implications. Continuing support will clearly be required to do the job properly and set the process free of day-to-day interference by Ministers or officials, which would bias the outcome of the work. I certainly welcome the suggestion that the Fellowship of Engineering should be included—we shall soon learn to call it the Royal Academy of Engineering —as well as the medical field.
In addition, the Government will need their own central advisory council. Surely the Prime Minister should preside over its annual review and special meetings, but in his absence the Chancellor of the Duchy should preside.
Scientists need to talk directly to the political system and to be engaged within it. There will have to be a committee structure, which can accommodate the role fulfilled at present by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on many other matters. It is important to get the appropriate people, in the prime of their careers, who are able to give the time needed for such work, which is of such great importance for the Government.
I also hope that this structure would enable the Minister to get himself out of the somewhat Orwellian position of suppressing advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, while being responsible for open government. His predecessor Lord Joseph published that advice when he was in office, at the request of the Opposition, and it was only discontinued a couple of years ago.
The research councils should act individually in their funding and relationships with Government and outside bodies, seeking support from client groups and making funding recommendations public. There will still be a need for them to meet the Minister and his advisers, and that is the business of the successor to the ABRC. Within that process, it is possible to combine clearly spelling out the research councils' views about their funding needs and the balance of judgment that the Minister, the Chief Secretary and the Government need to make decisions about levels of funding. The science community needs to know that its view is clearly put to and understood by the Government.
For the next decade, the primary measure of success in science policy will be that sustained increase in technological competitiveness, to which the Chancellor referred as the most glaring deficiency today. That can be achieved only by a balanced science and technology policy serving industrial innovation, social and cultural needs and the science base. We hope that the Chancellor will report regularly to the House on progress. He will appreciate that our continuing support and the support of the science community will depend on sufficient progress being made. For the sake of the country and the future of science, we wish the Chancellor every success.
6.20 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of GEC-Marconi, but it is in my capacity as vice-chairman international of the
494
Conservative party that I should like to make some brief remarks in this debate. First, I welcome the creation of the new post and in particular the accession of my right hon. Friend the Minister to his position, to which he brings formidable intellectual power which certainly should ensure that the Government have a better reception in Oxford than the previous Prime Minister received some little time ago.
As Minister of State for industry and information some time ago, I can testify to the importance of co-ordinating the Government's involvement in science and technology. In my ministerial capacity I had the privilege and opportunity of working with two of Professor Stewart's distinguished predecessors as chief scientific adviser, Sir Robin Nicholson and Sir John Fairclough. Both gave extremely good public service. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend's news of the progress of the Link scheme and Eureka programme, both of which commenced during my tenure of office at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I should like briefly to turn the attention of the House away from the United Kingdom, surprising though that may be. It is part of the work of the Government to take an interest in science and technology generally, bearing in mind the thesis that science, if it is anything, is universal. Therefore, we have to take note of the needs of other countries. I should like to make some comments about the countries of the former Soviet Union and of central and easten Europe.
There is a serious situation relating to the academies of science in the former Soviet Union. I am indebted to the Royal Society for providing me with an appraisal dated January this year, on which I shall draw extensively. It lists eight problems in the former Soviet Union experienced by the scientific academies.
First, the old Stalinist model of massive and wasteful use of manpower still exists, with a bureaucracy to match and autocratic rule by directors of institutes. Secondly, no republic can continue funding to previous levels, given that economic crisis measures must take priority. Thirdly, the bleak outlook for basic researchers on state salaries forces many to seek alternative outlets in other sectors at home or opportunities to employ their talents overseas. It is estimated that 20 per cent. of top level researchers have accepted contracts to work in foreign institutions. Fourthly, the academies do not have hard currency resources available to them to alleviate temporary shortages of consumables, to subscribe to western scientific journals, to purchase necessary equipment or to fly to foreign destinations. Fifthly, only a few republics publish information of the kind that the west takes for granted, such as lists of institutes, directors, and organigrams, all of which are necessary to take sound decisions on closer co-operation. Knowledge of western science is often scanty or incomplete.
A legal framework for scientific activity in areas such as patent protection is needed to give a proper basis for collaboration. The existing Russian or, more correctly, Soviet law on inventions and discoveries puts the interest of the state before that of individual scientists. The current economic crisis, together with social unrest and potential political instability, may supervene in any attempt to reorganise science. That is all against a background of political and economic disintegration which in many republics has led to a breakdown of law and order.

495
The Royal Society is working extremely hard to do what it can to address many of those problems. Its report describes the brainpower of scientists and engineers as one of the most valuable assets of the former constituent republics and a resource which will be vitally needed in their future development. Among basic factors which need to be addressed in Russia and the Ukraine in particular are the need to identify the best science, the need to manage the task carefully and closely, and the need to integrate Russian science with that of the western world.
I have spoken about the former Soviet Union but, as the House will accept, the parlous condition of science obtains throughout all the former communist countries in central and eastern Europe to a greater or lesser degree. I therefore commend to my right hon. Friend the responsibility of his new Department to take account of the needs of science in the various aid programmes being developed and generated in relation to those countries.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman also commend the efforts of Scottish Nuclear to twin with a nuclear power station outside Smolensk and to send great help to the vulnerable Bulgarian power station of Kozloduy?
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Indeed I will. That is an example of the precise sort of co-operation that both sides of the House would welcome.
Finally, on a separate but related matter, there is a real need for scholarships for first degree courses to be provided to students from the countries to which I have referred. I am thinking of students who already have the qualifications to cope with places at British universities but who, not surprisingly, have no funds to pay for such courses.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last year we had a delegation of Russian scientists, that other delegations are coming and that they are asking about bursaries and suggesting exchange visits with, for example, Kazakhstan where the space operation is carried out?
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I should make it clear that, important and essential though doctoral visits and exchanges are, I am commenting on first degree courses. We have a responsibility to help young people take first degree courses. I hope that a scheme can be launched soon. It could be funded by industry. Our industry could show a mixture of altruism and self-interest, which is always rather an acceptable cocktail. When industry feels good, it could agree to support some of these people from central and eastern Europe on bursaries and then perhaps employ them afterwards. The Government could support that, but need not fund it.
I make no apology for focusing the attention of the House outside the shores of the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, if science is anything, it is universal and all of us who are interested in this subject should be aware of the problems experienced elsewhere on the continent of Europe.
6.28 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) will forgive me if I do not follow the theme of his speech. He is absolutely right, however, to draw the attention of the House to two important points—that science is international and that tremendous reserves of highly skilled scientists exist in the Soviet Union and the other former communist countries. The defence industries of those countries took the scientific cream of the cream, but those scientists are now wasted to the world when they could be given useful productive work within the international scientific community.
I join with the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton in welcoming the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post, which has particular responsibility for science. I especially liked the Minister's remarks at the end of his speech, when he said that he wanted not only to run a Department but to beat the drum for science. That is desperately needed in the government of the country. When I was a Minister, in the far-off days of the Labour Government, I was Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science. I, too, wanted to beat the drum for science, but I found myself beating my head against a wall. The main interest in science was directed at the funding councils, the research councils and higher academic institutions. I wanted to co-ordinate that interest with the tremendous amount of research taking place in industry and in other Departments of State, especially the Ministry of Defence, but no such co-ordination arose. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be up against it if he attempts to beat the drum for science and to get it clearly heard within the ranks of the civil service and the House.
I welcome the fact that we are holding a debate on science. I remind the House that it is the first debate on science that we have had in Government time since 1985—seven years ago. I admit that there have been other debates on science, but this is the first debate for which we can thank the Government. I am tempted to wonder whether the Government have been so munificent because of the gaping black hole in the legislative programme created by the population of Denmark.
I am glad that science has been given its own Minister and that it will be given a higher profile. I am delighted that that Minister is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I remind him that half of my constituency, Widnes, is within the Duchy. He could kill two birds with one stone early in his new career by visiting some industries in my constituency which have made highly important technological advances and by visiting the only museum for the chemical industry in the world—the Catalyst museum, of which I am proud and honoured to be a founder trustee. The previous ministerial visit to the museum was made by Sir David Trippier, who we were delighted to welcome. I was glad to hear that he had been rightly honoured by the Queen in the honours list. Whatever one's party political views, he was a first-rate Minister.
There is no doubt that science receives a bad press from the media, which often regard it as a bogey man. At the current conference in Rio, most of the criticism is directed towards science and its products. The truth is that only science and technology can save the planet, if we are to continue to live in the way to which we have become accustomed, and, even more importantly, if we are to give

497
a full and proper life to the 90 per cent. of the world's people who face the prospect of a life of nothing but famine, starvation, disease and grinding poverty. Only science and technology can render assistance not just to this country, but to the world. Such is the importance of the subject. There must be greater public awareness—in the House, in the media, and especially in our schools—of the importance of science to the world. It is not the bad boy, but the good boy. Until comparatively recently—certainly when I was at school—it was axiomatic that science and progress were good things. Now, the tendency is to believe the opposite.
I will give an example of the way in which private industry can help to solve problems posed by the warming of the atmosphere, chlorofluorocarbons and their effect on the ozone layer. In my constituency, ICI has spent £250 million on research to find a substitute for CFCs, and it has succeeded—the first company in the world to do so. It developed a product called KLEA 134a, which does everything that CFCs do but, because it does not contain chlorine, it is ozone friendly and does not deplete the ozone layer. Since then, ICI has been investigating a product called KLEA 32 and much more money is being spent on it. The pilot plant for that new product will open in my constituency next month. Tremendous progress has been made since the Montreal protocol and industry has shown that it can develop a substitute for CFCs. Admittedly the expenditure was enormous, but it can be done. KLEA 32 has enormous potential for use in refrigeration—the refrigerated transport of food, supermarket refrigeration and air conditioning. The most dangerous use of CFCs was not in aerosols, but when the gases were used in refrigeration. When those machines were scrapped, the gases were released into the atmosphere. That is an example of the way in which industry is co-operating.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that our chemical industry has a particularly good record of research and development, in which it invests 6 per cent. of its turnover —a high proportion compared with that invested by the rest of industry. It is a good example to other industries. A similar industry, which we do not praise sufficiently in the House, is the pharmaceutical industry. Is the House aware—very few people are—that four of the 10 top-selling medicines in the world are the discoveries of British companies, including the world's best-selling medicine? Britain produces more than a quarter of the world's top 50 best-selling medicines. That is on a par with those produced in the United States and the rest of Europe combined, and twice the figure for Japan. The pharmaceutical industry's exports earn more than £2 billion a year for the United Kingdom and we are the world's third largest exporter of medicines after Germany and the United States.
The pharmaceutical industry is worried—it has confessed its worries to hon. Members on both sides of the House many times—about the way in which the Government have hitherto acted upon short-term financial considerations, rather than on the long-term needs of our scientific base. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will seek to correct the Government's attitude, which seriously threatens the environment in which the pharmaceutical industry has thrived until now to the benefit of our country.
498
The industry is worried for three reasons—the inadequate support for science education in schools, the continuing lack of proper support for the academic infrastructure and the difficulties in collaboration between industry and academia. When one of the best industries in this country, which exports so much and has been almost recession-proof, is expressing such concerns, the Government must sit up and take notice.
Education goes to the root of the problem. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about science teachers. Let us not kid ourselves about what is happening in primary and secondary schools and sometimes also in sixth-form colleges.
Because of the shortage of scientists, one finds anyone with any sort of scientific base teaching a scientific subject. That often means that the teacher is only a couple of pages ahead of the brightest pupil in the class. That is not fair on the teacher or the pupil. A graduate in biology teaching physics in a school will not communicate the degree of enthusiasm to the pupils as he would if he were teaching biology because, by definition, biology is his chosen subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to draw attention to that because it happens so often in our schools.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having been a science teacher in schools for many years, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that we must continue as far as possible to encourage the teaching of single science as well as combined science so as to maintain standards?
Mr. Oakes: I am certain that we should.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Figures have been put to me suggesting that sixth form pupils—the older teenagers—are showing less interest in maths and science and that the numbers taking those subjects have been falling. That is very bad news indeed.
Mr. Oakes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I must decline, if I am asked, to give way further, bearing in mind Madam Speaker's comments about the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. I agree with the need to teach single subjects. We must do that with enthusiasm.
How do we get out of the present situation? One difficulty is that we in this country have a poor record in mathematics. It is imperative that we have proper teaching of maths from the primary, let alone the secondary, school level, because one cannot have an innumerate scientist. Whatever his or her discipline—from astronomy to zoology, throughout the alphabet—every scientist must be numerate. Nobody can qualify in science without having numeracy.
I am indebted to the Royal Society of Chemistry for providing me with figures which go to the root of the problem—let us not have an airy-fairy academic discussion—which is pay. I knew that the situation was bad, but I did not realise that it was as bad as the society tells me. The first figures apply to chemistry teachers, though I am sure that the same is true for mathematics and physics teachers and others who could otherwise get jobs in industry.
The average chemistry school teacher aged 39, at the peak of his career, earns about £20,000 per annum. The

499
median grade salary for all members of the society aged 39 is more than £24,000. Those in the upper quartile in industry are earning £29,400—half as much again as a teacher.
The situation becomes worse as we look into it more. It is not a case of it being bad at the start and getting better. By the age of 59, the average wage for the chemistry teacher has hardly improved at all. It is about £23,000. The median figure for all members of the society—chemists working in industry and throughout the rest of the profession—is £30,000 per annum, and for the upper quartile it is £39,000.
Those are the stark facts that the Chancellor must face when talking about the recruitment of scientists into schools. Let us also not forget those valuable people who want to move from industry into teaching. They may have a desire to teach, but they must take a hell of a drop in salary to indulge that desire, for it involves losing half the money that they have been used to earning, and a lifestyle to match.
I am not suggesting that scientists outside education —for example, in Government research institutions—are well paid in this country. We have the ludicrous situation now that at Culham, British research scientists and technicians working on the most important development the world has ever known—fusion, how to get energy that would solve all our present problems, as we worry about pollution from hydro-carbons and so on—are going on strike to be paid the same rate as their German, Swiss and French colleagues doing the same job alongside them.
That is typical of the way in which we regard science and of the double standards which exist in Britain. I hope that the Chancellor will look into those problems and take action to resolve them. [Interruption.] I accept that a similar state of affairs existed at the time of the last Labour Government, but it has become far worse. It was wrong then, just as it is wrong now. I am fighting for science. I am not fighting party political battles here, and I remind Conservative Members that the election campaign is over.
I was delighted at what the Minister said about beating the drum for science. One way he can do that is to get more scientists and engineers in influential positions on boards, rather than having accountants running companies. Let us have more scientists, rather than accountants, in those jobs.
The media must recognise the achievements of science and stop knocking them. They must try to understand them and not put out in television programmes the sort of pseudo-science that does not exist in reality. We are being fed that at present and it makes the discussion in Rio meaningless, not just to the ordinary citizen but to me and to hon. Members generally.
We live at a time when we get an honours list almost weekly; we had one last week and we shall get another tomorrow. Can scientists be given more recognition, with fewer honours being given to the stereotyped civil servant or Member of Parliament? Let us give more honours to scientists, who have benefited the world and medical science far more than many of those who at present receive honours ever dreamt of doing. Indeed, let us consider a separate order for scientists, with the Queen giving them separate recognition of the value of their achievements to the nation and the world.
500
We do not have an academy such as the French Academy or the Soviet Academy of Scientists. We have the Royal Society, but that tends to be academic-based. We need the sort of recognition that other countries show to the greatest and most eminent of their citizens who happen to be scientists. By such an uncostly means, the Chancellor of the Duchy might examine possible ways to advance science in Britain.
6.47 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), probably unconsciously, made me feel at home by saying that this was our first debate on science since 1985, because that was the last time that I had any involvement in the subject.
In other respects, I cannot feel wholly at home. My brother, when a silk, was approached by the Treasury Solicitor to serve as counsel to the Sizewell inquiry. He explained in reply to the invitation that there was a generation in Britain who had never had a lesson in science in their lives, and that he was a member of it. I am his elder brother, and must plead guilty to the same charge. Any remarks that I make in the debate will thus be more parliamentary than scientific.
It was said of Robert Boyle that he was the father of chemistry and the brother of the Earl of Cork. My remarks, owing more to Cork than to chemistry, will follow the tradition of the Greek chorus, familiar to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. They will not be profound, but I hope that they will be apposite to the present moment in our play, and I avoid any temptation to categorise the latter as a tragedy.
I welcome my right hon. Friends in government—including my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science—as those responsible for such matters, and I join in the welcome that has been given to the procedural steps that have been taken.
My brevity will have three parts. The first is to express sympathy to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the scale and breadth of science and its demands compared with the resources available to any late 20th-century Government. It is commonplace that no European country can keep up evenly across the face of science, yet there is also the haunting knowledge that the unfashionable subject of today may be the essential subject tomorrow, and that neglect in this debate may mortgage the next. One thinks of the years before biotechnology, and of the relative state of virology here on the eve of AIDS. No doubt others in the House more learned than I could produce more striking examples. The Chancellor of the Duchy faces a dilemma for which he deserves our sympathy. We shall watch to see how its resolution evolves.
The second part of my brevity relates to the Government's relative allocation of resources to those categories of research beloved of anatomisers—basic, strategic and applied. Of course, I recognise that some of those distinctions may be more apparent than real. During the Administrations of Mrs. Thatcher, there was a perception that if there was a spectrum there was a greater emphasis on the applied than on the basic end, on the ground that by that route we were more likely to see a more immediate return on our investment.

501
However, the spectrum is also a continuum, and in the fulness of time, the more immediate return diminishes unless the longer-term return is also primed. If, at least in the early years of the Thatcher Administrations, the emphasis was prompted by misgivings about the British ability to capitalise economically on scientific research, we now have to bend our minds collectively to how to cure our tradition—to which the Chancellor of the Duchy referred—of being spectacular inventors yet generally incompetent exploiters.
According to evidence about the pattern of our share of world trade now emerging from a team of economists in Scotland, we now derive a larger share than we did a decade ago from the sale of sophisticated products to sophisticated markets. That suggests that we have begun to rectify the imbalance between invention and exploitation.
However, there is still plenty of anecdotal evidence. I learned of a vivid case at the university of Dundee, in the company of the present chief scientific adviser to the Cabinet, in his previous Dundonian incarnation, which showed that other countries are better than we are at monitoring, culling, and exploiting the new news of our own scientific breakthroughs, let alone the breakthroughs in other countries.
Because our general comparative failure in that area is a century old, and apparently endemic, I wish to express hope about a particular matter. I have been less apocalyptically concerned than have some others that accountants may have had a disproportionate role in British general management, in comparison with, for instance, engineers. But we have had a glaring management lacuna in that developmental thread which stretches from research through development to product and market planning, to costing and design, to pilot and mass production and marketing. That concerns the individual manager at the heart and fulcrum of that process, who needs to control, and thus necessarily to understand, the whole skein—a role which demands a generalist, but one with a multidisciplinary background.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman was, in my opinion, an effective and certainly a courteous and helpful Minister. Taking up the Dundee example, concerning Professor Phil Cohen and the distinguished department of biochemistry there, is not part of the trouble the fact that we do not have, as part of our system of patent law in this country, intellectual property rights, regulations and laws, such as exist in some other countries? Are we not seriously disadvantaged—the most dramatic example of that being the story of Cesar Milstein and the monoclonal antibodies?
Mr. Brooke: I have had exchanges with the hon. Gentleman on such subjects before, and what he says is well worth my right hon. Friend's consideration; it is one of the issues that enters into the question, but I am not sure whether in this instance it is the central issue.
Returning to the idea of the central manager, I do not regard the master of business administration qualification as an automatic realisation of that need. However, many MBAs with backgrounds in different undergraduate disciplines who enter on a business school postgraduate degree will contribute to filling that gap. It is gratifying that their numbers in this country are accelerating so
502
rapidly. In the context of earlier speeches, I note how auspicious it is that in Brussels the EUREKA programme is located in the rue Archimede.
My third point, as befits a Greek chorus, has a touch of threnody about it, and is typically apposite to the Earth summit. I refer to the tendency of lobbyists in general and the media in particular to press the Government, in ways such as those referred to by the right hon. Member for Halton, to take scientific decisions in the face of real or imagined ills— whether those are, for example, environmental or medical—before the scientific community can pronounce authoritavely with any certainty on the diagnosis of and prescription for those ills.
I realise that it was probably ever thus and that the boot is not on a single foot—the scientific community may always want more time. However, one of the potential benefits of the greater scientific emphasis both in government and in the House may be a growing appreciation in the country that many such matters are very complex, and that hurrying a decision may not be in our overall best interests. Of course, the best is sometimes the enemy of the good, but the pressurised can be the enemy of the good also.
As has been said, our debate is accompanied by a motion on the Order Paper concerning the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied, such a reference must necessarily prompt grateful memories of our erstwhile hon. Friend, Sir Ian Lloyd, who did so much to bring that about. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology was perhaps a King Charles's head to Sir Ian, but there are King Charles's heads and King Charles's heads, and Sir Ian's was a wholly beneficial one.
I finish with a different institutional question. The European Commission has published a proposal for a Council decision establishing a multiannual programme for the development of Community statistics on research, development and innovation. Knowing the Government's earlier aversion to extending the Community's economic and business statistical barrage, I would be genuinely and open-mindedly interested in what the Government's response is or will be to that proposal. I was not clear whether what my right hon. Friend said about the EC included our reaction to it.
6.57 pm
Mr. Don Foster: Like many other Members, I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on his appointment as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I also very much welcome the establishment of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
Hon. Members may not be aware that, although I live close to my constituency of Bath, I do not live in it but in Bristol, so the Chancellor of the Duchy has the dubious privilege of representing me in the House. I shall therefore take particular notice of his speeches here. On the subject of science, I was encouraged by the speech with which he opened the debate.
I should also point out that I am a member of the Institute of Physics, a former science teacher—I stress the word "science", in view of the dialogue that took place earlier about separate sciences—and a former trainer of science teachers. However, I confess that I have been much humbled by what I have heard so far today, especially by

503
the knowledge that both the Chancellor of the Duchy and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have managed to read to the end of, and to understand, Stephen Hawking's book. That is something that I do not claim to be able to do.
Dr. Moonie: Nobody said that they understood it.
Mr. Foster: That is right; I retract my remark—but at least both admitted that they had got to the end of the book. I would far prefer to have debated with them the way in which Tycho Brahe lost his nose or the activities of James Prescott Joule on his honeymoon—both make interesting stories.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). It was constructive and I learnt much from it. In my first outing in a science debate —I fear that if I am to believe what I hear about the number of such debates held in the Chamber, it may be some time before I participate in another one—I do not intend to be as discursive as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South.
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the way in which science is to be given a higher profile in the House. I am also conscious of the low status of science and technology, and engineering in this country and—as evidenced by today's turnout—the House. I have looked at the records and understand that when what was probably the most important engineering report—the Finniston report—was debated in the Chamber in 1980, there was an attendance of a maximum of 10 Members. It took a further eight years before there was another discussion of engineering in the House. We can be pleased at today's attendance rate which, by my count, is more than three times that for the debate on the Finniston report. That is not to imply that there have not been other science debates in the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has gone to great pains to stress that he initiated a debate, on a Supply day, on the exciting topic of interactive fibre-optic telecommunication networks reaching into every household in Britain. I am sure that that debate fascinated the few hon. Members present for it. I understand that during the debate he explained the vital importance of gallium arsenide and other mysteries. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is beside me, as I understand that he knows about gallium arsenide. If hon. Members wish to know more, they should ask him after the debate.
Science and technology in this country is in a comparatively parlous state and we are not best placed to move forward to meet the challenges of the next century. If we listen to the debate currently raging in Rio, we must accept that it is on the scientists, technologists and engineers that the future of this country and, indeed, the world will depend. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Duchy to say that, in looking at the way forward, we should take stock of our achievements. It is also important to take stock of the difficulties that we have faced and try to analyse the reasons for them.
The evidence shows that our universities face problems after a decade of underfunding. More teachers of science and maths are leaving the teaching profession than joining it. Of the engineers that qualify, only 50 per cent. join
504
engineering-related professions and others move on to seek better pay, better opportunities, increased responsibility, wider futures and increased recognition and respect.
One of our biggest failings has been our failure to invest in innovation. As the Chancellor of the Duchy admitted, to reverse that trend, science, industry, the education service and the Government must all play a part. Today's speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy may mark a turning point, but for too many years the Government have shown an inadequate commitment to supporting and encouraging science and engineering. The consequences of that failure for this country are related to its economic position.
Fewer and fewer patents are being awarded to people in this country, while those in our competitor nations are receiving more and more patents. Despite what has been said about the increased number of references to scientific papers produced in this country, there is growing evidence that our British research publications are having less of an impact in the world. We are faced with a stark choice and one which I think the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was beginning to pick up in his speech.
We must consider investment in research and development; we must reflect on the past and some of the problems that we have faced. There is a range of statistics giving the expenditure on various types of research. Someone else could give another set of figures to contradict some of my comments. One of our biggest problems is that we simply do not have an adequate database from which to progress. There is evidence in some of the figures to show that our civil research and development expenditure, when compared to that of other European countries, Japan and the United States, has fallen. We have slipped down the league table of expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product, from about seventh to about 11th place. There are problems relating to the various mechanisms by which money is raised for research and development in higher education. Those methods are frequently changed. The evidence suggests, that since 1979, expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen from about 0.35 per cent. to about 0.32 per cent.
The Chancellor of the Duchy said, as has the Prime Minister, that the amount of money intended for expenditure on research and development in our higher education institutions is increasing, and various figures have been given. However, the problem is that we must consider those increased figures in the light of various inflation factors. I think that we would all accept that inflation in relation to aspects of research and development rises more rapidly than inflation in other spheres. Certainly, the Save British Science Society argues that the increases in cash terms that have been mentioned will mean a reduction in buying power for scientific research in future.
I said that it was possible to obtain a set of figures on the increased or reduced investment in research and development in both the public and private sector, but perhaps it is more important to consider the concerns expressed by a wide range of organisations. The Chancellor of the Duchy has already met representatives of the Save British Science Society, and has agreed to have future meetings with them. I have also received submissions—as I am sure he has—from representatives in higher education, including those from the Committee of

505
Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. All the submissions showed a deep concern about the future of scientific and technological research in this country.
There is evidence of people involved in the profession wanting to move abroad and of low morale within our institutions, with recent graduates starting to think that research is not an attractive career. Research contracts are frequently terminated due to shortage of funds and many promising ideas and projects either remain unfinished or the ideas behind them are sold overseas.
There are problems in obtaining backing for any blue-sky research. One of my constituents has conducted lengthy blue-sky research and translated his findings into a piece of educational technology that may well revolutionise language teaching in this country. Unfortunately, he is unable to get the resources to support him and will now almost certainly take his idea overseas.
Mr. Knapman: Can the hon. Gentleman give examples of projects that have terminated because of a lack of research council finance?
Mr. Foster: People in the faculty of engineering in the university in the Chancellor of the Duchy's constituency have problems about the continuity of research funds. I do not claim to be an expert, but I understand that one of the problems is that research council funding cannot be continued for more than a year. There is also a problem about carrying forward deficits and surpluses. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will address that.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The nuclear structure facility was one good project for which funds ceased. Perhaps that answers the question by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman).
Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that example.
The Chancellor of the Duchy spoke about initiatives that he proposes. I am glad that he is to implement a commitment in the Conservative manifesto about the intermediate centres. That was dealt with in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in slightly different language. We call them regional technology transfer centres, but the principle is the same. I hope that he will discuss the possibility of greater autonomy for the research councils. He said that he will speak to industry with a view to finding other ways of developing greater links between the academic world and industry. I hope that he will expand the SMART scheme and consider the reintroduction of the support for innovation scheme. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has already had many representations about such ideas.
In view of my interest and background in science teaching, I was interested to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy say that he would work with his colleagues in the Cabinet. He mentioned some of them and spoke in particular about the Secretary of State for Education. I hope that he will work closely with the Secretary of State to ameliorate some of the growing problems in science and technology education. As the Chancellor of the Duchy knows, the Secretary of State has ordered an urgent review of technology in the national curriculum following the damning reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Engineering Council. In the words of Denis Filer, the director of the Engineering Council, the review is intended,
"to put an end to the Mickey Mouse technology that has manifested itself in schools."
506
It seems that, not before time, Mickey is being sent back to the drawing board.
Many of our newspapers have said that our children are being forced into a Blue Peter, paper and sticky-back plastic approach to technology. Perhaps some of the headlines are a little over the top, but comparisons with competitor countries are worrying. The report of Her Majesty's inspectorate that led the Secretary of State to ask for the review showed that 40 per cent. of technology lessons in secondary schools and more than a third in primary schools were less than satisfactory. The report also condemned too little initial and in-service training. One reason for that is funding.
The constituency of the Chancellor of the Duchy is within the area of Avon education authority. Because of the fear of poll-tax capping, there have been significant reductions in expenditure. The cuts have led to the closure of technology centres, thus removing some of the support for people who are trying to develop technology in schools throughout the county. Nationally, there has been a cut in the number of science advisers and science centres. There is evidence in the report to show that about 50 per cent. of information technology equipment in our schools has been bought by parents. Tesco has got in on the act because people can now get school computers using vouchers obtained with purchases in Tesco stores. The Government squeeze on expenditure on education is, in part, responsible for the concern about technological education.
HMI regularly reports on the teaching of science. In its most recent report on science key stages 1, 2 and 3, the inspectorate said that there had been improvements in science education, but that it was still concerned about some areas. It said that teachers' lack of scientific knowledge at key stage 2 had restricted children's progress. On key stage 3, HMI said that pupils were less good at planning investigations and interpreting evidence, and it spoke about the burden of the current assessment procedure. The report states:
"Assessment recording and reporting have continued to create heavy workloads for teachers and to cause them anxiety … The provision of resources for science showed improvement from last year but shortages continued to restrict the quality of work in a significant minority of schools."
It added:
"The proportion of secondary schools with too little specialist accommodation was higher than last year and many primary school classes work in less than ideal conditions for science."
Those problems in our schools do not bode well for the future of science and technology in our society. I hope that, when the Chancellor of the Duchy speaks to the Secretary of State for Education, he will mention the need for increased investment in science and technology education and in education generally.
The Government are mainly responsible for the decline in science and technology and have a major responsibility for reversing the trend. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's new post and his encouraging speech signal a willingness to take the necessary action. I wish him well.
7.17 pm
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on his thoughtful and constructive speech, most of which I agreed with. It is early days for the Chancellor of the Duchy and his able colleague the Parliamentary Secretary,

507
Office of Public Service and Science. It is not surprising that high expectations have been raised in the scientific and technological community. I am worried that my right hon. Friend will find it difficult to sustain those expectations because many frustrations have developed over the years. At long last we have what our competitors in Germany, France and of course Japan have benefited from and used for many years—a Minister of science at the centre of government.
We have heard much about low morale in the scientific community and about the poor image of scientists in the eyes of many people. In an article in The Daily Telegraph today, my right hon. Friend referred to the very real fears and anxieties that the public have about science. I have been sensitive to people'ss anxieties about biotechnology, genetic engineering and foetal experiments—all matters that we have debated. On a previous occasion, I spoke about how many nuclear scientists were unaware of the long-term implications of what they were doing, until the power of decision was taken out of their hands. Many matters worry people in the community, not least those being discussed in Rio. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see it as within his wide remit and responsibilities to keep a watch on the ethics, the purposes and the meaningfulness of much of the scientific work research that is carried out. Perhaps we need a citizens charter against scientists.
A whole range of matters cause concern. I shall touch on three. The first is the need for a Select Committee. It is good for a Department and for the House to have a parliamentary procedure for examining what the Department is doing, and only a Select Committee can examine it in detail and fully. I am gratified that the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South and me will, by tomorrow morning, have been signed by 182 right hon. and hon. Members. More signatures come in every day. We cannot discuss science policy adequately, in this Chamber or in the Select Committee, however, unless we have a clear science policy to discuss. Here, too, is one of the failures of Government in recent years. I know that my right hon. Friends will be looking at this and coming hack to us with what I hope will be a much more coherent science policy than we have so far had.
The second thing that bothers me is the relationship between original science and industry. We need to remind ourselves over and over again that a thriving science research base means innovative industrial development, which in turn leads to increased prosperity both nationally and individually. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy take up a point first suggested by Sir John Fairclough, a previous chief scientific adviser, that we look at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany, which integrates scientific research and the industrial parts of the German economy? I was pleased that the last Parliament saw the successsful privatisation of the British Technology Group, and I hope that that, in a small way, will help in this sector.
Thirdly, and lastly, I am deeply concerned about the structure within the Department. The Advisory Council on Science and Technology needs to be looked at, and I am glad that the Prime Minister is to chair this, but the Advisory Board for the Research Councils also needs to be examined. I have been concerned about the relationship
508
between the ABRC and the Universities Funding Council. I understand that they rarely talk to each other. Now, there will be one Minister for the research councils and another for higher education. I should like to know, because this is a matter of urgency, how the two Ministers will relate to each other and whether there will be a link to bring together the priorities of the two Departments.
When the Select Committee on Education and Science tried to see who allocated priorities for the funding of research, we found that we had to deal with five different Government Departments, with the Treasury sitting over them. I hope that, with his new appointment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to exercise real leadership, and avoid that quagmire of different committees and responsibilities.
7.24 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: We must welcome the fact that the debate is being held and that science has been given a much higher profile within Government. I join the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) in welcoming the fact that, on the Order Paper today, we have support for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, in which I declare a small, non-financial interest as a member of the board. I hope that this will increase the profile of science in the House and strengthen the case for the Select Committee.
I am much less sanguine, however, about the outcome of the project of the Chancellor of the Duchy's Department, first because, within that Department, the affairs of the citizens charter are much more substantial, in numbers and resources, and are likely to be more politically pressing than his responsibility for science. Secondly, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology has been mentioned, but the Chancellor of the Duchy did not refer to the work that it has done recently, and I find that alarming. He did not refer to the report on the environment which came out only last month. He did not refer to its existing, and very exciting, work programme. I was therefore worried when, at the end of his speech, he said that he would be issuing a White Paper at the beginning of next year on work programmes and institutional structures. Much of the work programme and its objectives are already present in the existing work of ACOST, which has been absorbed into his Department.
I am anxious about another matter. What is to be the relationship between the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry? In his speech to The Sunday Times development conference a little over a week ago, the soi disant President of the Board of Trade said that the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Office of Science and Technology would be limited to the co-ordination of public resources in science. The inference was that responsibility for the interface between industry and science, which has widely occupied so many in this debate, would not form part of the responsibilities of the Office of Science and Technology. Such Balkanisation within Government would give rise to great concern. Much of the Chancellor's speech was directed at a problem that the President of the Board of Trade regards as being his responsibility and that of his Department. That matter must be resolved quickly.

509
We cannot be sanguine about the position of British science. It is no good looking back at past triumphs and successes—we must look forward. The Department of Trade and Industry, in a publication which came out a little over a fortnight ago, revealed some alarming facts. One third of all the patents taken out in the world in 1991 were taken out by Japan, and 25 per cent. of the human resources available in the world in scientific research are Japanese.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) rightly compared this country with France and Germany, but Japanese manpower, human resources, in scientific research exceeds the human resources of France, Germany, Italy and this country combined, and if we are not careful we shall be economically and intellectually overwhelmed by those resources. It is perfectly understandable that the Japanese should roll down to Rio rather than totter down as we have done and say, in effect, "We can underpin the whole show. Give us biodiversity. We will pay for it and make it work for you." They have the intellectual and financial resources to do that—we have not.
I wish briefly to mention three particular topics. The first—the importance of regional affairs in science—has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). In my region in the north we have some important world-class higher education institutions, but we do not have the linkage with science and technology in industry. What worries me is that, of the 170 Government research establishments in England and Wales, 75 are in the south-east and only 10 are in the north of England. When one compares not just the institutions but the numbers, quality, repute and power within their departments and the people who work in those institutions, the disparity is greater still. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for the co-ordination of public resources in science, he will have to ensure a much stronger presence in the regions of the scientific resources which are at present concentrated far too heavily in the south-east.
My second point has already been mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and that is the key importance of defence. There was no mention of the Chancellor of the Duchy's relationship with the Ministry of Defence in his speech even though, by a happy coincidence, Sir Peter Levene is on his staff. I should have thought that that was something to which the Chancellor would refer when almost half the Government's spending on science and technology goes into defence. We have some profound and difficult decisions to take about defence. If we cannot have sensible programmes of conversion of defence technological expertise into civil use, we shall face problems. The Defence Research Agency is projecting a 40 per cent. cut in its manpower. Defence technological enterprises, one of the Government's initiatives, has virtually collapsed. We see the industrial impact of cuts in defence spending. It is vital that we make the link between what are now programmes of expenditure purely in defence and things that can service the technological reconstruction of our industry as a whole.
The Royal Society report on science in Russia was mentioned earlier, and another important point needs to be made about that. That report says that a top Russian nuclear physicist can be bought for $60 a month. If we do not attend to the career prospects and livelihoods or such
510
people, heaven only knows what nuclear, chemical and biological warfare proliferation we shall lay in train. I should have thought that the Government would give high priority to that matter.
My last point relates to biology and the environment, in which Britain has traditionally and in recent times led the world. A Government who have treated the Brogdale fruit farm so badly are in no position to claim that as a success for themselves. If the Government cannot respect the Victoria plum, I doubt whether they can do much for the rain forest. Britain leads in those areas, but the recent ACOST report said that the priority now is to convert the long-range long-run programmes of research and intellectual exploration into programmes that will affect the food production and waste management in the short to medium future. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
When we talk about climate change and all the biology and physics that go with that, we are talking about things which provide the key to entirely new industries in food, waste management and health which will be at the centre of the industrial world in the early 21st century. We must maintain our leadership in those areas.
Mr. Dalyell: When the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I were campaigning to save Brogdale, one of the worrying things was how ill-informed the Government were. It was proposed to transplant delicate fruit plants into a frost area where they would almost certainly die.
Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend makes a good point. A Government who almost literally cannot respect biodiversity in their own back yard cannot have much claim to be the protector of biodiversity across the planet.
I come now to what is at the centre of a great many problems, some of which have already been mentioned. The Government must make their priority a thorough world-wide reform of the intellectual property system. We are entering a patents crisis. The Medical Research Council is already saying that we face the prospect of patent wars—that the intellectual property system and the laws that go with it in this country, across Europe and in north America, are a major obstruction to innovation, particularly in biotechnology. It must be the Government's priority to establish international conventions in those areas which would permit such developments to come on stream early.
One particular point which must be the focus of concern is the fact that in the United States the National Institute of Health has patented part of the human genome. How on earth can we go to Rio and make the claims for biodiversity that we and the United States are making when we are already preparing to patent parts of nature itself? These are not products in any sense of the term, but things which bear no immediate utility and are simply a way of seeking the intellectual capture of future industrial areas. That is disgraceful.
The fact that the Government have encouraged the Medical Research Council to follow the example of the United States National Institute of Health and to prepare to patent our bits of the human genome is an utter disgrace. In theory, the countries of the third world, with their forests heaving with species, could patent on the same basis. That is a matter of enormous concern.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): As the hon. Gentleman describes the situation as an utter disgrace, I should say that the position was made clear in press statements by the Medical Research Council. The line that it is taking in respect of the patents is entirely protective. It has been stimulated by the American action. We are seeking to persuade the Americans, in consort with our European partners, to back away from that position, but meanwhile we are protecting our position in that context.
Mr. Cousins: That is what is said, of course, but the Government have followed down the main road. How can the Government go to Rio and talk about biodiversity and saving the species of the rain forests and wherever else when they have already begun to start patenting parts of the human body and the human biological system? We and the Americans have begun to do that. It is a fatal first step which the Government and the Medical Research Council should not have taken.
We all know about past anxieties resulting from the failure to patent DNA and the echo that that has had, but this is a new situation. The Government should be seeking to achieve an international convention on the way in which we work the intellectual property of the new biological developments which will be at the centre of so many industrial elements in future. We face a second scientific revolution, coming from the biological area, in which we shall not attempt to conquer nature as we did in the past but rather to echo it, adapt it, change it, run with its grain. The implications of that for our way of life and for many of our industries are revolutionary and substantial. I find it disappointing that no trace of that intellectual excitement appeared in the speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and that all that we are to expect is a White Paper next January or February which, once again, will drag us back to organisational change within the British scientific establishment.
7.39 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: There is a wide welcome in the House for this debate on science and technology. Such debates are of greater significance than those that we often have on matters concerning economic policy and structure. I agree with other hon. Members who have spoken that this is a debate of great significance and that we have such debates all too infrequently. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to our debate on engineering some years ago, which I led as it was on a private Member's motion. It was a similar debate in the sense that there was a great deal of agreement across the House on the importance of the debate and on the main points of it.
It is right that we should have this opportunity to highlight the importance of science and technology. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that we should look forward in this debate rather than living on our grand scientific past. As an ex-science teacher, no one knows better than I that we have a great scientific past. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not continually look back at that. We should look forward, and I was able to share that sentiment at least with him.
There must be a debate about science itself. Science is the application of rational analysis and thought to problems. Science requires high-level intellectual effort
512
and self-discipline. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) made clear, science is international and unifying. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to the anti-science campaign. We do not want to overstate the strength of that campaign, but I was pleased that it was referred to by several hon. Members.
This is a good moment for those of us who believe strongly in science to say how much we deplore "scientophobes"—those who seem to hate science, such as Brian Appleyard and Fay Weldon. Such people play on the fears of those who lack the moral courage to face the challenges of true science. Those woolly thinkers would leave us stuck with necromancers, the astrologers and the alchemists of the middle ages rather than with the mathematicians, the physicists, the chemists and the engineers of the present. I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced that thought and I hope that we shall have more opportunity to debate that view and the way in which the media treat science. I do not have time to go into detail on that at present.
I will link science, mathematics and engineering in my speech because this is a debate on science and technology, so we must include engineering in our remarks. The Prime Minister made a pledge when he spoke recently at the national final of the young engineers of Britain competition which was held under the auspices of the Engineering Council. He said that we must change the culture of Britain
"so that the British engineer enjoys the same status as the German engineer."
Other hon. Members have referred to the question of status. The view of the status of engineers is partly a matter of education. It is, therefore, good that recent Government reforms have led to a greater emphasis on good science and technology in our curriculum. I welcome the Government's role in that.
Other hon. Members have referred to recent criticism of technology in schools. I join in welcoming the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Education that there would be a review of technology courses in schools. That announcement has also been welcomed by the Engineering Council. There is a suggestion, which I support, that the Engineering Council can and should be involved in giving assistance to inspectors in monitoring the new technology courses and seeing how they develop so that they will improve in future.
Mr. Dalyell: After the buffeting that the hon. Gentleman and I suffered at University college, London, where we went as guests of Women in Science, does he agree that more must be done to attract women into science and to give them better conditions?
Mr. Thompson: I recall that vigorous debate and I recall that the hon. Gentleman and I took a similar line on nuclear power which meant that we found ourselves in a minority. It was a very enjoyable occasion. I wholly support the hon. Gentleman's remarks about getting more women involved in engineering and science, which is an important point.
The Government's willingness to adapt policy, as shown in the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Education, is a sign of strength rather than a sign of weakness.
I highlighted the success of a school in my constituency. Heartsease high school recently won an award in the

513
design and build competition organised by the Machine Tool Trades Association. Other schools win awards, of course, but I have highlighted this one. A lot of good work in technology goes on in many schools and we must give credit where it is due. I pay tribute to the teachers and everyone involved at that school.
There has been a recent encouraging survey which seems to contradict some of the earlier remarks about what is happening in schools and among young people. Professor Bridges of the school of education at the university of East Anglia has found in a recent survey linked with the Engineering Council that young people are now beginning to develop a better image of engineering. That is very good news. Some of the remarks made in response to the survey included:
"They travel the world and earn lots of money",
"They work with three dimensional computer imaging"
and
"Engineers are like doctors, lawyers and accountants".
We seem to be getting fewer of the comments that people might have expected, such as the comment by one young person who said:
"I didn't expect them to work in an office … I thought they worked outside mending things".
The good news is that the survey showed that the image of engineering in schools has undoubtedly improved in recent years, and that may be a tribute to the neighbourhood engineers scheme which is run under the auspices of the Engineering Council with financial support from the Department of Trade and Industry. The scheme is obviously beginning to have a good effect and I hope that that work can continue. I gather that it is intended that every school will have been involved in the neighbourhood engineers scheme by 1995 at the latest. That is the kind of urgency which we need to inject into the proceedings.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is now on the Treasury Bench—in spite of the remarks towards the end of his speech, I admired and agreed with almost every word of it—that we should have a greater sense of urgency. I get a little nervous when we talk about White Papers in 1993 and about having a long discussion. I agree with hon. Members who have said that the points being put in this debate are matters of high urgency which this country should have thought about and addressed many years ago.
My main message to my right hon. Friend is to stress the urgency of our debate this evening and the need, without making mistakes, to progress with speed and with purpose. I find myself otherwise very much in agreement with what he said.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's appointment to a post in which he will oversee science policy. When I have been to the Institute of Physics and when I hear from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, I continually get messages of welcome for the new appointment. It is marvellous that we have been able to begin the new arrangement of Government Departments with such a positive response from outside. I hope that we can reinforce that in future years.
I now come to the Campaign for Physics. One aspect of the campaign is that attention has been drawn to the economic contribution of physics-based industry. Evidence has been assembled that shows that physics-based industries outperform the manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom economy as a whole, that sales in these industries rose by 116 per cent. between 1980 and
514
1989, compared with 88 per cent. for the sector as a whole, and that these figures help to explain the growth in the United Kingdom's share of the export market in physics-based products. The 22 per cent. increase in the Government's science budget, in real terms, over the last decade has paid dividends. It is good that there has been a significant growth in Government funding, in research funded by industry and in research funded by other bodies and charities.
A clear lead from the Government will set the policy objectives for the rest of this Parliament and beyond. It is vital that such a lead should be given urgently.
7.50 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate in which all hon. Members have welcomed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his new office. He will play an important role. His constructive spirit will benefit science and technology in this country.
Before I deal with two aspects of science policy in particular, I intend to refer to three points that often plague both its formulation and its application. First, its formulation and application are always difficult, because our scientific knowledge exists, by definition, in the present— at a particular point in time. For example, if we had known about the environmental problems associated with polychlorinated biphenyls, I am certain that Monsanto would not have manufactured them at Newport. I am even more certain that the then Purle waste disposal company would not have been allowed to bury PCB waste in three quarries—at Ty-Llwyd and Brofiskin quarries in Gwent and in the Maendy quarry in Mid Glamorgan.
Secondly, if no effort is made to look for evidence, we shall find none. It is easy to follow the adage: seek not and ye shall find not. For example, if the Government funded a large research project, on a much larger scale than that carried out by Dr. David Kay of University college, Lampeter, into the relationship between human health and bathing in grossly polluted sea water, it is possible that the conventional wisdom would have to be radically altered. Additions may have to be made to the conjunctivitis and travellers' diarrhoea, identified in the tenth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, that result from bathing in such waters. What is even more important, our water bills may have to rise even further as a consequence of such an investigation.
It would be far better, therefore, to respond in the way that the Department of the Environment responded to the European Community's bathing waters directive of 1976—to buy time and use an artful dodge, to define a bathing beach in such a way that, for example, for many years after 1976 Wales did not possess such an item. By definition, therefore, the directive did not apply to Wales. Environmental organisations were able to claim that every beach in Wales was filthy. The Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment could equally claim that every beach in Wales was clean. That problem frequently arises when Departments bend the rules and use terminology and interpretation to their own advantage.
Thirdly, there is the danger of basing one's views on political advantage, because it is thought that that is more important than the evidence. I was taken in by that. For many years I took part in the campaign that attempted to prevent fluoride being added to drinking water. How foolish I felt when I read the evidence. I could not find a

515
single scientific study published anywhere in the world that demonstrated that fluoride had harmful effects if added to drinking water at the permitted level. The literature abounds with examples of its benefits.
I am pleased that Professor Lennon, one of the leading professors of preventive dentistry in Britain, was able to confirm in a letter that he wrote to me on 4 February 1992 that fluoridation has been recognised for over 40 years as the single most effective public health measure that is available to reduce dental caries.
I received today a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in which he said:
"The Government is also very much aware of the particular sensitivities surrounding the issue of fluoridation."
The Government ought to go further and accept that scientific evidence shows unanimously that fluoridation is of enormous benefit in reducing dental caries. Instead of trying to claw back 7 per cent. of the money that dentists received last year for the work that they carried out, which has benefited the people of this country, it would be far better if the Government carried out a fluoridation programme that prevented dental caries. The services of dental surgeons would then be needed far less than they are now.
The first of my two main points is that the Government need actively to encourage in-service courses for Members of Parliament. They are essential if we are to keep abreast of the rapid changes in science. Why should we be exempted from in-service training courses? Secondly, the British Government should again become a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
On my first point, I shall confine my remarks to the new biotechnology as it affects human genes. Incredible opportunities for good are opening up with the new biotechnology, but they bring two problems in their wake. Diagnostic advances, which will increase the number of diseases that are capable of early detection, pose massive problems as to the legal protection that is necessary to ensure that such information is not used to discriminate against individuals in their place of work or in obtaining insurance cover. There is also the huge personal problem of coping with such information. Dr. Steve Jones, reader in genetics at University college, London, in his excellent Reith lectures last year, asked:
"Do we really want to know that we may die of a disease about which we can do nothing?"
There is, however, a second issue. If gene replacement therapy takes place in the somatic cells, this seems to be an admirable way forward for the treatment of human diseases. The problem becomes acute only when one looks for the extension of gene therapy to the reproductive cells, the so-called germline cells. Would it not be marvellous to be able to eliminate, for example, cystic fibrosis in future generations? Would that not, however, carry with it the risk of moving away from the eradication of inherited disease to the genetic enhancement of beauty, athletic prowess, intelligence or any other attribute deemed to be worthy of attention at any particular time? I accept that germline therapy is unlikely to be possible in humans for the foreseeable future, for purely technical reasons. However, it is a matter too vital to be largely ignored by Members of Parliament. We have a leading part to play in the debate.
516
If there is a glaring gap in this House, it is the absence of trained scientists to grace our Benches. I am pleased to note that the attendance this evening fills that gap to a larger degree than hitherto. We have a number of organisations that do their best to assist us, in addition to the superhuman efforts of our excellent Library staff. There is the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the Foundation for Science and Technology, the Royal Society, the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Royal Society of Chemistry—all of which are very helpful.
The Centre for Science and Technology publishes excellent studies on our relative competitive strength in science and technology. The Industry and Parliamentary Trust has begun its first postgraduate programme in a specialist area of science—biotechnology. As a trustee and fellow of the IPT, I am grateful to ICI for the honour for being the first person to take part in ICI's programme in biotechnology.
The Minister could make a tremendous contribution to the efficacy of the formulation of Government policy, and my plea to him is to draw together the different organisations, not only to enable Members of Parliament to be fully informed of the radical changes in areas such as biotechnology, but to enable them to have hands-on experience in the laboratory and find out what scientists are doing at the sharp end. That would ensure that the ethical issues and the legal framework are debated meaningfully in the House.
My second point is the need for Britain to renew its membership of UNESCO. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his untiring efforts to that end. His most recent plea came in the New Scientist on 30 May. I have had correspondence with a number of people, especially a constituent of mine, Professor Ager. He is emeritus professor of geology at University college, Swansea, and formerly an eminent member of one of UNESCO's committees—the international geological correlation programme.
The approved projects of that programme were all useful and desirable, ranging from the academic—such as the correlation of pre-Cambrian rocks between west Africa and Brazil—to the purely economic, such as the tin and tungsten resources of south-east Asia. They included such matters as the mutual collaboration of neighbouring countries on the development of particular resources, such as the vital phosphorates and the synthesis of data on particular parts of the geological record. An interesting proposal was to use satellites to monitor rising heat in the crust under the Andes to give advance warning of volcanic eruptions.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my two main points. The first is the desperate need for Members of Parliament to play a far greater role in the formulation of Government policy on science and technology. Perhaps the Minister, in his new job, could envisage a new educative role for some of his officials. Currently, Members of Parliament are in a weak position in trying to answer some of the questions that the Chancellor of the Duchy posed at the end of his speech. Secondly, we lose a great deal by not being part of UNESCO. We need to rejoin it quickly so that we do not lose any more time in becoming part of that organisation and in contributing to it. We need UNESCO perhaps more than UNESCO needs us.
8.4 pm
Sir Michael Marshall: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who was right to highlight the generally constructive tone of the debate. It was useful that, in the examples he cited, although I would not necessarily underwrite them in every particular, he showed the wide range of expectation that the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) to the Office of Science and Technology has raised in the House. The hon. Gentleman touched on departmental interests that he hopes will be streamed through my right hon. Friend, affecting health, foreign affairs, industry and so on. I will deal directly with that matter when I discuss the question of satellites in a moment.
I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to their appointments, and I welcome their commitment to consultation. They need to consider the way in which state-funded research operates in universities, Government Departments and research councils. It is my plea that they will not overlook the contribution that can be made from a number of other sources, and I wish to highlight two in particular. The first is professional bodies, and the second is Parliament.
On the first source, I do not want to run through the shopping list but instead will pick up a theme which has already been mentioned tonight, about the role of the engineer as a key figure in the application of science and technology. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to discussion on Finniston. As, at the time, I was the Minister responsible for considering Finniston, I feel a moral obligation 10 years on to look at the position today. I must say that we are still well short of where I believe we would wish to be in raising the status of engineers and, perhaps even more importantly, in ensuring that engineering plays its full part in directing research and development to practical and measurable success.
We are all familiar with the old criticism—it has come out tonight—that our skills in invention are not sufficiently carried through into application. I agree with what Sir William Barlow, president of the Fellowship of Engineering, said in a timely comment this week—that it was regrettable that the Earth summit in Brazil had no engineering dimension. I note that, writing in The Daily Telegraph today, my right hon. Friend referred to environmentalists reinventing guilt. Sir William rightly said that engineers are blamed for environmental problems, but we should recognise that they alone can solve them. I hope that that is a dimension that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board in the work of his Department.
On the role of Parliament, I add my voice to those who have welcomed the motion on the Order Paper relating to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and who have called for a Select Committee on science and technology. If we are to continue the tradition of shadowing Government Departments, it would not be sensible to have an obvious omission for a major Department of State.
I also welcome the opportunity to explore in other directions. The hon. Member for Gower touched on a number of other parliamentary and allied committees that have a real part to play in what, in many senses, we want
518
to be a partnership between this House, the other place and the Departments concerned. The two committees that I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister are two that I really do not need to spell out because he has played an active part in the dialogue with the parliamentary information technology committee and is certainly not unaware also of the work of the parliamentary space committee.
The key element in both Committees that I commend to the House is the widespread industrial partnership with parliamentarians. Meetings of PITCOM bring together about 100 industrial members and about 100 parliamentary members. It is therefore in the widest sense of looking at our future in science and technology in Europe that I should like to highlight some of the work and thinking within that committee. In doing so, of course, I make it plain that I am not expressing any corporate view, because that is not the way of such committees, but I can say without fear of contradiction that certain trends are evident in that committee, and they should commend themselves to the Government.
There are certain aspects of what is happening in Europe today which are already making it well nigh impossible for us to keep up with the pace of progress. I refer, for example, to the way in which transnational partnerships are altering the face of what we can either legislate for or expect to carry through in any ordered consideration of science and technology. I recite only the Siemens and Fujitsu merger, Bull of France with IBM in the United States, and now ICL is owned by Japan but maintaining, I trust, important research and manufacturing facilities in this country.
On defence technology, I join those who have pointed to the obvious problem in seeing a substantial reduction in defence research and development, which one must hope to see in many ways transferred across in terms of Government research and development to the civil sector. Even within defence, there are still important technologies which can greatly affect the pattern of what we are discussing. For example, I refer to the European fighter aircraft. I hope that our German colleagues will think long and hard before they surrender a vital part of defence technology which, once lost, would be extremely difficult to replace and would put us in a position of facing, inevitably, a virtually sole supplier from the United States, with the financial penalties that that could entail.
I now refer to information technology. We have heard about EUREKA, but I should like to talk about ESPRIT. As hon. Members know, it seeks to make breakthroughs in micro-electronics, software, business systems for offices, the so-called intelligent homes, and the whole sector of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture. There is inevitably a pragmatic point that we must examine. I see no point in arguing at the moment about intervention as opposed to the free market, because we have in place, as I have said, the commercial dynamism of transnational mergers and so on and, already, the fourth framework programme, about which my right hon. Friend spoke.
I want simply to draw on the experience of ESPRIT so far and to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that two problems are clearly demonstrated. There is still a substantial trade deficit in IT within Europe, and I hope that we can address that through our attempts to support research and development. Perhaps nearer to home, there

519
is a considerable problem of delay—the delay which arises from the bureaucratic process and which I very much hope can be tackled by my hon. Friend and his Department.
The classic case at the moment might be related to high-definition television. Hon. Members will recall that, years ago, we were well advanced through the IBA's research at Winchester and in the BBC to carry forward that process. The commission has moved in that matter and has set a standard and an agenda. The resulting delay and arguments over. standards and over bringing the product to market mean a real danger that Japan may be able to drive on the process and scoop the pool.
I now refer to the separate matter of space activities and, in particular, the work within the European Space Agency. Again, I am drawing on my experience in the parliamentary space committee. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is present, as he is a member of that Committee and has played a valuable part in its work. There is a process at which we should look more widely. Our £150 million space budget, modest though that may be, is matched many times over by other members of the European Space Agency. We, as the fourth largest contributor after France, Germany and Italy, are seeing a far greater spread for our R and D expenditure than in almost any other industry with public financing of that kind.
What has been achieved? We have been able to become the project leaders in communications satellites in and outside the United States. However, I am bound to say that we are now suffering at the hands not only of American competition, which still draws extensively on underwriting from defence expenditure, but perhaps of a miscalculation of what is near market development. The cut in funding in that regard has meant that we are seeing the market slipping away and the substantial redundancies at British Aerospace in Stevenage, which of course are much to be regretted. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that our concentration within ESA on remote sensing and earth observation has proved fruitful.
I am greatly encouraged by our committee's correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year. He indicated his enthusiasm for using earth observation from satellites for global environmental control. He regarded that as a natural subject for international action at the Earth summit. In the pressure of other matters, I feel that this subject may not have been given the full attention in Rio that it deserves, but I welcome the advice that I have received from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which suggests that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative has been followed up. I am glad to see the DTI and the Office of Public Service and Science acting together, along with No. 10. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade can fairly claim to be one of the founders of the European Space Agency. There is every prospect of that process being carried further forward.
There has recently been in this country a meeting of the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, which brought together space agencies around the world, including agencies from Russia and China, and international environment officials. That has helped to sensitise Earth summit participants to the unique vantage
520
point that space provides in tackling the problems of drought, flooding, deforestation and pollution. I have no doubt that those matters will be followed up in due course, but I want particularly to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister and the OPSS to begin to think about the common threads, how the peace dividend or the convergence between civil and military technology in space as in other sectors can be more fully utilised. That matter would have to go across Departments. Much as I respect the British National Space Centre, the fact that it does not have its own budget and has had essentially a co-ordinating role has not enabled us to exploit some technologies in the way that I would wish.
I am conscious of the needs of hon. Members who would like to speak. I am sorry that I cannot develop a little more fully some of the arguments that I would wish to develop. However, I hope that I have been able to show the House and my hon. Friend that, in the emergence of the Office of Science and Technology, many of us hope that there will be an opportunity to pull together the common threads across the public and private sectors and military and civil sectors to the greater advantage not only of our country but of Europe and of the wider world.
8.18 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: In making my first contribution, I crave the customary indulgence of the House to say something of my constituency of Plymouth, Devonport and of those who served the constituency before me. As though making my maiden speech were not difficult enough, I shall contrive to make my observations relevant to science and technology. With no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was rather sad that Madam Deputy Speaker left the Chair, as we were adversaries in the 1987 election. I had intended to recall that I graciously permitted her to win and that that would give her good cause to call me regularly in the House.
The constituency of Devonport, which I am proud to represent, lies to the west of Plymouth. Its boundary to the north borders on our national park of Dartmoor and to the south is the Plymouth sound. It is one of the most beautiful ports in Britain. Its links to the west over the River Tamar to Cornwall are made by two fine examples of the success of British technology. In 1859 Prince Albert opened the Royal Albert bridge, the greatest triumph of our most celebrated engineer—Isambard Kingdom Brunel—and in the late 1960s the road suspension bridge was opened, completing the link with Cornwall.
Originally, the area was rather unflatteringly known as Plymouth dock. The name was resented by local people, who not only had a fierce sense of independence but grew larger in number than the people of Plymouth, so the status of the area was elevated from dock to port. To confer on it its true sense of significance, it became the port of Devon—hence Devonport.
Devonport Royal Naval dockyard has served our Navy over the centuries from the time of wooden ships to the present day. The unfaltering service that the work force of the dockyard has given to the country in times of war is beyond measure. It gave service not only in the two world wars but more recently in the Falklands and Gulf wars. It is particularly sad to note that the role of Devonport dockyard has been severely reduced. Even in the past five years, the work force has been reduced from 13,000 to little

521
more than 5,000. Most seriously of all, engineering and technological skills are being lost to the local economy. The number of young men and women being trained in those skills has been massively curtailed.
It will not surprise hon. Members to note that Plymouth has one of the fastest rates of unemployment growth in Britain. I see a major part of my work in the House as being to help sustain those who are in work and vigorously to champion the cause of those who are not. I shall argue in the months and years ahead that Devonport dockyard has an essential role to play in the maintenance of our fleet.
I should like to turn my attention to my predecessors, as is the tradition. My last four predecessors have been varied, most able and extremely interesting. Each in their own way has made a special contribution to the House, and indeed to British politics. I may be able to claim a unique feature for my constituency in that all three of its former Members of Parliament since 1945 are still alive.
From 1923. Devonport was represented by Leslie Hore-Belisha, a Liberal and a man of prodigious energy and superb eloquence. He was best known for the introduction of the highway code and, of course, the Belisha beacon—a simple but useful piece of technology. Rather less well known but more important were his efforts as Secretary of State for War, without which Britain might not have been ready for action in 1939.
Leslie Hore-Belisha was followed by Michael Foot, who served Devonport with great distinction between 1945 and 1955. This was a most challenging time of profound difficulty for the city of Plymouth after it was so badly bombed, leaving thousands of people homeless. I am disappointed that, as he has declined to take a peerage, I shall not be able to visit the other place to hear his matchless oratory. As ever, he is faithful to long-held principle in advance of personal elevation.
Michael Foot was temporarily relieved of his place on these Benches by the energetic Dame Joan Vickers, who served Devonport with vigour. She is remembered by older constituents and older Members of Parliament with considerable affection. Michael Foot fought tirelessly for the homeless of Plymouth, and Dame Joan Vickers spoke at length on the subject in her maiden speech in 1955. I wonder whether either of them imagined that a new Member of Parliament in 1992 would need to speak for the homeless just as strongly. I intend to fight the cause of the 6,000 people on the Plymouth city council waiting list with the same vigour.
The three Members of Parliament to whom I have referred were elected from three different political parties. Now I can claim a unique feature for my constituency without any fear of contradiction. During his 13 years as Member of Parliament for Devonport, David Owen single-handedly managed to give his support to four different parties. That is a record which I have no intention of emulating. Nor do I have any intention of forming my own party.
I believe that David Owen is threatening to publish a book of his verse, so I thought that it might be appropriate if I quoted a little poetry. It is as though Dryden, 300 years before, predicted David Owen's coming in his poem, "Absalom and Achitophel":
"A man so various that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind's epitome:
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong,
Was everything by starts and nothing long".
522
I wish him well in the other place.
I shall restrict my comments about science and technology to the place where it is kindled in people's minds—in the schools. That is a matter of which I have some experience, after 22 years of teaching mathematics in comprehensive schools. Science changes our lives. It has become a determining factor in many aspects of our lives. Huge advances have been made in our living standards in recent decades through the appliance of scientific knowledge. But just as Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who built the great Royal Albert bridge which straddles the Tamar taking the trains from Devonport to Cornwall, did not receive public recognition of his genius as an engineer, so today society does not hold people who make things in the same esteem as those who make money.
Many strides forward have been made in school science since the war, but we must always remember that the quality of learning never exceeds the quality of teaching. The quality of teaching in science and technology is closely related to the enthusiasm of the teacher and the quality of the resources, and implementation of the national curriculum has done nothing to enhance either. A doctor seeks a cure for a disease, but the national curriculum is the cure for which there is no known disease. Its only service has been to prove that the Government are the least appropriate body to provide detailed instructions on how to teach children.
Recent education policy has left us with several unresolved paradoxes. Schools were supposed to be locally managed, yet the Government are deciding every last detail of the curriculum, not least in science and technology. The national curriculum is supposed to be efficacious for state schools yet is not required in the private sector, where those who promote it send their children. Opted-out schools and city technology colleges have been given millions of pounds for new buildings, while local authority schools crumble.
Children used to be taught science. Now we are told that the curriculum is delivered. Once one accepts the market culture that is permeating our schools, one can easily make a prognosis of the use to which the results of testing will be put. Schools will be placed in performance tables, which will put increasing pressure on the schools to deliver that which can be tested. That will jeopardise exciting and challenging projects and work of intrinsic interest to children because such work leads to the course work—which is so much disliked by our Prime Minister. That is an extraordinarily myopic view of education. It not only drags us back to the failed payment by results of the Victorian era but constitutes a shabby preparation for life in the 21st century. The spirit that drove Brunei's genius was not kindled by dreary standard assessment tests of the kind carried out this week, working within the straitjacket of a national curriculum.
The Government's proposals for initial teacher training leave little room for optimism. Her Majesty's inspectors have identified ad nauseam the shortage of science and technology teachers in our schools, especially our primary schools, yet the responsibility for training future science teachers is to be placed in those schools. If that policy is seen through, it will guarantee that science remains in the shade. Teacher training in science and technology has to balance the need to learn teaching skills with the need for exciting new ideas to come out of our institutes of higher education.

523
A recent survey in Devon showed that 26 per cent. of all pupils were being taught in temporary buildings—a record that is probably shared by many other authorities. While many of those buildings may be in good condition and of good quality, they further depress good science and technology teaching. In such buildings storage space is seldom more than minimal, power points and basic services are lacking, and security is poor so that expensive equipment such as computers is rarely found. That is one feature of our schooling system which is depressing our ability to teach complex subjects demanding much equipment.
I have touched on the fact that problems exist in science and technology education and many other hon. Members have mentioned it in the debate. The House will be in no doubt that I believe that present policies are inadequate. There is still great willingness and energy in our schools. There is an overwhelming need for young scientists to help to rejuvenate our faltering economy, but they will not emerge in the quantity and of the quality that our country demands unless we create an environment for success. That success will come to our schools and colleges only if we allow a spirit of adventure to prevail, if we encourage new ideas and differences of approach, and if we acknowledge the achievements of our engineers and scientists.
8.31 pm
Mr. Spencer Batiste: It is always a great pleasure to follow a maiden speech, and it is a special pleasure to follow that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who spoke with great humour, knowledge and passion. He knows his area well and speaks of it with great love and affection. He summarised the history of its previous incumbents and perhaps he will be as colourful a Member of the House as his predecessors —we shall be the richer for it if he is.
I was especially taken by the hon. Gentleman's championing of Isambard Kingdom Brunel— an engineer and a successful capitalist, although that was perhaps not the thread that the hon. Member wished most to draw upon. However, it demonstrated how success in society and in industry depended then on the blend of engineer and business man, and perhaps we should bear that in mind today. I am sure that we shall all look forward to the hon. Gentleman's future contributions to debates.
May I join colleagues who earlier congratulated the Government on the appointment of the Office of Science and of my right hon. and hon. Friends as the two Ministers in charge of it. I shall mention some of the practical implications of that appointment, but we should also recognise that the changes have considerable symbolic importance. I hope that we may now mark, once and for all, the end of the myth that the United Kingdom can prosper on service industries alone. I hope that we can now acknowledge that the science and technology base and the prosperity of the country go hand in hand. We must now recognise that success in virtually all the industries of the 21st century will be knowledge-based. Investment in knowledge, research and technology will make those industries successful.
The higher profile of science and technology in public life and in politics, which has been brought about by the
524
changes, is typified by the fact that this is one of the first debates on the subject in Government time, by the large amount of interest in the debate, by the high quality of speeches and by the inclusion on the Order Paper later this evening of a motion seeking approval for support for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. I was on the Information Committee that produced the report and I believe that it will be a valuable adjunct to the knowledge and research facilities available to Members of the House.
Inevitably, the creation of the Office of Science has been well received and has raised great expectations, and it is important that those should be based in reality, because a new pot of gold will not be readily available. This year, we face a tough public expenditure round, and it is essential that public expenditure is brought under control and inflation forced even lower, as much for science and technology as for many other aspects of our society.
The relatively high cost of capital has been one of the prime causes of short termism in industry, and science and technology have suffered particularly from it. Against that background, the Government's research and development budget compares well with that of our competitor countries. The increases planned between now and 1995 do the Government great credit.
Leaving funding elements aside, vital strategic and structural issues have to be tackled. I shall devote my comments to raising questions to add to those asked by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate and to responses to some of his questions. Perhaps I should first declare an interest, as my law firm acts for several institutions of higher education and companies involved in high technology.
One of the key problems perpetually besetting research and development in this country is that it crosses so many departmental boundaries and budgets. It causes the greatest difficulty in strategic decision making, it makes it difficult to assess priorities between the research and development programmes of different departments, and getting cross-departmental budget contributions is like getting blood out of a stone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) mentioned the space industry and it is perhaps one of the best examples of a vital industry where so many science and technology issues are at the sharp end of development, but which covers the range of interests of so many different departments—Trade and Industry, Defence, Education, the Environment and the Home Office all have a spoke in that industry. We did not begin to get a coherent voice until all those interests were brought together within the British National Space Centre. My hon. Friend said how successful the BNSC has been in co-ordinating Britain's approach to the European Space Agency, in developing proper programmes within the agency and suggesting priorities for Britain's expenditure., which have stood us in good stead. It has been successful, but with more muscle it could have been more successful.
I look to the Office of Science to take a strategic overview of science and technology, perhaps on the model in microcosm that BNSC has been. In so doing, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to beware of rejection symptoms from other Departments, which have so often in the past stifled changes in the governmental system.
My hon. Friend's first task is to mark out his Department's territory practically. Inevitably, there must be an overlap between research and development

525
functions of his and of other Departments. During the next few months he will produce a White Paper, and many people will look carefully at the details of how it tackles those overlaps. The Office of Science must not be seen to be trying to build empires for their own sakes, because other Departments are closer to their needs and, as customers, may be able to identify their research and development requirements most effectively.
The Office of Science must have a key voice in policy making and prioritising and should use its budget to fill gaps in basic and strategic research and development. It must avoid buck passing by other Departments, which are trying to shift some of their research and development on to another Department's budget. As several hon. Members have said, the Office of Science's most urgent priority is to ensure that money that has gone into the Ministry of Defence's research and development budget is not lost as MOD expenditure is cut, but is transferred to civil research and development.
Another key problem that flows freely from that is how and where to distribute research and development funds from the Government. The Committee of Directors of Polytechnics is concerned that the new Higher Education Funding Council structure and remit will hit the new universities adversely compared with the established universities. Most of their research and development is much closer to the marketplace and their existing research and development infrastructure is much less developed than that of the established universities and will take time to develop to the point where they may be more able to compete on equal terms under peer group assessment. On the other side, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is concerned about the way in which the Office of Science will interact with the Department for Education and, in particular, how shifts of focus on science and technology will affect funding for research in the humanities. Those questions must be answered carefully.
I recognise the need for centres of research excellence and for large-scale interdepartmental collaboration in depth. It is difficult to predict where advances in science and technology will come from or which building blocks of knowledge will have to be combined to make a particular advance. Obviously, there is an advantage in operating within a large centre of excellence. Equally, there must be a mechanism for evolution and change. Young, bright academics and new universities must have their chance, too. Strategic funding judgments may be made in the Office of Science but peer group assessment must be the best way of choosing between individual projects within those priorities. I hope that the system as a whole will not operate within too rigid a straitjacket.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster must take a strong lead also in our European involvement. Clearly, strong science ministries in other member states have given those countries an edge in the implementation of their policies and the way in which the take-up of European programmes by their domestic industries has developed. It is not before time that he is in there pitching for Britain.
I add my voice to those that have commented on the need for a science and technology Select Committee. It is a vital adjunct to the work of the Department. A Department without a Select Committee stimulating it and supporting both it and science and technology will be that much poorer. The experiment with the Office of Science may well founder unless there is a strong Select Committee supporting it.
526
I move from the problems of structure in government to the problems in industry and academia. I shall draw attention to several specific points, albeit briefly. The problem of short-termism in industry cannot be ignored when considering science and technology. Different people will attribute different causes to it. High inflation and high interest rates make the cost of capital so high that long-term pay-backs have become difficult in our economy in recent years. I hope that inflation and interest rates will come down to such a level that we will not be at a relative disadvantage to our industrial competitors.
That is a core problem which my right hon. Friend must address. Equally, he must address the relatively low esteem and pay for engineers that has been traditional in this country. Other countries hold engineers in the highest esteem, in particular Germany and the United States. It is one of our great weaknesses that we have a curious cultural block that prevents us from doing the same.
There has been a patchy use of universities by industry and variable technology transfer. Before I came to the House I was involved in technology transfer from the legal viewpoint and I have seen considerable advances being made. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the use that countries such as the United States and Japan make of their universities. Their links between universities and industries are much more profound than ours. Moreover, others are not standing still while we improve our perfomance.
There is a funding gap between the research in universities and the development stage at which British companies are prepared to pick up the work and carry it forward. The Office of Science must address that gap. Equally, it must address the problem that, in seeking funding from industry, universities are being driven too much towards near-market activities, rather than being able to focus on long-range, basic research and development that is fundamental to the long-term prosperity and health of our scientific base.
Industry is improving its performance steadily. A recent report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte shows that there is a much more frequent launch of new products and many more staff working on new technology in Britain than three years ago. That is a vindication of the Government's shift of funding to basic research and development in the hope that industry will draw in some of the research and development that is closer to the marketplace.
Others wish to speak, so I shall be brief. One of the great problems facing us is that on the whole people in the House and in industry, and people in the civil service who make decisions, do not have a scientific background against which to assess the projects and problems that they must deal with. Therefore, I welcome the decision to broaden the curriculum up to GCSE level, so that more people have a base in science and can understand at least the language of the papers put up to them.
I am sceptical whether one can both broaden and deepen the curriculum at the same time, without it having a profound impact further upstream in the universities. A-levels have been a bulwark of protection against the erosion of excellence in our academic system. If that bulwark is eroded, we shall have to face up to the consequence of at least four-year courses in universities in science and technology. That would be the inevitable conclusion.
Our science and technology graduates are a vital national resource. They will become increasingly

527
important as this century fades into the next, because it is upon their knowledge and training that our economic success and prosperity will depend. We do extremely well in international comparisons. Only the United States does better than us in terms of graduates in science and technology. We stand international comparison well, particularly against our European Community competitors.
My hon. Friend the Minister must consider whether we do well in providing a career structure in the academic world for our science graduates. The prevalence of short-term contracts is a great problem in higher education. A key issue that must be addressed is the development of a career structure in the academic world that will encourage the brightest academics to stay in it.
I am not trying to offer solutions to these problems. My right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that he was taking in questions and ideas. It is in that spirit that I put forward these comments to him. I recognise that the success of the Department will be crucial to the success of our country and its industrial endeavours in the years to come. I wish him and his Department the best of good fortune. We have a great deal riding upon its success.
8.47 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate the Government on setting up the Office of Public Service and Science, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his appointment. I am sure that the office is a major step forward for science and scientific research.
Once upon a time I was a research chemist. Then I lectured in chemistry at a college of higher education. Over the years I diversified first into environmental science and now into my present career. Throughout those years I have maintained my interest in scientific research. I have never ceased to be fascinated by new discoveries. I have two younger brothers who throughout the 1980s have been involved in medical research. I hear from them of the difficulties in funding medical research and the poor morale of the people involved in it.
My general impression throughout the past decade has been that there is a deep malaise in science which permeates every level—schools, universities and research departments. In schools, there is a major shortage of qualified science teachers—28 per cent. of chemistry teachers have no post-A-level qualifications. As we heard earlier, 20 per cent. of those teaching chemistry to A-level and 30 per cent. of physics teachers have not been trained appropriately. Clearly, it is not good enough for other subject teachers to teach physics, chemistry or biology.
Another problem in schools is the lack of science equipment. A recent study conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of education concluded that spending on science equipment in state schools averages £5.62p per pupil per year. That is a fifth of that spent in the independent sector. If private schools think that such a level of investment in equipment is needed, surely it is needed throughout the education system. That lack of equipment is another handicap facing those in the younger generation who want a career in science.
Last year, when the A-level results were published, those for science generally were good. However, the number of students studying A-level mathematics was
528
down, nationally, by 5.9 per cent., while the numbers studying A-level physics and A-level chemistry were down by 4.3 per cent. and 3.8 per cent respectively. That is unhealthy for the future of our manufacturing base and for our future prosperity. The following week I read an article in The Times Educational Supplement, which said that 1991 was not an isolated year. Under the headline
"Science A-level entry falls for the 10th year"
the article began:
"The number of students taking A-level science exams has fallen for the 10th year running, according to figures published this week by GCE boards."
There has been a disturbing swing away from the study of science. Last month, the Institute of Physics published a report on the importance of physics to the United Kingdom economy. It said that 29 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs are in physics-based industries. Curiously, it is a growth industry thanks to the computer, electronics and similar industries in which output, in cash terms, has doubled in the past 10 years.
The section on education contains some disturbing statistics, which show that the number of science graduates has dropped from 2,510 in 1983 to 2,286 in 1991. That is equivalent to a drop of 10 per cent. in the number of physics graduates at a time when the total number of all graduates is increasing. As a proportion of the total number of graduates, the number of physics graduates has dropped from 2.16 to 1.78 per cent. That is at a time when the number of physics graduates has increased by 15 per cent. in Germany and by 61 per cent. in Japan. We will be unable to compete internationally unless we train scientists at home.
Why has there been a swing away from the study of science? When I started my university work in science, the Dainton report had just been published on such a swing. I do not know whether things improved during the 1970s, but 25 years on it seems as though we are back where we started. The problems caused by teachers' qualifications and the lack of equipment may have led to the drift from science, but another fundamental reason is that pupils specialise far too early. They have to choose between science or arts at the age of 14 or 15, and, by that age, the amount of useful science that one understands is rather limited. We need a broader A-level curriculum so that the study of science is compulsory until the age of 18.
The study of science presents special difficulties. When I examine the chemistry syllabuses for O-level and A-level and compare them with those that I studied, I see that A-level work now forms part of the O-level syllabus and that the A-level syllabus contains some of the material that I studied at university. From year to year, A-level examinations in science have become progressively more difficult. I do not believe that English literature, history and economics have become progressively more difficult to study. However, the demands made on our 15 and 17-year-olds studying for science GCEs and A-levels are greater now than they were a generation ago. Although we should not lower standards, perhaps we should consider narrowing the curriculum or introducing longer courses in higher education.
Some other hon. Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), referred to the bad image that science now has. The public image has been dented by the environmental crisis of the past 20 years. I accept that there is some truth in that argument. For example, pollution may have given chemistry a bad

529
reputation, and nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors have presented physicists with a public relations problem. As we have seen from the Earth summit in Rio, the paradox is that to solve the world's environmental problems we need scientists to develop clean technologies and renewable sources of energy.
Throughout the past decade, the university research budget has been cut and rationalised. I am concerned about the new funding mechanisms for university research, by which money is directed towards the bigger universities. As a result, some universities will be dedicated to research, some to teaching and some will combine both functions. It is important to have a wide research base in all our universities, because that will improve the work of lecturers and professors and their teaching will be more stimulating if they are involved in research.
The Government's investment in civil research and development has dropped from 0.72 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1981 to 0.52 per cent. in 1990. The Government are cutting their contribution to research and we are falling behind other countries. The Government, by establishing the OPSS, have, in a sense, adopted Labour party policy. May I suggest that they look to the funding of science and consider the targets that we set at the election to increase total funding in research and development to 2.5 per cent. of GDP, which includes an increased Government contribution of 0.8 per cent.? That money is desperately needed for science research and the future prosperity of Britain. We must find it.
8.58 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I welcome the establishment of a Government Department which has at its core the principles of encouraging science and technology. It seems only a few weeks ago that the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry proclaimed how he wanted his Department to disappear. I gain much encouragement from the speed at which the political winds can change. The very idea that a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might wish to see his role and his Department disappear must have given our industrial competitors the belief that we had a death wish about any idea of competing on the world stage.
While science is at the start of the process that eventually delivers usable goods to the consumer, the problem we face as a nation embraces the whole process.all the way from scientific breakthrough, via commercial adaptation, to consumer utilisation. Our relative failure to deliver is encapsulated by the unsatisfactory relationship on finance that industry has with the City. The circle is continuous, with the financial institutions arguing that market forces dictate their actions and industry complaining that short-termism prevents it having a long-term future. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) referred to that. Time permits me to expand on it only slightly.
The current debate argues that takeovers are a reaction to market forces. That, in isolation, is correct, but it conveniently ignores the fact that the chances are that, when a takeover occurs, the company in question has been abandoned by its financial backers—the institutional investors—for the quick buck.
The individual aspects of financial support are self-sustaining in their argument. But only when one examines the system as a whole does one begin to
530
understand the scale of the economic disaster that our industrial financing system leaves in its wake. A glance at investment percentages, research and training, as against profits, GNP or any other criteria, shows how we lag behind our major industrial competitors, and the results are only too apparent.
The largest 100 companies follow a dividend policy that pays two or three times as much as our foreign competitors, particularly Germany. Indeed, the Germans recognise the debilitating effect of large dividend payments year after year, resulting from a policy of giving tax relief on dividend payments up to 20 per cent. of company profits, and then no more.
Those pressures push companies into strategies that maintain profits and dividends for today. Hon. Members may say that that is satisfactory because we like to see safe corporate strategies, away from organic growth. Sadly, the same picture emerges in manufacturing investment, where, the figures show, we are near the bottom of the G7 league table. They show that our culture pushes us away from areas of international risk and help to explain our low investment, in world terms, as a percentage of research and development financed by industry.
In contrast, business investment has rocketed over the past few years, with record figures of growth in areas such as financial services, property, distribution and hotels, all protected from international competition by property-based assets directed into this country.
That lack of long-term vision starts with our banking system, and it is interesting to make comparisons with our competitors. Between 1985 and 1990, the National Westminster bank increased its United Kingdom lending by three times. More than half of it was lending for one year or less. In 1990, the Deutschebank lent more than half the money that it made available, for over four years.
That is the basis on which British manufacturers and business men must try to invest. Banks in the United Kingdom are lenders of money. In the German system, like the Japanese, much depends on confidence between investors. The German banks not only provide the finance but invest direct. They hold seats on company boards. In the top 100 German companies, 179 seats are held by banks, an involvement unheard of in Britain.
A contested takeover in Germany is not unknown, but it is exceedingly rare. Here, it is the order of the day. I am led to the inevitable conclusion that long-term investment plans lead to long-term growth and ensure that the company stays the course, with decisions being made by directors without the spectre of a takeover dominating the board room.
In the previous Session of Parliament, two industrial knights of the realm came to speak to a certain Committee with which I am involved, and I asked them about concern over takeovers, and the problems of maintaining dividend levels and long-term investment. One of them agreed with me, and one said that it did not worry him. Two weeks later, the one who was not worried was furiously increasing his dividend to try to fight off a takeover bid which had suddenly been launched upon him out of the blue.
I am convinced that the House should consider the financial changes necessary to try to encourage the long-term investment view. For example, should the financial bodies which lend money lose their creditor position if their shareholding goes over 5 per cent? But I must leave that subject and make my last two points.

531
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said about the LINK projects, and how we need to build on Britain's fine record in basic science. That has not always been perceived to be the case, as is illustrated by some comments by the vice-chancellor of Queen's university, Belfast:
"Direct approaches from companies seeking technology were rare, and in every technology transfer agreement with industry, the university has made the first move."
That was endorsed by Dr. Webb, of the physics department in Oxford university, who said:
"My research group is frequently visited—typically, twice a year—by trade delegations of up to 20 Japanese industrial scientists; the number of similar visits I get from research scientists in British industry is negligible."
Therefore, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about trying to promote that link.
Lastly, I declare an interest in that I am the honorary treasurer of the leukaemia research fund—a charity which donates about £10 million a year to research in connection with blood disorder diseases, to try to bring about a cure. Concern is rising in many of the medical charities which give hundreds of millions of pounds a year towards research, and that, against some of the research projects, charities are being asked to contribute to the overheads of the institution where the funds are going, to research chosen projects.
I put it to my right hon. Friend that that is a dangerous precedent being pushed by some institutions. I do not blame them for asking for money, but it would be exceedingly difficult for charities asking for contributions to be told, "I do not think that I would like to give money, because my donation will pay for the upkeep of the bricks and mortar of an institution." The generous people of this country want to give their money for specific research and projects that they can see and can identify with a particular charity.
I am aware that I have concentrated rather too much on finance rather than science in my few words, but I shall finish, as I started, by welcoming the creation of the new Department and the appointment of my right hon. Friend to his position. In the fulness of time, I shall look for a smoother passage, from basic science through all the processes that lead to the use of a particular product by the consumer—and, obviously, eventually to the benefit of the British economy.
9.8 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: This has been a surrealist debate. The horror of what is taking place in reality in my constituency and in many others mocks what is happening in the Chamber, where we have heard a range of views, many of which are flaccid and flatulent.
Hon. Members have expressed precisely the same sentiments as those heard in the debate of 1985—I invite hon. Members to read the report of that debate—and the debates of 1975, 1965 and 1955. They have repeated the old mantras about the great tragedy of Britain —that we invent things but we do not manufacture them. They have again asked the question: why is there no link between academia and industry?
What is happening in Newport? The Chancellor of the Duchy said that INMOS was in trouble. It is not, but he might have thought so had he been in my constituency five weeks ago and seen the stepper machine—worth £1 million
532
—being dumped in a rubbish skip. He might have thought INMOS was in trouble if he had been in Newport four months ago and had seen similar equipment being shipped to Singapore, Malaysia, France and Italy.
INMOS is not in trouble, but is on the brink of having the greatest success of its remarkable 13-year history. The success is to come with the semiconductor, an issue on which so many companies have fallen by the wayside. The tragedy is the direct fault of the Government. INMOS was set up as a Government initiative to give Britain a stake in the sector. Over the years, it has gone through horrendous periods, but has survived.
One of my hon. Friends suggested that one day we might introduce an honour for scientists. It might well be the Order of the Transputer, but I fear that it may be the Chevalier du Transputeur or L'Ordinaire del Trasputo, as we are robbed of the honour. The transputer is an enormous success: 50,000 were sold in 1990 at a cost of £ 15 million, and they are already used in laser printing machines in hon. Members' offices, as well as in video telephones.
In addition, the new transputer T9000 will be produced in great numbers in combination with IBM, which has a guaranteed market. It will be used at the forefront of technology, on the exciting horizon of those miraculous virtual reality machines which have marvellous, almost three-dimensional definition, and it will also be used in colour fax machines. It has a hundred and one new uses, and was used in the smart weapons of the Gulf war, which were life-saving. The loss of life occurred due to the old-fashioned, cruder weapons, such as the multi-launch rocket systems and cluster bombs.
There is a marvellous future for the transputer. Why is it going abroad? We have six days in which to save it. The decision to send INMOS abroad and siphon the jobs from here will be irrevocable by early next week. I have appealed to the Department, and written to the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Trade and Industry many times without receiving any intelligent response.
We could have negotiated a deal to obtain investment, which is what is needed. The French and Italian Governments are investing in the transputer. Baroness Thatcher hated the idea of INMOS, and did not like the notion of a nationalised company. She also spurned the concept of a partnership between Government and industry—a view not shared by our immediate competitors in Italy and France. The Italians are so enthusiastic about the future of the transputer that they are providing 80 per cent. of the investment, while the French are providing a similar amount. The former French Prime Minister, Edith Cresson, took a personal interest in the transputer and knows a great deal about it, but we have not seen such interest here.
INMOS was set up by the Government and sold off—virtually given away—by them, first to the private sector and then to a nationalised company in which the primary shareholders are the French and Italian Governments. We know that, when political muscle has to be flexed, the French and Italian Governments will do so, and jobs will be stolen from us.
Many accurate statements have been made tonight. All of us with a science background rejoice in the developments that have taken place and in the appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy in his wider role. We hope that those changes will result in greater

533
prominence for science and scientific ideas. We have passed through the dark age of Thatcherism, an age in which the Government were riven by a bias against intelligence and science. Anything must be better than that.
I beg the Government to act swiftly to ensure that some partnership deal can be struck between INMOS, a large private British company, and the Government so that technology and jobs remain in Britain. Some will say that the company will remain European. These marvellous products are not made in Osaka or California; they are designed in Bristol and manufactured in Newport and are entirely British. Not only the transputer but the technology and skill will be lost, because they are in the genius of the people who invented the transputer and the technicians who work on it. They will be off to France and Italy unless the Government make a quick decision.
9.15 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on his excellent maiden speech and look forward to hearing him again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for cutting his speech to allow a couple of extra Opposition Members to speak in this important debate.
When I left school at 16, I went to work as a scientific assistant in research and development for a prominent chemical company and saw the benefits of investment in research and development. I did not spend a great deal of time with the company, but my experiences there have remained with me. Our competitors have already recognised the benefit of investment in research and development. After 13 years of neglect of science and of research and development, Britain now looks forward to some light at the end of the tunnel.
Britain occupies 10th place in the OECD list of countries investing in civil research and development. Over the past 10 years, there has been a cut, from 0.72 to 0.52 per cent., in the proportion of GDP spent on civil research. I hope that that trend will be reversed. I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy and his vice-chancellor, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, to the Dispatch Box and hope that the winding-up speech will be positive. We have heard about a change in approach. I hope that it is not just a cosmetic change of responsibility but that the Government will invest in science and technology.
I hope that we shall be told that the £28 million cut in the Science and Engineering Research Council grant for last year is to be reversed. That would enable the Daresbury laboratory in my constituency to continue as a centre of excellence, because £5 million of that cut led to the closure this year of a nuclear construction facility there. The laboratory has a worldwide reputation for nuclear physics, and its excellence is recognised by Allan Bromley, the adviser on science to President Bush. It is also recognised by the Danish professor Ben Mottleson and by the chairman of the research council, Sir Mark Richmond.
There was consternation in the scientific community when the cut was announced, because the decision was taken without a scientific review. There was dismay when it was found that the closure would not save any money, and there was outrage when it was discovered that such
534
research will now have to be conducted abroad, probably in Strasbourg on the vivitron facility, which is not yet complete and is being staffed by physicists from the Daresbury laboratory.
The Chancellor of the Duchy has the opportunity to tell the House that the closure will not take place. When a facility is closed, we lose research, not just for the current generation of scientists and physicists but for the generations to come. The Daresbury laboratory is at the forefront of science, and little money is required to keep it going. It would make good sense for the Chancellor of the Duchy to provide it.
I look forward to that announcement for the simple reason that it will not only save 250 jobs in my constituency but will mean that generations of undergraduates, graduates and postgraduates who want to use this nuclear physical research facility can find it in their country.
The Chancellor may wish to address himself to another folly—the linear accelerator at the Daresbury laboratory, set up at a cost of £3.7 million and opened by Sir Mark Richmond, that has never been switched on and is now to be sold to Australia. That means that our scientists will have to go there if they want to use it.
If we are to hear the Chancellor beat the drum for science and technology, I hope that it is not a side drum but a big bass drum.
9.20 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, partly because I am honoured to have as my constituents many of the eminent scientists who have been mentioned this evening. I am sorry that no other women Members have spoken in the debate. If we are to send the right message to women to encourage them to become involved in science and technology, we must take the lead in the House.
I congratulate the Chancellor on his appointment and, like everyone else, I welcome the creation of a separate portfolio for science and technology. For the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself to four brief points.
First, there is confusion about the overlapping roles of the new Office of Public Service and Science and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. They both appear to have responsibility for advising the Chancellor on scientific priorities. I hope he can tell us what will happen if they give him conflicting advice.
Secondly, I am concerned not so much about the level of funding as about its unpredictability, which creates difficulties. Last year, the projected level of funds for the Medical Research Council led its grants committee radically to prune those highly rated projects that it was able to fund. However, more funds later materialised, with the result that projects of a lower rating, although still highly rated, were funded in full without pruning. Had the grants committee known the level of the funding in advance, it would have allocated its resources differently. We should take on board the fact that this is not the right way to do things.
Thirdly, lack of continuity leads talented research workers to spend more time justifying continued funding of imaginative and highly valuable projects and less time doing the research. There is no job security for research workers, who are funded on an annual basis, with the

535
result that many of our talented people move into non-scientific sectors, with the resulting waste of their talents.
I am sure that Ministers long to boast about growth rates in scientific funding, exports, the number of science graduates and so on, but they should be ashamed of the growth rate in the brain drain. The proportion of fellows of the Royal Society living in the United States in the early 1960s was 4 per cent.; in 1984, it was 13 per cent.; in 1991, it was 20 per cent.; and in 1992, it is estimated to be 30 per cent. That is disgraceful, because it shows how the scientific community is expressing its frustration with funding mechanisms and the lack of resources here.
Fourthly, I shall deal with the Link programme, which was launched in 1986 to promote collaboration between academic institutions and industry. Companies are slow to come forward, the rules of entry to the scheme are cumbersome, and applications are processed slowly. DTI figures show that only £30 million of the £210 million originally allocated to Link have been spent. The DTI will fund only up to 50 per cent. of a programme and any support for a university is regarded as Government funding. The Link programme was designed to encourage collaboration betweeen universities and industry, but the terms and bureaucracy are such that several industrialists have said that the last thing they want is a Link programme. There is no incentive for firms to take up such programmes, and they appear to be underused.
The trouble is that industry will only fund programmes which will show a profit in two or three years, and the Department of Trade and Industry will only fund projects that industry will fund. All other projects must be funded by the SERC, which means that they are in direct competition for a much smaller fund with the whole scientific community, and the projects are assessed on scientific content rather than practical applications. A great mass of projects transfer technology from universities to industry. The pay-off may be great, but it is uncertain and several years in the future. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, beecause there are great problems with the Link programme which I hope can be sorted out.
Finally, I welcome the new structures and, in agreement with most hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I hope that a Select Committee on science and technology will be established.
9.25 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am slightly surprised to be called, having waited throughout the debate to speak but then thinking that I would not be called.
We are creating a vast underclass of young people who are recruited to scientific research, the cream of our society, who are being paid totally inadequate salaries. Sir Mark Richmond said that we could surely pay those young people at rates which did not involve the complete abandonment of rationality. To pay someone with a first class degree only about £4,000 per annum is to induce him to leave the country.
For example, Heriot-Watt university found that during the past 10 years out of about 124 PhD students 55 had gone to the United States. We have created a group of
536
people who are being badly rewarded. One of the things that the Under-Secretary of State should have on his conscience—apparently we are to call him the vicechancellor— is the stain on his character resulting from the introduction of student loans. They have made matters even worse for those researchers. Having acquired a debt of £2,000, our best young scientists are then asked to work for £4,000 a year. That is not sensible.
I hope that the Chancellor, in his difficult task of steering a course between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Education and many other Departments, will be bold when he sees that things are not working. The abolition of the binary divide was welcomed on both sides of the House, but the way in which it is being carried out will damage science and the higher education sector. The dual support mechanism was a pillar of research funding in Britain and that is being weakened. The eight traditional established universities of Scotland used to receive research funding as of right, depending on the numbers in the university.
What has happened is that a substantial sum has been transferred to the research councils. The money that is to remain with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council is to be competed for. It is not to be competed for only by the eight existing universities which received research money, but by 25 institutions—eight existing universities and 17 former central institutions.
There is a mix of messages. We are getting rid of the binary divide, but the former central institutions are not to change their mission. They are to remain as they were. That cannot happen because research in the academic world is top of the heap; research is the means by which one gets prestige. If one is a teacher, one's reputation stays in the classroom. If one is a researcher, one's reputation travels across the world. It is through publication and research that one will get promotion and prestige.
The way in which the binary divide is being abolished will be deeply damaging to the universities and to research. I hope that when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster looks at the way in which the binary divide is being abolished he will consider that problem. If he decides that the mix between research council money and the money which comes from the funding councils is not right, I hope that he will be bold enough to say so.
9.31 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie: Such is life. Having prepared an hour-long speech just in case nobody turned up to keep the debate going, I find myself reduced to a truncated version of what I intended to say. Most of it has already been said, if not by Opposition Members, by Conservative Members. That is probably just as well.
I shall refer briefly to speeches by Labour Members and I am sure that the Minister will do likewise to speeches by Conservative Members. I am not downgrading my respect for the views expressed by Conservative Members. I found that little, if anything, was said with which I disagreed.
Many of my hon. Friends have spoken, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I am sure that all of them will contribute greatly to our debates on science and technology in the future.

537
I listened with great enjoyment to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). When he talked about the dangers of genetic enhancement, I had a vision of a sea of blonde-haired, blue-suited women with handbags sitting on the Conservative Benches in 30 years' time. That would not, of course, be genetic enhancement. I think that hon. Members get the picture. The Minister winced visibly when people started talking about the big bang. I welcome him to his position. I believe that it is the second occasion on which he has represented science in the House and I am sure that he will defend it as vigorously as he has in other activities in the House. I know that he has an interest in the history of science and 1 sincerely hope that his future will have a history as well.
It was a pleasure to be on the Front Bench when my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) made his maiden speech. I know his constituents and the area especially well because I was twinned with the constituency in the general election. We won one of the Plymouth seats. Sadly, we did not win the other, which may be fortunate for Madam Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair earlier. Her gain is our loss. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, full of humour and passion. I am glad to say that it was far more reminiscent of Michael Foot than of his immediate predecessor, to whom I listened with respect on occasions, but whom I rarely heard electrifying the House in the way Michael could.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will represent the constituency for many years. Like his colleagues who have spoken today, he brings an expertise in scientific subjects which has been sorely lacking in the House until now. It is nice to feel that there are a few more of us here now facing the serried ranks of lawyers, accountants and graduates. I mean no offence to those who are here this evening. It was a great speech; I enjoyed listening to it. I am glad that I was here when my hon. Friend made it.
This is a manufacturing economy. We have little else upon which to depend. To succeed in a competitive world we must sell our goods and increase our share of world trade. To do that, we must bring in new ideas and new processes, materials and products. If that is to happen, we have to ensure that there is a sound and growing research base. There must be expansion of research in university departments and in the many excellent independent research and technology organisations, as well as in industry. Our overall objective must be— preferably, within the lifetime of this Parliament, but if not, within little more than its lifetime—to increase the share of our gross domestic product that is devoted to research. We must increase it to the extent that it equals the amount devoted to research by our competitors in Japan and Germany.
There can be little doubt that British science is in difficulties. It is not just a question of quoting from what has been said by the Save British Science campaign, although its synopsis, which I am sure that Ministers have read, is excellent. Although science is now taught to younger pupils, the fact remains that last year the number of A-level presentations in maths, physics and chemistry fell. That cannot be allowed to continue. Our seed corn is drying up.
With little or no sign of an end to the recession, our manufacturing base is in equally serious difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) spoke passionately about the problems facing INMOS. A
538
multinational company is trying to relocate elsewhere because other European Community Governments provide more help for companies than we do. I realise that this is not a direct responsibility of Office of Public Service and Science Ministers, but it is high time that their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry realised that if we do not match the research efforts of our European competitors, more and more INMOSes will leave this country, set up elsewhere and provide more jobs in those areas. They will be lost to the United Kingdom for ever more. Our technological base will contract. It will follow those companies into Europe. The time for action is now, if we are not to fall further behind as the world-wide cession lifts.
I do not expect Office of Public Service and Science Ministers to provide a prescription for recovery today— their time in office has been too short—but there is no shortage of scientific advice available to them. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to the open letter sent to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). It was sent in a spirit of co-operation and good-will, a spirit that we hope will prevail, and we hope that the Chancellor will take that advice.
The advice of Sir William Barlow is equally relevant in relation to engineering. The advice sent to the Chancellor by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is also relevant and will, I hope, be taken on board. The Chancellor of the Duchy has his advisers in ACOST. He also has the ABRC. However, if he is to obtain a full picture of what has to be done in science, he needs a wider base of advice. I hope that reports that the right hon. Gentleman is against the setting up of a Select Committee on science and technology is without foundation. Having listened to the excellent contributions to this debate from both sides of the House, I hope that he will realise that, as well as being a bit of a burden for him to bear, the Select Committee could be of great help in providing the advice that he needs.
There are many priorities for the Chancellor to consider. There are areas of research which span the whole gamut of scientific understanding, all of which will be clamouring for more and more resources. I back up the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) for reconsideration of the closure of the Daresbury facility. At a time when research into nuclear structure and fundamental particles is growing and becoming of increasing importance, it is tragic that we should be disposing of some of the world's most renowned facilities. That is a bad start, but there are brighter spots on the horizon. There is Culham, with its direct work on the joint European Torus project, and the spin-offs that will come through the application of plasmas in industry. There are so many needs and so many demands on resources which we know are limited.
If we are to have a science Ministry, it must put the case for science clearly. The Ministers must make it plain to their colleagues in other Departments that if they want economic success in this country over the next decade and into the next century, science must be given priority. Without the seed corn there is no harvest. Without the seed corn of science, we shall not expand our industrial base and make the products that we need to sell in the next century.
There is a need for technological support for industry and I sincerely believe that it must be regionally based and

539
taken close to industries in their own areas. Industry must be given the full range of facilities of technological audit, full information and the links with local universities that they need to develop, to innovate and to allow technology to percolate through to industry.
Given the spirit in which the debate has been conducted, I hope that the Ministers will accept that they will have our support if they vigorously press the case for science with their colleagues, especially those in the Treasury in the coming round of public expenditure bids, to ensure that science does not suffer as it has so often in the past. The time for action is now.
9.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): When opening this valuable debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said that we in the new Office of Science and Technology are in a listening mode. I think it fair to say that there has been much to listen to in the debate. The creation of the new office, with a Cabinet Minister at its head, constitutes a departure in British science and technology policy. As has been said on both sides of the House tonight, it represents a major opportunity to deal with our science and technology problems on a more coherent basis.
As my right hon. Friend said, to do that, it has been agreed that there should be a wide-ranging White Paper in due course. Our work on that has got off to a good start tonight with this debate, which has raised so many of the interesting and important issues with which we shall have to come to grips. I shall try to deal with as many of the issues as I can at this stage. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that this is an early stage in our thinking. I shall try to respond to each speaker in turn.
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for his open letter to my right hon. Friend. It was a constructive and thoughtful contribution on which we shall draw in our thinking. We are grateful to him and to others who have spoken tonight for their positive response to the creation of the Office of Science and Technology and the new Department. I thank them for the overall tone of their remarks.
The hon. Gentleman made a party point, so I must tell him that the significant difference between the Labour party's proposals for science and the Government's decisions is that the Labour party envisaged a Minister outside Cabinet whereas we have introduced a Cabinet Minister—accompanied, as we have now learnt, by a "vice-chancellor". I noted what the hon. Gentleman and others, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), said about the need for the OST to have a genuine capability for taking a cross-Whitehall view of science and technology. That is what we intend to do. As my right hon. Friend said, the organisational modalities for doing that are still being developed, but this debate has contributed many constructive suggestions which we shall try to take on board.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South developed one of his favourite themes—those of us who have listened to him on many occasions over the years will recognise it—about the need for better economic forecasting and for more Government investment in technology on the basis
540
of such forecasting. What he said deserves careful examination, and it will get it. However, I am doubtful about the quality, availability and level of aggregation of most of the data on which his forecasts and his expenditure plans necessarily depend.
There can sometimes be a spurious precision about international comparisons. I say that as one who, to some extent, has indulged in using them in the past and no doubt will use them again in future, but we need a bit of a health warning if we are being intellectually honest, as hon. Members have tried to be.
The hon. Gentleman has a fair point about the need to try to improve the quality of data, especially about industrial R and D policies, and we will need to examine his point. I noted also what he said about investment allowances. It is good that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the problem of dead weight in relation to tax reliefs. That is what lies behind the shift in the Labour party's thinking to the idea of tax credits. The problem —this ties in with what I said about data—is that it is very difficult to establish a base line against which increased R and D can be measured. It remains to be seen whether recent developments in France and the United States will enable them to crack the problem or whether they will simply create a new device for accountancy with mirrors. Meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech, capital allowances continue to be carefully reviewed in the Treasury.
Dr. Moonie: Does the Minister agree, though, that the dead weight of a blanket cut in corporation tax is far less efficient than promoting research and development?
Mr. Jackson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: this is a question which needs to be thought about. It was last reviewed in 1987—perhaps we need to review it again, as it is certainly an important subject.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to organisation. Of course, that subject was dealt with by several hon. Members. I have found the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in his speech and in his open letter to be characteristically thoughtful and constructive. We shall think seriously about them in the preparation of the White Paper to which my right hon. Friend referred.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) told me that, unfortunately, he could not be present for my winding-up speech. I very much appreciated his welcome of the OST. That endorsement is especially welcome from my right hon. Friend who has such knowledge and experience in these matters. I notice particularly what he and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said about the need for help for science in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. The Government are taking a hand. We have announced a sum of £670,000 through the Royal Society, and of course we are contributing £2.4 million to the £14 million programme to help to redeploy former Soviet weapons scientists. We shall follow that matter very closely because, as my right hon. Friend said, it is important.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) shared a theme with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) about the need to bang the drum for science. I cannot help pausing for a moment to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the balanced way in which he recognised the achievements of British

541
science and of British technology-based companies. It is against that constructive background that his more critical points about science education are well taken. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to his remarks and to other remarks relating to school education, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). All of them made penetrating remarks about the subject.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for his brief but significant choral interlude. Although he admits to scientific ignorance, he has had the benefit of experience of dealing with science in the former Department of Education and Science and of being a Treasury Minister. It is against his Treasury background that I particularly welcomed his remarks about the importance of fundamental science, coupled with the need to promote stronger interactions between the science base and the whole range of technology-based economic activities. My right hon. Friend recognised that fundamental and important point.
The hon. Member for Bath was quite right to remark in passing that statistics, especially for international comparisons, are difficult to interpret but are easy to use selectively. For example, he and several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carmarthen and the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), remarked about the falling proportion of GDP devoted to science. The simple fact is that if GDP increases, as it did in the 1980s, a falling proportion of GDP can nevertheless produce an increasing sum of money. During the 1980s, there was an increase in real terms of some 22 per cent. in the science vote. Both ways of presenting the picture are accurate, but I prefer the second way.
Mr. Hall: If the Minister is saying that there is more money available over and above inflation, why was the Science and Engineering Research Council grant cut by £28 million? If money is available, will he now make a statement about Daresbury?
Mr. Jackson: There was a 22 per cent. increase over the period. There was a substantial increase—I do not have the percentage figure in my head—in the SERC budget. I can certainly send the hon. Gentleman the figure. I speak as one who has substantial research council facilities in his constituency. It is necessary and desirable that the research councils should constantly reappraise the balance of their commitments. Those of us who have constituencies in which such activities take place must be prepared, of course, to take a constructive interest in them, but to recognise that from time to time it will be appropriate to close facilities just as from time to time it will be necessary to open facilities.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister recognise that Daresbury transcends constituencies? People such as Professor Alan Shotter of the physics department at Edinburgh and people in the physics department at Liverpool and in many other places are deeply worried by the ridiculous closure of Daresbury.
Mr. Jackson: It is entirely appropriate that hon. Members should raise such questions in the House, but it
542
is perfectly appropriate for me to make the point that the system by which we operate in Britain—it is a good system; it is not fundamentally challenged by anyone—is that decisions about scientific priorities are made by scientists. The hon. Gentleman knows so much about the subject that he will be aware that there is a great debate about the balance of commitments in the SERC between physics, chemistry, biology, and other branches of knowledge. I see the Daresbury decision against the background of that debate, which is fundamentally properly a debate among the scientists.
Mr. Dalyell: There is a prejudice against nuclear physics.
Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman prefers to describe it as a prejudice. I trust our scientific advisers on that point.
I wish to answer other points made in the debate, so if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) does not mind, I will pass on. Another point about statistics was raised in the speech by the hon. Member for Bath. He made a particular point about the numbers of United Kingdom patents granted in the United States. But the figures are different from those which he gave. The number of patents increased by more than a quarter in the period 1984–88. The figure for that period was 368,000 compared with 300,000 in the previous period of 1979–83. We could bandy statistics back and forth across the Floor of the House, and no doubt we shall, for I welcome the hon. Gentleman as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats on this issue, but we need to watch statistics carefully because they do not always necessarily tell the whole story.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) for his wise words about the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I may face in terms of exaggerated expectations. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet also made that point. We shall certainly do our best, but we must all recognise that science and technology policy is a long haul. It will have to be addressed steadily over several years.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East that good fundamental science needs to be both maintained and healthily integrated with the development of technology. That point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central made a thoughtful and significant speech which I shall read tomorrow. He referred to a possible lack of balance within the Department between our work on public service and on science. That is a point which we ought to address. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall strive hard to ensure that no such imbalance arises. The hon. Gentleman was simply wrong when he talked about the balance of funding of the Office of Public Service and Science. The overwhelming bulk of the money of which my Department disposes is constituted by the science vote.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central made some penetrating remarks about the relationship between the OPSS and the other Whitehall Departments. I agree with his assessment of the importance of that agenda. There is also much for us to reflect on in what he said about intellectual property. However, I hope that he will take

543
note of the correction that I made when I intervened in his speech about the position of the Medical Research Council on the patenting of elements in the human genome.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Devonport on his elegant and witty maiden speech and also on his perspicacity in choosing this debate to make it, which shows taste and discrimination, and an appreciation of the really important issues. As he said, he follows in distinguished footsteps, and I hope that his political career will be as interesting and distinguished, if not as varied and colourful, as that of his immediate predecessor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet made a characteristically sagacious speech and I appreciated his remarks about governmental structures—I have already commented on them—about the views in higher education on recent research, which is important and fundamental, about the need for better links between higher education institutions and industry, and the problem of career structures in academe and of the pathways between the academy and industry. Those are important topics which we must follow up and which will all be relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) stressed the importance of contact between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy and myself in the OST, and the professional bodies—and I agree. We shall listen hard to them, in general and in the context of the White Paper that we shall be working on. As my hon. Friend said, I know from personal experience about the value of bodies such as PITCOM in bringing together parliamentarians, scientists and business people. Meanwhile, I noted what he said about space—a topic that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet also picked up—which encompasses an important set of issues that the OST will consider, although, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is in the lead on those topics.
I noted what the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) had to say about in-service training in science matters for Members of Parliament. That is primarily a matter for the House, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the research councils, which may be interested. As a trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust, he may be able to take that matter up with science-based companies associated with it.
On the hon. Member for Gower's second point about UNESCO, the Foreign Secretary has said that that is under review, and I shall draw his attention to those remarks.
I welcome the change of tone in this debate compared with the previous debate on the subject in February 1991. Perhaps that is a consequence of the fact that a general election has intervened. In all events, this debate was more thoughtful and constructive and I hope that a larger measure of common ground will emerge on which we can all build. I shall try to spell out some of its features.
First, we recognise the importance of beating the drum for science, which was emphasised by several hon. Members. Science is one of the glories of our culture. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has written an excellent article in The Daily Telegraph today on that theme, and we shall continue as he has begun.
544
Secondly, it follows that it is time to put behind us the exaggerated talk of Britain's demise as a big player in science and as a technology-based economy.
Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jackson: No, I must continue.
That talk was always wildly overdone. Frankly, it did more damage to the image of British science than to the Government's image, at which it was in some part aimed. Having said that, I must admit that the British science and technology scene is not without its problems and we must all recognise that. That recognition is implicit in the creation of the new Department.
Our basic science has continued to be fundamentally healthy, but, as the debate has shown, there are problems which have to be tackled. For example, there is the question of the implications for basic research of the enormous and welcome expansion in teaching, in universities and polytechnics. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made a good point about that in his brief intervention.
Also, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, we must recognise the issues concerning the effectiveness of the Government's policy to promote desirable interaction between scientists and users of technology—in jargon, between strategic science and generic technologies. At the same time we must recognise issues concerning the balance between different areas of Government-supported science and technology.
There is important common ground on the fact that industry needs to think more seriously about the level of investment in science and technology. The Government have focused attention on that issue through the requirement to publish details of research and development policies in company reports and through our annual reviews of science and technology. We must not try to second-guess industry. The fundamental principle must be that the customer is king, but we need to ask ourselves how well focused are the arrangements in industry for acting as an intelligent customer and investor in science and technology.
This has been a valuable and interesting debate. Everybody who has been here will recognise that. More than that, it has been a timely debate. My right hon. Friend and I have listened to it carefully and I can assure the House that we will draw ideas and inspiration from it.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
10 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will acquit me of in any way being disappointed not to be called. I thoroughly enjoyed the contributions of my colleagues on both sides of the House and I had not asked or wished to be called. I raise a serious point of order about what happened earlier today. I am not criticising your judgment; it is a basic question of precedents.
I have consulted my records of 25 years ago when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Leader of the House, R.H.S. Crossman. On several occasions he was clearly told, "The Speaker won't wear it. No, you cannot have a statement today." That was a Speaker's judgment. I vividly remember an earlier occasion when the same man

545
Was Minister of Housing and was backed by the late Dame Evelyn Sharp, but they could not get a statement on rent rebates because Mr. Speaker King would not have it.
My point of order is this: has the relationship between the Speaker and the Leader of the House as representative of the Government changed? Is it not finally up to the judgment of the Speaker whether to accept a statement, whoever asks for it, just as for a private notice question?
Today was deeply unsatisfactory in the sense that some of my colleagues had their speeches curtailed because there was a statement on transport in London. I do not doubt that the statement was important, but it could have been taken on another day of the week. Have things changed for Thursdays? Has the balance between the Speaker and the Leader of the House changed in any way? Have custom and convention changed?
The learned Clerks will find in their records that the late Sir Barnett Cocks certainly made it clear on behalf of the Speaker to the Leader of the House that the Speaker was not having extra statements on Thursdays. Some of us think that the House of Commons elected a Speaker to have the final say on these matters—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a very long point of order, and I have already dealt with it today. The Speaker's relationship with the Leader of the House is a good one.
Mr. Dalyell: You are the boss.
Madame Speaker: I am indeed the boss. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Speaker has no authority to determine whether statements are made; the Speaker is told that the Government wish to make a statement and it is the Speaker's duty to hear that statement. I have no doubt that the Members who asked questions on the statement on transport in London were grateful to be able to do so. As 1 have already explained to the hon. Gentleman, during the past two Sessions of Parliament more than 30 statements have been made on Thursdays when we have business questions. I am sure that he realises that the Speaker exercises discretion over how long business questions last. Each Thursday I go into the matter thoroughly. It is my duty to ensure that Back Benchers can question Ministers. I did that today, as I have done every Thursday and will continue to do while I hold the office of Speaker.

Science and Technology

  PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Ordered,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee, Session 1991– 92, in respect of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Techology (House of Commons Paper No. 325 of 1991–92).[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

North Down and Ards Community Unit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10.4 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I count myself extremely fortunate that I have been successful in obtaining this Adjournment debate. I am fighting to save the national health service as we know it in North Down. That is the essence of my fight. The Eastern health and social services board, with contemptuous regularity, has imposed drastic cuts on health and social services, in particular on the North Down and Ards unit.
About two weeks ago I made a speech in the House in which I attacked, with all the fervour that I could command, the latest cuts and hospital bed closures in North Down. In that speech, I accused the board of having already decided to close Bangor hospital in my constituency in due course. I then maintained that the bed closures at Bangor hospital, and particularly the closure of the entire surgical ward, were cunningly calculated by the board to provide it with an excuse for the closure of the only hospital we have in Bangor.
Today, I heard from the media that at a meeting to be held some time today the board would decide to close a number of hospitals in its area, within the next 10 years, including Bangor and Ards hospitals. Such a decision can only be described as scandalous, and it makes me extremely angry. It will certainly add to the waiting lists in other hospitals and the period of waiting will grow longer. The situation is already intolerable, and I have written on numerous occasions to complain about the delays that my constituents experience before obtaining a hospital appointment.
We need a hospital in Bangor, in particular a casualty department. Bangor and the surrounding areas have an immense and ever-growing population, and it is a disgrace that no casualty department exists. The board has dismissed my appeals for such a department and for a fully operational hospital in Bangor.
We will fight to save our hospital, but unfortunately people never think about hospital services until they need medical attention. It is then too late to complain. I therefore call on the people of North Down to mobilise in defence of a proper and decent national health service in North Down and Ards.
I have referred to the Eastern health and social services board for many years. Who are the members of that board? They are all appointed by the Minister—they are his minions. They have not been elected by the people and therefore have no loyalty to them. The board has deliberately set out to deceive the people. Sadly, the Ulster people have been robbed of much of their political power during the past 10 years or more. There is no Northern Ireland assembly where matters vital to the wellbeing of the community could be thrashed out and officials made to justify their decisisons.
We do not have a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Despite all the demands made in the previous Parliament and in the House since the general election, the Government have flatly refused to establish one, but that would give political muscle to the Ulster people through the Members of Parliament who represent them. If we had such a Committee, which could cross-examine Ministers, officials and members of the Eastern health and social

547
services board, the board might not be so ready to take decisions detrimental to the health and welfare of my constituents and others. Therefore, I am exercising my fundamental right to pursue this vital matter on the Floor of the House and to attack the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland.
We do not even have in this House the Minister responsible for health in Ulster. He lurks in another place, where he seeks sanctuary. So I am denied the opportunity of criticising him face to face. Instead, I must direct my anger at the Minister who will reply to this debate and who is responsible for other equally important matters. I understand that he flew to Northern Ireland this morning for another, perhaps final, meeting of phase one of the talks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)indicated dissent.
Mr. Kilfedder: I take it from the dissent being expressed by my hon. Friend that it was not the final meeting. I am glad to hear that. He then flew back for tonight's debate. I wish him well in his great task of seeking political progress. I have the utmost confidence in his ability.
I urge my hon. Friend to convey to his lordly ministerial colleague the sense of outrage felt by me and by the people who live in the North Down area. My hon. Friend is a man of compassion. Perhaps he can exert influence on the Minister responsible for health in Ulster and persuade him to defer all cuts and radical changes until such matters can be thoroughly discussed, either by an Ulster Select Committee or a new Northern Ireland assembly.
We have a plethora of documents claiming to protect the rights of citizens. They include the citizens charter and the patients charter, and recently the North Downs and Ards community unit launched its own charter for clients with the main aim of "Putting the Customer First". One official declared in a statement:
"It is always important to involve the people in agreeing the services that ought to be provided."
That sounds magnificent and democratic, but it is a meaningless diatribe because the bureaucracy is interested only in itself. It is interested in the money, and the people and patients come a poor second.
The people have not been consulted by the board, certainly not about the applicationn for trust status for the North Down and Ards community unit or the hospital unit. There is only one guideline, and that is profit, which is alarming because the community trust would be handed control of all community health and personal social services in North Down and Ards. Those services include residential homes, day centres and residential units—such as Balligan, which is also unfairly facing closure—physiotherapists, chiropodists and mental health and handicapped services. It also includes services for the elderly and the provision of social workers and home helps, day centres, community nurses and residential homes.
I fear that the trust, once empowered, would close the Banks residential home, which I am fighting to keep open. Imagine what an independent unit not answerable to any democratically elected body would do to the services for
548
the elderly, the young and the mentally handicapped and what the result would be for health and social services in general in the North Down area.
The proposed community trust constitutes a major departure from the situation in Great Britain, where only hospitals and health authorities have been invited by the Government to opt out of NHS control, with social services departments remaining in the English local authority structure. It seems that Northern Ireland, and North Down in particular, is being used as a guinea pig for the rest of the United Kingdom. What happens in North Down in the next few months will then be introduced in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
If the North Down and Ards community unit is given trust status, the highly paid board of directors will have operational independence from the NHS. The directors of the trust will have power to sell public assets, including residential homes, to generate income from private patients, to hire and fire and set new conditions of employment at will for all the staff, in particular the nurses, and power to make their own decisions, right or wrong, including the size of their own salaries. The Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I believe that the community trust would be expected to make a 6 per cent. return on its assets, and a revenue surplus. Such profit can be made only at the expense of client and patient services.
I thought that the national health service was meant to be for the benefit of the people, young and old, and that their welfare was the only deciding factor, but it has now become clear that self-governing trust status places profit before patients. Already, even before the North Down and Ards community trust unit has been formed, officials have been looking after the bureaucracy by pouring large amounts of money into new administrative posts while freezing posts involved with direct care. I should have thought that the opposite should happen. They should cut the number of officials in the bureaucracy and provide more money for the people who look after the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the young.
The North Down and Ards unit has a new headquarters staff of administrators—a team of officials attempting to put a price on the services to be provided for the community. Trust status will not benefit the public. The national health service will be fragmented, and different services will be provided in different areas. Client and patient needs will become subservient to financial considerations. Health services will be managed by officials whose concern will be profit and loss, not compassion and care. There will be no public accountability, and only minimal local representation on the trust board.
I fear that the proposed community trust unit will signal the end of public health and social services in the North Down and Ards area, and with it the end of compassionate and responsive services based solely on patient need.
I direct this appeal to the Government, especially to the Minister who will respond to the debate: to ensure that no irrevocable decision is made before all the issues can be exhaustively examined either by a Northern Ireland assembly—if one is created before the end of the year—or by a Northern Ireland Select Committee, which would have the opportunity to decide what is in the best interests of the people of North Down.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) on being fortunate in the ballot for the Adjournment debate. The debate is on an important subject, but it also allows me to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman personally. In the time during which I have served at the Northern Ireland. Office I have known of no hon. Member more assiduous in serving his constituents. He has often visited me both at Stormont and at Westminster, serving the interests of the people for whom he has a special responsibility. I can say that without being patronising, not only because people know it to be true but because I feel that it is right that the hon. Gentleman should bring such matters to the Floor of the House, even though weighty events are taking place at Stormont, where we are considering some of the issues that he has raised today.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a possible Northern Ireland Select Committee. That is very much a matter for the House authorities, but I hope that progress in the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland can return greater authority to the people of Northern Ireland—on the issue of health as well as on many other issues. There is great talent in Northern Ireland, which should be bearing the responsibilities to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred. For reasons well known to the hon. Gentleman—I find it difficult not to call him my hon. Friend—our duty as a Government is to govern fairly. He may not always agree about Government policies, but I hope that he agrees that we adminster those policies fairly.
The Eastern health and social services board today published a consultative document on the future of hospital services in its district. It sets out the board's views on the changes needed in acute hospital services if patients are to continue to receive the best services that the latest technology and techniques can provide. My noble Friend Lord Arran is the Minister responsible for health and social services in Northern Ireland, and I know that he is taking a keen interest in this debate. For almost 18 months I had the honour of holding that post, so I also take a personal interest in the matter.
The board's document could be regarded as—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister believes that it is—a valuable contribution that will stimulate public debate, out of which will emerge firm proposals for change. Neither the board nor the Department of Health and Social Services proposes specific changes to particular hospitals. Such action will come later, probably next November when the board begins to firm up its purchasing intentions.
It is clear that with the remarkable and—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees—welcome advances taking place in equipment, and medical and surgical techniques, particularly with the less invasive forms of surgery, patients spend considerably less time in hospital and can even be treated on a daily basis, which is for their convenience and happiness. I was once told by a surgeon that the majority of time a patient spends in hospital when undergoing surgery is used to heal the operation wound. Therefore, if the wound is smaller, the time spent in hospital will be less. That means that one can treat more patients in fewer beds as more patients can be treated in the available time.
The document of the Eastern health and social services board estimated that possibly up to 750 fewer beds would
550
be needed over the next five years in its area. That will not, as the hon. Gentleman might fear, ruin the services provided to patients and prospective patients, but the reverse— hospitals will be able to take advantage of new techniques, but not waste money when it is not needed. We are running not a furniture warehouse, but a health service. We need to spend the money efficiently and wisely when serving patients.
The board usefully sets out in its consultative document a list of the standards and criteria that it expects hospitals to meet if they are to secure contracts in future. The document comments on the extent to which existing hospitals meet the standards. The consultative document stated that Ards hospital fell short of the standards required to ensure clinical effectivenss. It stated that Bangor hospital had not operated as an acute hospital for some time and it did not envisage it doing so in future.
The board has set out its thinking in relation to those two hospitals, and it is now for the local management unit and local community to respond and engage in a debate with the board. I take this debate as the first salvo in the consultative process. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will always be free to consult my noble Friend the Minister, but I do not believe — and I know that my noble Friend does not believe—that now is the time to do so. It would be better to wait until after the board has decided before petitioning the Minister, who will listen.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about prospective trust status for the community services in his area. Government reforms in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland are working extremely well. The process, which includes the new arrangement for the provision of community care from April, is directed at ensuring the continued provision of high-quality cost-effective health and social care for the population of the Province. Health and social service trusts form a key element of the service and will ensure a clear separation between the purchasing of services by the four health and social services boards and, as from April, some GP fundholders. and the provision of those services by the provider units. The trusts will remain firmly part of the health and personal social services. There is no question of opting out of privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about profits. There are no profits to be made by a health service trust. There may be surpluses or returns on capital, but those are merely extra funds for patient care. There are no dividends and no tax to be paid. It is purely a case of a business being run efficiently and being able to provide extra funds for the people for whom it exists. The trusts have freedom to manage. That will make separation from the purchaser more clear cut, but the timetable for the implementation of "Working for Patients", the document describing the Northern Ireland reforms, was a year behind the rest of the United Kingdom. That has provided a good opportunity for Northern Ireland to see some of the benefits already accruing from the separation of the purchaser and provider functions and especially from the establishment of GP fundholders and trusts in Great Britain.
Initially there were 59 trusts and in the second wave there were more than 100 applications. In Northern Ireland, there was only one application for trust status in the first wave. There have since been 10 more. I assure the hon. Gentleman that people do not apply for trust status merely because they think it is smart, a craze, the new thing to do. People who work in the health service are dedicated

551
and do not always earn the salaries that they could earn in other milieux. Applications for trust status should not be considered with despair, disdain or suspicion. People apply for trust status because they believe that it is a better way to provide services for patients.
As I have said, Lord Arran is responsible for this matter and he wants to continue the long reputation of the Province for high calibre health services. I mentioned earlier that the Department of Health and Social Services has received 10 more applications for trust status. They were from the eight units of management in the Eastern board, the Eastern ambulance service and the Craigavon area hospitals group, which is in the Southern health and social services board area. My noble Friend announced last week that those applications are to be the subject of a three-month public consultation exercise, during which everyone can express an opinion. Those taking part may include hon. Members, MEPs, councillors, trade unions, the hon. Gentleman and his constituents and statutory and voluntary health and personal social services organisations. I know from the Royal group of hospitals that such opinions are carefully considered. By 8 September my noble Friend will have a considerable body of opinion and after that decisions will be taken.
When we make decisions about applications for trust status—particularly that made by the North Down and Ards community unit, to which the hon. Gentleman referred—a number of elements will be considered. First, there will need to be a sound business plan. Business is not a dirty word. A potential health and social services trust must demonstrate that it will be financially viable, it has a clear understanding of how it intends to develop into the future, and how it intends to use the freedoms conferred by trust status. Secondly, management must be able to demonstrate the necessary skills and capacity to run the unit. In this connection, the Minister would want to see the involvement and commitment of senior professional staff. Thirdly and perhaps most significantly, I shall expect a potential candidate to be able to demonstrate that the establishment of a trust will result in tangible benefits for patients, clients and the community. It is important to remember that trust status is not an end in itself but, as I stressed earlier, the means of providing a better service to those who need our care.
At the very heart of our proposals is the conviction that health and social services units are best run locally by the
552
professionals and managers who have first-hand knowledge of the service. This is another way of saying that those actually involved in caring for patients and clients usually know best what patients and clients need and are in the best position to meet those needs.
Our aim is to give those working in the service the freedom and support to use the skills which professional training and experience bring. The key, therefore, is greater delegation and our proposals for the health and personal social services as a whole should lead to greater freedom, flexibility and responsibility for all hospitals and units. The trusts will be both the ultimate expression of this greater delegation and, I hope, the spur to its achievement.
Units that are approved for trust status will have the maximum freedom possible to run their own affairs. Each will be run by its own board of directors, which will allow it to develop its own sense of identity and those associated with it will be able to share in the pride in the trust and in its achievements, as we have seen throughout Great Britain.
I say again to the hon. Gentleman, and I beg him to accept it, that the trusts are not opting out of the national health service, or the health and personal social services of Northern Ireland. They are opting for their future to be within those bodies, providing for the patients who want to continue to receive services free at the point of delivery. The unit will take pride in its identity and its belonging both to the health service and the people of Northern Ireland.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that there is any ulterior motive in creating the trusts. I hope that he will see, as countless thousands have seen here in England, the benefits that trust status can bring. I hope that he will take note of the votes that we have had, and the polls that have been taken among those who work in hospital trusts in Great Britain—the nurses who would not go back and the doctors who would not now surrender the freedom to deliver their service better than they could in the past. I hope that he will not believe that we are there to protect beds when we should be there to protect patients, or that we are saving money because of cuts in Government expenditure. In fact, we do so in order to use the money better to serve the people for whom he and we have a special responsibility.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy towards Heveningham hall.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he was responsible for this matter as the Secretary of State for the Environment, decided on 10 December 1991 not to exercise his right to purchase Heveningham hall. I fully share his view about the outstanding importance of this grade I building and the need to maintain the integrity of the house, its decorative scheme and the grounds, and firmly believe that these objectives should be met, where possible, by responsible private ownership. It is for the official receivers to explore this possibility and I understand that they intend to market the hall later this summer. The hall will remain subject to the full rigour of planning and listed building controls and to advice from English Heritage and the local planning authorities. The costs of restoration work to the house and the grounds which is still outstanding should be well within the financial capacity of a new owner.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much is being spent on sport by his Department, compared with May 1979, in real and cash terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My Department is responsible for grant in aid to the Sports Council (GB). The table shows that there has been a significant increase in grant in aid to the council in both real and cash terms.

  Grant in aid to the Sports Council (Great Britain)

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  At 1992–93 prices

  1979–80

  15.580

  37.798

  1992–93

  48.762

  48.762

  In addition to this, a new business sponsorship scheme for sport, which will provide £3 million per annum for sport in England, is to be established this year.

  A further £55 million, to be channelled through the Department of the Environment, has been committed to sport in support of the Manchester Olympic bid. Government funding for sport is also provided through unhypothecated revenue support grant to local authorities and the Department of the Environment's inner-city programmes. The three territorial sports councils also receive grant in aid from their respective sponsoring Departments.
  230
  By reducing the rate of pool betting duty, an extra £60 million per annum has been made available to sport through the foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufactured Goods
  Mrs. Chaplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest trend in the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactured goods.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest trend in the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactured goods.

  Mr. Lamont
  I am pleased to report that decades of decline have been halted. The United Kingdom's volume share of world trade in manufactured exports was estimated in the Financial Statement and Budget Report to have risen in 1991 for the third successive year.

  Financial Services
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes in the regulation of financial services following the transfer of responsibilities to his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  No changes are proposed in the way financial services are regulated as a result of the transfer.

  Public Spending
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the public spending planning total for 1993–94.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public expenditure planning total for 1993–94 has been set at £244.5 billion.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total of Government spending for the current financial year which is statutorily or otherwise determined by reference to the retail prices index.

  Mr. Portillo
  The principal areas of Government expenditure determined by reference to the retail prices index are certain social security benefits and expenditure on public service pensions. For 1992–93, the total of this expenditure falling within the planning total that can be readily identified is £53.1 billion, 23£4 per cent. of the planning total.

  Lloyd's Names
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the tax position of names in the Lloyd's insurance market.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to make such a statement.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the small business sector on the effect of interest rates; and if he will make a statement.
  231
  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to diminish allowances against income tax as a means of reducing the basic rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  Our objective remains to move towards a basic rate of 20p when it is prudent to do so.

  Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the public sector borrowing requirement excluding privatisation receipts in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public sector borrowing requirement excluding privatisation proceeds in 1991–92 was £21.8 billion.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when was the last year in which Britain's manufacturing trade was in surplus.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures is published by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", May 1992.

  Inflation
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the outlook for inflation.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend's Budget forecast was for RPI inflation to fall to 3¾ per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1992 and to 3¼ per cent. by the second quarter of 1993.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Nelson
  In April the headline rate of RPI inflation was 4.3 per cent.

  Government Auctions Directory
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning national press advertisements placed by City Trading Ltd. for a publication described as the Official Directory of Government Auctions; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  None. Several Government Departments use actions for the occasional disposal of goods and each Department makes its own arrangements. There is no official directory of Government auctions.

  Intelligence Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with the Data Protection Registrar with respect to the integration of the existing system customs enforcement network or customs 232
  information system within the European Community; whether the system forms part of the Schengen or Trevi arrangements; and whether he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have consulted the Data Protection Registrar on several occasions during the development of a Community-wide customs information system, an enhancement of the current system customs enforcement network. The system does not form part of either the Schengen or Trevi arrangements.

  Companies (Financial Regulations)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessments the Government have made of the impact and additional costs on companies after 1993 of the additional requirements for(a) VAT returns, (b) INTRASTAT, (c) appointment of fiscal agents and (d) the United Kingdom's adoption of the maximum limit of £70,000 for fiscal agents.

  Sir John Cope
  The abolition of routine and systematic formalities at internal frontiers after 1992 means that, overall, United Kingdom industry will benefit from a reduction in business compliance costs incurred currently in intra-EC trade.

  Compliance cost assessments—CCA—have not been produced for individual single market requirements owing to difficulties in identifying the different elements of the costs associated with a single administrative document.

  Some of the new requirements have only recently been agreed and Customs and Excise are now in the course of preparing a global CCA covering indirect tax, statistical and customs issues.

  Drug Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for(a) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to carry out sampling of all imports of drugs as a matter of routine and (b) all drug imports to have documentation certifying their manufacture; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise check imports of drugs on behalf of the Department of Health's Medicines Control Agency. Where appropriate these checks include sampling. Routine sampling and extended documentary requirements for all consignments, however, are not considered necessary by the agency. Testing is also carried out to the agency's standards in the country of origin or after importation.

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the complete write-off of official debts of lower income countries to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  To date, five countries have benefited from the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms debt reduction initiative—Benin, Bolivia, Equatorial Guinea, Nicaragua, and Tanzania. A number of other heavily indebted, low-income countries are expected to receive Trinidad terms in the coming months. Under current Trinidad terms agreements, 50 per cent. of eligible debt is written
  233
  off, and creditors commit to consider reducing the whole stock of debt in three to four years' time if the debtor country keeps to its agreements with the International Monetary Fund and the Paris club. The Government also participated in a Paris club agreement in 1991 to write off 50 per cent. of the whole stock of Egypt's official bilateral debt.

  The Government believe that Trinidad terms should be further developed, along the lines of the Prime Minister's original proposals for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries—all creditors should participate in debt reduction, debt reduction should be increased from 50 per cent. to a benchmark of two thirds, and debt stock reductions should be brought forward. While the Government do not believe that it is necessary, or in the long-term interests of the debtors themselves, to write off their debts completely, the Overseas Development Administration has cancelled most of the debt of the poorest countries arising from aid loans.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to look at the feasibility of debt-for-nature swaps as a part of the debt retirement process

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government welcome debt-for-nature swaps as an innovative approach to market-based debt reduction in cases where additional resources are made available for environmental projects. As far as the Government's own programmes are concerned, we have to date judged it more effective to deal with debt relief and assistance for environmental projects overseas separately, through the Paris club and through our aid programme.

  Company Writs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement as to why writs issued by his Department last December to financial advisers concerning James Ferguson Holdings of Bradford had not been served within the four-month time limit;

  (2) how many Yorkshire and Humberside-based companies face being sued by his Department in connection with the Barlow Clowes affair.

  Mr. Nelson
  I cannot comment on individual cases.

  Manufactured Exports
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufactured exports have changed between 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  The value of UK exports of manufactures was £86 billion in 1991, £51 billion more than in 1981.

  Overseas Postings (Housing)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance with regard to housing costs is provided for civil servants posted overseas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Civil servants posted overseas are provided with rent-free accommodation appropriate to their grade or status.

  Auditing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those non-departmental public bodies which are annually and comprehensively audited(a) by the
  234
  National Audit Office and (b) by private firms of accountants; if he will list the criteria on which such accountants are selected and for what length of time they are appointed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Treasury does not maintain a central list of the auditors of non-departmental public bodies. The publication "Public Bodies 1991" prepared by the Cabinet Office lists the non-departmental public bodies by sponsoring department and indicates those executive bodies which are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The legislation governing the individual bodies will normally determine whether the Comptroller and Auditor General is the statutory auditor or whether a firm of accountants is to be appointed. In the latter case, the appointment is normally the responsibility of the sponsoring Department.

  Tax Statistics
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount, in cash, the bottom quintile of households, ranked by unadjusted disposable income, paid out in income tax; and what they paid out in value added tax in 1989.

  Sir John Cope
  In 1989, the average payments for households in the bottom quintile ranked by unadjusted disposable income were about £95 in income tax, and £270 in VAT.

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what agreement has been reached with the British Greyhound Racing Board and the off-course betting industry on how the allocation of greyhound racing's proportion of the 0.25 per cent. reduction in general betting duty will be administered;

  (2) what is his estimate of the proportion of the £15 million resulting from the reduction in general betting duty in 1992–93 which would be returned to greyhound racing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The size and administration of any voluntary payments by bookmakers to greyhound racing following the reduction in general betting duty are matters for negotiation between the two industries. We understand that those negotiations are under way and have asked to be informed of the outcome in due course.

  GDP Growth
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for gross domestic product growth in 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  At Budget time the Chancellor forecast that GDP would grow by 1 per cent. in 1992.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about funding arrangements relating to the acquisition of rolling stock for the Leeds-Bradford rail electrification project.
  235
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 9 June, at column 116.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar at the appropriate stage of any initiative involving personal data, to establish whether there will be a need for registration. It is the practice to remind directorates from time to time of their responsibilities under the Act. I am satisfied that these arrangements are effective.

  Road Closures, Blackheath
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he is likely to come to a decision with regard to the minor road closures in and around Blackheath.

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State for Transport has received an application from the London borough of Lewisham to stop up lengths of London Pond road, Whitfield road and Duke Humphrey road. The borough council has been asked to provide further information relating to the application. The Secretary of State is unable to decide upon the application until this information has been received.

  Greater Manchester Buses
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the consultants' report into the possible splitting of Greater Manchester Buses Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received the consultants' report into the possible splitting of Greater Manchester Buses Ltd. It is now being carefully considered. I propose to discuss the report with the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority.

  British Rail (Finance)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of Government investment in British Rail provided in(a) million pounds, (b) the amount needed to equal the 1979 allocation in real terms and (c) the percentage excess or shortfall compared to the 1979 allocation in real terms; and if he will provide a breakdown by the following (i) investment ceiling, (ii) total investment by BR and subsidiaries and (iii) railways for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 June 1992] British Rail's investment ceiling for 1992–93 is currently set at £983 million for the existing railway and at £755 million for the new railway. The combined ceiling for both existing and new railways therefore stands at £1,738 million. Rail investment by BR in 1979 was £620 million in 1992–93 prices. The ceiling for 1992–93 therefore represents an increase of 180 per cent. on the figure for 1979.
  236
  The annual breakdown by investment ceiling, total investment and rail investment appears in the table.

  British Rail Investment 1979 to 1991–92

  £ million in 1992–93 prices

  Investment Ceiling

  Group Investment

  Rail Investment

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  620

  1980

  730

  693

  635

  1981

  744

  576

  519

  1982

  750

  469

  423

  1983

  n/a

  465

  417

  1984–85

  n/a

  511

  438

  1985–86

  n/a

  605

  590

  1986–87

  n/a

  625

  572

  1987–88

  n/a

  751

  715

  1988–89

  n/a

  762

  692

  1989–90

  n/a

  868

  831

  1990–91

  n/a

  932

  959

  1991–92

  1,202

  n/a

  1,045

  Notes:

  1. Rail investment excludes non-rail business such as BR Property Board, ships and hotels.

  2. 1984–85 was a 15-month period. The figure given is a 12-month equivalent.

  3. The figure for rail investment for 1991–92 is a DTp estimate.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are disseminated within his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Reports prepared by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are always shown to the permanent secretary and seen by the Department's senior managers. Where necessary, local managers are asked to comment on the matters raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many investigations have been initiated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in connection with the work of his Department for each year since 1986; and how many complaints have been upheld in whole or in part in each of those years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was extended on 1 January 1991 by section 110 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to include administrative duties carried out by staff of courts and tribunals appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

  Three cases had been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner in 1986; one in 1987; seven in 1988; eight in 1989, and three in 1990 of which it was decided 14 fell outside his jurisdiction. The remaining seven did not result in recommendations. In 1991, nine cases were investigated of which five resulted in findings against the Department. During 1992 three cases have been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner, but none of those investigations has yet been completed.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what disciplinary action
  237
  has been taken by his Department in relation to matters referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in each year since 1986.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No disciplinary action has been found necessary as the result of a case being referred to the Parliamentary Commission for Administration during the period from 1986.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each year since 1986 in respect of the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration where financial payment or payments will or should be made by his Department as directed or indicated,(a) aggregate amount for all investigations, (b) the highest amounts for any one investigation, (c) the length of time taken between his Department indicating that a payment will be made or informing that a payment should be made and such payments being made and (d) how many such payments were not made within seven days and what reasons there are for such delays.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No payments were recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1992. In 1989 one payment of £75 was made and in 1991 payments totalling £1,467.61 were made. The largest of these payments was £1,009.42.

  The time taken between acknowledging the Parliamentary Commissioner's recommendation and making payment is kept to a minimum.

  Northern Circuit
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department what costs were incurred in(a) court fees, (b) counsel fees, (c) agents, (d) expense rates, (e) charging rate, (f) additional costs and (g) total claimed by any solicitor or the Treasury Solicitor, in relation to matters involving the administration of the courts on the northern circuit, the northern circuit administrator or members of his staff in each year since 1986.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information in the form requested could he obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions solicitors or the Treasury Solicitor have been instructed to advise or act for his Department, and by whom, in respect of matters relating to the northern circuit administrator, his staff or any matter involving the administration of the courts on the northern circuit, in each year since 1986.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not collected in the form requested and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vehicle Clamping
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the number 238
  of vehicles clamped by private companies operating under the jurisdiction of the police in each of the last three years for which complete figures are available; and what payments were made to the companies.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the commissioner that the information requested is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Clamps applied

  Total payment £

  1989–90

  157,401

  1,680,289

  1990–91

  149,766

  1,512,093

  1991–92

  128,079

  1,322,155

  Prisons Reports
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last five years the date on which he received each report from his inspector of prisons and the date on which each report was published.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details covering the last five years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The dates of all reports delivered to the Secretary of State from January 1991 are given in the tables.

  Establishment

  Date report submitted to Secretary of State

  Dale report published

  Short Inspections1

  Swinfen Hall

  24 January 1991

  20 June 1991

  Castington

  15 February 1991

  25 July 1991

  Liverpool

  8 March 1991

  6 August 1991

  Pentonville

  11 March 1991

  6 August 1991

  Downview

  25 March 1991

  15 October 1991

  Ford

  26 March 1991

  27 August 1991

  Drake Hall

  25 April 1991

  27 August 1991

  Send

  3 May 1991

  8 October 1991

  Shrewsbury

  8 May 1991

  9 January 1992

  Northeye

  20 May 1991

  9 January 1992

  Deerbolt

  8 July 1991

  31 march 1992

  Parkhurst

  11 July 1991

  6 February 1992

  Hull

  15 July 1991

  11 February 1992

  Camp Hill

  6 September 1991

  2 June 1992

  Huntercombe

  23 September 1991

  —

  Risley

  23 October 1991

  2 June 1992

  Rudgate

  8 November 1991

  2 April 1992

  Werrington House

  8 November 1991

  2 April 1992

  Stanford Hill

  13 January 1992

  —

  Feltham

  11 February 1992

  28 may 1992

  Leyhill

  11 February 1992

  —

  Stoke Heath

  14 February 1992

  —

  Styal

  26 February 1992

  —

  Birmingham

  5 March 1992

  —

  Latchmere House

  24 March 1992

  —

  Stafford

  15 April 1992

  —

  Manchester

  15 April 1992

  —

  Wymott

  30 April 1992

  —

  Full Inspections1

  Stafford

  17 January 1991

  9 July 1991

  Thorp Arch

  11 February 1991

  6 August 1991

  The Verne

  14 February 1991

  25 July 1991

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  28 February 1991

  24 September 1991

  North Sea Camp

  14 March 1991

  24 September 1991

  Littlehey

  25 March 1991

  5 September 1991

  Full Sutton

  17 April 1991

  17 December 1991

  Swaleside

  30 April 1991

  6 February 1992

  Wormwood Scrubs

  14 May 1991

  19 December 1991

  Lindholme

  30 May 1991

  30 January 1992

  New Hall

  10 June 1991

  20 February 1992

  Canterbury

  10 September 1991

  9 January 1992

  Garth

  26 September 1991

  11 February 1992

  239

  Establishment

  Date report submitted to Secretary of State

  Date report published

  Haverigg

  18 September 1991

  27 February 1992

  Aylesbury

  30 September 1991

  2—

  Bedford

  11 October 1991

  31 March 1992

  Dartmoor

  31 October 1991

  2 June 1992

  Holloway

  31 October 1991

  11 March 1992

  Frankland

  25 November 1991

  2 April 1992

  Glen Parva

  29 November 1991

  —

  Wakefield

  31 January 1992

  —

  Grendon

  13 February 1992

  —

  Leicester

  12 March 1992

  —

  Sudbury

  31 March 1992

  —

  Lewes

  30 April 1992

  —

  Long Lartin

  29 May 1992

  —

  Other Reports

  HMCIP's Annual Report

  7 November 1991

  11 December 1991

  Report by HMCIP into the escape by two category A inmates from HMP Brixton

  31 July 1991

  5 August 1991

  1 Once publication has been approved it normally takes a month to arrange.

  2 To be published on 25 June 1992.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the number and length of detentions in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts since 1 January and (b) the number and length of detentions in Greater Manchester since 1 January.

  Mr. Jack
  Statistics on the number of people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in Great Britain during the first quarter of 1992 are published in "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 9/92". A copy of this bulletin is in the Library. Details of the length of detentions for all detainees from 1 January to 9 June are given in the table:

  Persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation by length of detention

  Great Britain, 1 January-9 June 1992

  Number of Persons

  Less than 2 hours

  2

  2 hours and less than 4

  4

  4 hours and less than 8

  20

  8 hours and less than 12

  7

  12 hours and less than 24

  18

  24 hours and less than 36

  9

  36 hours and less than 48

  7

  Total under 48 hours

  67

  2 days and less than 3

  3

  Population of Nottingham closed training prison on 31 March 1979–1992 Adult sentenced males

  Year

  Up to and including 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 4 years

  Over 4 years

  Total as at 31 March

  Sentence length

  1979

  4

  188

  64

  256

  1980

  1

  168

  89

  258

  1981

  4

  170

  81

  255

  1982

  7

  159

  84

  250

  1983

  10

  159

  89

  258

  1984

  5

  185

  108

  298

  1985

  3

  151

  124

  278

  1986

  2

  133

  157

  292

  1987

  1

  111

  179

  291

  1988

  3

  100

  191

  294

  240

  Great Britain, 1 January-9 June 1992

  Number of persons

  3 days and less than 4

  5

  4 days and less than 5

  —

  5 days and less than 6

  —

  6 days and less than 7

  —

  7 days

  —

  Total 48 hours or more

  8

  Total detained

  75

  One person has been detained in Greater Manchester under the Act since 1 January. The detention in this case was for nine hours.

  Carriers' Liability
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total sum of fines issued to carriers since the introduction of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and what is the total in outstanding fines.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The total sum is £44.01 million, of which £21.78 million is outstanding.

  Housing Services for the Elderly
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements for Housing Services for the Elderly to have free access to fire control ex-directory telephone numbers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have no reason to believe that the current arrangements whereby emergency telephone calls are routed through the public telephone operators are unsatisfactory. Exceptionally, fire control ex-directory numbers may be made available by a chief fire officer to high-risk establishments and to emergency alarm receiving companies at their expense in order to receive calls directly in the brigade area.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for the total number of prisoners held in HMP Nottingham in 1979 and in each following year until 1992; and what category of prisoner they were.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is given in the table. The population has been taken as at 31 March for each of the years requested in order to include the latest figures for 1992. All inmates held were in the category adult sentenced males.
  241

  Year

  Up to and including 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 4 years

  Over 4 years

  Total as at 31 March

  Sentence length

  1989

  4

  97

  189

  290

  1990

  3

  89

  176

  268

  1991

  3

  74

  153

  230

  1992

  2

  36

  174

  212

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by prison establishment for the past 12 months, the number of inmates that have had self-inflicted wounds; and what was the comparative figure for(a) 24 months, (b) 36 months and (c) 48 months previously.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of self-inflicted injuries at each prison service establishment in 1991 is listed in the table. Information for earlier years is not available.

  Incidents of self-injury in prison service establishments during 1991

  Establishment

  Total

  Acklington

  4

  Albany

  —

  Aldington

  —

  Ashwell

  2

  Askham Grange

  1

  Aylesbury

  19

  Bedford

  20

  Belmarsh

  6

  Birmingham

  48

  Blantyre House

  —

  Blundeston

  7

  Brinsford

  10

  Bristol

  5

  Brixton

  29

  Brockhill

  35

  Bullwood Hall

  29

  Camp Hill

  11

  Canterbury

  15

  Cardiff

  29

  Castington

  3

  Channings Wood

  5

  Chelmsford

  17

  Coldingley

  1

  Cookham Wood

  33

  Dartmoor

  29

  Deerbolt

  23

  Dorchester

  I

  Dover

  20

  Downview

  Drake Hall

  2

  Durham

  66

  East Sutton Park

  —

  Eastwood Park

  1

  Elmley

  —

  Erlestoke House

  4

  Everthorpe

  20

  Exeter

  35

  Featherstone

  10

  Feltham

  106

  Ford

  —

  Frank land

  18

  Full Sutton

  20

  Garth

  8

  Gartree

  5

  Glen Parva

  76

  Gloucester

  17

  Grendon

  38

  Guys Marsh

  2

  Haslar

  2

  Hatfield

  1

  Haverigg

  3

  Hewell Grange

  —

  Highpoint

  10

  Hindley

  70

  Hollesley Bay

  15

  242

  Establishment

  Total

  Holloway

  95

  Hull

  116

  Huntercombe

  21

  Kingston

  —

  Kirkham

  1

  Kirklevington Grange

  15

  Lancaster

  5

  Latchmere House

  —

  Leeds

  130

  Leicester

  27

  Lewes

  25

  Leyhill

  3

  Lincoln

  117

  Lindholme

  12

  Littlehey

  13

  Liverpool

  74

  Long Lartin

  22

  Low Newton (Male)

  55

  Low Newton (Female)

  3

  Maidstone

  6

  Manchester

  35

  Moorland

  117

  Morton Hall

  2

  The Mount

  1

  New Hall

  113

  Northallerton

  17

  Northeye

  2

  North Sea Camp

  —

  Norwich

  6

  Nottingham

  4

  Onley

  34

  Oxford

  14

  Parkhurst

  2

  Pentonville

  8

  Portland

  39

  Preston

  7

  Pucklechurch (Female)

  112

  Ranby

  4

  Reading

  9

  Risley (Male)

  —

  Risley (Female)

  50

  Rochester

  68

  Rudgate

  1

  Send

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  4

  Shrewsbury

  34

  Stafford

  36

  Standford Hill

  1

  Stocken

  8

  Stoke Heath

  29

  Styal

  304

  Sudbury

  5

  Swaleside

  2

  Swansea

  10

  Swinfen Hall

  4

  Thorn Cross

  4

  Thorp Arch

  —

  Usk

  3

  The Verne

  3

  Wakefield

  12

  Wandsworth

  9

  Wayland

  7

  Wellingborough

  —

  Werrington

  3

  Wetherby

  19

  Whatton

  1

  Whitemoor

  —

  Winchester

  10

  243

  Establishment

  Total

  Wormwood Scrubs

  32

  Wymott

  9

  Total

  1,615

  Deportation Orders
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken on applicants for asylum who have received paragraph 101 refusals on the basis of non-appearance at interviews; and how many of those refused since 1 December 1991 have been served with removal or deportation orders.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Unless an asylum applicant refused under paragraph 101 of the immigration rules is subsequently in touch with the Department, he remains liable to arrest and administrative action to enforce his departure. Information about the numbers subject to such action is not collected in the form requested.

  Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in rank order for each police force in England and Wales, the number of females who have reported being raped during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information held centrally relates to the number of notifiable offences of rape recorded by the police and is given in the table. Although there are no figures for the number of offences reported, recent Home Office research shows that 61 per cent. of allegations of rape were recorded by the police in 1989.

  Notifiable offences of rape recorded by the police by police force area—1991

  England and Wales

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  Metropolitan police district

  1,158

  Greater Manchester

  227

  West Midlands

  214

  West Yorkshire

  213

  Hampshire

  136

  Kent

  115

  Nottinghamshire

  111

  Thames Valley

  99

  Avon and Somerset

  98

  Northumbria

  93

  South Wales

  91

  Essex

  83

  South Yorkshire

  74

  Sussex

  73

  Merseyside

  63

  Cambridgeshire

  62

  Norfolk

  62

  Suffolk

  61

  Humberside

  61

  Devon and Cornwall

  60

  Lancashire

  58

  North Wales

  55

  Staffordshire

  53

  West Mercia

  50

  Dorset

  49

  Dyfed-Powys

  47

  Cleveland

  47

  Wiltshire

  46

  Bedfordshire

  46

  Hertfordshire

  46

  Durham

  45

  Northamptonshire

  44

  244

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  Surrey

  41

  Gwent

  38

  Lincolnshire

  38

  Leicestershire

  38

  Cheshire

  37

  Derbyshire

  34

  Gloucestershire

  23

  Cumbria

  19

  North Yorkshire

  19

  Warwickshire

  18

  City of London

  —

  England and Wales

  4,045

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the previous Session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning, volume II, minutes of evidence and appendices.

  Intelligence Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement, in the form that does not jeopardise national security, on the criteria used by the Security Service to help it decide whether personal data should be retained by it; and how such criteria have varied since 1989.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have nothing to add to the Security Service Commissioner's report on Security Service record-keeping policy in his annual report for 1991 and his conclusion that the general policy on retention of records was acceptable.

  Subversion
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide, in a form that does not jeopardise national security, generalised examples of subversive activities that do not involve law breaking; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means and through what channels section 11 resources will be allocated to colleges of further education following their removal from local authority control.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  After further education and sixth form colleges leave local authority control on 1 April 1993, they will be eligible to receive, and to apply for, section 11 grant direct. Posts already approved for funding from 1 April 1992 will continue to be eligible for grant, with the
  245
  contribution previously made by the local authority being met by the Further Education Funding Council. Detailed administrative arrangements are under consideration.

HEALTH

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the circumstances under which pensioners may be asked to pay for eye tests.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pensioners as a group have never been automatically exempted from payment of optical costs, including those for sight tests. Pensioners who receive income support are entitled to free NHS sight tests. Pensioners on a low income can claim help with their optical costs under the NHS low-income scheme.

  Community Health Services
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how spending on health and community health services(a) for elderly people and (b) for mentally ill people has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  Available data are given in the table. Estimated spending on services for elderly people does not include spending on the acute hospital services which are used by people in all age groups including elderly people.

  Estimated Hospital and Community Health Service (HCHS) spending on services for elderly people and for mentally ill people 1979–80 and 1990–91.

  Spending(£ million cash)

  Real terms increase 1

  1979–80

  1990–91

  (per cent.)

  Services for elderly people

  651

  1,927.6

  36.5

  Services for mentally ill people

  592.8

  1,763.5

  37.1

  Total HCHS expenditure (excluding joint finance)

  5,309.5

  14,745.8

  28.0

  1 After allowing for changes in general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the clinical trials at London's Royal Marsden hospital that are planned to discover if patients suffering from breast cancer would benefit from hormone replacement therapy; and when she expects the results will be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no firm plans to hold such a trial at the Royal Marsden hospital.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the effects of organophosphates on the human body and methods of entry into the human body; who carried out that research; and who is carrying out research currently.

  Mr. Sackville
  Organophosphate toxicology is a very heavily researched area and many papers reporting such research are published each month in the world's scientific journals. Organophosphate research was recently reviewed by Ballantyne and Marrs—"Clinicaland experimental toxicology of organophosphates and carbamates", published by Butterworth—Heinemann, Oxford, 1992.
  246
  A number of groups are carrying out research into the action of organophosphates including, in the United Kingdom:

  (a) Medical Research Council Laboratories, Carshalton (Dr. Martin Johnson).

  (b) University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Professor Peter Blaine).

  (c) Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, Salisbury.

  In addition, clinical research has been carried out at the poisons units, particularly by Dr. Virginia Murray in London and Dr. Allister Vale in Birmingham, and the Health and Safety Executive is proposing to carry out a study of farm staff and contract workers using organophosphate sheep dips.

  Outside the United Kingdom, there are numerous groups working on organophosphates, notably:

  Belgium — University of Ghent (Dr. Willems).

  Canada — DRES, Suffield, Alberta (Dr. Clements).

  Hungary — Szent-Gyorgy University, Szeged (Professor Desi).

  Italy — University of Padua (Professor Lotti).

  Portugal — Coimbra University Hospital (Dr. Pimentel).

  USA — Vanderbilt University, Nashville (Professor Dettbarn).

  Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all trust hospitals together with their postal addresses and the names of their chief executives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Nursing Beds
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing beds within the private sector there are within the Seaham, Murton, Easington, Peterlee, Shotton, Horden, Blackhall and South Hetton area.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  if she will give the membership and remuneration of the members of the Dental Estimates Board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Dental Practice Board—DPB—
  previously known as the Dental Estimates Board, comprises five dental members, two lay members and the chief executive, who is also a lay member. Current membership is as follows:

  Chairman (dentist)

  Mr. T. H. Farrell

  Vice Chairman (dentist)

  Mr. W. H. Evans

  Dental Members

  Mr. D. W. Lester

  Mr. R. A. Gorham

  Mr. H. G. Lewis

  Lay Members

  Mr. D. A. Dryer

  Mrs. C. A. Osborne

  Chief Executive

  Mr. J. A. Taylor

  The chairman receives remuneration of £23,658.18 per annum for an average attendance of 2.5 days per week, plus £182 for each additional day of attendance. He is also entitled to travel and subsistence payments for attendance at meetings held away from the DPB site at Eastbourne.
  247
  Other members, with the exception of the chief executive, receive a fee of £124.68 for each day of attendance at the DPB. They are also entitled to travel and subsistence payments.

  The chief executive is a full-time employee of the DPB. He is not remunerated separately as a board member.

  Community Care
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Health last met the Association of Directors of Social Services on 4 June.

  Child Care
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve child care provision, following the EC child care recommendations.

  Mr. Yeo
  The EC child care recommendation, adopted on 31 March 1992, will contribute to the continuing debate on child care. The Department's latest statistics, "Children's day care facilities at 31 March 1991, England."; a copy of which is available in the Library, show that in England between 1988 and 1991 registered day nursery places grew by 112 per cent. from 36,000 to 77,000 and the number of registered child-minders by 42 per cent. from 73,600 to 104,900. The Children Act 1989 gives a new duty to local authorities to review the child-care services used by children aged under eight in their area every three years and publish a report. This requirement gives local authorities a strategic role in child care and provides a legal framework for production of a local child care plan which will result in sensible expansion and development.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients had been waiting for hospital treatment(a) under one year, (b) one to two years and (c) over two years at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), on 10 June at columns 219-20.

  Community Psychiatric Nursing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the current review of community psychiatric nursing will be completed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 9 June 1992]: The review of mental health nursing was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in her speech to the Royal College of Nursing congress on 27 April 1992.

  The precise terms of reference, the chairmanship and membership of the steering group for the review, together with its method of working, are being finalised.

  The review will be concerned with all aspects of mental health nursing including community psychiatric nursing and will examine practice, leadership and education.
  248
  The review will be taken forward by a multidisciplinary steering group. The chairmanship and membership of the group will be announced by mid-July. The first meeting of the group will take place in September and the work will be completed within a year.

  The work of this review will feed into that of the mental health task force which was announced at the end of February.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation or other initiatives which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984, and will consult him as necessary when planning the collection, use or disclosure of automated personal data.

  Developing Nations (Trade)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies Her Majesty's Government pursue to promote trade between developing nations and the EC.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government support the Community's efforts, as in the current GATT Uruguay round negotiations, to create open trading conditions which will increase trade with all countries, including the developing nations. In addition, the European Community gives preferential access to most products from developing countries under its generalised system of preferences scheme. This provides especially generous treatment for the least developed. The trade provisions of the Lomé convention also provide access to Community markets at zero duty for most products from the African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

  Clothing and Textiles
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the position of the United Kingdom Government regarding the import of Bangladeshi textiles and clothing into the EC after the creation of the single market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulation of textiles and clothing imports from Bangladesh into the European Community is governed by the multi-fibre arrangement bilateral agreement on trade in textiles between the two parties, the provisions of which are unlikely to be significantly affected by completion of the single market.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current quotas for textile and clothing imports into the United Kingdom from countries covered by the multi-fibre arrangement.
  249
  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to EC regulation 369/92 published in the "Official Journal of the European Communities", No. L45 of 20 February 1992, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of producing and distributing "student grants and loans"; and how many copies are being produced.

  Mr. Forman
  We plan to produce and distribute at least 900,000 copies of "Student Grants and Loans: A brief guide 1992–93" at an estimated cost of about £88,000. We shall produce additional copies if there is sufficient demand.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Greenwich Generating Station
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 104, how many of the representations he has received about the MetroPower proposals to redevelop Greenwich generating station have supported the proposal and how many have objected to it.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990 an opportunity must be given for objections to the MetroPower proposals to be registered with my Department. More than 100 objections were so registered by the date specified under the regulations. The regulations do not provide for support for proposals to be registered.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to prepare a United Kingdom-wide strategy for the commercial energy industry covering extraction, conversion, transport and waste over the next 30 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The Government have set out their policy designed to ensure that consumers obtain energy efficiently. Strategy blueprints on the lines proposed by the hon. Member do not work and have been rejected even by the former socialist economies.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is being undertaken by his Department to reduce the flaming of natural gas in the oil extraction process.

  Mr. Eggar
  My consent is required to the flaring of any gas produced in association with oil in the United Kingdom. In granting such consents, my policy is to ensure that flaring is restricted to the minimum amounts which are consistent with maintaining safe and economic operations.

  Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been allocated during each of the last five years by his Department to fund research and development on(a) energy produced from fossil fuel sources and (b) the development of energy from renewable sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following is the information requested:

  (a)

  £ million

  >1987–88

  9.8

  >1988–89

  7.9

  >1989–90

  5.6

  >1990–91

  15.9

  >1991–92

  8.4

  (b)

  >

  £ million

  >1987–88

  16.1

  >1988–89

  16.3

  >1989–90

  17.9

  >1990–91

  20.9

  >1991–92

  24.0

  Notes:

  1 1987–88 and 1988–89 figures are taken from the annual review of Government-funded research and development. These figuress relate essentially to Frascati research and development.

  2 1989–90 and 1990–91 figures are final outturn.

  3 1991–92 figures are taken from main estimates.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the tonnages of coal imports into the ports of Sunderland, Seaham, Hartlepool and Teesside during the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what were the points of origin.

  Mr. Eggar
  Coal imports for these areas are shown in the table. Imports at Seaham are recorded under the port of Sunderland. Imports at Teesside are shown for the port of Middlesbrough.

  Thousand tonnes1

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Sunderland

  United States

  58

  109

  63

  Australia

  184

  35

  0

  Venezuela

  104

  34

  9

  Soviet Union

  49

  0

  56

  Canada

  29

  9

  22

  Germany

  16

  24

  7

  Other countries

  64

  41

  42

  Total

  503

  251

  198

  Hartlepool

  Colombia

  22

  44

  101

  Poland

  67

  25

  14

  Soviet Union

  57

  5

  0

  Australia

  51

  2

  0

  Other countries

  26

  5

  0

  Total

  224

  82

  115

  Middlesbrough

  Australia

  1,393

  1,254

  1,407

  United States

  1,130

  1,106

  722

  Poland

  322

  71

  20

  251

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Canada

  117

  169

  25

  Other countries

  48

  181

  215

  Total

  3,010

  2,781

  2,388

  1 Figures are rounded independently and a total may therefore differ from the sum of its constituent parts.

  Waste
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the public inquiry into the Cory waste-to-energy incinerator proposal in Belvedere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Arrangements for the public inquiry are nearing completion and I expect to announce the details shortly. I will write to my hon. Friend once they are finalised.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the United Kingdom has set a target for the percentage of total electricity supply from renewable resources.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are working towards the establishment of 1,000 MW of new renewables-based electricity generation capacity in the United Kingdom by the year 2000. Targets for the exploitation of renewable energy resources are under consideration, as part of the current review of the Government's renewable energy programme.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact for fuel choice and generating plant capacity, investment, mothballing and permanent retirement of treaty undertakings on global warming on offer at the Rio de Janeiro Earth summit conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 June 1992]: The Government's commitments to the control of carbon dioxide emissions under the framework convention on climate change will take into account a wide range of issues, which in the electricity sector include the expected installation of high-efficiency gas-fired plant, the fostering of renewables under the non-fossil fuel obligation, and the retirement of some existing generating plant.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the result to date of the writs issued by his Department to the Midland bank and other financial intermediaries in respect of the Barlow Clowes affair.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  A number of proceedings have been commenced following the statement by the Secretary of State to the House on 19 December 1989. I cannot comment on individual cases.

WALES

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the last date on which he considers it would be reasonable to indicate that his plans for local government reorganisation will go forward in a time scale that woud make it convenient to cancel the county council elections currently planned for May 1993.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on Friday 5 June 1992, at column 662.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to give effect to his plans for local governmnent reorganisation in Wales during the current session of Parliament.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on Wednesday 10 June, at column 182.

  A483 (Bridge Repairs)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the reasons for the bridge repairs at Rosset, near Wrexham on the A483; and who is to pay for them.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The bridge is not being repaired. Concrete sections of the bridge are being treated with a chemical to protect the surfaces from the harmful effects of winter salting. The Welsh Office will pay for the work.

  Singleton Hospital
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decision about the night casualty service at Singleton hospital, Swansea.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Rio de Janeiro to attend the Earth summit and will have bilateral meetings later today with various Heads of Government.

  Women
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to increase the number of women in the Cabinet.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister considers all the excellent candidates available on merit at the appropriate times.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the actions he intends to take to promote the interests of women.
  253
  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently set up a new ministerial sub-committee on women's issues to review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women. The committee will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Employment, who now has overall responsibility for co-ordinating women's issues within Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also appointed Baroness Denton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, as Government co-chair of the Women's National Commission which will continue to represent the concerns of women to the Government.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the measures being taken to increase the number of women in the upper levels of the civil service.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Appointements and promotions at all levels in the civil service are made on the basis of merit, qualifications and suitability for the job. Under a new programme for action to achieve quality of opportunity for women in the civil service, launched in March this year, Departments and agencies are developing and implementing action plans tailored to their own needs. The plans aim at improving the quality and quantity of women's opportunities at senior and all other levels.

  Family Conciliation
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for funding family conciliation services; which departmental budget funds such services at present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local family conciliation services in England and Wales are currently funded by the voluntary and private sectors with assistance in some areas from the probation service and local authorities. No Department currently funds such services directly and the Government have no current plans to introduce such funding.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department is considering the role of conciliation services in England and Wales as part of the wider review of family law announced earlier this year.

  Conservation Unit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to develop an interdepartmental conservation and development co-ordinating unit with a mandate to examine departmental policy and investment proposals prior to their presentation to Cabinet.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is not necessary. Cabinet procedure already requires that all papers which are prepared for Cabinet and ministerial committees should, where appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment. There is a ministerial committee on the environment, whose terms of reference are
  "to consider questions of environmental policy".

  Each Government Department has a Minister responsible for environmental matters in his or her Department. There is also other co-ordinating machinery.

  CIS (Research)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his response to the recommendations of the report he commissioned last year from the Royal Society on ways to assist scientists in the Commonwealth of Independent States to maintain their research base.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 20 May at column 137.

  Environmental Audit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that all Government Departments are subject to periodic environmental audits.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government Departments publish accounts of their environmental performance in their annual departmental reports. This follows a commitment set out in the 1990 environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance", Cm 1200, and reaffirmed in the 1991 first-year report on that White Paper, Cm. 1655.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what resource commitments have been made by Her Majesty's Government to support the institutional requirements to implement United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development decisions.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We expect agreement to be reached during the Earth summit on the most effective and efficient institutions to follow up recommendations made at the UN Conference on Environment and Development. We believe that a sustainable development commission is the right mechanism. We will consider what financial resources are appropriate once the institutional framework has been agreed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) of 2 June,Official Report, column 392, if he will list the heads of Government he has met since 9 April, and the date on which he discussed with them the Earth summit.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing further to add to the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North on 2 June at column 392.

  Secret Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the present and past locations in Britain of the secret intelligence service and of the Security Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  It would not be in the interests of national security to provide this information.

  Honours System
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest estimated annual cost to public funds of operating the honours system.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures for the cost of operating the honours system could not be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of females who have reported being raped during the last 12 months in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  I am informed by the Chief Constable that the most recent figures available show that during the 12-month period 1 May 1991 to 30 April 1992 the Royal Ulster Constabulary received 108 reports of rape from females.

  Chemical Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the chemicals and the amounts of such chemicals removed from the old Mackies factory in Belfast after the factory was vacated; by whom the materials were removed; by what means final disposal was effected and by whom; what steps he has taken to assure himself that the disposal was safe and effective; what role his Department had in the clearing of such chemicals from the site; and why the chemicals were not removed and disposed of before the premises were vacated.

  Mr. Atkins
  Lummus Mackie Ltd. has not yet fully vacated its old factory in Belfast. The move to new premises should be completed by the end of August this year, by which time it is understood that all potentially harmful chemicals will have been removed.

  Fire Regulations
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects all premises registered under the Northern Ireland tourism legislation to comply with the necessary fire regulations; and when he expects the Northern Ireland Fire Service to complete inspection of all such existing premises for compliance with such regulations as are required under the 1984 order.

  £' thousand

  Major capital roadworks

  Increase/decrease on main estimates

  Road maintenance

  Increase/decrease on main estimates

  Minor capital roadworks

  Increase/decrease on main estimates

  1988–89

  Main estimates

  10,905

  —

  26,951

  —

  6,330

  —

  Spring supplementary estimates

  13,830

  +2,925

  32,168

  +5,217

  6,535

  +205

  Outturn

  12,159

  +1,254

  34,571

  +7,620

  7,303

  +973

  1989–90

  Main estimates

  18,365

  —

  40,415

  —

  7,050

  —

  Spring supplementary estimates

  17,849

  -516

  41,200

  +785

  7,100

  +50

  Outturn

  16,315

  -2,050

  41,584

  +1,169

  8,624

  -1,574

  256
  Mr. Atkins
  Applications for the grant of a fire certificate have been made on behalf of 372 premises in the categories covered by Northern Ireland tourism legislation. Of these, 69 remain to be inspected and this process is expected to be completed by December 1993. Sixty-four premises have so far been refused certificates.

  Traffic
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the traffic volume on(a) the Belfast road into Larne and (b) the Dublin road south of Newry to the border.

  Mr. Atkins
  The average daily traffic flow is 13,850 vehicles and 6,000 vehicles respectively.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The Northern Ireland Office and each of the Northern Ireland Departments have appointed a data protection officer responsible for the maintenance of the Department's data protection register. Recently, with the assistance of the office of the Data Protection Registrar, all Departments reviewed their effectiveness in fulfilling the requirements of the Act and subsequently initiated a number of minor refinements to existing practice. There is an inter-departmental data protection officers' forum in Northern Ireland which ensures regular review of requirements as well as the effective read-across of departmental experiences.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the total sums projected in the appropriate orders for(a) major capital road works, (b) road maintenance and (c) minor capital road works in each of the financial years (i) 1988–89, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1990–91 and (iv) 1991–92 and the sums actually expended under each of those headings in those years; and if he will indicate any increases and decreases from the sums initially projected in each year and also any differences from the longer term estimates for those years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:
  257

  Major capital roadworks

  Increase/decrease on main estimates

  Road maintenance

  Increase/decrease on main estimates

  Minor capital roadworks

  Increase/decrease on main estimates

  1990–91

  Main estimates

  16,560

  —

  43,180

  —

  9,030

  —

  Spring supplementary estimates

  16,560

  —

  44,394

  +1,214

  9,030

  —

  Outturn

  16,046

  -1,514

  45,936

  +2,756

  9,612

  +582

  1991–92

  Main estimates

  18,730

  —

  42,151

  —

  8,502

  —

  Spring supplementary estimates

  20,382

  -1,652

  41,250

  -901

  8,002

  -500

  Outturn

  19,892

  +1,162

  40,277

  -1,874

  7,910

  -592

  Note:—Long term planning figures are subject to annual refinement before inclusion in the Estimates booklets.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the major capital road schemes programmed(a) in 1988 for the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 and (b) in 1990 for the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will indicate the cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Major capital road schemes programmed in 1988

  £ million at 1988 prices

  Financial year and proposed schemes

  Total estimated cost

  1988–89

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena Dualling: Stage 1

  3.8

  A57/B101 Oldstone Road

  0.7

  Eastlink Dundonald

  0.5

  Longwood Road, Newtownabbey

  0.5

  Castlecourt, Belfast

  1.5

  Buncrana Road, Londonderry

  0.3

  Banbridge By-pass Dualling

  1.3

  Newry 8A (Canal Street/Downshire Road Link)

  1.0

  Balloo Road, Bangor: Stage 2

  0.8

  Omagh Through-pass: Stage 1

  3.7

  1989–90

  Frederick Street, Belfast

  1.5

  Greenmount Link Roundabout, Coleraine

  0.2

  Crossnadonnell Limavady

  0.4

  Strand Road, Londonderry

  0.2

  Culmore Road, Londonderry

  0.3

  Bridge Street/Tavanagh Avenue, Portadown

  0.4

  Dunmurry By-pass: Stage 2C

  1.8

  A48 Donaghadee Road, Newtownards

  0.4

  T4 Hillsborough By-pass junction

  0.4

  Strabane By-pass: Stage 1

  2.6

  Church Street/Scotch Street, Downpatrick

  0.6

  1990–91

  Castledawson By-pass

  2.5

  Belfast schemes arising from Belfast Urban area plan

  3.0

  Greenmount Link: Stages 3 and 4 Coleraine

  0.4

  Bushmills Road, Coleraine

  0.5

  T4 Mullan's Corner Dualling

  1.3

  Dunmurry By-pass Stage 20

  1.7

  Enniskillen Through-pass Stage 3B

  1.0

  High Street/Hamilton Road, Bangor

  0.5

  1991–92

  Killead By-pass

  1.2

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena Dualling Stage 2

  2.6

  Belfast schemes arising from Belfast Urban area plan

  3.0

  Strand Road, Londonderry: Stage 2

  0.6

  Newry By-pass: Stage 2

  2.5

  North Road/Talbot Street, Newtownards

  0.3

  Comber By-pass Stage 2

  1.0

  258

  Major capital road schemes programmed in 1990

  £ million at 1990 prices

  Financial year and proposed schemes

  Total estimated cost

  1990–91

  T8 Castledown By-pass

  3.1

  Ballymaconaghy Road, Belfast: Phase 1

  0.1

  Purdysburn Road, Belfast

  0.8

  Ballymaconaghy Road, Belfast: Phase 2

  0.6

  Castlereagh Roundabout, Belfast

  0.6

  Jordanstown Road, Belfast

  0.2

  Greenmount Link, Coleraine: Stage 5

  0.6

  Bushmills Road, Coleraine

  0.7

  Queen's Quay Repairs Londonderry

  0.2

  A48 Donaghadee Road, Newtownards

  1.0

  Dunmurry By-pass: Stage 2D

  2.8

  Strabane By-pass: Stage 1 (bridge)

  1.0

  T3 Strategy

  0.3

  1991–92

  Killed By-pass

  1.5

  M2 Crosskennan Slip Roads

  0.6

  Great Victoria Street/Sandy Row, Belfast

  1.5

  Forester Green Junction, Belfast

  0.9

  Queen's Quay, Londonderry

  2.0

  T4 Mullan's Corner Dualling

  1.8

  Church Street/Scotch Street, Downpartick

  1.0

  High Street/Hamilton Road, Bangor

  1.3

  Balloo Road, Bangor: Stage 3

  0.3

  Strabane By-pass: Stage 1 (Roadworks)

  2.1

  T3 Strategy

  0.3

  1993–94

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena Dualling: Stage 2

  3.1

  A2 Shore Road, Belfast

  4.1

  Purdysburn Road, Belfast: Stage 2

  0.8

  Knock Road, Belfast: Stage 1

  5.6

  Strand Road, Londonderry: Stage 2

  1.0

  Newry By-pass: Stage 3 (Roadworks)

  3.9

  A29 Carland Bridge, Dungannon

  1.5

  T3 Strategy

  0.3

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the number of civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office,(a) in Belfast and (b) in London, indicating in each case how many are of Northern Ireland origin and how many of Great Britain origin.

  Mr. Mates
  As at 1 April 1992 there were 106 staff working in London and 1,435 in Northern Ireland. The information on origin is not held by the Northern Ireland Office.

  Airports Authority
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he requested the board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company Ltd. to reconsider its new nominee for the chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Airports Authority Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I wrote to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company on 1 June, asking to be reassured that the board had been able to cast its net sufficiently widely before a decision was taken on approval of any appointment as chairman. I also asked if the board would be prepared to make at least three names available for consideration.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons under the age of 21 are unemployed in the Morpeth-Northumberland travel-to-work area at the most recent date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unemployment figures by age and duration are available on a quarterly basis, but only for standard age bands. In April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 695 claimant unemployed persons aged under 20 in the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work area.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of Government policies on long-term unemployment.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of Government policies on long-term unemployment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are firmly committed to helping long-term unemployed people get back to work. We have in place a wider than ever range of measures to help unemployed people, including the long-term unemployed, find jobs as quickly as possible. These measures are part of a coherent package of policies which are setting a sound economic framework for sustainable non-inflationary growth.

  Local Office, Newport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will instruct the manager of the Newport, Gwent, unemployment benefit office to report how many unemployed people were disqualified for unemployment benefit and for what periods, under each paragraph of section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, in the area covered by that office in the week commencing 15 June; and if she will place this information in the Library.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to improve the monitoring of sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Maclean
  In England the responsibility for monitoring individual sites of special scientific interest lies with English Nature which is giving particular attention to improving its performance in this area. For example in 1991–92 some 51 per cent. of SSSIs in England received site integrity monitoring involving a basic check on whether major loss or damage has occurred. English Nature is also developing its existing system of site quality monitoring which surveys a sample of SSSIs for its detailed scientific value each year.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to develop and implement a United Kingdom plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural processes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government intend to consider the scope for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from all sources, including the agricultural sector, in drawing up their national programme under the framework convention on climate change.

  Methane
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to improve the maintenance of oil and natural gas production systems as a means of reducing methane leakage.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is participating in a study led by the Department of Trade and Industry aimed at improving knowledge of methane emissions from all sources, including oil and natural gas production.

  Social Housing
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department will take to counteract the recent Audit Commission's optimistic forecast of a shortfall of 12,000 social lettings each year; and if he will comment on the report.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Audit Commission's report "Developing Local Authority Housing Strategies", including the discussion of supply and demand for social housing, is a useful contribution to public debate on housing policy. Besides the recommendations addressed to central Government, which we shall consider carefully, the report contains many recommendations for local authorities on how they could make more effective use of their existing stock of housing and other resources.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Audit Commissioner's report on the shortfall of 12,000 homes per year; and what effect this has on waiting lists.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr.
  261
  Evans). Local authorities' practices in maintaining waiting lists for council housing vary widely, and they are therefore not an accurate indicator of unmet need for social housing.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the cost to Easington district council of collecting the community charge 1991–92 and the estimated costs involved to Easington council in collecting the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost in 1991–92 to Easington district council of collecting the community charge was £696,000. No estimate is available of the cost of collecting the council tax.

  Water Extraction
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority in respect of limiting new, and renewing, licences for water extraction by non-domestic users; and what was the result of those discussions.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the NRA to consider applications on their merits in the light of the authority's general duty to take steps to conserve, redistribute or otherwise augment water resources in England and Wales, and to secure their proper use.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to make announcements on the second wave of city challenge bids.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 20 May,Official Report, column 148.

  Council Tax (Valulation List)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce regulations that would prevent a person from making copies of the council tax valuation list for a purpose not associated with an appeal with respect to a valuation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made it quite clear that valuation lists will not be made available to commercial organisations. Valuation lists are, however, public documents and it would be wrong to restrict interested parties' rights to obtain information from them.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are for local authorities to have access to the Government radiation incident monitoring network.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under current arrangements lead local authorities have electronic mail access to RIMNET information bulletins and data summaries. Under the next phase of the RIMNET project, due for completion later 262
  this year, it will be possible for more local authorities, with the necessary expertise, to enter radiological measurements and receive information and data summaries over public data network and electronic mail links.

  Local Authority Land Sales
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total assets by local authority which local authorities have raised from the sale of open land and playing fields in the last two years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available. However, returns to the Department from local authorities give information on sales of fixed assets in the service categories "parks and open spaces" and "other outside sports and playing fields". I have arranged for the data for the latest available years to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has available to him concerning the current level of service charges payable to local authorities in respect of flats purchased by sitting tenants under the right-to-buy legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not collect this information from local authorities. The protections against unreasonable service charges in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply to all leaseholders, including those who bought under the right to buy. In addition, purchasers of flats under the right to buy are given pre-sale estimates of service charges covering the first five years of the lease, and cannot be charged more than the amounts estimated for repairs and improvements.

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Office of Water Supply in affecting water companies' charges.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) on 19 May 1992,Official Report, column 73.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects Her Majesty' inspectorate of pollution to make a decision with regard to the burning of orimulsion at Padiham power station.

  Mr. Maclean
  National Power has agreed to a request from HMIP for an extension of the determination period for this application to 30 September. Unless further extensions are required, the authorisation will be issued by this date.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secetary of State for the Environment if he will list the companies who have applied to use orimulsion fuel on a commercial basis; and if he will show in his answer those which have been(a) granted and (b) refused permission.

  Mr. Maclean
  National Power has applied under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to HMIP to burn
  263
  orimulsion in its power stations at Pembroke in Wales and Padiham in Lancashire. Both applications are currently being considered.

  PowerGen has permission under previous legislation to burn limited amounts of orimulsion in its power stations at Ince in Cheshire and at Richborough in Kent. The company has applied to burn orimulsion in these stations under the 1990 Act. These applications are the subject of an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend about commercial confidentiality. They cannot be determined until after the appeal decision, which will be made as soon as possible.

  Maiden Down Common
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of the mass protest walk held on Maiden Down common, east Cornwall in April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have not received any representations in respect of a mass protest walk on Maiden Down common, east Devon, in April.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless people in the Easington district council area are aged(a) 17 and 18 years, (b) 18 and 19 years, (c) 19 years, (d) 20 years and (e) 20 and 21 years; and what extra resources are being made available to Easington district council to tackle the problem.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in their quarterly P1(E) return. The quarterly P1(E) returns identify such households by the category of need but not by age. The total number of all households accepted by Easington under these provisions in the fourth quarter of 1991 was 27.

  In the second quarter of this year the return was revised to identify for the first time:
  (i) households in priority need who were accepted as homeless because the household contained vulnerable young person(s) (aged 16 and over) and,
  (b) young single homeless people who were not in priority need for whom the authority nevertheless agreed to secure permanent accommodation.

  Since then, Easington has reported accepting only one such household, in the first of these two categories during the second quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number of families accepted as homeless for each housing authority area in England in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on homeless households for whom local authorities have accepted responsibility to secure accommodation under the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and part III of the Housing act 1985 is reported quarterly to the Department —half-yearly before 1984.

  The available information can be found in the following publications:
  "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", Edition No. 52 (Table 12), acceptance figures for both halves of 1978.
  264
  "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the first quarter 1991. Supplementary Tables" (Table 7), number of acceptances in the first quarter 1991.
  "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act. Supplementary Table", acceptances in the second, third and fourth quarters of 1991.

  From the second quarter of 1991 the definition of acceptances was altered to exclude intentionally homeless and the guidance to local authorities on completion of their returns was expanded. The acceptance figures for quarters 2, 3 and 4 of 1991 are not therefore strictly comparable with those for quarter 1, 1991 and earlier years.

  Copies are in the Library.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of hedgerow have been planted in the northern region for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91; and at what cost in grants.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not available in this form. however, grants for the planting of hedgerows are available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Countryside Commission as part of their wider grant schemes.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that environmental impact assessments take social and economic costs and benefits of projects into account.

  Mr. Maclean
  Where a project which is the subject of a planning application requires environmental assessment, the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 provide that the environmental statement submitted by the applicant shall include a description of the likely significant effects on the environment. These include the impact on human beings as well as on flora, fauna, water, air and the landscape, and beneficial effects as well as adverse effects.

  In deciding whether to grant consent the decision-taking authority must have regard to the environmental information—that is, the applicant's environmental statement and any comments on it from the statutory consultees and the general public-and also to any other material considerations.

  Similar provisions apply where environmental assessment is required for projects which are subject to other approval procedures, for example, under the Highways and Electricity Acts.

  United Nations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to support the production of an annual statement on the environment by the United Nations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Nations Environment Programme already issues an annual report on the state of the world environment. The Government fully support the production of this informative document.

  International Meetings
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the full participation of non-governmental organisations in international environmental meetings.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is already our policy to encourage participation of non-governmental organisations in international environmental meetings. For instance the United Kingdom's delegation to the Earth summit includes representatives of environment and development groups, industry, youth, trades unions, local government and scientists.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of financial contribution granted by his Department to the global environment facility.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the specific roles of each Minister in his Department in the preparatory meetings leading up to the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development conference.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and previous Secretaries of State as well as other Ministers in this Department have been involved in the negotiations made at each stage of the process leading up to the UN Conference on Environment and Development. My right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, attended a preparatory meeting in New York in March. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I attended UNCED in Rio.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out into the entry of organophosphates into the water table, as a result of their use in sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  The National Rivers Authority, in conjunction with regulatory bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, has recently completed a research programme on the extent of pollution caused by disposal of spent sheep dip to soakaway. A report is expected shortly which will outline the findings and recommend appropriate disposal practices.

  Nitrous Oxide Emissions
  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in nitrous dioxide emissions in the past five years in London; and whether there will be official Government warnings issued or advice proffered to Londoners to minimise health risks.

  Mr. Maclean
  Total United Kingdom emissions of oxides of nitrogen from motor vehicles—the principal 266
  source—are estimated to have risen by 38 per cent. between 1986 and 1991. The increase is likely to have been similar in the London area. Advice on the health implications of episodes of high nitrogen dioxide concentrations is available on a free telephone line—0800 556677—and from general practitioners. Daily air quality bulletins and forecasts are available on the same telephone line, on Ceefax and in some newspapers.

  Mineral Planning Guidance
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet decided whether there is a need to revise mineral planning guidance 3 following the recent consultation.

  Mr Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 June,Official Report, column 377.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his meeting with representatives of mortgage lenders on 2 June and the information they provided him with about the underlying position with respect to arrears and possessions.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4 June, at column 611.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has issued to owners of domestic appliances which contain chlorofluorocarbons who wish to ensure that chlorofluorocarbons are not released into the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 21 May, I launched a leaflet on CFCs, entitled "You and the Ozone Layer", which advises consumers about products which may contain CFCs or other ozone-depleting substances. The leaflet also gives information about the safe disposal of domestic appliances, such as fridges and freezers, urges owners to ensure that the CFC coolant will be safely removed for recycling and advises owners who are having their fridges or freezers serviced to check that the service engineer is trained to handle the coolant, and is prepared to send any coolant that is removed for recycling.

  Halons
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the use of halons 1211 and 1301 in fire-fighting equipment will be banned; and if he will make a statement on their use.

  Mr. Maclean
  The UK's policy is to control the production and supply of halons rather than their use. We are pressing for a phase-out of halons by the end of 1995 internationally, and the end of 1994 in the EC. Users who will still need halons after the phase-out of production and supply should consider now how they will meet these needs. The Government are working closely with users and the fire industry to see what might be done to facilitate halon recycling and banking.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further information he has made available to local authorities about standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A publication "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1992/93" has been produced to provide details of the standard spending assessment of each local authority. Copies of the publication have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also being sent to every local authority in England and to the local authority associations.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time for appeals to be heard against uniform business rates in(a) south Cumbria and (b) the rest of England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not available centrally on the time taken to deal with non-domestic rating appeals.

  Following revaluation on 1 April 1990, tribunals in England initially received some 600,000 appeals, including transitional cases. Most of these were received by tribunals towards the end of that financial year. By the end of March 1992 about 220,000 appeals had been resolved.

  Cumbria valuation tribunal initially received about 7,800 appeals and by the end of March 1992 some 4,200 had been resolved.

  "Pollution and Waste Management"
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the planning policy guidance, "Pollution and Waste Management".

  Sir George Young
  On Tuesday this week, my right hon. and learned Friend published for public consultation a new draft planning policy guidance note on planning and pollution control, which fulfils a commitment in the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance". We also published the results of a research study, commissioned to inform in the preparation of the draft PPG. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to issue the final version of the PPG, in the light of responses to the consultation draft, later this year.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts have been made by his Department to encourage other countries to implement the revised Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer since June 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government took a leading role in the negotiations to revise the Montreal protocol in 1990, including the provisions for funding and technology transfer for developing countries which are designed to encourage maximum participation. We are fully committed to providing our contribution to the funding mechanism, and have also made considerable diplomatic efforts to encourage other countries to ratify the protocol. We also played an active role in negotiating the EC regulation which ensures the implementation of the revised protocol throughout the Community.

  Renewable Energy Systems
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action will be taken by his Department to accelerate the development and adoption of solar and other low-impact renewable energy systems and more efficient energy storage devices.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has a wide-ranging programme to support the development, promotion and commercialisation of renewable energy in the United Kingdom, including solar energy. This includes a technical programme covering R and D, demonstration and technology transfer (costing £24.3 million in 1992–93) and action, under the Electricity Act 1989, setting non-fossil fuel obligation orders to provide a premium market for electricity-generating renewables in England and Wales.

  There is a continuing dialogue with industry on the development of advanced battery technology. A project on superconducting magnetic energy storage, with an estimated total cost of around £1 million, is currently being considered for support by the Department.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Footpaths
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what account he intends his Department to take of the needs of disabled people who are currently denied access to footpaths on account of their construction.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Access to public footpaths is primarily the responsibility of local highway authorities. However, as part of its "Enjoying the Countryside: Policies for People" initiative, the Countryside Commission is commissioning an advisory service for its own regional office staff on how to open up the countryside to the disabled; it is also revising its advisory booklet "Informal Countryside Recreation for Disabled People".

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Resettlement
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria his Department uses to approve closure of resettlement units; and which of the remaining 15 are currently being considered for replacement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of the Resettlement Agency, and the development of replacement proposals for resettlement units is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive, although no unit is closed unless Ministers are satisfied with replacement proposals. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Tony Graham
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will set out for the case of Mr. Tony Graham, Christopher court, Hemel Hampstead, reference BS/M 2/39342, the date on which his war pension increase was awarded by the tribunal and the date on which payment of the arrears and continuing increase were made.
  269
  Miss Widdecombe
  The payment of war pensions is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefits for people with disabilities are denied to anyone over 65 years of age.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance (DLA) may be claimed up to a person's 66th birthday, providing that the disability occurred before his or her 65th birthday. There is no upper age limit for receipt: once awarded, the benefit may remain payable indefinitely. Attendance allowance is available to people becoming disabled after age 65, or claiming after age 66.

  The provisions of the following benefits change at ages 60 or 65 for women and ages 65 or 70 for men, to take account of the ending of an individual's liability to pay national insurance contributions and the availability of retirement pension.

  On sickness and invalidity benefits, from age 60 for women and age 65 for men the standard rates of benefit are replaced by the rate at which retirement pension would be payable—abated by 5 per cent. in the case of sickness benefit. The upper age limit for receipt of benefit is 64 for women and 69 for men.

  On severe disablement allowance, the upper age limit for claims is 59 for women and 64 for men, although currently women aged 60-64 are also able to claim as a result of a decision by the Court of Appeal. Once awarded, benefit is payable for life if the qualifying conditions continue to be satisfied up to age 65 for women or age 70 for men.

  On industrial injuries benefits, from age 60 for women and age 65 for men, people who are receiving reduced earnings allowance and who give up regular employment are paid retirement allowance. Retirement allowance is payable for life.

  On war pensions, the upper age limit for qualifying for unemployability supplement and allowance for lowered standard of occupation is 59 for women and 64 for men. Once entitlement has been established, however, both can continue for life.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) community charge benefit, were in receipt of severe disability premium as of 31 March.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not avaiable.

  Distribution of Wealth
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of Government policies on the economic well-being of the poorest decile of the income distribution.

  Mr. Burt
  We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the social security system, as we have done since introducing the major reforms of 1988.

  National Insurance Cards
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many plastic national insurance number cards have been issued; and how much each national insurance number card costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The issue of plastic national insurance number cards is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Maxwell Pensioners
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) who will administer his temporary Maxwell pensioner rescue package;

  (2) what information he has on the numbers of pensioners who could be assisted, and the amount to which they could be assisted, by his temporary Maxwell pensioner rescue package;

  (3) what guidelines he will be giving to the administrators of his temporary Maxwell pensioner rescue package as to (a) the circumstances in which payments should be made and (b) the levels to be paid;

  (4) if he will publish a telephone number where advice on claiming grants under his Maxwell pensioners emergency package can be obtained;

  (5) when the first payments under his Maxwell pensioners emergency package will be made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 June the setting up of a special unit within the Department of Social Security and the establishment of a trust. Individual pensioners need take no action as funds will be made available directly to the independent trustees. Those funds are intended to assist Maxwell schemes that find themselves in difficulties. Funds will be used to protect the pensions of Headington pension scheme members, including the payment for May, to assist schemes that are unable to continue full payment of pensions and to allow schemes to commence payment of pensions to recently retired pensioners. Discussions have already been held with the independent trustees of the Headington pension scheme and we expect the first payments to be made soon.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions about the duration of disqualification for unemployment benefit were made in estimating the cost of reducing the maximum to six weeks, for the purpose of replying to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 21 January,Official Report, column 180; and on what evidence these assumptions were based.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimate was based upon the actual number of disqualifications in force on 9 May 1991 and an assumption that around two thirds of those disqualified would still be unemployed and disqualified after six weeks. The average length on the unemployment register by claimants disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit has been assumed to be 11 weeks, based upon current unemployment benefit statistics. This is less than the 21-week average period of disqualification—one of the
  271
  findings of a departmental survey published in 1989 entitled "An Analysis of Voluntary Unemployed Claimants", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Leaflet FB31
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish the letter sent to Mr. Martin Baillie of the Islington welfare rights unit in reply to his letter of 9 January to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency concerning leaflet FB31.

  Mr. Burt
  The handling of correspondence from the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member regarding the publication of the letter and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on discretionary grants and loans, respectively, from the social fund for each month in 1991–92: and what are the monthly equivalents of the amounts allocated for such expenditure in 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  Separate monthly allocations are not made within the financial year. Information concerning discretionary social fund expenditure for each month in 1991–92 is in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lobster Fisheries
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, particularly concerning the creation of enhanced lobster fisheries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials from the Department have held discussions with fishing industry representatives in England and Wales about the possibility of extending the power to grant several and regulating orders so as to cover crustacean species in addition to the molluscan species already covered. In the light of the views expressed, I intend to introduce legislation to this affect when the opportunity arises.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of broiler chickens.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government welcome this report. We will be consulting interested organisations on it shortly and will issue a response when all the comments have been carefully considered.

  Farm Waste Management
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his proposed pilot study on farm waste management plans.
  272
  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided that a pilot study should be undertaken to see if pollution could be cut by farmers drawing up tailor-made plans for disposing of manure, slurry and other organic wastes on their holdings. These plans will advise when, where and in what quantities farmers should spread wastes in order to avoid water pollution and get the most benefit from the nutrients in them. The areas we have chosen for the study comprise parts of the following river catchments: the River Weaver in Cheshire; the River Frome in Somerset; the River Clyst in Devon; and the Afon Ceri in Wales.

  The catchments were chosen, following consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to represent typical dairy farming areas.

  The National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Farmers Union of Wales have indicated their full support for this pilot study and their wish that as many farmers as possible will agree to participate in it.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service project officers nominated for each catchment will be contacting some 100 or so farmers in each of the areas concerned to ask them to take part in the pilot study. They will be available to help farmers involved in the study.

  We very much hope that this study will be a great success and that it will prove of direct benefit to those farmers in the selected areas who will end up with a free farm waste plan to consultancy standard. It will benefit both farmers and the community generally by providing an assessment of the possible future value of farm waste plans. This development underlines our commitment to protecting the environment.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and agencies which report to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the last Session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning, volume II, minutes of evidence and appendices.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current estimate of when there will he no restriction on the movement of farm animals arising from radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl disaster.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to be precise about the length of time that post-Chernobyl restrictions will have to remain in place. However, only 138 holdings remain under restriction in Cumbria. This represents a reduction of over 90 per cent. in the number of holdings originally restricted. We hope to be able to identify further holdings for derestriction this year.
  273
  We shall continue our monitoring and research efforts to enable all restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible, consistent with the need to ensure the continued protection of the food chain.

  Eggs (Marketing)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of any circumstances under which the egg marketing regulations are regularly breached.

  Mr. Curry
  The egg marketing regulations are strictly enforced and where necessary prosecutions are taken. There were four prosecutions in England by my Department in 1991–92.

  Nematodes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the extent of anthelmintic resistant nematodes in farm animals.

  Mr. Soames
  A commercially sponsored survey in 1990 by the central veterinary laboratory covering three southern English counties demonstrated the presence of anthelmintic-resistant nematodes in sheep and goats. The central veterinary laboratory is to carry out a Government-funded survey this year to determine the extent of the condition.

  Whales
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government will support a total and permanent ban on commercial whaling at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow and back a proposal to declare Antarctic waters a whale sanctuary.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Walley),Official Report, column 11.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek a ban on whaling in EC waters and by EC nationals.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, column 642.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animal welfare inspections were made by state veterinary officers in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  The figures record the number of welfare inspections carried out on farms by the State Veterinary Service. They do not include the visits made to farms for other purposes when welfare will have been monitored.

  Number

  1985

  6,064

  1986

  5,804

  1987

  5,219

  274

  Number

  1988

  5,670

  1989

  3,902

  1990

  4,168

  1991

  4,584

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials maintain regular contact with the Office of the Data Protection Registrar about proposals for legislation which may be sensitive in the area of personal data, and the effectiveness of the arrangements is kept under review.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Department's current priorities for the United Kingdom presidency of the Community.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 4 June, column 936.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support the abolition of battery hens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Proposals for revised welfare standards for egg-laying hens are expected to be published by the EC Commission later this year. In the negotiations, the Government will be pressing for major improvements in the welfare standards for laying hens in all systems of production.

  Set-aside
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the conditions beneficial to the environment which will be placed on farmers who will enter into the set-aside scheme agreed in the common agricultural policy reform package in May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Environmental conditions are a vital element of the new set-aside arrangements. They will be drawn up as soon as the detailed Commission implementing regulations have been agreed. I appreciate that this will not leave as much time as I would have liked to consult on and implement the new conditions before the start of the first set-aside period and there may have to be some flexibility in this first year. More detailed measures may then be necessary for the second and subsequent years, when farmers will be in a position to decide between rotational and non-rotational set-aside.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 14, on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, if he will give the terms of reference of the committee chaired by Dr. Tyrrell.

  Mr. Gummer
  The terms of reference of the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee are to advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health on matters related to spongiform encephalopathies.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his response to the milk marketing board's plans for reform.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 8 June,Official Report, column 12.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will ask the Veterinary Products Committee to conduct a full review of clenbuterol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. The Veterinary Products Committee is already reviewing licensed veterinary products containing clenbuterol to ensure they meet up-to-date standards of safety, quality and efficacy as part of its current review of veterinary pharmaceutical product licences.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 22 May,Official Report, column 322, when he expects to complete his review of licences for clenbuterol; what evidence is being used for this review; whether he will make this evidence public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to estimate when the review of licensed veterinary medicinal products containing clenbuterol will have been completed. Licence holders are required to provide such evidence as is necessary to satisfy the Veterinary Products Committee that the products meet up-to-date standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Under the terms of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968, the licensing authority cannot publish this information on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

DEFENCE

  Defence Lands
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide tables for the United Kingdom, for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland of(a) the number of defence forces based there, (b) the area of defence lands, (c) the area of defence lands acquired and (d) the area of defence lands released for each year since 1962.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member.
  276
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many miles of new permissive footpaths have been opened up over defence lands since 1974.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records of permissive footpaths are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total area of defence lands contaminated with mines, unexploded bombs and ammunition which have been cleared in each year since 1974; and when it is expected all lands not now used for live firing will be cleared.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The area of land cleared each year since 1974–75 is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Area Cleared (hectares)

  1974–75

  1,232

  1975–76

  1,220

  1976–77

  2,042

  1977–78

  1,905

  1978–79

  1,526

  1979–80

  1,993

  1980–81

  1,909

  1981–82

  1,923

  1982–83

  1,250

  1983–84

  1,138

  1984–85

  2,173

  1985–86

  1,586

  1986–87

  1,825

  1987–88

  1,384

  1988–89

  936

  1989–90

  2,272

  1990–91

  1,599

  1991–92

  1,183

  On current plans, work will continue into the next century.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign troops have used United Kingdom defence lands for training exercises other than in small numbers training alongside United Kingdom troops, in each year since 1974.

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

  Training Sites
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the main sites used for training for United Kingdom troops outside the United Kingdom since 1974; and if he will list those for which future use is under review.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under long-established arrangements, troops from the British Army currently train at various locations in the following countries outside the United Kingdom: Australia; Belize; Botswana; Brunei; Canada; Cyprus; Denmark; Falkland Islands; France; Germany; Gibraltar; Hong Kong; Hawaii; Italy; Jamaica; Jordan; Kenya; Malaysia; New Zealand; Norway; Oman; Portugal; Spain; Thailand; and the USA.

  The precise date when training in each country commenced could only be made available at disproportionate cost.

  The use of all training areas outside the United Kingdom is kept under regular review.

  Exercise Allegiance Exchange
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the aims and objectives of the NATO exercise, Allegiance Exchange, due to commence on 6 June.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The purpose of the Allegiance Exchange exercise was to test and exercise the operational and logistic capabilities of the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (AMF) northern contingent and allow NATO to demonstrate solidarity by the efficient deployment, employment and subsequent redeployment of the force.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by country, the number of(a) service personnel and (b) aircraft that will be taking part in the NATO exercise Allegiance Exchange commencing on 6 June.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The approximate number of service personnel and the number of aircraft which participated in the exercise Allegiance Exchange is listed by nation as follows:

  Service personnel (all ranks)

  Aircraft

  Belgium

  203

  4 F16, 1 Bell 206 helicopter

  Germany

  679

  4 Alpha Jet, 8 UH1D helicopters

  Italy

  388

  6 G91

  Netherlands

  109

  4 F16

  United Kingdom

  1,506

  4 Jaguar, 4 Puma helicopters, 6 Gazelle helicopters

  United States

  198

  4 A10, 3 UH1D helicopters

  Civil Fire Officers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list for the next 12 months the dates and venues of his Department's training courses laid on for civil fire officers;

  (2) if he will list for the last 24 months the dates and venue of his Department's training courses laid on for civil fire officers; and if he will show by fire and civil defence authority those who were notified and the response obtained.

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

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and agencies which report to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Select Committee on the Environment in the last session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of that Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning, volume II, minutes of evidence and appendices.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the cost evaluations arrived at in the course of his review into RAF MOD establishments for the provision of accommodation in the Harrogate area and at RAF Wyton and RAF Brampton.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The consultative document published on 4 June sets out the options considered and a summary of the economic appraisal. The detailed costings for each option contain information which is commercially or otherwise sensitive.

  Coroner's Inquest
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to this answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 569, what were the nature and contents of his recent brief discussion with Secretary Cheney about the recent verdict of the coroner's inquest.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and Secretary Cheney discussed press reports that the chairman of the House armed services sub-committee on investigations was making preliminary inquiries to see if an investigation would be appropriate.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 569, how many changes he has made to his policy relating to the release of information since 6 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 3 June,Official Report, column 569.

  WE177 Replacement
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 188, whether he has used the different estimated development costs for a possible WE177 replacement to calculate an average estimated development cost for a possible WE177 replacement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No, Sir. Differences in estimated potential development costs are a result of differences betweeen the programmes on which they are based. An average of such figures would be meaningless.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 188, whether he has considered releasing an estimated development cost for a possible WE177 replacement which is sufficiently imprecise to avoid prejudicing his future negotiating position with potential suppliers.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but the relatively large difference in cost between the options being evaluated means that any published estimates would be misleading.

  Defence Estimate
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the contents of volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following a review of the dissemination of defence statistics, it has been decided to
  279
  replace volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates with a similar publication called Defence Statistics. The new publication will in many cases provide a longer historical perspective as well as containing more up-to-date information. Some tables in volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates contained information that was of only specialist interest or was obtainable from other sources. These tables will be omitted from the new publication but the information they contain will either be published elsewhere or will be available on request from the Defence Statistical Organisation.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has sought or received from Commander in Chief, Fleet, about the court martial of Lieutenant-Commander Peter McDonnell; what consideration has been given to further action arising from the sinking of the Antares; what action is being taken on the information arising from the court martial concerning command of HMS Trenchant at the time of the sinking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Commander in Chief, Fleet has kept me fully informed of the reasons for and circumstances leading to the court martial of Lieutenant Commander Peter McDonnell. Both the verdict and the sentence are subject to review and Lieutenant Commander McDonnell has the right to appeal.

  The Commander in Chief will also be fully reviewing the proceedings of the court martial to decide what further action, if any, might be appropriate.

  Little Ferry Bomb
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the dropping of a target bomb by a United States air force plane. near Little Ferry, Sutherland on Thursday 4 June.
  280
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On Thursday 4 June, a practice bomb was inadvertently released from a United States Air Force (USAF) F111 aircraft using RAF Tain range. The practice bomb fell into woods near Little Ferry causing a fire. The USAF is currently conducting an investigation to establish the cause of the incident.

  Maintenance Group
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Maintenance Group defence support agency for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Maintenance Group DSA's key management targets for 1992–93 cover four areas of activity: performance of the group; the use of resources; the development of management systems; and management initiatives.

  The group's performance aims are to achieve at least 98 per cent. of the task which represents 75 per cent. of the group's activity to standard and on time. All operational support tasks will be performed to RAF or NATO standards.

  The group's resources will be managed to keep within the agreed budget and efficiency measure savings amounting to 0.5 per cent. of the cash allocation will be made.

  The group plans to install prototype management accounting systems at one of its units and in the headquarters by 31 March 1993. The management accounting system will be extended to the other seven basic level budgeting units by 31 March 1994. Asset registers will be installed at all the basic level budgeting units by 31 March 1993.

  The Maintenance Group management initiatives will centre on the installation of formal quality systems and the development of a total quality approach to management. Planning including investment appraisals for the rationalisation of functions and estate will continue.

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Hydrographic Office defence support agency for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Chief of Fleet Support, acting as the owner of the agency on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the agency's framework document, has revised the key targets for this year and beyond. These reflect the continuing need to secure economies in defence spending and the progress already made by the agency towards meeting those targets set at the time of its launch as a DSA in April 1990 and since.

  On quality of service, the chief executive is required to continue to ensure that all immediate dangers are promulgated by radio navigational warnings within 20 hours of the receipt of information. He is also required to improve the state of revision of Admiralty navigational charts so that at 1 April 1993 73 per cent. will have been published within the past 30 years and 68 per cent. will have been revised within the past 10 years. The chief executive is also required to deliver funded RN hydrographic and oceanographic programmes to agreed cost, time and quality standards.

  As regards commercial sales, the existing target to increase the revenue from commercial sales by at least 13 per cent. over the first five years of the operation of the agency will remain in force.

  As regards an overall efficiency target to which the above key targets and other targets in the agency's business plan will contribute, the assumption will be that the disciplines of the "next steps" approach and the additional freedoms and flexibilities which agencies receive will allow them to do better in terms of efficiency than the rest of the Department. The chief executive is, therefore, being required to achieve an efficiency target of 3.5 per cent.—this is 1 per cent. higher than the 1992–93 target set for the Department as a whole. Additionally, the chief executive will be required to operate within the net cash allocation, which assumes achievement of those targets, as provided by the Chief of Fleet Support under the terms of his role as the agency's owner. Key targets were set at the time of the launch in April 1990 regarding the development of an improved management information and management accounting system. The implementation of the target in respect of the financial and management accounting information system will be completed early in 1992–93 and the target for the installation of a fully integrated IT-supported management information system by 1 April 1994 remains in force.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Meteorological Office executive agency for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The agency has been set a range of targets to ensure that it delivers progressive improvements in the quality and efficiency of weather-related services it provides to defence, civil aviation, commercial customers and the general public.

  The targets set for the Meteorological Office during the period 1992–93 are to: achieve high standards of quality of
  282
  service for each of the major groupings of customer; reduce net operating costs to £36.2 million—this being more than a 5 per cent. reduction on the 1991–92 forecast—increase efficiency by 3 per cent. through improvements in quality of service, increased service volumes and reduced unit costs; achieve a 9 per cent. increase in uptake of meteorological services to £16.5 million, as measured by cash revenue generated from commercial services to the public, industry and commerce, excluding CAA; achieve an 11 per cent. increase to £5.9 million in the gross contribution of commercial services invoiced revenue to offsetting core costs and overheads; and provide authoritative advice on climate change issues to Ministers and the general public, in particular to provide the most up-to-date assessment for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Performance against key targets is published in the Meteorological Office annual report and accounts, a copy of which is placed in the House of Commons Library.

SCOTLAND

  Crime
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current state of crime and offences in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the numbers of crimes and offences recorded in Scotland in 1991 are contained in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin "Recorded Crime in Scotland, 1991", published on 22 May 1992, a copy of which was placed in the Library. I am naturally disappointed that recorded crime continues to rise, but part of the reason for this is that the public are reporting more crimes to the police. I welcome this, as we all have a part to play in the fight against crime.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether police authorities are eligible to apply for(a) capital and (b) recurring finance for community projects within areas of priority treatment through the urban aid programme; what precedents have been set for such projects; what criteria he uses to assess such applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following a review of the urban programme, revised eligibility and priority criteria under which financial support can be given were published on 20 February 1992. Police authorities are eligible to apply for capital and current funding under the urban programme. Projects that supplement main programmes and other provisions under statutory obligations, or duplicate programmes of other agencies, will be ineligible.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing how many new houses for rent were constructed by(a) district councils, (b) Scottish Homes, or its predecessor and (c) housing associations in each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Table 5 in the statistical bulletin HSG/1992/2, "Housing Trends in Scotland—
  283
  Quarter ended 30 September 1991", gives the number of new dwellings completed by (a) district councils, (b) Scottish Homes or its predecessor and (c) housing associations for each year from 1979 to 1990, the latest year for which estimates are available. Statistics for the period up to 1979 were published in "Scottish Housing Statistics". Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Adult Illiteracy
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures are available for adult illiteracy in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  There is no standard definition of adult literacy and it is therefore difficult to collect comprehensive information. The Scottish Community Education Council was funded by the Scottish Office in 1990 to undertake a small-scale study of literacy and numeracy issues which indicated that 9 per cent. of a sample of adults had difficulties with either reading, writing or numeracy.

  The Government give high priority to basic skills education for adults. Local authorities are currently the main providers but the Scottish Office Education Department also gives support by way of grant to organisations such as the Scottish Community Education Council as well as supporting local initiatives such as the Number Shop, the Whitfield adult basic education trust in Dundee and the Upper Nithsdale adult basic education project in Sanquhar. Support was also given earlier this year to adult learners' week.

  The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 strengthens the position on basic skills by conferring on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a duty in securing the provision of further education to have regard to the requirements of persons over school age who have learning difficulties.

  Rents
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average weekly rent charge for(a) local authority housing stock by each district council and (b) Scottish Homes stock for the financial year 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average weekly rent for Scottish local authorities and Scottish homes—1992–93

  £

  Berwickshire

  22.46

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  19.51

  Roxburgh

  26.27

  Tweeddale

  19.75

  Clackmannan

  24.69

  Falkirk

  21.21

  Stirling

  25.10

  Annandale and Eskdale

  25.97

  Nithsdale

  23.72

  Stewartry

  27.00

  Wigtown

  27.33

  Dunfermline

  22.84

  Kirkcaldy

  24.63

  North East Fife

  23.21

  Aberdeen

  20.65

  284

  £

  Banff and Buchan

  22.17

  Gordon

  25.33

  Kincardine and Deeside

  21.84

  Moray

  22.86

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  22.31

  Caithness

  24.72

  Inverness

  27.37

  Lochaber

  26.14

  Nairn

  26.99

  Ross and Cromarty

  28.53

  Skye and Lochalsh

  28.92

  Sutherland

  27.42

  East Lothian

  22.35

  Edinburgh

  30.63

  Midlothian

  16.31

  West Lothian

  19.82

  Argyll and Bute

  26.45

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  27.58

  Clydebank

  26.77

  Clydesdale

  21.82

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  24.15

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  22.61

  Cunninghame

  22.05

  Dunbarton

  27.94

  East Kilbride

  23.70

  Eastwood

  20.97

  Glasgow

  29.02

  Hamilton

  23.70

  Inverclyde

  24.25

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  19.38

  Kyle and Carrick

  20.46

  Monklands

  24.11

  Motherwell

  21.09

  Renfrew

  22.44

  Strathkelvin

  23.14

  Angus

  17.90

  Dundee

  30.43

  Perth and Kinross

  21.94

  Orkney Islands

  27.45

  Shetland Islands

  27.81

  Western Isles

  30.63

  Scottish Homes

  29.14

  Scottish Council for Civil Liberties
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties; what matters he intends to discuss; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. If there are particular issues which the council wishes to raise with us, we shall ensure that any approach receives careful consideration.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the name, (b) occupation and (c) honoraria, salary or allowance of each member of the board of Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  285

  Scottish Homes Board Members

  Name and Occupation

  Salary £ per annum

  Sir James Mellon KCMG (Chairman)

  33,970

  Former Diplomat

  John Richards CBE PPRIAS (Deputy Chairman)

  15,430

  Architect with John Richards Associates

  Norman Lessels CA

  5,900

  Partner in Chiene and Tait, also non-executive

  Chairman of Standard Life Assurance Company

  Mrs. Frances McCall MBE

  5,900

  Chairperson of the Confederation of Scottish

  Housing Co-operatives

  Professor Duncan MacLennan

  5,900

  Director of the Centre for Housing Research at Glasgow University

  Tom Begg JP BA OBE

  5,900

  Lecturer in Economics at Queen Margaret

  College, Edinburgh

  Mrs. Healther Sheerin

  5,900

  Co-Director of family-owned retail carpet business

  Mrs. Daphne Sleigh

  5,900

  Freelance Market Researcher

  Cameron Parker

  5,900

  Non-executive Vice-Chairman of Lithngows Ltd.

  All the appointments listed are held on a part-time basis and are on an estimated time commitment of half a day per week for members, one and a half days per week for the deputy chairman and three days per week for the chairman. In addition the chief executive, Peter McKinley, is an ex-officio member of the board. His salary is linked to civil service grade 2.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the(a) gross and (b) net capital allocation in outturn figures for Scottish Homes housing in each (i) district and (ii) area, expressed as a cost per dwelling unit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the (a) gross and
  (b) net housing revenue allocation in outturn figures for Scottish Homes housing in each (i) district and (ii) area, expressed as a cost per dwelling unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information sought is not held by the Scottish Office Environment Department as allocations to Scottish Homes regions or districts are a matter for Scottish Homes itself.

  History
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to promote the learning of local history in Scottish(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) further education establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The content and delivery of the curriculum in schools are primarily matters for the education authorities. Studies based on local history are common in the early stages and guidance on the five to 14 curriculum issued by the Scottish Office Education Department will take account of the place of local history in the development of wider historical understanding. Courses for standard grade and higher grade may draw on local history as appropriate to 286
  illustrate topics and themes. The modular national certificate, introduced under the Government's action plan facilitates the inclusion of local history in a large number of programmes run by further education centres. Further education centres also provide bases for groups with an interest in local history.

  Lord Lieutenants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the names and (b) the occupations of each lord-lieutenant and deputy lord-lieutenant in Scotland; who is responsible for their nomination; what salary, honoraria, allowance or expenses each receives; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lord lieutenants in Scotland are appointed by Her Majesty. Deputy lieutenants are appointed by the lord-lieutenant, once he has been informed by the Secretary of State that Her Majesty does not disapprove of the appointments which the lord-lieutenant proposes. No salary, honoraria or allowances are paid, but lord-lieutenants may claim reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of their official duties. Current information about occupations is not held centrally. The names of lord-lieutenants and deputy lieutenants are as follows.

  HER MAJESTY'S LORD-LIEUTENANTS IN SCOTLAND

  Aberdeenshire

  Captain Cohn A. Farquharson

  Angus

  The Right Hon. The Earl of Airlie KT GCVO

  Argylle and Bute

  The Most Hon. The Marquess of Bute

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Major Richard Y. Henderson TD

  Banffshire

  James A. S. McPherson Esq. CBE

  Berwickshire

  Major General Sir John Swinton KCVO OBE

  Caithness

  The Right Hon. The Viscount Thurso

  Clackmannan

  The Right Hon. The Earl of Mar and Keillie

  Dumfries

  Captain Ronald C. Cunningham-Jardine

  Dunbartonshire

  Brigadier Donald D. G. Hardie TD

  East Lothian

  Sir Hew Fleetwood Hamilton-Dalrymple Bt KCVO

  Fife

  The Right Hon. The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine TD

  Inverness

  Lt. Cdr. Lachlan R. D. Mackintosh of Mackintosh OBE

  Kincardineshire

  The Right Hon. The Viscount of Arbuthnott CBE DSC FRSE

  Lanarkshire

  Hutchinson B. Sneddon Esq. CBE

  287
  Midlothian

  Captain George W. Burnet LVO

  Morayshire

  Captain Sir Iain M. Tennant KT

  Nairn

  The Right Hon. The Earl of Leven and Melville

  Orkney

  Brigadier Malcolm G. Dennison

  Perth and Kinross

  Major Sir David H. Butter KCVO MC

  Renfrewshire

  Major J. David M. Crichton Maitland

  Ross and Cromarty

  Captain Roderick W. K. Stirling of Fairburn TD

  Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  His Grace The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry KT VRD

  Shetland

  Magnus M. Shearer Esq.

  Stewartry of Kirkcudbright

  Sir Michael ARY Herries OBE MC

  Stirling and Falkirk

  Lt. Col. James Stirling of Garden CBE TD

  Sutherland

  Major General David Houston CBE

  Tweeddale

  Lt. Col. A. M. Sprot of Haystoun MC

  Western Isles

  The Right Hon. The Earl Granville MC

  West Lothian

  The Right Hon. The Earl of Morton

  Wigtown

  Major Edward S. Orr Ewing

  The Lord Provosts of the four city districts—Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow—are lord-lieutenants of those districts ex officio.

  Lord Lieutenants

    HER MAJESTY'S DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS IN SCOTLAND
    Aberdeenshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Angus D. M. Farquharson Esq.

    Deputy Lieutenants

    The Lord Provost of Aberdeen

    The Most Hon. The Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair CBE DStJ LLD FRCM FRSMAD FRSE

    Marc Ellington of Towie Barclay

    William J. Ferguson Esq.

    The Right Hon. The Lord Forbes KBE

    Major Laurence R. K. Fyffe MC

    The Right Hon. The Lord Glenarthur

    Mrs. Patricia M. Godsman

    Major Francis C. Q. Irvine

    Colonel John W. Nicol DSO

    Captain Alexander A. A. A. D. M. Ramsay of Mar

    James M. M. Humphrey Esq. OStJ

    Colonel Rodney F. M. Windsor CBE

    Angus

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Lt. Col. Andrew B. Houston OBE MC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    The Lord Provost of Dundee

    288

    Colonel John G. Mathieson CBE TD ADC

    John R. W. Stansfield Esq.

    Miss Ruth Dundas

    Robert S. S. Fothringham Esq.

    Major General Roderick J. Ephraums CB OBE

    The Right hon. The Baroness Carnegy of Lour

    The Right Hon. The Lord Lyell

    Brevet-Colonel David Carnegy-Arbuthnott of Balnamoon TD LLD

    The Right Hon. Mary Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne

    Graham N. J. Smart Esq.

    David L. Laird Esq.

    Argyll and Bute

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Colonel Archibald I. Fletcher OBE

    Deputy Lieutenants

    His Grace The Duke of Argyll

    Colonel Tom B. M. Lamb OBE

    Captain P. L. Mackie-Campbell

    Captain Robert N. L. Malcolm of Poltalloch

    Colonel Hector L. R. MacNeal OBE TD

    Captain Sir Charles E. McGrigor Bt

    Patrick L. M. Stewart Esq.

    Lt. Col. R. M. T. Campbell-Preston OBE MC Td

    Ayrshire and Arran

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Sir Claud Hagart Alexander of Ballochmyle Bt

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Lt. Col. The Most Hon. The Marquess of Ailsa OBE

    W. Aitken Esq. MBE

    Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas H. E. Baird KCB

    Sir William D. Coats Kt CStJ LLD

    Captain R. W. F. Cuninghame

    Captain N. E. F. Dalrymple-Hamilton CVO MBE DSC R

    Lady Jean Fforde

    Captain J. R. Findlay

    John de C. E. Findlay Esq.

    John A. H. Gow Esq.

    J. H. Hodge Esq. BEM

    James Hunter-Blair Esq.

    Major P. N. B. Kennedy TD

    Lt. Commander J. T. Lorimer DSO RNR

    The Right Hon. The Lord Maclehose of Beoch KT GBE KCMG KCVO KStJ

    James McCosh Esq.

    Colonel W. W. McHarg Esq. OBE MC TD

    Peter McK Robertson Esq. OBE

    Major E. A. I. Young

    Colonel John Henderson TD

    Banffshire

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Captain Francis W. C. Hay OBE

    Colonel G. B. Kynoch CBE TD

    Dr. David F. Clark OBE

    Mrs. Clare N. Russell

    Berwickshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Lt. Col. Simon J. Furness

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Kenneth H. Candlish Esq.

    Hon. Lavinia Douglas-Home

    Captain James Evans RD

    Major John F. Mackinnon MC

    Gilbert B. Millican Esq.

    James Stobo Esq. OBE

    David Thomson Esq.

    Alexander R. Trotter Esq.

    Douglas K. Tweedie Esq.

    >
    Caithness

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Major Graham Dunnett TD

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Major Sir Ralph Anstruther Bt KCVO MC

    Captain C. D. Farley-Sutton RN

    Major A. G. Ferrier TD

    Mrs. J. P. M. Grenfell

    Major A. S. McKay

    L. G. Rowe Esq.

    Dr. K. M. Swanson PhD

    J. G. Walford Esq. MBE

    Sir David Black Bt

    City of Aberdeen

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Joseph R. Carry Esq. MBE TD

    Richard T. Ellis Esq. OBE MA LLB

    Lt. Col. Charles J. H. Mann OBE OStJ TD

    Captain Kenneth J. Peters CBE

    Major David M. Proctor OBE

    Frank Ramsay Esq.

    Lt. Col. James Shankley TD

    James F. Watt Esq.

    City of Dundee

    Deputy Lieutenants

    James Cameron Esq.

    Charles D. P. Farquhar Esq.

    James P. Gowans Esq.

    The Right Hon. The Lord Hughes PC CBE LLD

    George W. Buckman Esq.

    James F. Hoey Esq.

    City of Edinburgh

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Lt. Col. Thomas D. S. Bell TD

    Colonel Hugh Rose CBE DSO TD

    Colonel William A. Dalziel TD CBE OStJ TD

    Captain Kenneth Ryden MC

    J. Gilmour Gray Esq.

    Captain John Christie MC

    W. D. H. Gregson Esq. CBE

    Brigadier Francis H. Coutts CBE

    Sir Peter Heatly CBE

    Sir Donald McCallum CBE

    Mrs. Nansi H. Mansbridge

    Colonel Douglas N. Spratt CBE TD

    William T. Stevenson Esq. CBE

    Thomas Morgan Esq. CBE

    Mrs. Helen M. Crummy MBE

    James Hastie Esq.

    Dr. Thomas L. Johnston FRSE

    Dr. John McKay CBE

    City of Glasgow

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Mrs. Jean McFadden

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Sir Samuel C. Curran PhD DSc LLD FRS

    Lt. Col. Leonard E. Dickson CBE MC TD

    Ian J. A. Dyer Esq. MBE

    The Right Hon. The Lord Galpern of Shettleston LLD FEIS

    Peter M. Gemmill Esq.

    Robert Gray Esq. CBE OStJ LLD

    Sir William S. Gray LLD

    Air Vice-Marshal AVR Johnstone CB DFC MBIM RAF (Ret'd)

    Dr. Michael Kelly CBE OStJ PhD LLD

    Patrick Lally Esq.

    Bashir A. Maan Esq.

    Captain John Mallard MBE VRD RNR

    Peter T. McCann Esq. CBE OStJ JP

    Gerald McGrath Esq.

    James Mullen Esq.

    Colonel A. Walker Naddell ERD KStJ

    Philip O'Rouke Esq.

    Miss A. M. Patrick

    John K. Richmond Esq.

    Colonel Lachlan Robertson OBE TD

    Group Captain Marcus Robinson CB AFC AE

    290

    William L. Smith Esq. MC TD

    Colonel A. T. Wilson VRD

    Lord Wallace of Campsie KStJ

    John H. Young Esq. OBE

    Clackmannan

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Captain John Stephens

    James E. M. Aitkinson Esq.

    Lord Erskine

    Alistair B. Cruickshanks Esq.

    Dumfries

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    The Right Hon. The Earl of Annandale and Hartfell

    Deputy Lieutenants

    His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry KT VRD

    Major Sir Rupert Buchanan-Jardine Bt. MC

    The Earl of Dalkeith

    Hon. Air Commodore Sir Hector Monro AE MP

    David W. N. Landale Esq.

    David D. Stevenson Esq. OBE

    Charles Tyrrell Esq.

    Mrs. Amelia S. Weatherall

    Dunbartonshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    A. M. MacKenzie Esq.

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Lieutenants Commander R. M. Barge DSC VRD

    Wing Commander G. Campbell MBE

    Sir Ivar I. Colquhoun Bt.

    Colonel T. R. Craig CBE TD OSt.J LLD

    Mrs. M. B. A. Denny OBE

    Mrs. Morag M. Hart

    Captain M. C. Henry RN (Retd.)

    Major Robert Kyle MBE TD

    Major J. A. Lumsden MBE TD

    Lt. Cdr. Ian Lyall DSC VRD RNR (Retd.)

    J. M. Mearns Esq.

    Stephen P. Newall Esq.

    Major P. T. Telfer Smollet MC

    Colonel P. D. Stewart

    G. R. Strachan Esq. CBE

    Captain E. J. D. Turner CBE DSO DSC RN (Retd.)

    M. Turner Esq. OBE

    Hugh John Arbuthnott Esq.

    William Petrie Esq.

    Major James Macrae

    Robert Scott Esq.

    Martin A. Wedgwood Esq.

    East Lothian

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Colonel Victor C. V. Cowley TD

    Sir Charles Fraser KCVO

    George B. R. Gray Esq.

    Elizabeth The Dowager Duchess of Hamilton

    James B. Miller Esq.

    William G. Morrison Esq.

    Sir David Ogilvy of Inverquarity

    Lady Stormonth-Darling

    Fife

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Major J. C. Balfour OBE MC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Major Sir Ralph Anstruther Bt KCVO MC

    Lady Martha Bruce OBE TD

    The Hon. Ralph H. V. Cochrane

    The Right Hon. The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres

    Captain D. 0. Fairlie of Myers

    John Gilmour Esq.

    Lt. Col. Neil G. Mathewson TD

    Sir James Morrison-Low Bt

    R. F. Murison Esq. OBE QPM

    A. D. Robertson Esq

    Squadron Ldr. Willis Roxburgh OBE DFC

    291

    Sir George Sharp OBE

    Lt. Col. Brian H. Thomson TD

    Dr. R. G. Whitelaw

    Inverness

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Major Colin Mackenzie of Farr MBE MC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Mrs. L. P. R. A. Cameron-Head OBE

    George A. D. Chalmer Esq.

    Ian F. H. Grant Esq.

    Patrick H. M. Grant Esq. MC

    John P. Grant Esq. of Rothiemurchus

    Evan H. A. E. Fraser Esq.

    George C. Rafferty Esq.

    Iain Thornber Esq.

    Captain Kenneth W. Walker of Leys

    Colonel Iain Wotherspoon TD

    Donald A. Cameron Younger of Lochiel

    The Right. Hon. The Lord Gray of Contin PC

    Richard T. Sidgwick Esq.

    Kincardineshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Angus M. Pelham-Burn Esq.

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Captain James Irvine-Fortescue

    Dr. Fiona J. Lyall

    Major John F. M. Singleton

    Major Nigel S. Thornton-Kemsley

    Wing Commander George D. Swapp OBE

    Lanarkshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Lt. Col. Robert C. M. Monteith OBE MC TD

    Deputy Lieutenants

    James Burns Esq.

    Gilbert K. Cox Esq.

    William W. McNay Esq. OBE

    Squadron Leader Ian V. Paterson CBE

    Major David B. Reeks

    Alexander Sinclair Esq. OBE

    Lt. Col. Thomas Smith TD

    Midlothian

    Deputy Lieutenants

    The Right Hon. The Lord Borthwick of Borthwick TD

    Colonel Charles H. K. Corsar of Cairniehill LVO OBE TD

    Major The Hon. C. J. Dalrymple

    Colonel Brian A. Fargus OBE

    The Right Hon. The Earl of Rosebery

    Mrs. Althea E. P. Dundas-Bekker

    Morayshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Rear Admiral D. A. Dunbar-Nasmith CB DSC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    James M. Anderson Esq.

    William G. Baxter Esq. OBE

    Alexander A. Dunbar Esq.

    Grenville S. Johnston Esq. TD CA

    Archibald MacDonald Esq. MBE

    John R. Maclean Esq.

    Dr. Mora J. Scott

    James A. White Esq.

    Captain Hamish Lochore

    Mrs. Joan K. Mitcalfe

    James F. Royan Esq. OBE

    Nairn

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    The Right Hon. The Lord Campbell of Croy MC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Montagu N. A. Brodie of Brodie

    Ewen J. Brodie Esq.

    Orkney

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Colonel Edgar M. Gibson MBE TD

    John M. F. Groat Esq. MBE

    George R. Marwick Esq.

    John Scott Esq.

    James W. Spence Esq.

    Captain Magnus S. Work DSC RNR

    Brigadier S. P. Robertson MBE TD

    Perth and Kinross

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Lt. Col. Archibald M. Lyle of Riemore

    Deputy Lieutenants

    His Grace the Duke of Atholl

    Major Peter O. Carmichael

    Captain Hugh L. Dewhurst

    Donald S. Erskine Esq.

    Captain The Hon. Henry E. Alexander, MBE TD

    Major William G. Gordon DFC TD

    Lewis D. H. Maitland Esq. TD

    The Right Hon. The Earl of Mansfield

    John M. Mathieson Esq. OBE

    Major Ian A. D. Millar CBE MC

    Sir David Montgomery Bt.

    The Hon. Mrs. Helen Service MBE

    Sir Alan Smith CBE DFC

    Alexander D. Stewart of Ardvorlich

    David K. Thompson Esq. CBE TD OStJ

    Colnel A. J. Watt MBE TD OStJ

    Lady Jean Wemyss

    Renfrewshire

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Colonel Sir Houston Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall Bt MC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Commander Henry C. Abram VRD OStJ

    Lt. Col. A. Leonard Aitkenhead MBE TD

    Brigadier John Brown OBE MM TD

    G. W. N. H. Clark Esq.

    Sir Ian Denholm CBE

    Alan R. Devereux Esq. CBE

    The Right Hon. The Lord Goold CA

    Capital William H. Hunter CBE

    Captain David A. Kerr MC TD

    Mrs. Helen M. Laird OBE PhD

    Sir William J. Lithgow Bt of Ormsary

    Wing Commander C. Hector MacLean BL AE

    Sir Robert A. Maclean KBE LLD

    The Right Hon. The Lord Maclay

    George G. MacMillan of MacMillan and Knap

    James R. Minto Esq. OBE PhD

    The Right Hon. The Viscount Muirshiel CH CMG

    Group Captain George C. Pinkerton OBE DFC AE

    Major John G. Stewart TD

    Sir Eric G. Yarrow Bt MBE

    Sir Simpson Stevenson LLD

    Ross and Cromarty

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Major A. J. Cameron OBE

    J. A. Douglas-Menzies Esq.

    Commander P. Dalziel-Job RNR

    Mrs. Isobel J. Dewing

    Major J. L. MacDonald

    A. S. MacDonald Esq. CBE

    The Right Hon. Lord Macdonald of Macdonald

    J. A. Mackenzie Esq.

    A. M. H. Matheson Esq.

    David Lockett Esq.

    Lady Elizabeth Melville

    Mrs. Helen Lindsay

    Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    The Right Hon. The Earl of Minto OBE

    Deputy Lieutenants

    The Earl of Ancram

    The Right Hon. The Earl Haig of Bemersyde OBE

    The Right Hon. The Lord Sanderson of Bowden

    The Most Hon. The Marquess of Lothian KCVO

    Captain The Hon. Gerald Maitland-Carew

    Captain The Right Hon. The Lord Napier and Ettrick KCVO

    James B. Pate Esq.

    Dr. June Paterson-Brown CBE

    The Right Hon. Sir David Steel MP

    Major Michael Strang Steel

    Shetland

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    J. J. Scott Esq.

    Deputy Lieutenants

    John A. W. Fraser Esq.

    Sheriff Alistair A. MacDonald

    Charles G. D. Sandison Esq.

    Stewartry of Kirkcudbright

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Captain John M. A. Yerburg

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Lt. General Sir Norman Arthur KCB

    Admiral Sir Nigel Henderson GBE KCB

    John V. M. Jameson Esq.

    John Nelson Esq. TD

    Stirling and Falkirk

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Captain William F. E. Forbes of Callendar

    Deputy Lieutenants

    James F. G. Anderson Esq. CBE OStJ

    Colin D. Donald Esq.

    Brian D. Fairgrieve Esq. OBE

    William F. Howie Esq.

    Sir David W. Nickson KBE

    Major Alastair N. B. Ritchie

    Major Robert J. Sandeman

    Lt. Col. Gordon R. Simpson DSO MVO TD

    Alastair Stein Esq.

    Robert M. Sherriff Esq.

    Major The Right Hon. George K. H. Younger TD MP

    Lt. Col. George P. Wood MC

    James Parker Esq.

    Sutherland

    Deputy Lieutenants

    C. N. Janson Esq.

    Major J. N. Ledingham TD

    John G. Rutherford Esq.

    Major A. Shaw

    Lord Strathnaver

    Mrs. Leila MacKenzie

    Tweeddale

    Domestic subjects on the valuation roll by tenure 31 March 1989

    Local authority

    SSHA

    New town

    Privately owned (incl. HA other than SSHA)

    All domestic subjects

    Area

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Scotland

    807,615

    38.4

    75,710

    3.6

    44,166

    2.1

    1,175,804

    55.9

    2,103,295

    Strathclyde

    426,002

    45.5

    43,579

    4.7

    27,451

    2.9

    438,234

    46.9

    935,266

    Renfrew

    35,120

    43.2

    6,351

    7.8

    —

    —

    39,878

    49.0

    81,349

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. McMaster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the disposal of industrial, commercial and domestic waste in Scotland.
    294
    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Major Douglas J. Anderson MBE MC

    Deputy Lieutenants

    John J. Ballantyne Esq.

    Captain Christopher A. W. Leng OBE

    Henry B. Marshall Esq.

    Mrs. Kathleen M. McCall

    Dr. Alastair G. P. Paton

    Colonel David G. C. Sutherland CBE MC TD

    William G. Watson Esq.

    John D. B. Younger Esq.

    Western Isles

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Captain Colin Scott Mackenzie

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Lt. Cdr. William A. J. Cunningham VRD RNR

    Lt. Cdr. James H. Downie RN (Retd)

    Major Donald R. MacAulay

    Major Malcolm J. MacIver

    Captain J. McLeod OBE

    J. A. J. MacLeod Esq.

    The Right Hon. The Viscount Dunrossil CMG

    West Lothian

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    Air Commodore Colin S. Cadell CBE

    Deputy Lieutenants

    William A. Cadell Esq.

    John Calder Esq.

    Lt. Col. Robert Crichton MC

    Group Captain George L. Denholm DFC

    James S. Findlay Esq.

    Peter C. Macdonald Esq.

    David A. M. Morrison Esq.

    Mrs. R. Schaw-Miller

    Wigtown

    Vice Lord-Lieutenant

    John M. A. Wallace Esq.

    Deputy Lieutenants

    Miss Christian Dalrymple-Hamilton

    Lt. Col. A. S. Nelson

    The Right Hon. the Countess of Stair

    Thomas C. McCreath Esq.

  Housing Tenure
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the most up-to-date analysis of housing tenure type in(a) the Paisley, South parliamentary constituency, (b) Renfrew district, (c) Strathclyde and (d) Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on housing tenure type by parliamentary constituency is not collected centrally. The latest available information for Renfrew district, Strathclyde, and Scotland is set out in the table.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Responsibility for regulating the disposal of industrial, commercial and domestic waste in Scotland rests with the district and islands councils. Around 93 per cent. of such wastes are landfilled with the
  295
  remainder being incinerated, recycled or transported to specialist facilities in England and Wales. The most recent report of the hazardous waste inspectorate, Scotland, a copy of which is lodged in the Library, describes waste disposal arrangements in Scotland in more detail.

  Agricultural Colleges
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of the Scottish agricultural colleges.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish agricultural college was established on 1 April 1990 by bringing together into a single structure the North of Scotland college of agriculture, the East of Scotland college of agriculture and the West of Scotland college. This was in keeping with one of the principal recommendations of the Williams committee of inquiry which reported in September 1989. The college continues to operate from three centres of study at Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Auchincruive near Ayr. The college's administrative headquarters were recently transferred from Perth to Edinburgh. The college is a private company controlled by a board of directors. It is funded by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department—AFD—to provide agricultural education and advisory services and to conduct agricultural research and development. The directors of the college have made significant progress towards developing the college as a body with a single corporate identity and in developing new services for the agricultural and related industries. In the financial year 1990–91, the last complete year for which published accounts are available, income was £33.3 million, of which £18.6 million was AFD grant.

  Deprivation Relief
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to consider the implications of the 1991 census on the award of urban aid finance and other special initiatives to relieve deprivation; what criteria he intends to apply in deciding which communities should benefit from such finance in future; when he expects to announce his decisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details should be available by the middle of 1993 of changes to the geographical targeting of the urban programme, following the results of the 1991 census. A final decision on the criteria by which individual areas will be assessed has yet to be taken.

  Paisley College
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with representatives of Paisley college to discuss university status; when he next plans to meet representatives of Paisley college to discuss university status; and if he will make a statement.
  296
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 23 October 1991 my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was then Minister of State, met representatives of Paisley college of technology to discuss a number of issues, including university title. I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the college.

  Foxbar River Women's Centre
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current position regarding urban aid assistance in relation to the Foxbar Rivers women's centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Urban aid of £81,997 for construction costs, £20,361 for equipment and, for four years, £94,308 for running costs was approved in May 1991. In view of difficulties in finding a suitable site the date by which a start must be made has been put back until 30 September 1992.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans to discourage solvent abuse.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Solvent abuse is being tackled with particular emphasis on education and prevention and, where practicable, the restriction of sales of products containing volatile substances to young people. A £1.4 million GB-wide media campaign to inform parents was run during February this year. The impact of that campaign in Scotland is being evaluated. Schools will be encouraged to play their part. Re-Solv, the national charity, with Government support, recently launched a campaign to make retailers aware of the problem, the law and its requirements.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the previous Session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning, volume II, minutes of evidence and appendices.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Abergavenny The Marquess of Abergavenny— Took the Oath.

El Alamein Commemoration
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of their refusal to arrange a ceremony in this country to commemorate the Battle of El Alamein, they will provide financial support and transport facilities for the widows of those who were killed in that battle and for former members of the forces who took part to enable them to attend the anniversary ceremony in Egypt.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has a scheme which provides financial assistance to war widows to enable them to pay one visit to the graves of their husbands buried overseas. The scheme is administered on our behalf by the Royal British Legion and the department meets ⅞ths of the cost. Widows whose husbands are buried at El Alamein would be eligible for such assistance. However, there is no provision in the defence budget for helping ex-servicemen or war widows to attend commemoration ceremonies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the Government, no doubt because of the generation gap, do not appear to understand that those who were involved, or whose late husbands were involved, in this great victory would wish to celebrate properly the 50th anniversary of it? If the Government persist in their obstinate refusal to organise a proper service in this country, they really are under a moral obligation to assist financially those who are prepared to journey to Egypt to attend the ceremony there.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the cost of supporting veterans attending the 50th anniversary of every World War II battle would be very great. As the noble Lord is fully aware, there are many calls on the Government's available finance.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, we are talking about the widows of men who have died for this country. How mean can the Ministry of Defence get? Is the Minister aware that what he is saying is an affront to all of us?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are some half million of our former soldiers, air force men and navy personnel buried in some 139 countries. There is no provision in Ministry of Defence budgets to meet this open-ended liability we are discussing.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do not the Government realise that El Alamein was an exceptional battle? I hope my noble friend will ask
1356
those who have made this rather odd decision whether there are so many 50th anniversaries of such an order occurring in the near future that our resources of thankfulness are likely to become exhausted.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly convey my noble friend's thoughts to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the fact that El Alamein was probably the greatest Allied victory, and certainly the greatest contribution made to the defeat of Nazi Germany, would it not be possible for the Government to consider—I am sure they would have the full support of all the ex-servicemen's and ex-servicewomen's associations—holding a commemorative service in the Royal Albert Hall? If the request of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, cannot be met, can one such distinctive service be supported by the Government?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on two former occasions I have stated the Government's policy. The Government do not think it correct that they should choose between El Alamein and battles that followed in order to hold commemorative services. If we held a service for one, the Government would have to hold further services for every battle that followed.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, as one who was in the Eighth Army but not at El Alamein because of something that happened to me just beforehand, I hope I may express the horror with which I have listened to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister this afternoon. He has failed to realise that this battle was the turning point in the war. He has failed to understand that we wish to commemorate the battle of El Alamein not only because it was the turning point but because it was the first such event. My noble friend has said the Government will not commemorate El Alamein because of the fear of having to commemorate battles that followed. That is a terrible indictment of government policy. I beseech my noble friend to talk to his colleagues again about this matter and for them to confront the widows and those who fought alongside the great heroes of that battle with the remark that we cannot afford to provide a ceremony for the widows to attend. That is a shameful state of affairs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly convey the strength of feeling expressed by my noble friend and by the whole House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we are talking not just about the strength of feeling of noble Lords opposite but also the strength of feeling of Members on this side of the House? In other words this strength of feeling comes from all quarters of the House. Simply to say that the Ministry of Defence budget cannot accommodate what I believe would be the fairly limited expense suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is quite shameful.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I would point out to the noble Lord that I did mention the whole House when I talked about the strength of feeling on this matter. When I said the whole House I meant the whole House or all the Benches of this House.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what financial assistance has been given by the Germans, who for some strange reason are leading the ceremony celebrating this great British victory, to widows of German servicemen who were killed in this battle?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly try to find that information out. I do not have a reply to that question but I shall certainly try to find out what support is being given by the Germans and I shall let my noble friend know what I find out.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that one of the sad facts of life today is that the younger generation has no conception of what took place in wartime battles or of what was sacrificed to enable them to enjoy the freedom they experience today? Should we not put that situation right? The thousands of lads and women who are buried in Egypt paid the ultimate price for their service. Would it not be worth acceding to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to make it abundantly clear to the present day generation that the servicemen and women involved in that battle made a supreme sacrifice to enable those who are alive today to live in freedom?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sure that the points raised by the noble Lord will be taken into consideration when I return the matter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, my noble friend will accept that I intervene in this matter with some diffidence, but my concern will be obvious to all noble Lords in view of my name. Is my noble friend aware that facilities in the Western Desert are limited for coping with the arrival of large numbers of people and that is why the idea of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there should be a service of thanksgiving in this country which could be attended by a large number of people is so relevant, important and significant?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we are aware of the limited resources which the resorts around the area of Alamein are able to provide.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, in relation to the earlier question about the Germans, is the Minister aware that the Germans celebrated another occasion recently yet criticised us? If they can do that we can certainly do it because we have something to celebrate.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the last comment made by the noble Baroness is not one that I would wish to express in view of the ethos of reconciliation which is the current policy of this Government.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how far does that reconciliation go? Is the noble Lord aware that though one is in favour of reconciliation one can take it to
1358
ridiculous lengths? Are the Government considering changing the name of Trafalgar Square and Waterloo Station?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am not aware that the Government have any such intention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in reporting to his right honourable friend will my noble friend convey the view that the opinions expressed in all quarters of your Lordships' House and the widely expressed views of the service bodies will not be resisted by a sensible government?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall return to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence with your Lordships' strong views.

Water Resources: Southern England
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to alleviate the water shortage in the south of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the responsibility for maintaining adequate supplies rests with the water undertakers. The National Rivers Authority has a general statutory duty to conserve and augment water resources and is publicising the need to conserve water. Hosepipe bans and drought orders are in force in areas of shortage. The overall position is reviewed regularly by my department and we shall shortly be issuing a consultation paper on water conservation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I remind him of the report on the water resources development strategy issued by the NRA in March of this year in which the NRA concluded that in 1992 and 1993 it would be further considering the question of a strategy for water and would in due course be issuing another report? Is he not aware, however, that in the meantime people are suffering from water shortage and are wondering what is going to be done rather earlier than that? Have the Government any plans for doing anything rather sooner other than restraining people from using water for purposes which they consider necessary? In addition, when such action is decided upon will the NRA have the necessary powers to see that the action is carried out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about the problem of water shortages. He must realise that that problem has been caused by four winters of dry weather, an event which we are told by statisticians happens only once every hundred years. As I said earlier, the NRA has a general duty to conserve and augment water resources, which is why it has issued a consultation document on those water resources. We are looking carefully at the conservation of water by the consumer. Those two forces working together will, we hope, alleviate the problem in the long term.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not only householders, factories and so on which will be deprived of water supply but that complete streams and rivers have dried up, including the River Darent, which is no longer a river at all, where I had the happiness of catching eels and gudgeon as a boy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very much regret that my noble friend's joy has been removed by the lack of rain. It is our intention in the longer term to make sure that the water system provides for as much enjoyment as possible from natural water resources. To reply to the first point in my noble friend's Question, currently 17½ per cent. of the population is affected not by total water bans but by hosepipe bans.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the most profligate wasters of water are some of the water companies themselves, which waste 25 per cent. of water through their failure to renew and maintain their mains? Can the Minister tell me what the Government intend to do, before doing anything else, to ensure that the water companies themselves do not waste that precious commodity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to mention the problem. The figure of 25 per cent. is difficult to quantify because it includes leakage from customers' own pipes and water used for fire fighting or mains flushing. The water undertakers are aware of the problems and are using highly sophisticated equipment to detect and repair leaks as early as possible.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the longer term. Is he aware that as long ago as when my father was a Member of the House of Commons and I was a schoolboy at Eton people were talking about a water grid whereby water could be shared by transferring it from the areas with higher rainfall in the North and West to those with less rainfall in the South and East? Is that not rather a long time to wait?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, recently the NRA looked at the need for a national water grid and came to the conclusion that it was the most expensive and least effective solution. There are minor examples of inter-regional transfers of water—for example, the Ely-Ouse/Essex and Trent-Witham schemes, which have greatly improved the situation in those areas. There is also the example of the inner London water ring main.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that his first reply was a little exaggerated? He said that four dry years had caused the water shortage. Up to a point that is true, but does he agree that what that has really done is to highlight the way we have neglected our water supply? We would not be without water if we had a proper system. In addition to the points already raised by other noble Lords, will the Minister also look at the licences for abstraction from rivers?
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords. However, the problems is that we have had those dry years. Under the present system if there is average rainfall the water system can supply what we need. However, I should point out that over the past five years consumption has been increasing.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, in view of the contribution of water meters to reducing the problem of water shortages, will the Government look at the water companies' present use of their monopoly position in insisting on water meters being installed by themselves without allowing competitive tenders by local plumbers of the householder's choice?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a matter which the regulator at OFWAT is looking at extremely carefully.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the water companies are pressing metering as though the problem was largely one of usage when already we are among the lowest users per head of water in Western Europe—among the dirtiest—and living in the dampest country. Is it not instead largely a problem of supply, not just a matter of leaks but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, of the need for water transfer schemes? As a full network of transfer schemes requires a co-ordinated approach, which is impossible in a fragmented privatised industry, will the Government take the lead in introducing strategic planning?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness talked a lot of nonsense in her question. Water consumption figures in Europe range from Belgium at 108 litres per head to Switzerland at 264 litres per head. Our figure is 136 litres per head which is by no means a bad record. With regard to the issue of investment in the water industry, in the course of the past few years, since privatisation, we have been investing record amounts of money in the water industry and improving the quality of not just what comes out of the tap but also what has gone down the lavatory.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there must be something badly wrong with this Government? We have been four years without rain and obviously displeasure from above has been visited upon them. Is he aware that some years ago the Labour Government appointed a Minister to deal with this very problem, following which the heavens opened and it rained for weeks afterwards?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that particular solution lies entirely in the hands of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be in the market for advice. Has he contemplated seeking the assistance of our new colleague, the former Mr. Denis Howell?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we all await with anticipation his arrival in this Chamber. No doubt he will be able to give us extremely good advice on this subject.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, perhaps we ought to move on. This Question has had a good airing.

Jubilee Line: Future
3.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose for the extension of the Jubilee Line.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the position has not changed. Unless and until private sector contributions are assured, we see no prospect of authorising the start of construction. We therefore continue to look to the private sector to make its contribution so that the line can proceed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what contingency plans the Government have if the contribution from the private sector is not forthcoming? Is he aware that there are many other important transport projects which ought to be undertaken in London and which should not be left on hold? What lessons have the Government learnt from this appalling débâcle?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no débâcle. It is simply a matter of joining the private sector and the public sector. I can understand that the noble Lord wishes the taxpayer to pay for everything. People who support that view now are few and far between.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the cost to London Transport of retaining its highly skilled engineering and planning staff who are all ready for the operation? Will there be a time limit put on how long that skilled group can be retained ready to do the work? Does that put pressure on the private individuals who are required to produce the money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made a contribution of about £100 million in order to help LUL do the necessary preparatory work. The answer to my noble friend's question depends very much on the speed with which the administrator can deal with the problem. We can then proceed as quickly as possible.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the similar developments which arose in Paris in the La Défense area? There the government made full provision for transport, and that is now an additional and thriving part of Paris? Does he feel it desirable that the present impasse and difficulties in Docklands should be resolved in that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Docklands is thriving considerably more than it was 10 years ago. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to know that in 1981 there were 39,500 residents and there are now 62,000. There were 27,000 people employed and there are now 60,000. And the figure of 5 per cent. home ownership is now 40 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister complained about making the taxpayer pay for everything. Is he aware of a widespread feeling that there is a tendency to make business pay for everything? Is there any good reason why business should pay for this project other than that the Government do not want to do so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is fully au fait with the fact that the Government are putting in £1.5 billion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister now kindly answer one of the questions I put to him which he avoided with a rather feeble answer? If the private sector is not forthcoming with the £400 million contribution required, what do the Government propose to do? Do they intend to embark with some speed on other urgent projects?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I replied in my original Answer to the question that the noble Lord has again put to me. His question about other schemes in London is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, having given an answer to my noble friend which was very wide of the question, will the Minister now answer the question of what contingency plans the Government have for the Jubilee Line if the private sector does not come up with its share of the money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered that question in my first Answer.

Schools: Testing of 7 year-olds
3.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to change the current system of testing for 7 year-old children in schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government do not intend to change the current tests which are working well and are already making an appreciable contribution to higher standards in schools.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with that Answer. Is the Minister aware that in increasing numbers teachers at the sharp end of this problem who teach that age group and the associations to which they belong are now expressing the opinion that the time spent on testing the children would be far better used to continue teaching them and so help them further along the road to a better education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the only teachers' association which has commented along the lines

1363
mentioned by the noble Lord is the National Union of Teachers. It is hardly an impartial observer. It does not approve of testing children at all. The impact of testing on children is having a positive effect on the quality of both learning and teaching. HMI has already reported that many children are surpassing the expectations of their teachers.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many who are entirely in favour of testing children at the age of seven because it will help to raise standards? Is she satisfied that the tests are simple and straightforward enough to make their application readily understood by teachers, parents and, not least, the children themselves?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes two very important points. The tests are indeed a very positive way to measure learning. Testing helps to address children's weaknesses and build on their strengths. We are constantly listening to teachers—I am in and out of schools all the time—and any way that we can find to make the tests simpler without losing their rigour we shall implement.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware of an HMI report on the implementation of the national curriculum, Assessment, Recording and Reporting? It says that,
"most LEAs have an adviser or inspector with responsibility for assessment and their work in establishing a structure of support has largely been successful".
In view of Her Majesty's Government's plans to privatise the school inspectorate, what guidance is being given to LEAs as to their future responsibility in supporting school assessment work?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a little precipitate with the question. The new HMCI has been appointed. Professor Sutherland is in place. I am not sure that the word "privatised" is the one that I would use. They will he independent inspectorates. They will be properly registered by the chief inspector who will be in charge of quality and standards. If LEA inspectors wish to bid for qualified inspector status, they will do so. There will be guidance from both the inspectorate and the department.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, would the Minister care to reconsider her statement that the National Union of Teachers is not in favour of testing? Does she mean that it is not in favour of the Government's system of testing? So far as I am aware most of the teaching profession is against the Government's proposals partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Dean. I do not think—in fact I know—that she is not correct in saying that the National Union of Teachers is against testing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It is not in favour of the system of testing. The system requires that tests shall be carried out only four times in the life of the school child—at seven, 11, 14 and 16 —by a common format across the country. I believe that that will be a valuable tool for teachers and for our children in schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only teachers who are anxious about existing testing procedures? It is also the Government's own advisers, Her Majesty's inspectors. They have stated categorically that they are worried about the management of standard assessment tests at schools. What do the Government intend to do to improve the management of those tests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. Certainly, we responded quickly on the management of tests from last year to this year. We shall continue to listen. However, the inspectors stated that the administration of about 80 per cent. of the tests in schools was satisfactory or better; and of about 20 per cent. that it was unsatisfactory. As I said to my noble friend Lady Young, we shall continue to listen and reform without losing the rigour of the testing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many intelligent 7 year-olds who are about to be tested have already arrived at the not entirely illogical conclusion that it is their elders and betters who need testing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the 7 year-olds have been tested. There are many able 7 year-olds who will be even more able as a result of the findings of some of those tests.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if the Government intend to continue with the tests, will they give further consideration to the publication of the results in the form of league tables? Is the Minister aware that publication has caused a great deal of concern, not only among the schools at the bottom of the table but also among some of those at the top?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer is no. Parents have a right to know how their children are performing in schools. They have a right to know the context in which that information is given. They need to know how a class or school is performing. In the wider world parents are making choices about schools. They also need to know how those schools are performing. We cannot stand back and wring our hands about the situation being better in Germany, Japan or anywhere else if we do not know and cannot quantify how well children perform in our schools.

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Durham Markets Company Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships may recognise this Bill from last Session. Although it was considered by your Lordships and the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, it was not able to complete its passage through another place before the dissolution of Parliament.
The Bill must proceed under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 because under the Law Commissions Act 1965 neither the Law Commission nor the Scottish Law Commission has powers to recommend reform of any law which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to amend.
The Bill consolidates the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and repeals the surviving provision of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. Both those Acts extend to Northern Ireland and the subject matter is one with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland would have had power to legislate. The consequence of that is that under the procedure laid down by the 1949 Act the Bill must be referred back to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills notwithstanding the fact that the Bill is in identical terms to those in which the Bill passed the House last Session.
Despite that legal requirement, I hope that the Bill can have as expeditious a passage as possible through your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: We are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation as to why the Bill has to come to us in this form.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The 1990 Act was the first attempt to deal in legislation with the issues which the continuing developments in reproductive technology make possible. It is an innovative and comprehensive piece of legislation which has brought hope and reassurance to many people. We remain one of the few countries to have tackled this issue by the introduction of statutory controls. Your Lordships played an important role in determining the final form of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and this House justifiably shares responsibility for its achievements.
The Bill now before your Lordships is very narrowly defined and is not about embryo research or abortion. It merely seeks to put right certain unforeseen consequences of some excessive caution in drafting one section of the 1990 Act which in other respects, so far as I understand, is working well. The Government would not be seeking this measure if a satisfactory alternative to legislation were available. For my own part, I can assure noble Lords that I am entirely satisfied that the Bill is necessary.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain the background to the Bill. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 introduces a criminal sanction for breaches of the confidentiality provisions in Section 33 of the Act. The criminal sanction in relation to Section 33(5) of the 1990 Act applies only to the clinician who initially discloses the confidential information. Breach of this provision is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine or both. This sanction is in addition to the existing common law which protects confidential information. A person who made an unauthorised disclosure of information which they receive from a clinician would, as now with the 1990 Act, be subject to the constraints of the existing law on confidentiality. The Bill does not alter that position.
Information obtained during treatment for infertility can be extremely personal and private and when the 1990 Act was drafted it was considered right that a stronger duty of confidentiality than existed under the common law should be imposed in relation to it. However, since the 1990 Act came into force practical experience has shown that the provisions on the disclosure of information were in some respects too tightly drawn and they have led to unintended risks and difficulties.
As it stands, the 1990 Act prohibits licensed clinicians, with some specified exceptions, from disclosing identifying information about a patient's treatment to anyone except the patient herself, to members and employees of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority or to other people covered by a licence for the purpose of licensed activities. The practical effect has been found to be that the doctor, himself or herself, cannot pass information to, say, the

1367
patient's GP, even with the patient's consent. The intention was that the patient should have maximum control over the information about her treatment. However, it has become clear that in certain circumstances the restrictions imposed by the Act went too far in this respect. As a result, if clinicians were to do all they might wish to do to protect the health of their patients, they would, under the Act, have to break the criminal law. They should not be put in this position.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I illustrate the effect of the Act as it stands by reference to two examples. First, transmission of information can take place only if the patient personally arranges delivery. The uncertainties associated with this arrangement could endanger a woman's life in certain emergencies. For instance, in rare cases the ovaries of a woman who has received super-ovulatory drugs may be hyperstimulated, sometimes resulting in a dangerous condition which may go unrecognised, with serious consequences, because her GP or another clinician, as an "unlicensed" practitioner, has not been given details about her infertility treatment. In these circumstances, the woman's health could be endangered because the wrong treatment is given as a result of ignorance about another treatment to which the woman had been subjected.
Another example of the unintentionally over-restrictive nature of the Act is that it prevents the disclosure of information for legal purposes. This means that a licensed person may not be able to defend him or herself if sued by a patient. A doctor or other employee of a centre who is sued by a patient who has undergone licensed treatment is unable to give his or her legal adviser information about the treatment given for an identifiable individual. In the early stages of such action it is possible for anonymous information about treatment to be given but once a writ is issued the name of the patient becomes known to the doctor's solicitor and it has become apparent that no further information can then be given as the supply of any new information would constitute an offence. The doctor would therefore be left in an untenable position in comparison with the patient by whom he or she is sued, who is subject to no restraints under the Act.
This House and another place both decided that the person to whom the confidential information relates should retain as much control over the dissemination of that information as possible; I am sure this is right. But it was clearly not the intention that the consequences that I have described should result. The practice of the new statutory structure has thrown up those particular problems.
I now turn to the detail of the Bill. The Bill seeks to make certain specified relaxations on the restrictions on the disclosure of information by licensed clinicians imposed by Section 33(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Section 33(6) of the Act contains exceptions to the general restriction on disclosure and adds further exceptions, removing the criminal sanction from disclosure in specified circumstances and for particular purposes.
1368
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 inserts three new paragraphs, (f), (g) and (h), into Section 33(6) of the Act. Paragraph (f) relates to the necessary, and I stress the word "necessary", disclosure of information before or in connection with proceedings, including legal proceedings and procedures for dealing with complaints. This will deal with the situation that I outlined earlier of the clinician being unable to pass identifying information to his or her solicitor. It will also permit necessary access to necessary identifying information in connection with complaints procedures, something which is also prevented at present; for example, disciplinary procedures of the General Medical Council or the like.
Paragraph (g), the second added exception, applies to the situation where a surrogate mother is involved. It enables a licensed clinician to confirm, for the purposes only of an application for a parental order under Section 30 of the Act, that the gametes of a particular person were used in treatment services which involved the child being carried by a woman other than the wife of the couple seeking the parental order. It does not relate to any other aspect of surrogacy. Without this provision the couple seeking the parental order—that is the couple who commissioned the surrogate mother—might have to prove their genetic relationship to the child through DNA testing, which is time consuming and a quite unnecessary imposition. This provision will permit the simplification of these proceedings; something which is to be welcomed bearing in mind that one at least of the couple seeking the parental order will he genetically related to the child.
Paragraph (h), the third added exception, deals with inconsistencies between the 1990 Act and the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The Access to Health Records Act gives rights of access to records in a number of cases and in particular by specified persons to the records of patients who have become incapable or who have died. The inconsistency arises because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act does not allow access in these circumstances, where infertility treatment has been given. Without access it would be difficult for the personal representatives, or a person appointed by a court to manage the affairs of a patient, to pursue claims where the death or incapacity was alleged to result from infertility treatment.
Subsection (3) of the Bill inserts seven subsections, (6A) to (6G), after Section 33(6) of the Act. Taking these subsections in order, (6A) prevents the disclosure of the identity of a third party whose gametes were used for the purposes of treatment services when divulging information in connection with proceedings provided for by new paragraph (f). Subsections (6B), (6C) and (6D) allow for information to be given with the consent of the individual or individuals receiving treatment. The consent aspect is an essential feature of this Bill. These subsections will enable a licensed clinician, with the patient's consent, to pass information about treatment to the GP or to others who are associated with the treatment, or to anyone specifically authorised by the patient. These subsections will also allow, again subject to consent,

1369
access to certain information for the purposes of clinical and financial audit. Exceptionally, subsection (6E) permits disclosure of information about an individual's treatment without the patient's consent in the event of a medical emergency involving that person where it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the patient's consent.
Subsection (6G) contains a regulation-making power which is subject to affirmative procedure to provide for further exceptions to Section 33(5) of the Act. With the best will in the world, I am not able to give this House a guarantee that all problems with this section of the Act have been identified for all time. In particular, new situations may arise. Having regard to our experiences in the drafting of the 1990 Act it was, therefore, considered prudent to include in the Bill a regulation-making power which enables provision to be made for future exceptions, should they be necessary in the light of further working, without the need for another Bill. I am well aware that such powers are not always welcomed by the House, but I can assure noble Lords that the regulation-making power in this Bill is very narrow. It is subject to the affirmative procedure. Should it therefore in the future be necessary to invoke this power, this House will have the opportunity to debate any regulations made and to approve or reject them.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the Short Title and for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland and to the Channel Islands. The Bill has no implications on public funds.
I should like to emphasise that the circumstances in which disclosure would be permitted are closely defined in the Bill and, except in specified circumstances, the patient's consent will be required before any identifying information can be disclosed. I should also like to acknowledge the assistance which the Government have received from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is a valuable and authoritative source of advice on these matters. I wish to thank the authority in particular for the advice that it has given to me in connection with the preparation of the Bill. This Bill benefits both the recipients of infertility treatment and the clinicians, whose devoted commitment to helping those who need treatment to achieve parenthood is fully acknowledged and whose position should be properly protected.
I commend this Bill to the House for your Lordship's consideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining so clearly this non-contentious but rather technical Bill. I can say at the outset that from these Benches we support the Bill and similar support is forthcoming from the relevant organisations; namely, the BMA, the GMC, Progress—the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction—and individual licensed clinicians.
1370
The noble and learned Lord explained the provisions of the Bill in detail so there is no need for me to go through them. Also, most unusually, the noble and learned Lord helpfully circulated the Notes on Clauses before the Second Reading of the Bill. That is most helpful. In the past when I have asked for Notes on Clauses before the Second Readings of other Bills I have been told that that is not possible because the Bill may not receive a Second Reading. The fact that the Notes on Clauses have been circulated on this Bill means that the noble and learned Lord has considerable confidence in the outcome of today's debate. We must all hope that that is not misplaced. The circulation of Notes on Clauses before Second Reading is extremely sensible and helpful. I hope that this Bill is setting a precedent in that regard.
The points which I wish to mention now we may wish to explore in Committee. They are matters of detail and thus are better dealt with at length in Committee, but they are important and it may be helpful if I mention them in outline now.
We can all agree with the objectives of the Bill but in drafting to fulfil those objectives some ambiguities and a certain lack of clarity may have occurred. The first of those is in Clause 1(2) (f) which provides for disclosure without the consent of the patient where proceedings are involved. The definition of "proceedings" has caused some anxiety. Clause 1(4) states:
"references to proceedings include any formal procedure for dealing with a complaint".
However, there are many other forms of proceedings; for example, divorce proceedings may well be involved in the matters which we are discussing.
It is hard to draft a Bill to cover all eventualities and then find that there are omissions, but in Committee we may have to try to tighten the wording so that it is quite clear to which proceedings the Bill is referring. For example, the BMA has assumed that only the proceedings of the GMC and UKCC—disciplinary procedures—are intended to be covered but I imagine that the Bill is meant to cover a much wider area. When the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate, perhaps he will deal with that point.
Clause 1(3) (6C) uses the phrase:
"a person who needs to know".
That is always a rather difficult concept to define and could lead to an extremely wide interpretation. I give a simple example. Subsection (6C) (c) refers to the auditing of accounts. I can understand that it may be hard to specify a named accountant as regards auditing, but that could mean that the humblest member of an audit team would have access to extremely sensitive information. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will deal with that point. I am concerned about the width of the interpretation as regards the people who need to know.
Perhaps I may give another example. Family health service authorities send inspectors to general practitioners to examine patients' records to check on payment procedures, levels of prescribing and so on. Those inspectors are usually doctors, but one presumes that that would come under the heading "Audit of clinical practice". Again, I am concerned about the width of interpretation as regards who needs

1371
to know. Obviously there needs to be some clarification of this part of the Bill, and we can deal with that in Committee.
The reference to "a specific person" in subsection (6C) has been queried by the GMC since in any disciplinary proceedings a number of people are involved. I understand that the use of Clause 1(2) (f) is meant to cover that situation, but, going back to that clause, it is clear that a great deal will rest on the word "necessarily" in line 14 on page 1 of the Bill. That was a point made by the noble and learned Lord when he opened the debate. It is not entirely clear who will decide what is and is not "necessary". When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will explain that.
My final point is in regard to the obligation to confidentiality which must be observed by anyone to whom disclosure has been made for treatment purposes. For example, the organisation Progress, which I mentioned earlier, says that it is important to be absolutely certain that disclosure, particularly if it relates to the birth of an identifiable individual who may have been born in consequence of fertility treatment, will "go no further". I presume that the Bill is intended to deal only with what may be termed as the first level of disclosure. Beyond that the normal common law relating to breach of confidence would be the next line of defence. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will confirm whether that is correct. I understand that it would be extremely hard for the draftsman to cover disclosure beyond that specified in the Bill.
As the noble and learned Lord said, if additional exceptions are found to be necessary, they can be dealt with by regulation under the affirmative resolution procedure, with the exception of the matters specified in subsection (6G), paragraphs (a) to (b). That would seem to be a satisfactory way to deal with matters which come to light as time goes on.
Perhaps I may revert back to Clause 1(2) (f), which is concerned with proceedings. It occurred to me that perhaps subsection (6G) could be used to deal with the problem of defining "proceedings". If the Bill were drafted to specify the proceedings which are intended to be covered by the Bill, could subsection (6G) be used to add other proceedings which are omitted now through oversight but which as time goes on it becomes apparent should have been included? I can understand that the draftsmen of the Bill have relied on the word "necessarily" in Clause 1(2) (f), and I understand also the problems of drafting to cover all eventualities and then finding that there have been omissions, but I wonder whether we could use subsection (6G), by regulation, later to rectify omissions.
To conclude, as I have said, the Bill is not contentious. It relaxes certain provisions which were obviously too tightly drawn when the 1990 Act was drafted. During a short Committee stage it should be possible to deal with the points of detail which I have raised: to correct the confidentiality procedures of the 1990 Act to make the system both consistent and
1372
workable in the interests of both patient and doctor. We welcome the Bill and will certainly assist its speedy passage on to the statute book.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches, we support the Bill. I did not take part at all in the discussions on the 1990 Act, but I have looked at this Bill which is concerned with protecting individual rights and in particular the right of privacy in a very vital area.
First, let me say that I have never known a Bill so carefully explained beforehand, both in the explanatory background note of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which I found to be extremely helpful, and in the detailed Notes on Clauses issued by the Department of Health. That is no less than six foolscap pages of explanatory notes for a two-clause Bill. That is quite extraordinary but extremely helpful and illustrates the care taken.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been involved personally both with the parent Act and with this Bill. Both the noble and learned Lord and the department are to be congratulated on and thanked for the obvious care and concern which has been and is being exercised in that most sensitive area where such private and personal problems can be involved.
The need for the Bill in order to relax some of the strict provisions of the 1990 Act on the disclosure of information obtained by an authorised person in the course of infertility treatment has been brought about apparently by the experience of those who practice in this field and a growing appreciation of the practical effects of too rigid a restriction on the passing of information between doctors in emergency situations and in certain legal contexts.
When I first looked at the Bill I wondered why we had not spotted the possibilities beforehand, but as I reflected on the situation I realised that it is virtually impossible to foresee the problems which could arise and which might yet arise in the future. It seems to me that the Bill has been carefully conceived and drafted to meet a restricted number of anticipated situations. But in the light of further experience, whether or not the Bill is amended, it would not surprise me that future review and amendment may prove necessary, possibly to tighten up as well as to relax the permission for disclosure.
I do not share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, save in one specific instance. It seems to me that Clause 1(3) (6C) of the Bill may prove to be the most vulnerable part. The three circumstances set out allowing for disclosure to other than specific persons are situations for which provision must be made. However, it is disclosure to non-specific persons that is the worrying part. The protection that would be afforded to the individual affected by non-disclosure would be the normal common law provision and nothing else. It is when information can be disseminated beyond specific persons that the danger of inadvertent or deliberate future disclosure arises.

1373
The situations expressed in subsections (6B) and (6C) are those which exercise my mind. For the life of me I cannot see a practical and sensible way of tightening the scope of disclosure in that regard. I considered whether one could table an amendment which would improve the position, but at the moment I can see no way of doing that. My present view therefore is that it is probably better for the Bill to go through as it is, with careful monitoring thereafter to see whether problems arise. Should they do so, the indications are clearly that the Executive will take urgent remedial action.
I should like to raise another point. The provision for regulation-making powers permits the making of further exceptions to Section 33(5) of the original Act. However, it does not seem to me to permit a tightening of the exceptions which we are considering in the Bill. It may be that experience will show that, whereas the previous provision was too tight, even with the greatest care we may have relaxed it a little too much. Only experience and time can show us whether that is so.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us his reflections on how the remedial action is to be obtained should experience prove that we have relaxed the provisions a little too much in the Bill. Otherwise, it is an excellent Bill and the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward the remedial Bill so speedily.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too express my warm support for the provisions of the Bill, which experience has demonstrated to be an essential measure. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the clear exposition and explanation of the Bill. I should like to echo the points that he made regarding the important developments which have already resulted from the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
There is already clear evidence that research carried out in licensed centres under the provisions of the Act and under the careful supervision of the statutory licensing authority have had enormous benefits for human health. For example, there is evidence that through the research made possible by the Act certain women carrying genes responsible for severe inherited disease have been able to bear normal children shown not to be carrying that gene. That has already been a major development.
In making my comments this afternoon I have been greatly helped by the advice I have received from PROGRESS—the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction—and from my former colleagues on the General Medical Council and in the British Medical Association. As the noble and learned Lord made clear, the confidentiality provisions of the existing Act make it an offence for any person to whom a licence applies to disclose to anyone not specified in the Act information about identifiable individuals obtained in connection with the provision of fertility treatment services, such an offence being
1374
punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and unlimited fines. It would also result in the loss of the licence.
In an attempt to protect the confidentiality of those receiving treatment to assist conception, the existing Act has unwittingly outlawed direct communication between doctors such as can be essential in a clinical emergency. For example, a rare complication of infertility treatment involving stimulation of the woman's ovaries which is needed to precede in vitro fertilisation can be that of sudden collapse. If that were to happen in the street to a patient undergoing such treatment, the licensed centre would currently be barred from communicating the fact of ovulatory stimulation treatment to the casualty department to which the patient was taken, even if it were in the same hospital. That could have serious consequences for prompt and appropriate medical resuscitation. The patient would need to be in a fit state to give precise details of her treatment and in those circumstances that could not be guaranteed.
The Bill provides that disclosure can be made with the informed consent of the individual. In addition, disclosure can be made without consent where it is necessary in order to avert imminent danger for the health of the individual or where it is not reasonably practicable or possible to obtain the consent of that individual. As the noble and learned Lord also pointed out, also giving anxiety was a quite unintended consequence of the Act which effectively deprived licensed medical practitioners of the ability to defend themselves in legal proceedings. A clinician who provided such treatment service, if sued for negligence, would be unable to obtain legal advice or representation or to submit a defence in a court of law without risk of prosecution. Similarly, clinicians would be unable to defend themselves against allegations of, for example, sexual assault arising in the same circumstances.
The Bill provides for disclosure when it is necessary for the purposes of legal proceedings. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, my former colleagues on the General Medical Council have some anxiety regarding the definition of "proceedings" as included in Clause 1(2) (f) of the Bill. For instance, one comment is that reference to "proceedings" includes any formal procedure for dealing with a complaint. The GMC wonders whether that would cover grievances or other minor but nevertheless formal complaints procedures or whether it would be taken to include legal proceedings which are not connected with medical treatment —for example, divorce proceedings.
The General Medical Council would prefer to see a somewhat tighter definition, perhaps referring specifically to legal procedures in relation to a civil action for alleged negligence or the proceedings of a statutory body for dealing with a complaint arising from medical care or treatment. Such a body would be the General Medical Council or the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
The General Medical Council expressed some concern also in regard to the use of the phrase "need

1375
to know" in Clause 1(3) (6B). Is that too broad? Would it become an accepted justification for disclosure of information in inappropriate circumstances? It is difficult to define and is often used without explanation of who determines whether information should be disclosed. I know that the current president of the General Medical Council expressed the view to me in correspondence that he may be troubled if the phrase were enshrined in legislation giving it a legitimacy which he did not believe it deserved.
There was one final anxiety regarding a more minor matter needing verification. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, Clause 1(3), subsections (6B) and (6C) contain provisions that, where consent to disclosure is given by a patient, the disclosure must be made to a specific person. As he said, that would give considerable difficulties if it were to apply to the council's disciplinary procedures where inevitably a number of members of staff who treat the information in strict confidence, the members of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, and of the Professional Conduct Committee, must have access to details of the patient's care in order to fulfil their statutory obligations. It has been suggested by the Department of Health that this clause would not be relevant for disciplinary proceedings as disclosures could be made under Clause 1(2) (f) even where the patient had given consent to disclosure. Nevertheless, that may be a grey area which needs clarification.
These are relatively minor points in what I believe to be an extremely important and very necessary Bill. While one appreciates that this House in general is not enamoured of retroactive legislation, in this instance I am sure that an exception is justified in order to fulfil the original intentions of the Act. Therefore, I welcome the provisions made in the Bill indicating that further regulations might be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the event that additional exceptions might come to light through the workings of the present Act and of the statutory licensing authority. With these minor comments, I give very warm support to this Bill.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I too should very much like to welcome this Bill. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the explanations he has given. The Bill certainly seems to correct some unintended and, in practice, rather debilitating aspects of the main Act although the cautiously worded nature of the disclosure measures in the original Act are perfectly understandable.
I am a member of an ethics committee for one fertility centre that specialises in this field and which sits under the Act. It is licensed with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Many of the cases which come before us as ethics committee members are extremely complex, difficult, and take a great deal of time to deal with. They are also particularly complex for the doctors who have to deal with them in a technical sense.
It is clearly odd that the effect of the Act as it stands is to forbid, with criminal sanctions for disclosure,
1376
those trying to help with a patient's fertility from even discussing the case with the patient's GP, as my noble and learned friend has said. Those individuals should know more than just a little about the patient concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has given one instance in the case of an emergency as to how that might apply. There are others; for example, there is the relevance of somebody of positive HIV status who currently has sperm stored in a centre and whose HIV status was not known at the time of the storage. No consultations can take place about that.
Another example is of a patient who might have leukaemia and is about to have whole body irradiation followed by future marrow transplants. There is the inability of the doctor dealing with fertility measures to speak to the haematologist who is concerned about other aspects of the case so that the management of that patient can be properly studied.
One other aspect which I do not believe has been touched on concerns the inability at present of all those involved—that is to say, the doctors dealing with the treatment and perhaps the GP as well—to discover the outcome of the treatment so that the interpretation of the results can be properly assessed by everyone. Those seem to be weaknesses.
Among other matters, this Bill puts a great deal of that to rights. That will be a bonus for patients and certainly for the medical staff because, as I have said, such cases are far from easy. I believe it will also be of help to those who sit on ethics committees who take their responsibilities with a considerable degree of seriousness not just as regards research matters and those aspects which were inserted into the Bill in this House about the interests of the child, but more generally when it comes to the overall ethical dimensions of the work which the doctors so carefully undertake.
I shall be most grateful if my noble and learned friend can help me with one aspect; namely, the method by which the patient can actually give consent. I hope he can say whether, as a result of this Act, the doctors concerned can now write directly to referring GPs and hospital specialists; whether they need to obtain consent from individuals and couples regarding consultations as well as investigations and treatment; and whether or not it is sufficient to have the consent verbally or whether it should be given in writing. It occurs to some of those concerned that if the consent should be written then the clinicians will need to be assured that a patient signs a document at the time of the initial consultation which covers all future eventualities. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to answer those points.
As regards the new Clause 1 (6G) which permits regulations for the future and which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, touched on, I very much welcome that. In the year or more that I have been involved on the periphery of these matters, techniques seem to have changed dramatically. I can well see that over time it will perhaps be necessary, in order to make the Act as effective as it was originally intended, for just that kind of measure to be introduced without the full panoply of primary legislation. I very much welcome this Bill.
4.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome that they have given to this Bill and also for the kind references to the way in which it has been presented to your Lordships. I shall say something about that because it might be dangerous to regard that as a precedent.
As I sought to explain, this is a highly technical Bill in an area where there is great scope for conflict on matters of general policy which were determined under the 1990 Act. I wished to make it as plain to your Lordships as I possibly could, in as good time as I could, just exactly what the scope of this Bill was so that no one might think that we were trespassing into areas which had been decided on with a good deal of difficulty both by your Lordships and another place. I also felt that the Bill was so technical that without a good deal of such help your Lordships might have some difficulty in appreciating just exactly what was its effect.
In a way I feel a degree of disappointment that I particularly was unable to foresee the difficulty when we were considering the 1990 Bill. But these things happen. In a way it was a desire on the part of the Government and I believe of all of your Lordships as well, that very strict confidentiality should be applied in this area because of the very personal nature of the treatment. At that time those who were involved and consulted and who had more practical experience of these matters did not see how that might impinge.
In answer to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I believe that we have tended to draw too tightly. So I expect any change to be in the form of proved necessity for relaxation rather than in tightening up. We have tried to proceed carefully, which is the reason that the power that we have taken is a power to add relaxations rather than to withdraw relaxations. There is also the problem that if one tries to withdraw a relaxation, the information that has been passed out under it will already be in the public domain. It is difficult to make such things retrospective. Those are the considerations.
Some of the matters of detail that have been raised can no doubt be dealt with in Committee, but as it seems that we have a little time, perhaps I can deal with some of them now. I shall deal, first, with the points that have been raised about consent and the form of consent. Consent does not have to be in writing, but it generally has to be for a specific person. Perhaps your Lordships would be kind enough to take a look at Clause 1. New subsection (6B) states:
"In the case of information relating to the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual—
(a) where one individual is identifiable, subjection (5) above does not apply to disclosure with the consent of that individual".
There is therefore a general relaxation with consent in respect of subsection (5). Where two people are concerned, the consent of both is needed.
Subsection (6C) is the important provision in this connection. It states that for the purposes of subsection (6B), consent must be to a specific person. Therefore, if it is to be operative, the consent must be in favour of a specified person. That is the general rule.
1378
If one wants the patient's consent to allow information to be given out, the consent must be for disclosure to a specified person.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6C)—this is on page 2, line 25—relate to circumstances in which a team is likely to be involved. Therefore, as an exception to the requirement that consent must be to a specific person, we have provided that it can be given to a team. The team is defined in the phrase "needs to know".
It is first a question of consent. In effect, the patient must consent to disclosure and may refuse that consent—perhaps because the consent that is asked for is too unspecific. As I have said, a patient can refuse consent but, if consent is given, it may be on the basis that the only people to whom the information may properly be disclosed are those who need to know it for the purpose in question—the "treatment" purpose of (a), the clinical audit purpose of (b) or for the purpose of the "auditing of accounts" of (c). That is a practical step to make the provisions less burdensome to patients. One would not like to have to ask a lady who is receiving this treatment to list all the people who might take part in providing medical, surgical or obstetric services to her because it might be quite a big team. This seems the best way to deal with that. Some of those who have commented on this point to your Lordships may not have given full effect to the fact that this is not an alternative to consent —it is a form of consent. We are talking not about consent to a specific person, but to a group that is made up in this way.
I turn now to the definition of "proceedings". The intention here is to deal with the matter of proceedings in such a way as to make it possible for the licensed clinician to make a disclosure although he is not obliged to disclose. For the sake of argument, I shall take it that the clinician is a gentleman but the provisions would apply equally to the many distinguished ladies who operate in this area. The provision only withdraws the criminal sanction from the defined area. It does not oblige the clinician to make a disclosure. It states that those who make disclosures in the defined circumstances will not be subject to a criminal offence. That is all.
The main definition of "proceedings" would be legal proceedings. The idea is that if the clinician considers that the disclosure is necessary either for purposes preliminary to proceedings or for purposes of or in connection with proceedings, he would be authorised to make a disclosure. The word "proceedings" is intended to include any formal procedure for dealing with a complaint against a clinician. The secondary complaints procedures of the General Medical Council and those relating to nurses are, of course, included.
However, there might be other types of formal procedure. I refer, for example, to disciplinary procedures in the National Health Service. It would not be right for a clinician who was accused of doing something wrong in relation to one of these treatments not to be able properly to defend himself. In considering whether to make the disclosure, the clinician would have to decide whether he was entitled

1379
to do so, but if the clinician were faced with criminal proceedings over the disclosure, the ultimate judgment would be for the court. Your Lordships will not forget that, but for the exceptions, a disclosure is subject to criminal offence. We want to provide reasonable cover for licensed clinicians so that they can use their judgment in this area. However, their judgment will be confined by these matters—first, that the disclosure is necessary and, secondly, that it is for the purposes of proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether proceedings could include divorce proceedings. I have some difficulty in seeing how such information could be particularly relevant in divorce proceedings but if it were necessary for divorce proceedings, the matter could be properly covered. However, it would be for the clinician to decide whether, in his judgment, it was appropriate to make the disclosure.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked me to say something about the effects of the provisions in relation to the common law. I can do this briefly in my present circumstances. The position is that the common law protects confidential information in a general way. The Government felt—and your Lordships agreed—that that was not sufficient and that in this area we should have an additional criminal sanction. I repeat that it is an additional sanction. When we release the criminal sanction, it does not affect the scope of the general protection of confidential information which applies to those who receive the information knowing that it is confidential.
I believe that I have dealt with the detailed points that have been raised. I should add that the authority proposes to issue guidance to licensed clinicians in this area to help them decide whether to make disclosures in particular cases. That kind of practical guidance is, of course, subject to amendment in the light of experience. I am grateful to your Lordships for your support for the power to make further exceptions if practice should demonstrate them to be necessary, subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that we have proceeded in such a cautious way that only further exceptions are to be contemplated rather than going back in the way that he thought might be possible. With some confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated I had earlier, I renew my Motion that your Lordships should give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that there one or two drafting errors which have already caused noble Lords a certain amount of confusion. I take complete responsibility for them and I shall put them right if your Lordships have the Bill.
1380
In Clause 1, line 12, "educational needs of" should read,
"special educational provision that should be made for".
In Clause 2(a) "section 5(5) (c)" should read "section 5(7) (c)". In Clause 3(2), with regard to one of the new powers for the parent, after line 17,
"A parent shall have a right of appeal against a decision of a local education authority to",
there should be inserted the words,
"refuse to make a statement or cease to maintain a statement".
The last line of Clause 4 should read "section 8(2)" and not "section 8(1)". There are also consequential amendments to Section 5(6) and to Section 8(1) (a) in the schedule. I apologise for those errors. I shall introduce amendments in Committee to put matters right.
This Bill is concerned with an improved appellate structure against assessments and statements of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981. It affords new rights to parents which may he exercised in the interests of the welfare of their children who have learning difficulties, as defined by Section 1 of the 1981 Act.
At the outset it is right that your Lordships should know that by a series of case law decisions the courts have established two important and fundamental principles that affect the application of the Act. The first is that if suitable provision is not available within the maintained sector it must be made then outside the maintained sector at the expense of the local authority. If no special school is available, if such be appropriate provision, in the area, then provision must be made elsewhere outside the area.
The second important decision—there are three but I shall not trouble your Lordships with technicalities —is that, contrary to general belief, financial constraints on local authority spending are wholly irrelevant. The obligation to comply with these statutory provisions is mandatory. Such is the state of the law as an introduction to these amendments.
It is a modest Bill, at all events at present, of very limited scope. Of course the hope is that with your Lordships' help one will be able to improve the Bill as it goes through its various stages in the House and make it a much better provision. In no way does it interfere with the intendment of the 1981 Act which sought to give effect to the key proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in her report, proposals to which it is understood the noble Baroness still adheres. It is understood that the noble Baroness will seek during the passage of the Bill to make good certain omissions which my drafting has left. Those indeed will be welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Indeed it is in the wake of the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on 20th November 1991 in which it became wholly apparent on all sides of the House that substantial amendments were required to the appellate structure of the Act that I discussed this matter with my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness. At his suggestion —he was then, so to speak, appearing for the department—I wrote a letter to the department and drafted an agenda for discussion. In deference to my noble friend's

1381
interest, perhaps I may refer to these documents as the Cavendish papers because some of the suggestions in the papers are carried into the Bill. Other items in the Cavendish papers were not carried into the Bill on purpose because they were difficult to draft and they were more concerned with the problem of the shortage of speech therapists, training and guidelines, which were Items 5 and 6 of the Cavendish papers. But my noble friend Lady Blatch has taken these under her wing and they are currently being dealt with by the Government.
Other proposals in the Cavendish papers as to the removal of the appellate function of the Secretary of State and the setting up of a reconstituted appeals committee sitting with a legally qualified chairman whose procedures would be governed by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, a statutory tribunal from which there would be no appeal—a single-tier appellate structure instead of the two-tier structure which we have now—I did not draft into the Bill. I did it, I think, because I was for once rather timid. I am not sure whether I was right or wrong. I have discussed this matter with the department, which has at the moment an open mind. At least it is now accepted that the existing appellate structure ought to be amended. The question is how, with your Lordships' help—I certainly need your Lordships' help—this should best be done.
The approach adopted in the Bill is, I suppose, the minimalist approach. I adopted it because at the time I drafted the Bill I did not realise that there would be, so to speak, a totally new breath of fresh air in this matter and that the Government were going to accept in principle that something had to he done. So I adopted the minimalist approach, retaining the existing structure. I thought that I ought to owe your Lordships that explanation. It enlarges the existing appellate structure subject to certain safeguards that I have drafted into the Bill—to which, with your Lordships' leave, I may come to later—and it retains to a certain extent an appeal from the appeals committee against the decisions of the appeals committee on statements.
I have also introduced a qualifying provision on the appellate functions of the Secretary of State. That ensures that he must comply with the principles of natural justice, and not reach his decision on reports handed to him within the department by the inspectors on which the parties to the appeal have had no opportunity whatever to comment. That has given rise to serious problems in the courts—certainly in two cases, both of which I have been concerned with. It is a matter which should be put into the Bill and not be argued about at vast expense in the courts.
It will be a matter for your Lordships' consideration whether the approach adopted by the Bill for the appellate structure, which of course is crucial, or the Cavendish paper approach is preferred; or, indeed, whether some other measures are appropriate. As I have said—and it is now accepted by the Government—the situation is far from satisfactory. Substantial reform is requisite.
1382
In the past year or so about two-thirds of the appeals to the Secretary of State from the decisions of the appeal committees have involved children with special learning difficulties. The main purpose of the Bill is to generate discussion and evoke amendments, so that the situation may be resolved to the satisfaction of your Lordships' House and to the satisfaction of government.
We had an all-party meeting on the Bill, under the auspices of my noble friend Lady Faithful]. It was attended by the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock, Lady Blackstone and Lady David, together with other noble Lords. It was a very constructive meeting. It was clear that there was general agreement on substantial matters, and that the matter was being approached, quite rightly, on a wholly non-party basis. I approach it from these Benches in that fashion.
As to the structure of the Bill, I am afraid that it is complex. That is because the 1981 Act is a desperately complex provision, and to try to get it right, one has to ride along with that complexity. There are, first, mandatory statutory assessments and then, later, statements. There is a mandatory statutory duty to assess the special needs of the child under Section 5(1) of the schedule. I had the Keeling schedules prepared because without them, quite frankly, it is very difficult to follow what on earth is going on. But, having made an assessment, the LEA has a discretion whether to determine the special educational provision that should be made. There is no way that one can attack that discretion in a court of law. Therefore, right at the beginning of the road there is a gap and something that needs to be done.
In the Keeling schedules to the Bill, I have set out Sections 5 and 8 of the Education Act 1981. Your Lordships will find that I have introduced an entirely new structure for consideration. It imposes a six-month time limit during which the decision of whether to determine the special educational provision must be given. It also enlarges the jurisdiction of the appeal committee. The enlargement is of course important and is set out in heavy type in the schedule.
I have already dealt with the contents of subsection (6). Subsection (7) provides for the six-month period. It also provides for the notification in writing to the parent of the decision and of the reasons for making it, the "parent's right of appeal" to an appeal committee and the obligation to,
"make arrangements for enabling the parent of the child to appeal".
Then, under subsection (8), the new powers of the appeal committee are, if it thinks fit, to direct that a new assessment be made, to direct that a special educational provision be determined by the education authority, or to dismiss the appeal.
One of the problems is that the mandatory provisions to make a statement under subsection 7(1) of the Act only bite if the LEA is of the opinion, after assessment, that it should determine the special education provision which should be made for the child. But, as I have said—and I make the point again believing, as I do, that it is so important—if as a matter of discretion, or for some reason concerned

1383
with financial constraints, the LEA makes a decision not to make a statement, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Hence the importance of the new structure to rectify the gap. Therefore, we have introduced subsections (6) to (8). Moreover, for the sake of clarity, we have enshrined that right in the amendment to Clause 3(2)—namely the new subsection (1A)—which I have already mentioned. That replaces the old Section 5(6) whereby if the LEA, after having made an assessment, decides that it is not required to determine the special educational provision which should be made, the parent may appeal to the Secretary of State.
But, first, that is not a proper appeal. It is done in writing and is not like the appeal committee procedure in which the parties are represented, where they are examined and cross-examined and where the proceedings are conducted with all due and proper formality. They are written representations to the Secretary of State; but he can do virtually nothing. I say that because under Section 5(8) as it stands—which I should like to remove, if I can—where a parent has appealed to the Secretary of State, the latter has only the power to direct the LEA to reconsider. In other words, there are no teeth, there is no bite and no sanction. It is a cumbersome and far from satisfactory process. As I have said, representations to the Secretary of State in that context are not a real hearing at all in any sense of the word.
I turn now to statements. Again, I am afraid that this is also complex because of the two-tier structure. However, perhaps I may explain it simply to your Lordships. There is a two-tier appellate structure against the special educational provision in the statement. Under Section 8(1) to (5) in the schedule a parent goes to the appeal committee. Under subsections (6) and (7) a parent applies to the Secretary of State where, on appeal, the appeal committee confirms the LEA, or where the LEA makes a decision on a case remitted to it by the appeal committee and the parent is dissatisfied.
It is accepted that that appeal on a remitted case direct from the LEA direct to the Secretary of State is rather cumbersome. But it is expected that the appeal committee will exercise the new power to amend the statement under Section 8(4) (c). This is an entirely new provision that I fear is desperately controversial.
It may well be that your Lordships would introduce an amendment to the contrary. But some resolution must be found. This would mean that the amendment of the statement by the LEA would be final and not subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. In effect that would mean in practice that the only appeal to the Secretary of State is against the decision of the appeal committee confirming the decision of the LEA.
There is a new provision that the appeal committee should have a new power to dismiss an appeal; again a decision which would be final. There is the new subsection (1A) to which I have referred which will have the effect of reversing two wholly unacceptable decisions in the Isle of Wight cases, which were quite correctly made as a matter of legal construction, which said that the LEA, which had maintained the statement, could just as a matter of discretion cease to maintain the statement. It had to give no reasons. It
1384
was a matter of discretion. I am adding to subsection (1A): there is a right of appeal against the decision of the authority to refuse to maintain a statement.
Clause 4 is consequential. But there is a new provision of safeguard in Section 8(8); that is the requirement that the Secretary of State, on appeal—if your Lordships retain the existing two-tier structure —is to be governed by this rule of natural justice.
There is another new safeguard in Clause 2 of the Bill. It affects the composition of the appeal committee and deals with the point put quite simply by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the local education authority should not sit there as judges in its own cause. In other words members of the committee who have been concerned in making the decision under appeal should not be allowed to sit.
For your Lordships' assistance before I sit down, the composition of the appeal committee is dealt with in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1980. The members are nominated by the local authority. There are two categories of members; three, five or seven members sit together. The first category are members of the LEA or of any education committee of the authority and the second category are persons who are not members of the authority or of any education committee. It is provided that those within the first category, (a), shall not outnumber (b) by more than one. But this gives the local authority members and the members of the education committee a predominance. In practice—I shall not go into detail—that has not been at all satisfactory.
Broadly speaking, that is the need for the Bill and the proposals with which we have to seek to deal. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are clearly aspects of the Education Act 1981 which are not working as well as they should. The system dealing with the identification and assessment of children with special needs ought to be improved and therefore we on these Benches welcome the Bill in principle. Indeed, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the work he has done in preparing it. I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House will share my view in this respect.
There are however some parts of the Bill as presently drafted which we believe do require some amendment. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has accepted that, but I shall come to those later.
There are also some wider issues concerning special needs provision which now need attention, which go beyond the contents of the Bill and on which it would be helpful to know the Government's intention. I am not sure what the Minister will say about the Bill tonight, nor to what extent the Government intend to cover special educational needs in the White Paper or indeed in the legislation that we understand is planned for the autumn. Perhaps we shall hear a little about that later.

1385
It is of great importance that everything possible is done to support children with special needs at school and to help their parents cope with those needs. With proper support many of these children will come through and be able to lead independent and successful lives as adults. Without them they will fail to get near their potential achievement levels and their later lives may be blighted by this failure. The greater number of such children who can be educated in mainstream schools the better. Much of the 1981 Act was about how to achieve that.
In seeking to amend the Act I therefore hope that your Lordships' House will not fall into the trap of being over-critical of this piece of legislation. It was in many senses a landmark in our provision for children with special educational needs. It sought to provide a legislative framework for the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee. I am delighted that she will be speaking later in the debate today. It set out the main principles of her report: the right to education in ordinary schools; governors' responsibility to see that pupils' needs are identified and met and the right of parents to take part in decisions about their children's schooling. That, of course, is central to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wishes to achieve.
The main underlying problem that we face today is an unintended consequence of the Education Reform Act 1988 rather than a direct result of the 1981 Act. This is that there has been a considerable increase in the demand for statements from parents. This of course has implications for resources and is likely to affect the time it takes for a local education authority to deal with individual requests for statements.
The 1981 Act demands that a statement is made when provision "generally made" in a school is not adequate to meet a pupil's special educational needs. The increase in the demand for statements seems likely therefore to reflect a drop in "generally made" provision. What appears to have happened is that since the introduction of LMS after the 1988 Act schools have found it more and more difficult to meet special educational needs from their allocated budgets. So statements are seen as a way of either getting more resources or removing children from ordinary schools who are both expensive to educate and whose performance at school might have an adverse effect on the school's league table ratings. That is something we want to avoid. I understand that the Audit Commission and HMI are reporting on these and other matters. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when the report is due to be published.
As far as I know, it has always been accepted that statements should not be provided for more than about 2 per cent. of pupils. I believe that that is what the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, proposes. LEAs and schools do not have unlimited resources. As my former colleague, Professor Klaus Wedell, one of the country's leading experts on special educational needs provision, has said:
"The statement procedure in fact represents a way of selecting which pupils should be given priority"
1386
for special provision. At the same time, under the procedure all the parties should know how provision is to match the child's needs and there should be regular evaluation to ensure that aims are being met.
Escalating demands for statements must clearly be avoided—I am sure that your Lordships agree—if we are not to prolong even further the period that parents have to wait while statements are being prepared. One problem is that no one is altogether clear about what the levels of "generally made" provision should be. LEAs are now required to report on their special needs provision, including what is done in ordinary schools. The Department of Education is meant to monitor that provision. The problem is that no one is sure what the standards should be. That is complicated by the present provision for the local management of schools. Even if it is known what the standards should be, it is not clear how they are to be monitored under the new arrangements for school inspection. Perhaps the Minister will help us by saying what the Government plan to do about that under the new system. Will HMI be made available for that task or not?
Without consistent standards, including the vital matter of open admission to schools for those with special needs, one of the fundamental principles of the 1981 Act will not be implemented, and more and more parents will, with justice, demand statements. At the heart of this question, as at the heart of so many, lies the issue of adequate resources, including adequate resources for locally managed schools. The Government must address the matter in the light of their findings from the reports by LEAs in response to Circular 7/91. It would be useful to know whether the Government intend to publish those findings, given their new commitment to open government.
Perhaps I may now turn to the more specific issues raised in the Bill. Parents' rights are immensely important in this area. Parents faced with the prospect of a child who has learning difficulties are bound to be anxious and interested if they are good parents. In strengthening their rights, I have every sympathy with the Bill; but we must be sure that what is proposed is practical and achievable and that it will not leave those parents and their children in any way worse off.
Without going into too much detail—that can be done in Committee—I should like to run through the main provisions, indicating where we from these Benches support the Bill and where we have some reservations. I shall begin with the time limit on statements. It is of course intolerable that parents should have to wait—in some cases for as long as a year. What is not certain is how often the guidelines that statements should be completed within six months are ignored. We have only anecdotal evidence about that matter.
The question that we need to consider is whether what is proposed in the Bill is too rigid. While there should be strong pressures on local authorities to complete statements within six months, should we not allow for some flexibility to deal with the very difficult cases that sometimes occur? The problem is that in such cases various different agencies must be involved in the preparation of statements. It is not just the

1387
education authority and the schools. For example, the advice of various health service professionals may need to be sought. There are sometimes difficulties in getting parents to take children for assessment appointments with those different agencies, and time can be lost in arranging those appointments and persuading parents to keep them. I hope that it will be possible to amend the Bill to allow for some flexibility even though I accept in principle that a tough time limit is desirable.
The proposal for a local appeal procedure is highly desirable in cases where an LEA decides not to make a statement after a child has been assessed. Similarly, we welcome a local appeal procedure against an LEA decision to cease to maintain a statement and the requirement that an LEA tells parents about their right of appeal in such circumstances. It would be disgraceful if a local authority did not provide that information to parents.
It must also be right that the Secretary of State, when determining an appeal, should make available any information he has received so that the interested parties can comment. There might also be a time limit on the Secretary of State. We have had examples of central government departments taking an inordinately long time to deal with such cases. There should be a requirement on the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decision.
I am, however, less sanguine about the Bill's proposal to remove from appeal committees all elected members of LEAs. While it would be wrong for such people to be in a majority, to remove them altogether—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. We are not trying to do that. It is only those who have been concerned in the decision-making process under appeal.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving that clarification. It would be unusual for an elected member to become involved in a decision about a case; it is the officers who normally make such decisions. Local authority members often review critically decisions made by their officers, not just in this area but in many others. They often have a good deal of knowledge and expertise about the issues as well as being capable of independent judgment. I accept that if a member had been directly involved in an earlier decision relating to an individual case, it would be desirable for that person not to be a member of the appeal committee.
That brings me to the last matter upon which I wish to comment. The Bill provides new powers for appeal committees to amend a statement of special educational needs when a parent appeals. On the face of it, that looks all right; but, in practice, it runs the risk of lay groups overturning the conclusions of a professional assessment within democratically agreed LEA policies. I wonder whether that can be right. As a lay person on an appeal committee, I should be reluctant to involve myself in decisions about appropriate treatment for a pupil. The danger is that some children may be inappropriately placed because of a lay committee's insufficient knowledge. It may
1388
also lead to escalating costs which in these days of financial constraint, as I am sure the Minister will agree, local authorities cannot meet.
However, apart from those reservations we welcome the Bill and hope that the Government will consider favourably what it proposes, perhaps doing so in the somewhat wider context of ensuring that the general provisions in schools are adequate in the context of LMS and after the publication of the Audit Commission/HMI report when we should be clear about some of the broader issues.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, provides a welcome opportunity to discuss the workings of the 1981 Education Act which broke a tremendous amount of new ground. That Act has been tremendously helpful to many bodies in their efforts to bring special educational needs to the forefront of education planning.
The Bill is timely because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has just mentioned, our education system has experienced a period of tremendous upheaval. Therefore changes are bound to be required in virtually all our education legislation. That process is inevitable and we shall need time to catch up with all the changes.
The problem of a lack of resources has been mentioned. That problem has bedevilled the area of special educational needs for as long as those needs have been recognised as a separate area within education. Indeed the provisions of the 1981 Act have always been at the mercy of the assessment of priorities and the allocation of funds. Whether that is the fault of local authorities or government or a combination of the two is a subject which can be debated, and probably will be debated, for as long as both those organisations exist in any form. However, the provision which ensures that the appropriate funds are available will guarantee the effective working of any legislation in this field as in other fields.
I wish to make a few brief comments on the Bill. I do not think anyone can have any objection to any of the aims of the Bill. A more flexible approach should be adopted when dealing with special educational needs. Some effective appeal procedure should be put in place. I do not think anyone could find fault with those principles. Once we have accepted those principles, it is merely a matter of how we put them into operation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, thought that some of the provisions of the Bill were somewhat questionable. However, the provision of the six month guarantee was a provision that appealed to me the most as it will act as an enforcement tool. Again, the problem of funding arises, but there needs to be some limitation on the length of time taken to implement the provision. However, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, a flexible approach needs to be adopted when faced with special circumstances. I believe that

1389
there should be a fixed period of time by which some decision should be reached and some justification should have to be given for any delay.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we should consider the matter of the members of the appeal committee. Local education authorities should have some input there but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has pointed out, they are not necessarily excluded. Therefore I feel there are grounds for a compromise here. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would have little difficulty in reaching a workable solution. Ultimately if we are to make this Bill and this whole area a success, we must continue to review this matter as more research is carried out into how to help those with special educational needs and how to integrate those with special educational needs into our education system or into making provision for them outside the mainstream system. That is another area of debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has referred to this matter on numerous occasions. We must consider whether we have placed the correct emphasis on integration or on making provision outside the mainstream system.
To illustrate the requirements of those with special educational needs I give the example of a person in a wheelchair and a person with dyslexia. A person in a wheelchair may have difficulty in getting to a lesson whereas a person with dyslexia may be able to get to a lesson but he may not be able to understand dictation or what is written on a blackboard. It is virtually impossible to say whether or not people with special educational needs should be integrated into the mainstream system. This Bill may be the first step in a whole process of reassessing the way in which we deal with people with special educational needs and in the process of deciding how we incorporate such measures into the 1988 education Act. We shall need to consider how we can bring special educational needs more to the fore so that the country does not waste so many human resources and we do not wreck so many lives.
5.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in this debate. I give the Bill a general welcome and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing it. My information is that the 1981 Act operates unevenly in different parts of the country. It is not entirely clear, at least to me, what the reasons for that are. It seems to me that what this Bill attempts to tackle will therefore be welcome.
The Bill is particularly welcome at this time because, although it is right as a matter of policy to try to incorporate into the general educational system as many children as possible who have special educational needs, that policy is again working a little unevenly. There are many parents of children with special educational needs who at present are anxious whether there will be full and proper provision for their children. As I read the Bill, it secures the position of those parents in a much more acceptable way than is evident in the 1981 Act. For that reason the Bill will
1390
reassure parents who in many respects carry a heavy burden when they are responsible for children with special educational needs.
I await with interest the comments of the Government because I recognise that there may be points about the Bill of which I am as yet unaware. However, in general terms I support the Bill and I hope that it will, in this or some amended form, reach the statute book.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend for providing an opportunity to consider and, if appropriate, to change the arrangements that now exist for making provision for children with special educational needs.
I personally am deeply grateful to my noble friend for making the gracious and generous provision of a Keeling Schedule at the end of the Bill as it is drafted so that it is much easier to understand the Bill. I wish others had more frequent resort to that helpful device.
In 1988 I had the honour to chair a committee of inquiry which reported in 1989. Our remit was to inquire into discipline in schools and to make recommendations. Our terms of reference were very wide because indiscipline was defined as anything that militated against the performance by a school of its proper function which was to enable young people to develop their full potential for adult life.
A very important factor in the ability of a school to do its job properly overall and to secure the good behaviour of all its pupils is the extent to which it is able to meet the educational needs of its pupils. Pupils whose needs are not met and who are frustrated in the struggle for achievement, which all your Lordships will remember so clearly from your school days, do not only suffer themselves but make others suffer too. They are a disruptive influence in the school at which they are pupils.
We discovered in the course of our inquiries that it was then reliably estimated that at any one time about 20 per cent. of the pupil population had special educational needs and that a tenth of those, or 2 per cent. of the total, were subject to statements, the effect of which was to secure for them treatment in some way different from the rest of the children and more appropriate to their special needs. The question that my noble friend is addressing is not, therefore, trivial or peripheral to the major issues of education for two reasons.
First, the number of individual children directly affected is substantial. Exactly how substantial I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us. Is statementing still running at the 2 per cent. which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, recommended or has it changed? If it has changed, is this because of a change in need, a change in measurement of need, or a change in policy?
Is it true, as I have heard it suggested, that one LEA at least has actually given a directive to its staff that no more statements shall be made? I ask that question so that my noble friend can kill the rumour if, as I very much hope, it is false, or take appropriate action if it

1391
is true. If it is true, that is a worsening of a situation to which we had already drawn attention in our report.
I wish to quote from paragraph 31 of chapter six which states,
"provision in special schools for pupils with special needs tends to be expensive. LEAs have many competing priorities for expenditure. We have been told that at least one LEA does not recognise emotional and behavioural difficulties as a reason for making special provision because it is not considered to be specifically a learning difficulty".
We went on, of course, to say that we found this to be unacceptable. Can my noble friend tell me whether this problem has been addressed since we reported and whether there are still any authorities taking this unacceptable line now?
We concluded the paragraph by stating the obvious but important fact that children who exhibit such disturbed patterns of behaviour that they cannot benefit properly from mainstream schooling
"can disrupt the education of other children".
That is the second reason that the issues broached by my noble friend's Bill are neither trivial nor peripheral.
Where there is need and where the system does not deliver the special treatment or provisions required to meet it, either promptly or at all, not only will the life chances of those particular children be reduced, those of other children will be affected also. My noble friend's concern is not only with the 2 per cent. but with all the others affected by them.
Learning is not an easy process for most of us. Glances your Lordships have attracted by speaking too loudly in the Library of the House while other noble Lords were preparing to speak will have reminded your Lordships of that if you had forgotten.
If one garrulous Peer can snap the thread of concentration of a dozen others working in otherwise ideal conditions, imagine what the effect of a couple of determined school children can be on the work of 20 or 30 others with nowhere else to go—and the diversion from them of the energy of the teacher to contain and diffuse the difficulty. That may be repeated time and again in lesson after lesson while the process of assessment continues and statementing is withheld. Of course children should be taught, wherever possible, in the school attended by their friends and neighbours. However, where that becomes impossible because of genuine needs of this sort the call for alternative arrangements is urgent.
We were therefore deeply concerned to discover in 1988 that evidence had already been given to the House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee in 1986–87 that some LEAs were taking far too long to assess and make statements. We could find no significant progress since that committee reported. We learned that it was not uncommon for the process to take a year or more. We received evidence ourselves of the deep stresses on both pupils and their schools when that happens.
One factor in that quite unacceptable situation was the provision of personnel by local education authorities to carry out the assessments on which the statements were based. We found that in 1987–88 the ratio of educational psychologists to pupils aged 5 to
1392
16 varied very widely from authority to authority—from 1:2,500 in some to 1:8,000 in others according to figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
At that time the Department of Education and Science had recently issued a draft circular to replace DES 1/83 and Welsh Office Circular 5/83 stating that:
"The Secretary of State expects that statements should be processed within 6 months".
It went on to say that anything longer should be exceptional. We therefore recommended (in paragraph 37) that local education authorities should set and maintain an establishment of educational psychologists adequate to achieve the target of six months for the processing of statements of special educational needs specified by the DES, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office in the draft circular. That was accepted by the Government, along with virtually all our other recommendations, and I hope that my noble friend can tell us what is now the position in that regard.
Whatever her reply, even if she quarrels with the means proposed she will find it difficult to resist the proposal in Clause 1 of my noble friend's Bill that six months should in future be the maximum time allowed for that process as it is the time Her Majesty's Government themselves recommended. The only difference between my noble friend the sponsor of the Bill and my noble friend the Minister of State's department is that, whereas the department's circular makes reference to exceptional circumstances, his Bill, as far as I can see, does not. If I am wrong my noble friend will correct me in Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that is quite right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. My noble friend the Minister will doubtless argue that there are many hard cases and my noble friend Lord Campbell will no doubt argue that they make bad law. We shall listen with deep interest and be persuaded by whichever is the most persuasive. At present I tend to favour some letout, but the least we can expect is that the most persuasive argument will be that which puts forward the most reliable way of securing that such cases are dealt with both thoroughly and within a maximum period of six months, does not offer to recognise as "exceptionally difficult" more than a modest proportion of cases and does not provide for those cases to be sidelined for indefinite periods. There have to be buffers even at the end of the siding.
The appeal provisions in the remaining clauses of the Bill are important and highly constructive. However, my noble friend's expertise in such matters is so much greater than mine that I do not propose to delay your Lordships with my views on them, beyond one point which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I thought that she had it right before she was helpfully interrupted by my noble friend. It seems to me that Clause 2 has the effect, as drafted, of excluding any member of a local education authority from an appeal committee. That may not be my noble friend's intention and it may not be the effect

1393
of the clause. Nevertheless, it is a matter which we should consider in Committee because I believe that some input to those committees from the local education authorities would be highly constructive.
It remains only to ask my noble friend the Minister to look kindly on a Bill which addresses a problem which was already pressing in 1988, which causes great distress to some and significant harm to many, and which I would have expected to have been dealt with in the three years which have now elapsed since our report was published.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have written to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to say that I have to leave at 6.30 p.m. I had hoped that the debate would be over but it now looks as if it will not be. I apologise to any other noble Lords whose speeches I shall not hear. I shall read the reports of their speeches with great attention.
I know that we are all very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has taken the trouble to bring the Bill before the House. As he said, it proposes a six-month time limit for statementing procedures undertaken by LEAs and changes the arrangements for appeals against assessments and statements of educational need made under the terms of the 1981 Act. To both of those aims I can give general support but will have a few suggestions and criticisms to make which I hope the noble Lord will find that he can accept when we come to Committee stage.
I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord has brought forward this amendment Bill now because I know that a great many people involved in education and the working of the Act have concerns about what is happening. Everyone who has spoken has made that point.
The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, published in 1978 estimated that about 2 per cent. of all children would require specific protection and procedures to meet their special educational needs. That forecast has not been borne out in practice. Some counties have over 4 per cent. of their school populations with statements. That presents problems both as regards the availability of professional time and expertise to make the assessments and the additional costs of meeting the requirements in the statements. One south eastern county has found that the cost of supporting its pupils with statements in mainstream schools has increased ninefold in the four years to 1991–92 to some £4 million. From other sources and from parents one hears of delays in the making of statements, for whatever reason—it may be a shortage of professionals or fear of the financial commitment. It is that point which the Bill addresses.
Several interest groups, and a number of Peers, are pressing for a wide-ranging review of the 1981 Act. There is no wish to go back on the basic principle of the Act—the maximum sensible integration of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools—but rather on the operation of the timetables and procedures for assessment and statementing and the financing of the provision needed. I should also
1394
like to see an assessment of how well integration is working and whether there is always complete integration or instead the creation of units which remain very much units within the mainstream schools where there is not much mixing.
We heard that the Audit Commission and HMI engaged in a joint study of special needs, which will appear shortly. We hope that that will point the way to what needs to be done. We have, too, the promise of a White Paper in the late summer or the autumn. I should like to see the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, chair a new committee to review the working of the Act after 11 years and to bring forward updated recommendations.
There is widespread concern about the effect that formula funding may have now that all schools manage their own financial affairs under LMS. Under formula funding it is no longer open to the LEA to add staffing or other resources to individual school budgets on the merits of the case. If special needs funding is to be part of a formula-based element of school budgets then all schools are treated equally irrespective of whether they have an above or below average share of statemented pupils.
The alternative, under present arrangements, is for statements to carry with them specific funding additions to school budgets. Increasingly schools can be expected to look for such additions. This is both an engine for increased statementing and in tension with the principle of maximum delegation to schools. But if increased levels of specific budget addition are not agreed, there may develop an increased reluctance by schools to accommodate a child with special needs. One fears too the non-acceptance or removal from the ordinary school of an expensive to educate child whose learning outcomes and examination results may seem likely to detract from that school's published results, which governors fear may affect the popularity of the school. That needs to be examined.
Perhaps I may make a few points on the Bill. There could be very difficult or complex cases in which assessments and statements take more than six months—that point has already been made—possibly because of shortage of staff with professional expertise or perhaps shortage of cash. It seems to me that in those cases the LEA should give an explanation of the reasons for the delay. There should be a little flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, requested, and perhaps there will be an opportunity to put that into the Bill.
With regard to the composition and powers of the appeal committee, the proposal for simpler arrangements seems right. But there is justifiable concern on the part of LEAs and the local authority associations about the prospect of reduced LEA input into what will remain effectively an educational decision having significant resource implications in some cases. It seems wrong in principle that parents should have the right of further appeal to the Secretary of State while the LEA has no right of appeal against an amended statement, which may have significant financial implications and to which it has not been a party. I also misunderstood the point about the LEA

1395
representative on the appeal committee, but I presume that the author of the Bill understands the issue and so I shall not pursue it.
I query the proposal in Clause 3(3) which would empower an appeal committee to amend a statement as it deemed appropriate. The appeal committee might not have a member with the professional knowledge which enables it to do so. It is possible that the appeal committee might not amend the statement to suit the parents' wishes.
Perhaps I may say a few final words on the education of young people with special educational needs who remain at an educational establishment after the age of 16. Where a young person is covered by a statement, there is a duty on the authority to make that provision. But that duty does not extend to cover students aged 16 to 19 in further education or training. The situation has been made worse by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which excludes all young people in the new FE sector from the 1981 Act provision. Far from extending the scope of the 1981 Act to all young people in education and training, it excludes a further tranche—those in sixth-form colleges—leaving the duty applying only to those still in schools. I strongly believe that we should look again at this provision. I hope that the House will be willing to accept an amendment along those lines.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the DES pamphlet Children with special needs, published in February this year, which has on it the words "Parent's Charter". Page 17, under the paragraph headed "Choices after 16", reads:
"Education for young people with special educational needs does not stop at 16. Depending on his or her particular interests and aptitudes, a young person can continue to have his or her needs met by staying on at an ordinary or special school, or by moving to a sixth form college or a further education college".
Now that is just not right. I hope that the Minister can make some comment when she replies. Otherwise, I wish the Bill well and hope that it has an easy passage through the House.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I speak briefly in support of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for having taken so much trouble over it and for giving the House a chance to look at some of the areas in which the 1981 Act is not succeeding.
The Bill seeks to remedy some quite manifest shortcomings in the implementation of the 1981 Act. In accordance with the provision of that Act and the spirit of subsequent educational legislation, it places a strong emphasis on the rights of parents to ensure proper provision within a reasonable time to meet the special needs of their children. I should prefer a certain flexibility in the period of six months proposed. However, it should be a general aim. Certainly the decision of a local authority whether to make a statement on a child should be made far more speedily than often is the case.
It is right that if the authority decides not to make a statement, the parents should have the right of appeal to a genuinely independent appeal committee.
1396
Again, it is important that parents should have a right of appeal to such a committee if an authority decides that it does not wish or cannot maintain a statement for a child.
The provision in the Bill for parents to he informed of any reports to the Secretary of State from the HMI in the case of an appeal against a statement is undoubtedly needed and is a matter of natural justice. It seems to me very important that the appeal committee should be totally independent of the LEA and able to propose its own revision of a statement. But I suspect that with regard to both those points there will be difficulties in practice. I agree that the LEA should at any rate be able to give its knowledge and expertise to the appeal committee, though it should not be by any means in the majority. It will be difficult for the LEA if the new proposal or revision by the appeal committee turns out to have important resource implications, as they probably will. That is an area which will need to be clarified. It would be nice to be able to say that shortage of resources is no reason for an LEA not to make the recommended provision; but in practice that is an increasingly idealistic stand to take.
I believe that where this kind of new provision in the appeal committee comes in, we may find increasingly long and burdensome litigation following. Once again the time factor will become very important. Reference has mainly been made to how long it is for parents to wait; but for a child six months is an eternity in their school life before provision is made. I hope that whatever the final arrangements about the new style appeal committee, they will not need further litigation.
The consideration of resources lies behind all the points that have been made. That leads away from the present Bill to wider issues. It will not come as a surprise to noble Lords to learn that I am very worried about the implementation of the 1981 Act as a whole. The present Bill is designed to improve that implementation in certain respects but a great deal more is needed. After all, it is more than 10 years since the Act came into force. As we heard, in that time there have been innumerable changes in school education, changes which are still in rapid progress. For example, we can be less and less certain what the future powers and resources of local education authorities will be or over how many schools their writ will run. Therefore the time has come to reconsider some of the basic principles of the 1981 Act, to re-think them and to allocate responsibility for putting new principles into practice. I crave your Lordships' indulgence for straying so far from the confines of the Bill.
However, I shall confine myself to calling your Lordships' attention to three issues which I believe need fundamentally to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the first: the provision of post-school education for young people after the age of 16. At present the responsibility for providing resources for such education is unclear. I have the honour to be a member of a body called the Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability. About two years ago it

1397
published guidance for disabled students on how to apply for higher, further or continuing education. On reading the handbook recently, it struck me that it is now completely useless. We shall have to begin the task of issuing another handbook. I have no idea what we can put in it at present. How young people with physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities should proceed to continuing education requires urgent consideration. It is of the greatest importance for those young people.
Secondly, in addressing the subject of children with special needs, the Parent's Charter referred to a small number of children for whom a statement would be issued by the local authority. In most cases it suggested that provision for a child's special needs would be made after a full assessment but without a statement being made or maintained. That was the intention of the report on the education of children with special needs. I believe that it was the intention of the 1981 Act. However, as we have heard today, in at least some authorities the number of statements has vastly increased, generally as a result of parental demand. Although there are a number of authorities in which statements are not frequently made, the overall projected increase in statements for 1993 is 12 per cent. The increase in requests for statements is more than three times that number.
There is a substantial increase in the demand by parents for statements. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the reason is clear. Money goes with a statemented child. Other provision must be found from normal school budgets. With the increased development of LMS—the devolvement of the management by schools of their budgets—and the pressure of such schools to raise the academic standards of the vast majority of children with no special needs, it is not surprising that the only security for provision for children with special needs appears to parents to be a statement which carries a legal obligation on the local authority to meet the need.
The resource implications of meeting special needs are daunting. As parents are increasingly regarded as customers or consumers with rights, the issue of statements has become an issue of rights which I fear will lead to more protracted and expensive litigation. Parental trust of local education authorities has been perhaps fatally eroded. Children with statements are becoming a class apart, just as the handicapped used to be considered as a class apart. The notion that was central to the 1981 Act of a continuum of special needs—it includes at one end the needs of exceptional mathematicians or musicians through the fairly modest needs of the temporarily deaf or the child who has missed a great deal of school through illness, to the non-ambulant, non-speaking, severely mentally and physically damaged disabled child—has been lost sight of as the number of statemented children rises and non-statemented children are left out of the need for special provision. As we have heard, 20 per cent. have that need. It is because the continuum of provision has been lost sight of that the role of the statement and the resources that go with it need to be reconsidered.
1398
The third and final area is a failure of the 1981 Act which has been referred to recently in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to it today. I believe it to be of fundamental importance. It is the provision for those children who used to be referred to as maladjusted children and are now known—in my view most clumsily and unfortunately—as children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
It is necessary to mention those children separately because their numbers are increasing extraordinarily fast and because provision for their education is lamentably inadequate. The fate of those children is of vast significance. It would not be an exaggeration to say that if we could get the educational provision for those children right, we could radically change the outlook for the control of crime and for our overcrowded prisons.
I shall not take up your Lordships' time by going into details. But at present far too many such children are being excluded from school either permanently and officially or, more worryingly still, temporarily and unofficially. The latter category is known as children on hold. There are no figures available for children on hold. The heads of many schools do not even know how many children in their school are in that position. But even for those children who are officially and permanently excluded from a school, for whom the local authority has an obligation to provide alternative education, often virtually no alternative provision is made. Sometimes the provision is pitifully inadequate—a mere hour or two hours a week of home tuition in a home not generally fitted up with a suitable schoolroom as one can imagine. I believe that it is a matter of extreme urgency to review the powers of schools to exclude pupils and the duties of local authorities, or of the Department of Education in the case of grant maintained schools, to provide suitable alternatives.
I believe that that will involve the opening or reopening of boarding schools. Boarding provision is virtually the only solution for many such children who are at the bottom of the line. I am thankful that the boarding provision provided must now conform with the demands of the Children Act and therefore will be subject to rigorous inspection. However, boarding schools should also be subject to rigorous inspection as regards the education that they provide.
An issue of extreme importance, as has been mentioned, is the future role of the inspectorate with regard to the provision of education for children with behavioural difficulties. We are awaiting the findings of the Audit Commission on the working of the 1981 Act. I believe that its report is due to be published next month and my informed guess is that it will make extremely gloomy reading. We are also looking forward to the publication of a White Paper in time for the new school year. It is hoped that it will contain proposals for the provision of all kinds of special needs, both for the most able and least able.
Although I warmly welcome the present Bill so far as it goes, I urge your Lordships to support the view that there is a need for more radical changes in legislation. I am well aware that the expectations of educational provision are higher than they were in

1399
1981 and that parents now think of themselves as having rights. The combination of those two factors leads to a demand for vast sums of money to be spent on the education of children with special needs. That money does not exist and will not be forthcoming. In my view we could do more without incurring enormous expenditure if we could revise the structures correctly and redefine the responsibilities. That will take time; but in the end it will be good for the children concerned and, importantly, it will represent long-term value for money. That applies in particular to the children who I persist in thinking of as maladjusted.
I apologise to your Lordships for carrying the discussion into such wide fields, and I fully understand the dangers of riding a hobby horse. Therefore, I shall conclude by saying that I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing the Bill. Not only has it given me a chance to get my hobby horse out of the stable again, but it may lead to a modest but important improvement in provision and to greater justice for those children and their parents.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, because I had the great honour to be chairman of the board of governors of a special school which she opened 10 years ago. Her famous report had just been published, and that was followed by the 1981 Act.
Most of us were excited about the new thinking produced by the noble Baroness's report, in particular that the needs of the child should be paramount. We expected that statements would lay out a list of the requirements of a particular handicapped child and that those needs would largely be met. However, I am afraid that in many LEAs the wheel has turned full circle. Often the statement is written in the context of the provision that is available rather than in the context of what is needed by a particular young person. The provisions may well be determined by budgetary restraint, replacement policy and resource implications. In addition, there is often a need for medical treatment by a physiotherapist, occupational therapist or speech therapist. The temptation to leave out of the statements such expensive treatments is obvious.
Like my noble friend Lord Elton, I have heard the rumour that, as a result of resource implications in recent years, some LEAs have operated a policy which avoids the writing of statements when it is thought that the resources do not exist within the authority. I shall be pleased to hear from my noble friend whether there is any truth in such tales. Parents who expect to receive a statement which is full in its description of their child's needs often receive one which instead is specific only in terms of the provision which a particular school in a local education authority can offer. Nowadays the statement often safeguards the local authority rather than the child.
As we heard from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, appeals are difficult. For instance, there is
1400
no right of appeal if the authority does not find a prima facie case to begin an assessment. The appeal committee is constituted by the local education authority and can often be seen to endorse the decision of the LEA's employees in carrying out policy generated by its officers and endorsed by its members. The appeal committee cannot reword or amend the statement. It can only refer it back either to the original assessment team or to a new team constituted from the same local authority's employees.
I was pleased to hear a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It was that, although young people are entitled to receive special education until the age of 19, in the great majority of cases there is a reluctance on the part of many LEAs to maintain statements beyond the age of 16. Parents have few rights in that matter.
Those are some of the difficulties which parents run into as regards the statementing of their children and their lack of a fair appeals procedure. I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the Bill. I am aware of the amount of time that he has taken in drafting it and in seeking assistance from all quarters. I was also grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack who perhaps stretched out his summing up of the previous business in order that my noble friend could be in the Chamber to introduce his Bill. Noble Lords would have been sad if he had not made it.
Although I know that my noble friend has worked hard in drafting the Bill, I am unclear about exactly how far it goes and what it states. He read out a number of changes that he had effected to the Bill. He said that Clause 3(2) will insert the following words into the 1981 Act:
"A parent shall have a right of appeal against a decision of a local education authority to refuse to make a statement or to cease to maintain a statement under section 7".
Those words do not appear on the face of the Bill. As a good little boy and a Member of your Lordships' House I was brought up to understand that words which do not appear on the face of a Bill count for nothing. Therefore, a number of amendments must be made in Committee.
I support the Bill but in Committee I shall wish to strengthen it in many ways. I shall probably fall out with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, because I do not believe that the period of six months should be extended. Six months is a long time in the life of a school child with such difficulties and that of the parents. I do not agree with extending that in any way beyond six months, except in extremely unlikely circumstances. Also, for the reasons I have given, I believe that the local education authorities should be kept as far removed as possible from any form of appeal committee. Very often the people who take decisions of principle as to whether or not to close a certain school or to spend money on special education have friends who hear the appeals as regards the statementing of children. Therefore, there is not enough distance between the parties. It may be that I must have an argument about that with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Committee.
I am sure that the Bill will be welcomed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is a lot to be said for

1401
it both as regards parents' rights and the Citizen's Charter. I should think it will attract the support of the Government. I wish the Bill well and I hope that it will go a long way towards restoring the paramount rights of a statemented young person under the 1981 Act.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for bringing this Private Member's Bill before your Lordships today.
As was stated by many noble Lords in a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on 20th November 1991 on the Education Act 1981, this Act has been implemented well in some parts of the country—and we pay tribute to those authorities which are implementing it well. In other parts of the country it is being implemented not so well and, regretfully, in a few authorities it is not being implemented at all. That point was made by both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Elton.
It is cause for wonderment that the Department of Education seems to have been unaware—or if aware has taken no action—of areas in which the Bill has not been implemented. This Bill deals with a narrow but important area of anxiety. There are many other areas of anxiety outside the Bill; for example, inadequate and unclear information about the local education authorities' assessment procedures and the range of special educational provisions available; insufficient help in supporting parents during assessment; a lack of weight being given to parents' views during the assessment process; a lack of real choice about provision—and on that I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said because I know that after a recommendation was made that a child should go to a special school, a city treasurer asked whether there was a cheaper recommendation—failure to implement the role of a named person or parent adviser; insufficient use of the resources, in particular counselling skills, of the voluntary sector; and, lastly, a lack of support services such as child guidance services and speech therapists, as has been mentioned previously. However, we must discuss those problems on another occasion.
As has been stated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the Bill aims to improve the statementing process. It aims also to introduce a machinery whereby appeals can be made against local authorities' decisions not to issue statements or no longer to maintain them. Further, it aims to strengthen the appeals procedure. I support the introduction of a six-month limit for the statementing procedure of local authorities. If a child appears before a court, the local authority, in the form of the social services department, must bring a report before the court in much less than six months. Those reports are as serious as the statementing of children. Therefore, I support the six-month limit.
Perhaps we should look at the appeals committee from the point of view of the parents. Parents often
1402
feel that there are too many representatives from the local education authority on the committee and therefore that the appeal committee is in cahoots, so to speak, with the officers. However, I believe that there should be one representative from the local education authority on the committee in order that the education department and its local councillors know what is going on.
I recommend also that there should be a specialist on the appeal committee who should be perhaps a retired paediatrician. That specialist should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to serve on the committee. I believe that in that way not only would the Ministry be represented but also there would be on the committee a specialist whose expertise would be valued by the parents.
Secondly, I believe that if such an appointment were made to the appeal committee, it would prevent many cases being referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is in the Chamber; I am sure that he would be happy not to have so many referrals on his desk. Also the parents would value that appointment.
I ask the Minister whether the recommendations of the appeal committee are binding. Somehow that point seems not to have been addressed. I wonder whether one should consider whether parents should have a right of appeal within a year of the findings of the appeal committee. In many cases an appeal is heard and the statement fulfilled, but fulfilled only in fact and not in spirit.
Many parents have been to see me about the way in which their children have been dealt with after a statement has been made and the recommendations fulfilled. It seems that parents have no power to alter the situation. For example, I heard of a dyslexic child for whom it was recommended that he should receive special treatment for his dyslexia. He was put into a class of 36 children younger than himself. The teacher had received a course in the teaching of dyslexic children but she could spare him only perhaps 10 minutes or a quarter-of-an-hour every day because she had to deal with the other children. The parents wanted to know how they could appeal against that. The mother worked, the father was out of work but they are now paying for the child to have special treatment out of school hours. That problem has not been addressed and it should be followed up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that the problem of lack of resources is extremely difficult. However, I have dealt with older children coming before the courts. The country spends a great deal of money on children who should have been helped in school but have not been helped. Ultimately they get into trouble, they come before the courts and that costs far more than it would have cost had they received the special treatment which they needed while at school. We should address that point, quite apart from bearing in mind the happiness and emotional satisfaction of the child and its family.
I support the Bill although I believe that further amendments must be made. I believe also that we should have further discussions on other aspects of the Education Act 1981.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to dwell for a moment on the recent past. The year of the Education Act, 1981, was a good year for MENCAP—of which I am now the Chairman—thanks to a great deal of help from some who were then, or are now, Members of your Lordships' House. In the first instance, through the good offices of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, Her Majesty the Queen graciously commanded that we became a royal society —the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults—which was a splendid accolade in that International Year of Disabled People.
That same year also saw MENCAP sitting down at the conference table with many other organisations representing people with disabilities. That alone was a major step forward for up to then we had been generally excluded from their deliberations. For this newly found acceptance I must pay a somewhat belated tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who was then President of the International Year of Disabled People in this country and who is such a strong defender of the rights of people with disabilities.
The year 1981 was good for us too in the world of education. In that February the noble Lord, Lord Renton, (then chairman of MENCAP) and I (as the, then, secretary-general) met with the Secretary of State for Education, Mark Carlisle—now the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—to press upon him a number of important clauses for the forthcoming Education Bill. We were received with great courtesy, listened to most sympathetically and, to our great delight, were largely successful, for the new Act determined that appropriate education and training would be given to children with a mental handicap or learning disability from the moment of diagnosis, following an apparently straightforward statementing procedure to be conducted by the local education authorities. The principles behind the Education Act 1981 remain excellent. It is in the operation of the Act where the problems have arisen, and I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on and thank him for drawing them to your Lordships' notice.
At present, the delay before a family knows whether a child will receive a statement can be as long as a year. There can be no justification for that. Parents who have a child with special educational needs are all too aware of the problems in delaying the educational process. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to highlight this frustrating situation with the experience of a family in the west country.
A statement was requested by this family back in June 1988. Until that time their son, then aged 10, had received only an interim statement following the introduction of the 1981 Act. That was clearly unsuitable for his needs seven years later. Exercising their right under Section 5 of that Act, his parents requested a statement to be made. Later in the same month, the LEA agreed that that should be done. In September 1991—some three years later—the family were still waiting for a final version of a statement for
1404
their son and that was only achieved when they contacted their MP, who supported the case. It is the missed opportunities for the development of that child, and many others in a similar situation, which need to be addressed and which Clause 1 of the amendment Bill does by setting a six-month deadline for local education authorities to decide whether or not a statement of special educational needs ought to be produced.
What happens if the parents are still not satisfied with the LEA's decision? Currently parents are not able to appeal against such a decision. The appeals procedure is undertaken by an appeals panel which, as your Lordships may have heard and as was stressed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, may contain employees of the LEA. The panel has only the right to confirm or reject a statement completely.
With your Lordships' permission perhaps I can again illustrate a case history. One family took its case to the appeals panel, which found in its favour. However, the LEA chose to ignore that decision stating that the panel was only "advisory". The parents subsequently appealed to the Secretary of State in March 1990 and are still awaiting a decision. I trust that it is not the incumbent Secretary of State in the Chamber who is being called to task in that regard.
As we have already heard, the amendment Bill introduces the right to appeal against an LEA decision not to issue a statement and to appeal if a statement is not maintained. It seems that there may well be further amendments to that procedure. However, to date the appeals panel will now have the power to amend a statement directly and no LEA employee will be able to serve on such a panel. Those changes are greatly to be welcomed and are entirely consistent with the Government's initiatives under the Citizen's Charter to try to give more power to the parents.
The American poet, Ezra Pound, wrote in the ABC of Reading,
"Any general statement is like a cheque drawn on the bank. Its value depends on what is there to meet it".
I trust that your Lordships will ensure that this particular cheque does not bounce; that amendments are made to the timing and efficacy of statements; and that the Education (Amendment) Bill achieves a Second Reading and a successful passage to the statute book.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, rising at the end of this Second Reading debate I too can do little more than echo what many other noble Lords have said. However, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for a timely Bill following on the debate last November initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which I believe drew attention to many anomalies in the Education Act 1981. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Swinton who has covered many of the points I intended to make. I ticked them off as he made them and it will give me the opportunity to be even more brief at this relatively late hour.

1405
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway gave a marvellous presentation of the Bill. Today he was in his legislative mode and was putting a complicated Bill into terms which even I find almost possible to understand. I have seen him in his litigious mode when he is preparing his cases. That is a different and fighting spirit, when he shows grim determination to overcome the vagaries of the Act. On occasions I have seen him come into the House with a glint of victory when he has been able to win some respite for the people for whom he has enormous care.
We are speaking about the cost in human terms. We speak of six months' delay and imposing a time delay. We have a British disease. When we send something away to be mended we are told we can have it back in two weeks' time. Why? It takes only half-an-hour or possibly an hour to mend. Is it due to lack of resources? In fact, I have noticed that the winds of the recession mean that we receive things back within a shorter time. One can have a shirt cleaned in 24 hours or on the same day. As new technology arises we should take a good look at the time taken for considering the cases of children who have educational problems and whose needs are not being served at the schools they attend.
Like my noble friend Lord Swinton, I have visited special schools. I am due to visit another in the west country the week after next. I have heard some extraordinary stories of delay. The parents of a boy requiring special education could ill afford to send him to a college which had around 80 pupils—35 supported by various local education authorities around the country. They approached one of the local authorities because they felt their child needed a statement and they certainly needed help in paying the school fees, the school being in the private sector. The school provided for the special educational needs of dyslexic and severely dyslexic children which are considerable because of the high staffing requirement. By the time a statement had been made four years later the boy had left the school.
Other anomalies exist with the activities of various local education authorities which should be examined. I hope that the Committee stage of the Bill will give us the opportunity to examine carefully not only the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway but also other amendments which may be tabled. I am not sure that we should go so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested in rethinking the provision of a statement. I believe that we were all rather surprised at the entry of a new transitive verb into the English language, "to statement". Now we have got used to it, it is being suggested that it should be abolished. I hope that it will be replaced with something which is more effective for the child.
I am conscious of the resource implications. I am also fairly sure that help given to a child with special educational needs at an early stage need not be for five or 10 years of his educational life. He could benefit greatly from a year or two of highly intensive and very caring attention in a family environment such as is available in a school which I visited a week or two ago.
1406
It returns severely handicapped children in a year or two to the mainstream of education. That is done at some cost, admittedly. But the cost for a child who has not had that provision is likely to mean that he is not going to contribute to society as an adult. It is likely to mean also that he is not going to achieve his potential and that he will be a drain on society and therefore in economic terms a big minus. If help can be given for a year or two at a cost of £8,000 to £10,000 a year, or whatever it is, that child will probably become a taxpayer and contribute to the benefit of society. In human terms, behind the complicated provisions of this Bill, that is something we must take into account.
I know that tomorrow evening on BBC2 there is a programme in the "Public Eye" series, beginning at 8 p.m., which looks into the incidence of dyslexic children among offenders. I do not know what the programme will contain and none of us will know until it is shown. I believe that it will show that it occurs not infrequently. It will be of great benefit if this Act can reduce the number of children who have been frustrated from a very early age, who have found their differences in ability have been misunderstood by the people who care for them and provide their education and who grow up to believe that they can get their own back on society and do it in a way which leads them to offend.
I am not making any proposal, but I have started an inquiry of my own with colleagues of mine in the dyslexia movement, together with His Honour Judge Tumim. We are looking into this matter. I hope that tomorrow night's programme will be of interest. I very strongly support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend further help us by telling us on which channel this programme will appear?
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I believe it will be shown on BBC2 at 8 p.m. tomorrow.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in speaking very briefly in support of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I join with others in congratulating and thanking him for introducing it. I speak from an angle which has not been fully covered by other noble Lords in the debate this afternoon, to whom I have listened with great interest and, for what it is worth, approval.
I should mention that I speak as the father of an 11 year-old child with Down's Syndrome who is extremely fortunate to have been placed in a residential Camphill Community School. What I have to say is therefore based on personal experience and on talking to others in the field.
My particular reason for supporting this Bill is that I believe that it would help those parents of children with varying degrees of mental handicap who find themselves up against what they may regard as over-enthusiasm on the part of their local education authority to place their child in a normal school when they believe that special residential education would

1407
be in their and their child's best interest. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that some of these children can also be very disruptive to normal children in a normal class. I am quite sure that, with the best will in the world, my own daughter would be.
I have also been very interested to hear other noble Lords mention the fact that sometimes perhaps statements are not being made and that there may be an element of what is known as resource implications in that. That is very serious. I believe that there is also an element of what I would call, in its mildest form, ideology which may creep into this problem. I believe that the enthusiasm in some local authorities, which I am afraid is fairly widespread, seems to be related to the current emphasis towards adult care in the community. Like that movement, it is certainly very well-intentioned.
But there are now serious worries about our ability to make adequate provision in the community for all the adults discharged from residential homes. Likewise, there are many experienced providers of special education who fear that too many children with comparatively severe special educational needs are being placed in normal schools when they would be very much happier and better cared for in special residential schools. I believe that the appeal mechanism envisaged by this Bill would do much to help these children and their parents and I therefore support it.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for having introduced his Bill to amend the Education Act 1981 in respect of assessments and appeals. The wide-ranging nature of today's debate has again demonstrated the deeply felt concerns which noble Lords have expressed on a number of occasions in recent months about the working of the 1981 Act. The aims of the Bill clearly have widespread support in this House and outside among the many voluntary bodies which contribute so much to securing improved educational opportunities for children with special educational needs and support for their families.
The 1981 Act is one of the major pieces of educational legislation this century. That gives me a further opportunity to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, how much we owe to the report of the Committee which she chaired. Her contribution today has rightly given us that sense of historical perspective about the importance of keeping the needs of individual children at the forefront of our deliberations. Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government remain firmly committed to the main principles which the Act enshrines: the emphasis on the needs of the individual child; the duty on local education authorities to identify, assess and provide for special educational needs; the right of parents to be involved in that process as partners; the presumption that placements should be made in mainstream schools if at all possible; and the need for current arrangements to be kept under review in order
1408
to ensure that provision remains sensitive and responsive to individual children's needs and parental wishes.
My noble friend Lord Swinton specifically mentioned resources, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and others. At this point I want to stress that we are also very firmly committed to the duties which the Act places on local education authorities to identify, assess and provide for special educational needs. We have increased spending on education by 40 per cent. per pupil since 1980 and the resources are there for authorities to use. However, I am naturally very concerned to look into specific cases of which your Lordships may have evidence. I add that we also remain committed to the application of the national curriculum to all of these children unless there are sound reasons why some exceptional arrangements should be made.
In that connection, perhaps I may make my second mention in only a matter of days of a special school that I have visited on Humberside. I was encouraged to see that the national curriculum was not being disapplied for any of the children in that school because it operates at all levels. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is important to ensure that all children make progress from whatever base they start. The national curriculum is certainly helping in that way.
The Government share, therefore, the concerns which have been expressed about the working of the Act. That also includes those instances that were so graphically illustrated by my noble friend Lord Renwick and by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Earlier this year we issued a guide for parents in the charter series on "Children with Special Needs". It set out parents' rights and responsibilities under the 1981 Act and has been generally welcomed. We have also been considering in what ways we should be addressing the concerns which have been expressed today and how we might improve and extend parents' access to the present arrangements for assessments, statements and appeals.
We have undertaken a fundamental review of the provisions of the 1981 Act which deal with these issues and of the supporting regulations. We have concluded that the Government should bring forward proposals later in the year to improve access to the present arrangements for assessments and statements, to give parents the right to express a preference for their child's school, and to provide for a coherent and comprehensive set of rights of appeal for parents who are not satisfied with the decisions made by local education authorities. We would propose also to make other amendments to the Act to clarify the present provisions. I shall now describe the proposals in brief.
The Government share the widespread concern that assessments and statements should be completed in a reasonable time. My noble friend's Bill would seek to achieve that by requiring local education authorities to complete their assessments and decide whether they should determine the child's special educational provision within six months of notifying a child's parents that they were going to carry out a multi-professional assessment of his or her needs.

1409
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a six-month deadline within primary legislation may well be too rigid. However, I note also the points made by other noble Lords, especially by my noble friend Lord Elton, who pointed out that cases taking more than six months should prove the exception rather than the rule. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, there will be some occasions when authorities are not able to complete the process in this time. Other statutory bodies which have to give advice may not do so in a reasonable period; the child may be ill; or some other circumstance may arise which is outside the authority's control. We would expect these occasions to be rare but they should be recognised. The present Bill would also not deal with the time taken by authorities to decide whether they will assess a child or at a later stage make a final draft statement.
The Government have decided, therefore, that there should be comprehensive provisions for regulating the time and way within which authorities carry through the whole process from initial notification to the LEA that an assessment might be necessary to the issue of a final statement. We propose to amend the 1981 Act accordingly, but we believe that the precise provisions should be set out in regulations rather than primary legislation. That will allow for the flexibility that has been mentioned by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It would also achieve greater flexibility and would allow more readily for amendment in the light of experience.
We should want to consult widely on the content and form of these regulations, particularly in relation to district health authorities and social services. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and other noble Lords, that in some cases six months can be too long a period. The Government recognise that at present the Secretary of State's powers would not enable him to provide for such a shorter assessment process—and nor would they enable him to provide for statements that might set out educational objectives for the child and ways of meeting them in the specification of special educational provisions. We propose, therefore, that the Secretary of State should be enabled to achieve such amendments to the present Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983.
We have also considered whether we should now provide for the parents of children with statements to have a statutory right to express a preference for the school that their children will attend similar to the right that parents already have under the Education Act 1980. We have concluded that it would now be right to allow parents to express their preference for a particular special or ordinary school from within the maintained sector. The authority's decision on placement would need to take account of the assessment of the child's needs; consultations with those schools which would or might be able to make the special educational provision; the needs of other pupils and the wise use of resources.
Although the 1981 Act aimed to secure the full involvement of parents as partners in the assessment
1410
process and in the making of statements, it also recognised that there would be some cases where parents and authorities could not resolve their differences. Special provision was made for appeals to the Secretary of State when an authority decided that it was not required to determine provision, following an assessment, and when parents, having appealed to a local appeal committee, remained dissatisfied with the special educational provision set out in the statement. As my noble friend Lord Campbell has explained, his Bill would make far-reaching changes in these provisions.
The Government have every sympathy with my noble friend's proposals and have been considering whether changes are needed to the present arrangements. The area, as noble Lords will recognise, is a complex one. I can say, however, that we are paying close attention to three issues. The first is how parents who are dissatisfied can secure much quicker redress than the present arrangements allow. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The second point is to consider how, consistently with the Parent's Charter, an appeal system can be made more independent. Again, my noble friend Lady Faithfull raised that issue. The third issue is whether there should be a single appeal body that would allow an oral hearing to replace the present two-stage process with all the delays that that process imports—a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The Government propose shortly to consult about firm proposals that have been devised against the criterion of the coherent and comprehensive rights of appeal for parents to which I have already referred. I shall acquaint the House with those at the earliest opportunity.
Noble Lords will wish to reflect on what I have said, but I should underline that this amounts to a wide ranging agenda for amending the 1981 Act. I trust that the Government's proposals will be seen as evidence of our commitment to children with special educational needs and their parents. The assessment of these children and the provision for their needs are a fundamental part of our policies for ensuring that the educational needs of all of our children are met appropriately and for securing the full and constructive involvement of parents in that process.
In this debate we have concentrated on the rights and responsibilities of local education authorities, parents and their children. I should not wish the role of schools, their governing bodies and staff to be overlooked. Relatively few children with special educational needs have statements. All those without statements—and many with them—are in ordinary schools and their governing bodies and staff have the responsibility of ensuring that the special educational provision that they may require is made.
I should now like to deal with some of the points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was concerned about time limits on the Secretary of State. Perhaps I may advise her that the Secretary of State has no power to make the parents or the LEAs respond within specified times. We are very sympathetic to the points that the noble Baroness

1411
has made. If the Secretary of State's role is retained, we would consider whether the Secretary of State should be able to make regulations in respect of dealing with that particular issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also referred to the publication of the Audit Commission HMI report. Perhaps I may advise her that we intend to publish it and we hope that that will be done in early July.
I should like to pay tribute to the energetic work and efforts and the great experience of my noble friend Lord Elton who led the inquiry into discipline in schools. That work has proved valuable since the report was published in 1989. Indeed, the report continues to be of great importance and relevance not only in connection with this debate, but in relation also to bullying, truancy and the other things that we are discussing in the department.
There has been a slight increase in the percentage of statements, but the figure still stands at exactly 2 per cent. Although the number of special schools continues to decrease steadily and the total number of pupils in special schools has decreased, the number of special-school teachers has nevertheless remained roughly constant over the period. That is leading to a significant improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. To quote my Humberside experience yet again, I witnessed a one-to-one pupil-teacher ratio there because that was the requirement for the children in that school. The latest information is that that is required by 2 per cent. of children.
Some disturbing points have been made about children with learning difficulties. I ask noble Lords who have examples of cases to bring them to my notice. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to an LEA which had decided to make no more statements in a particular year. We would regard that as serious and I should like to hear if that LEA can be named. I was also asked about the average time for assessments. The average time is about a year, which is much too long. I have not heard of four years but I certainly have heard of two years. To those of us working in the department, these are unacceptable time delays, and whatever we do that issue must be addressed during the course of the review.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked what had happened to the recommendation in his report which required that LEAs should maintain an establishment of educational psychologists to achieve the six months' target. That is a matter for LEAs but it is a matter about which no doubt the Audit Commission will have something to say. We shall be interested in looking at how the Act is working with local authorities. Authorities must secure provision for all the special educational needs of their pupils, including those of a behavioural nature. I can promise that I shall look into any specific case where there is alleged abuse of the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was concerned about LEAs' policy statements relating to extending their LMS schemes to special schools. They are in fact helping us to consider whether we can develop national guidelines on criteria for SEN provision. The noble Baroness also raised the
1412
important point of inspection. Inspections will be controlled and carried out to national standards set and monitored by a new independent office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to give confidence in reports. The chief inspector will consult governors on the specification for their school. An appropriate inspector will then be selected from at least two registered inspectors to lead a team into the school. All team members must have received appropriate training. Performance in the conduct and reporting of inspections will be monitored to ensure consistency. Inspections must follow detailed guidelines which will be drawn up by the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. We expect that the guidelines will set out how inspectors shall assess and report on the provision being made for children with special needs in ordinary schools. In the case of special schools, the chief inspector can be expected to offer more particular guidance on the nature of the team required and the detailed issues to be covered.
The noble Baroness asked about non-statemented special needs children. All schools, including special schools, will be subject for the first time ever to statutory regular inspection. We have made it clear that inspectors should report on all the school's provision, including special educational needs, for children in mainstream, both statemented and non-statemented. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was concerned about excluded children. I found some of her comments quite disturbing. She gave us warning of this problem and we are already looking into that within the department.
Concern was expressed about provision for post-16 education. There is a binding condition on governors of schools, where funds for pupils with statements have been delegated to them, to meet all the requirements of the statements. Very few authorities actually delegate the funds for pupil statements. The Further and Higher Education Act gives young people over 16 with learning difficulties a statutory right to have their special needs taken into account by the Further Education Funding Council and, where appropriate, by the LEA.
I have been asked how well integration is working. All I can say is that we have a vigorous programme of visiting schools, from the Secretary of State through the whole ministerial team. We are discovering many examples of good practice but we must of course continue to monitor; and that we shall do. It is simply not true to say that special educational needs provision cannot be met in sixth-form colleges in the wake of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. It is a matter for newly independent colleges from April 1993, but we are confident that the colleges will continue the existing good practice.
With regard to movement into further education, we expect the Further Education Funding Council to take into account the provisions specified in a pupil's statement when making placements after the age of 16. Local management budgets will be flexible enough to allow LEAs to delegate extra funds to schools or SEN pupils with or without statements. We are finding that some LEAs have imaginative and effective systems. We shall do what we can to spread best practice.

1413
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for introducing his Bill on assessments and appeals. We are indebted to him and to the many noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I hope that my noble friend will consider the further progress of his Bill in the light of what I have had to say. I have not been able to deal with all the detailed points raised by noble Lords but I shall consider them most carefully with my right honourable and honourable friends in another place as we complete our work on the further proposals we shall be bringing forward later in the year on the future structure of the education service.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, within the traditionally very short time allowed for this speech, I cannot find words adequately to thank noble Lords for their general support. I undertake to put the Bill in proper form via an amendment before the Committee stage. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for enabling me to move the Second Reading by what must have been a resort of timely subterfuge not unknown to any of us who practise at the Bar. I should also like to thank the learned judge who released me from his court.
The majority of those who spoke in the debate appeared to support Clause 2 as it stands. It was properly understood by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and I apologise for my intervention. Obviously, further consideration must be given to this matter in Committee. On the point of six months, in the interests of flexibility I am open to any form of amendment which commends itself to your Lordships' House. I could not draft one which would be effective. The term "reasonable circumstances" is so open to abuse that there seems to be no object in putting it in that way.
Many noble Lords felt that the Bill does not go far enough. I agree with them; but I felt that I could not get away with anything that went much further. For my part, I shall welcome proposals radical as they may be, as envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Faithfull; even if they to some extent enlarge the scope of the Bill. We have to deal with the uneven application of the Act throughout the country, a point to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford rightly referred. We have to deal with worries about the application of the Act; the absence of clear levels and standards (a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone); the policy not to make statements; statements on what is available and not on what is needed; safeguards for the local authority and not for the child, a point so eloquently put in one sentence by my noble friend Lord Swinton. How true in practice that sentence is. We also have to deal with the problems of post-school education after the age of 16; resources, and so on.
My noble friend Lord Elton with his expertise and knowledge on the subject is an authority on the
1414
matter. He set out a true perspective; indeed, until he spoke, I did not see it quite in that light. Your Lordships may think that we may have to reconsider the statement. That will not necessarily extend the scope of the Bill, because in that lies the crucial problem of the interests of the child, what is needed for the child, the resources for the child and so on. It is pretty useless in improving an appellate structure from something which is, so to speak, a rotten apple. I know that that overstates the matter, but I use the phrase graphically. However, that it is at the core of the problem.
Finally, I should specially like to thank my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. John Patten, who, I understand, took the trouble to visit the Chamber to listen to the debate. That is a rather rare occurrence in this place. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lady Blatch, who, frankly, has cast a breath of fresh air on the subject. She has a positive, sympathetic and constructive approach which I am sure is greatly appreciated by your Lordships. I know that noble Lords would wish me to express that word of gratitude.
If the Government were to table an amendment along the original Cavendish proposals and do away with the two-tier structure and the appeal committee, and then establish a proper tribunal which is subject to law, no one would be happier than myself. My great hope is that, if the Government do not feel like doing it, one of your Lordships will do so. Of course, I cannot do it to my own Bill. I can only hope that some noble Lords may be inspired to do so and that the majority view would be that such an amendment against the Bill would be passed. With respect, if I may say so, we are all in this together. I thank noble Lords for the help that I have received thus far. I know that I cannot do without it in the future.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1991
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the order to allow for consultation between parents, governors and teachers covering the teaching programmes on AIDS/HIV for 11 to 14 year-old children; and to provide a conscience clause to allow teachers not to teach this subject to children of this age, and to allow parents to withdraw their children from particular lessons.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her helpful and constructive winding-up speech on the previous debate. I take no responsibility for keeping her here for yet another debate; indeed, I hope that she will be just as constructive and helpful when concluding this debate. I also hope that I shall be able

1415
to clear up some of the misunderstandings that appear to have arisen since the original Motion was published last March.
I believe that the rushed decision by the Government last Autumn to make education about the HIV virus and AIDS compulsory within the science part of the national curriculum has led to confusion and concern among governors, teachers and parents. The Government have overridden provisions on sex education and now appear to be pretending that nothing has really changed. I believe that they have fudged the issue. I hope that this evening the Minister will bring some clarity and sense back into the department's thinking and agree to look again at the matter.
In moving this Motion it is not my intention to open up a full-scale debate on the importance of teaching young people about HIV and AIDS; nor about the significance for our society of this serious illness which has sadly affected so many people and which in other parts of the world has reached epidemic proportions. I say that because I am totally committed to the cause of helping those with AIDS and providing information about the virus and the illness to those who need to have it. I am not burying my head in the sand and hoping that the virus will disappear. I want a realistic and honest approach to the issue in our society and in particular in schools.
If any noble Lord doubts my commitment, I would ask him to reflect on the following fact. So far as I am aware, only one piece of legislation specifically concerned with HIV and AIDS has passed through this House. I refer to the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. It started life as a Private Member's Bill in another place and I had the privilege of steering it through your Lordships' House and onto the statute book. The Act was concerned with ensuring that we were all aware of the extent and the potential of the problem. The statistics that we now regularly see about the number of AIDS cases are published because of that legislation. They help us to provide and target assistance, resources and facilities where they are most needed. Therefore, I hope that we shall not become too bogged down in a debate about the importance and potential of AIDS. I for one accept its significance. I also accept, having listened to all the debates on the issue, that Members of your Lordships' House share my concern.
However, before considering the implications of the Government's decision to make AIDS education compulsory in the science curriculum I need to sketch in some of the background about existing arrangements. I am sure that most noble Lords agree that sex education is an important but sensitive area. In recent years it has perhaps assumed more importance because our society has become more open about sexual matters and the media are constantly communicating information and impressions about sexual relationships.
I believe that existing arrangements on sex education have much to commend them. Under the Education (No.2) Act 1986 governors were given primary responsibility for deciding the sex education policy for their schools. Statutory powers were given
1416
to governors under the Act. That put the sex education issue on the agenda of schools in a way that it had never been before. Governors were required by statute to consult parents about their policy. In most cases that has proved to be a helpful and healthy exercise in local democracy and in parental involvement.
I am a school governor of an inner-London school where we have all the problems. We are well aware of all the pressures on teachers, parents and pupils. In fact I heard someone say just the other week that in our area the Rottweilers walk in pairs. But, having said that, I have been involved in the process of consultation and discussion. I appreciate the value of those discussions and of their outcome. In our case the outcome has been a fully acceptable sex education programme which is proceeding very well and constructively and which is welcomed by parents and teachers alike.
But there are two other important points about the existing situation on sex education which flow from the 1986 Act and the guidelines that were issued under it. First, the legislation set out a broad control on the content of any sex education. That has been a great reassurance and an encouragement to many parents. Section 46 of the Act requires that governors must ensure that sex education,
"is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
That short statement says what I hope we all know; namely, that sex education cannot and should not be divorced from morality or from family life.
Secondly, parents were granted the statutory right to appeal to governors to withdraw their children in specific cases where they did not like the sex education lessons. Governors have discretion as regards how they respond to such requests. But so far as I am aware—and certainly in my own particular case—that right has not been exercised. Moreover, I understand that it is rarely exercised throughout the country. But it is a useful and important provision which reassures parents that if they feel that something inappropriate is being taught they have some outlet for their anxiety.
It is six years since the 1986 Act was passed and schools have worked hard to establish procedures under that Act. There have been many thousands of meetings throughout the country about sex education policies. But this position was disturbed by the Government's decision, with very little consultation, to make AIDS education compulsory in the science curriculum through the blunt instrument of secondary legislation.
When I say very little consultation, I understand —and I have checked as far as I can—that it was not even in the original draft. No mention was made of the matter in the original draft. It was inserted some time later, about November. That was more than midway through the consultative process. The proposal (five little words) is contained in the order which we are now discussing. It was hardly noticed. In fact it appeared in the middle of a huge 40-page document and went unnoticed by lots of people.
We must be grateful to those people who spotted it. I know that a group of individuals belonging to the

1417
Plymouth Brethren inserted advertisements in national papers. That alerted myself and many others to the fact that we should look at this matter. Subsequently letters began to appear in the press and leading articles in the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers which brought the whole thing to light. I could quote them but I shall not because of the time factor. But we are grateful to those people who brought the matter to our attention in that way.
My whole argument rests on the premise that AIDS education involves sex education. Of course, I fully recognise that the AIDS virus can be transmitted without sexual contact. Sadly, many people first come in contact with the HIV virus through sharing needles in the course of drug addiction. Others have received it, sadly, through blood transfusions. But in the main we are talking about a sexually transmitted disease. If sexual behaviour changes, the risk of contracting the virus is greatly reduced.
There was a report from a very famous hospital not very long ago which stated:
"The only tool to control the AIDS virus is behaviour change".
That came from a hospital group which is very much involved with the virus. The World Health Organisation has warned:
"the most effective way to prevent transmission of the virus … is to abstain from sexual intercourse or for uninfected partners to remain faithful to one another".
I do not see anything wrong with those two propositions. I hope that most noble Lords involved in this debate would agree.
I fail to see however how education about AIDS can avoid the moral and social issues concerned with sexual behaviour. In fact I think that it is impossible. Furthermore, I cannot see how one can open up the issue in a factual way in the course of a science lesson and leave it there. In my view AIDS education involves talking about relationships—something which does not usually fit neatly into the science laboratory.
So what are the implications of the Government's decision? In my view the problem lies with the compulsory nature of the science curriculum and the lack of consultation required about the detailed approaches used. There have been numerous statements by the Department of Education since this order was originally laid and since it came under pressure from correspondence, the national press and so on. But none of them has fully clarified the position. To my knowledge no Minister has said that the provisions of the 1986 Act, which includes the statutory provisions for governors and parents to be involved, will apply to AIDS education in the science curriculum. They will not. Again, I could enlarge on and analyse the Government's reply in detail if necessary. I can assure your Lordships that it is a fact that they have not said that those statutory provisions in the 1986 Act will apply to AIDS education in the science curriculum.
From that I conclude that the role of governors in relation to the policies for sex education will not include what is taught under the science curriculum. Of course governors have a general responsibility—
1418
and I know that too—for the curriculum in schools, but the 1986 Act, I repeat, gave them specific statutory responsibilities to consult on the content and approach used in sex education. They have no such responsibility for science in the compulsory part of the national curriculum.
Furthermore, parents will have no statutory right to be consulted about how the issue is handled in the context of science. Ministers have stressed that they expect the matter to be dealt with informally at a local level. But it cannot be. In a sensitive area such as this, statutory rights are important and parents' feelings have been overridden. I hope that people will square their conscience on the Parent's Charter with this kind of development.
Teachers are placed in a different position with regard to the science curriculum compared with sex education elsewhere in the curriculum. In spite of the development of cross-curricular teaching in schools, it is still primarily science teachers who teach science. They will be expected to handle this aspect of the curriculum like any other. Sex education, on the other hand, is a subject which teachers usually volunteer to take or they negotiate with the head teacher. That is why I have stressed in my Motion the need for the feelings of teachers to be taken into account. I am almost bound to say that there is a case to be made for a specialised group composed of teachers specially trained in the important and vital subject of sex education, HIV and so on, teachers specially trained, prepared, willing and able to carry out this task. There is an argument for such a force to be properly trained and properly funded.
There is one other matter to which I must refer before I sit down. The fears of parents and governors on this issue have been heightened by a booklet produced by the department last November entitled HIV and AIDS: A guide for the Education Service. Ministers have been at pains to say that this booklet contains little that is new; that nothing has really changed and that those who complain about it are misinformed. I have read the booklet umpteen times now and I accept that there is much useful information contained in it. I do not condemn the whole thing willy-nilly—there is some good information in the booklet. I also accept that teachers are unlikely to photocopy the pages referring to what can only be called deviant sexual acts and distribute them to their pupils. I do not think that will happen. But I note that the booklet itself states that in fulfilling the provisions of the national curriculum science order:
"The basis of any teaching offered should be the presentation of straightforward, factual information about the virus and about modes of transmission of infection—along the lines of the information provided in the early part of this booklet".
The information provided in the early part of the booklet is mainly in paragraph 19. There are others, but paragraph 19 contains this most straightforward part. It states:
"Because HIV may be present in the semen of a man who is infected with the virus, if he has any form of sexual intercourse with an uninfected person he puts that person at risk unless the semen is prevented from entering his or her body. Individuals are particularly at risk if they have anal intercourse. Heterosexual intercourse may also transmit the

1419
virus from a man to a woman, and from a woman to a man. To help protect against these risks a condom (or sheath) should be used".
It goes on to explain quite specifically—I cannot even quote it in its context—how to use the thing. The paragraph concludes:
"a single unprotected sexual contact can result in infection with HIV. Oral sex also carries some risks particularly if semen is taken into the mouth".
These are the specifics that it is said have to be taught in a straightforward factual way. So the department is trying to have it both ways; and it cannot have it both ways. The early parts of the booklet make that quite clear.
I must therefore question the appropriateness of talking about such things with 11 to 14 year-olds in the context of a school science lesson. This is particularly so when the booklet makes no reference whatever—and this is what I find most offensive—to the moral framework laid down in the 1986 Act. There are other aspects of safe sex not mentioned in the booklet that we all know of and to which we ascribe, certainly those in the Christian community. Abstention from pre-marital sex and fidelity within marriage are not mentioned in the booklet. That and the precautions mentioned by the hospital and the WHO are the only sure ways of preventing the spread.
That is why I believe that the Government have fudged the issue. They are happy to repeat—no doubt the Minister will repeat it again this evening—the provisions of the 1986 Act: consultation with parents, controls on content and the responsibilities of governors. But those arrangements do not apply to the science curriculum. That is where the misunderstanding arises—not with me but with the people who are trying to put over the idea that those arrangements exist. They do not. They exist under the 1986 Act and the statutes that I have mentioned, but they do not exist under the science curriculum.
It appears that the Government have given in to pressure to make AIDS education compulsory. They have used the science curriculum as a convenient way of achieving that. They poked it in at the end of the consultation period with the hope that it would not be noticed and would be accepted without anyone knowing what was going on.
As I said earlier Ministers are facing two ways on this issue. They try to claim that the provisions of the 1986 Act are included while at the same time pushing through the order without those provisions. I have also heard Ministers say that they could not allow a conscience provision or withdrawal from lessons in part of the national curriculum without granting it in other parts. There is a simple answer to that. They should not have included AIDS education in the core science curriculum in the first place if they wished to avoid the difficulty. They should have recognised that other places in the curriculum such as sex education and personal and social education would have been more appropriate.
Finally if the Government are worried that the provisions under the 1986 Act are not working to their satisfaction or would cause difficulties in relation to AIDS education, they should have said so openly and invited consultation with parents, governors and
1420
teachers to sort out new arrangements. They should not have allowed a minor piece of secondary legislation, which slipped through almost unnoticed, to leapfrog an Act of Parliament designed to ensure the rights of parents, governors and teachers. I urge the Minister to reconsider and to sort out the mess which the department has left her to handle. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the order to allow for consultation between parents, governors and teachers covering the teaching programmes on AIDS/HIV for 11 to 14 year-old children; and to provide a conscience clause to allow teachers not to teach this subject to children of this age, and to allow parents to withdraw their children from particular lessons.—(Lord Stallard.)
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on bringing this matter before your Lordships' House and presenting the issue so well—so well that I have little to add except my support. In summarising the reasons for my support, I shall highlight what appear to me to be three major contradictions.
First, there appears to me to be the contradiction between the provisions of the order and the principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Education Act 1944, which all affirm the right of parents to have their children educated in ways consistent with their religious, philosophical or ethical convictions, and/or to choose the kind of education that should be given to their children.
It was within that context that, in 1986, the importance of parental involvement in decisions relating to schools' policy on sex education was recognised in law with the requirement that governors should have overall control over that important aspect of the curriculum, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has just emphasised. But the new order denies them any involvement with one of the most complex and sensitive aspects of sex education—teaching about AIDS. They do so in a way which places that teaching in a part of the national curriculum which is compulsory.
The second apparent contradiction—it seems apparent to me and I should be grateful if my noble friend would reassure me—is that between the Government's avowed commitment to respect and to enhance parental rights and wishes and the provisions of the order which deny those rights and wishes with regard, as I have already said, to one of the most sensitive issues of our time. The provisions also impose a heavy burden of responsibility upon teachers with no right of withdrawal from that responsibility.
The third contradiction is that between the principles enshrined in the Education Act 1986 that sex education should be taught in a way which respects moral values and family life, and the guidance

1421
given in the DES booklet on HIV and AIDS which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has said, refrains explicitly from any discussion of moral values.
That third contradiction is thrown into sharp relief in the light of the welcome statements made recently by my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Education when he affirmed his conviction that education should be based upon moral and spiritual values. The proposals for teaching about AIDS as part of the science curriculum seem strangely inconsistent with that commitment. That does not necessarily mean that teaching science is always value-free; but it suggests that the full complexity of ethical and moral issues is unlikely to be adequately addressed as satisfactorily as if dealt with under sex education. Therefore, the provisions of the Education Act 1986 with regard to sex education are unlikely to be met.
I should therefore like to ask my noble friend to tell me who put the proposed teaching about AIDS and HIV into the science curriculum, and what was the thinking behind it? I find it hard to understand. I have become especially interested in the answer to those questions after carefully reading the teachers' guide produced by the DES. That significant source book is, as I have already mentioned, notable for the absence of any moral content. It is completely amoral and, as such, may be seen as promoting or condoning behaviour which many people would regard as immoral. Also in its concentration on the mechanics of so-called safe sex, that DES booklet focuses exclusively on technicalities and omits any consideration of the ethical aspects of human relationships or the values of family life. That is a matter that causes anxiety which has been brought to my attention not just by members of the Christian community but by people from other religious communities, and none, who respect family values.
In detailed discussions on the transmission of the AIDS virus, it is impossible to avoid the discussion of sexual practices in details which may be inappropriate for children as young as 11. Indeed, such explicit discussion may cause fear about sexual practices of any kind; or, conversely, it may prompt exploratory behaviour which could be morally and/or physically damaging.
Before concluding, I should say that, as a nurse, I am of course in favour of appropriate teaching about AIDS and its prevention; but that must be done in ways which respect the moral, religious and ethical values of parents. In conclusion, perhaps I may emphasise my belief that one of the main purposes and achievements of the provisions of the Education Act 1986 with regard to education about sexual matters was to place it within a context in which parents' rights would be protected and their sensitivities respected. Now, one of the most delicate and complex issues of our times is placed out of reach of that protection and becomes part of a compulsory subject over which parents and governors have no direct control or right of withdrawal of children, and teachers no right of refusal to teach.
1422
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the amendments or suggest other solutions to the problems that they seek to address, because I believe the problems reflect legitimate, profound anxieties which merit serious consideration.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in speaking in a debate in which much has been said about parents' rights, I fear that I may be treading on thin ice, because I am not a parent. My approach to the problem is that children have the right to know about this killer disease. There is a great deal of sexual activity before the age of 16. That means that those young people are exposed to the disease and therefore they have a right to know the risks that they are taking.
Much has been said about moral and family values. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out that the only way to be sure of not contracting the disease sexually was to abstain from sex. He did not point out that in playing rugby football, as I do, I risk the chance of contracting it from a clash of heads with blood running from both people. AIDS is not contracted as a result of sexual activity only. Indeed the British Board of Boxing Control has made every boxer take an AIDS test. Any contact sport carries a risk of contracting AIDS. There is a risk of contracting AIDS if body fluids are exchanged. Children must be taught that AIDS does not occur purely as a result of sexual activity. We must cover all the areas where this disease is likely to be contracted. Sex education must cover all those areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has pointed out, it may be felt that sex education can be put across in a rather heavy handed way. I cannot judge that matter properly as I do not find that prospect offensive. Nevertheless, sex education and information about AIDS must be provided. Parents have told me time and time again that they often find it difficult to talk to their children about sexual matters such as reproduction. They are glad when teachers provide the correct information on sexual matters.
In providing this information we are not criticising anyone's moral values. Surely moral values will be enhanced if we point out that by breaking certain moral codes people run a risk of killing themselves. That factor should be borne in mind. There is also the matter of withdrawing pupils from particular lessons. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord thought this course of action should be readily available but someone may set a precedent. For example people with certain political views may not wish pupils to be taught about certain historical matters. Racism or anti-semitism could find a way into schools if such a precedent were followed. A person who believes the earth is flat may decide that his child should not study physics.
No matter what the noble Lord's moral convictions may be, I suggest that this Motion is inappropriate. Young people have rights. They have a right to know about the dangers of contracting AIDS. If we deny

1423
them information about AIDS we are denying them the right to be informed about the dangers of contracting it.
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this Motion to us and indeed for the way he introduced it, as he spoke clearly and dispassionately. This is a subject on which emotions inevitably run high because it is such a sensitive issue. I agree with much of what the noble Lord said, although at the end of the day I do not think I can go along with him in the proposed solution to the problem.
It is undoubtedly clear that we look to the Government for certain clarification on this matter, if no more, as there seems to be some uncertainty as regards the relationship between sex education policy and what is required in the national curriculum. Surely young people need at all stages to have access to information about their own physical, mental and emotional development. Such information is an aid towards young people understanding and being in control of their own emerging personalities. They need to be given facts appropriate to their age and they need to be given those facts in a context which enables them to work out and apply spiritual and moral values.
Inevitably and rightly much of both information and values is picked up consciously or unconsciously at home as young people observe and experience parents and family. However, that is not enough. Young people pick up information and values whether we like it or not and often they pick up misinformation and twisted values from their peers, the media, graffiti and from magazines left lying around. Children can benefit enormously from a detached and cool atmosphere in a classroom, where distorted information and values can be brought into the open and can he looked at and where reliable facts can be put at their disposal.
It is surely right that the governors of a school should have responsibility for the school's sex education policy. By that process parents are consulted and in that way become party to what their children are taught in the classroom. As I understand it, sex education is a cross-curricular matter. That is one of the difficulties we face because sex education appears in various parts of the national curriculum.
There is also the issue of whether children should be taught about HIV and AIDS at the lower or higher end of the 11 to 14 age range. I feel that by the end of that age range they need to receive the basic facts. However, I understand—I should be grateful for confirmation of this—that it is part of the sex education policy that the governors can determine at what age in that age range children should receive that information.
I am certainly encouraged to learn that 84 per cent. of secondary schools now have a sex education policy. I hope the remainder will move in that direction. I would guess that there are three areas where many, if not all, of us would like to see improvement. First, we
1424
would like an improvement in the context in which facts about human growth and development, human reproduction, HIV and AIDS are taught, as that is crucial. Education about sex is part of education about healthy living. Young people need to learn these facts in a setting which affirms human dignity and destiny and which affirms the rich potential of human creativity in all its aspects, practical and artistic as well as physical. The setting needs to affirm the importance of the morality of human actions and to affirm and note the consequences of individual choices for society as a whole.
Young people have to learn responsibility for their own decisions and actions. The evidence appears to show that having the facts about their bodies does not of itself induce earlier exploration or experience. However, the context in which the facts are given and handled may in the longer term make all the difference. Here, as elsewhere, I do not believe there are such things as cold facts. There are facts warmed by the context in which they are set.
Secondly, young people need to be engaged at the point they have reached in their pilgrimage of self understanding. They need information which is related to the decisions they face and to the puzzles they experience. Therefore they need facts given to them in a setting where they have the space and freedom to inquire and to bring out their own anxieties and uncertainties. In the area of HIV and AIDS we need to recognise there is a great deal which has to be unlearnt as well as a great deal which has to be learnt.
In large measure young people themselves ought in an ideal world to set the pace of sexual education. A wise sex education policy might well include provision for informing parents about when sensitive information is being given to children so that parents are prepared for the follow-up questions which will no doubt arise at home. I suggest that many parents will value help and advice in how to handle those questions from their own children.
Parents may also need assurance that what is being taught at school will not outrage or upset their own proper parental authority. Young people—and, I dare to suggest, those of us who are much older—need to learn and to relearn that sexual activity is part but only part of the art of building lasting, fulfilling human relationships.
That leads me to my third point, which concerns the crucial importance of the teacher. It is one thing to have a sex education policy but it is another thing to deliver it. It is no surprise, but it is a significant fact, that 68 per cent. of LEAs identified teachers' feelings of embarrassment as one of the most obvious obstacles to a sound sex education. Only a minority of teachers have been given special training for that task. Much more needs to be done. If we are to give teachers, as I believe we must, that profound and crucial responsibility, if we are to entrust to them responsibility for giving young people essential information about sexuality, healthy living, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and AIDS, we owe it to those teachers to provide them with the training and support that they need.

1425
As we all recognise, this is a very delicate and difficult area, but we recognise that children must be given the information that they need. What we are uncertain about and what we seek further clarification about is the precise context and way in which that is to be done.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, with the leave of the House I have kindly been allowed to bump myself up 10 places on the list of speakers. I am very grateful to the House and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for allowing me to do so. I have a long-standing commitment this evening which I fear may mean that I am unable to stay until the end of the debate, for which I apologise. That was the reason for the change, not my geographical proximity to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, which might have been confusing.
I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity to review progress to date on this very sensitive area of national curriculum teaching and the opportunity to re-emphasise how very important it is that information on AIDS and HIV is conveyed sensibly, sensitively and effectively in our schools.
Perhaps I should say briefly why I am speaking this evening. I am the father of three very small children—the eldest is only six. I shall do all that is within my power to ensure that they are adequately and appropriately prepared for their lives, both as teenagers and as adults. I also have a particular interest in the subject of health education. On the thankfully rare occasions on which I bore your Lordships with a speech it is usually on that subject. Thirdly, I happen to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I feel that I am at least reasonably well informed about the nature and scale of the challenge which HIV and AIDS present to us all, not simply as inhabitants of the United Kingdom but even as members of the human race.
From what I have said so far it is probably clear that I am strongly in favour of knowledge as the best possible defence against this debilitating, infamous and, it would appear, largely terminal virus. Because of the notoriety of the virus, because it is in large part sexually transmitted, and because in some parts of the world it strikes particularly strongly in the male homosexual community, it is only to be expected that there should be concern about giving information about the virus in a way which minimises its spread while also minimising any distress and embarrassment caused by discussion of some of its means of transmission.
Distress and embarrassment seem to be focused in three main areas of concern: first, that some people take the view that educating children about the means of transmission will encourage them to experiment for themselves with both novel sexual positions and even new sexual orientations; secondly, that AIDS and HIV are statistically insignificant within the population as a whole and that a virus which strikes largely at the urban male homosexual community should be
1426
tackled at source and discussion of it not inflicted upon the rest of us; thirdly, that discussion of the virus should not be forced upon those religious and ethnic communities which find the whole issue morally repugnant and spiritually offensive.
I have great sympathy with that last concern and would urge the Department of Education, governors, teachers and parents to follow the example of certain schools in the London area which are successfully teaching about HIV and AIDS within the science part of the curriculum in areas where there are very high proportions of, for example, Moslem children, with the full support of their parents and local religious leaders. It can be done and it is being done.
Consultation between parents, governors and teachers is desirable, essential and, indeed, is already provided for in drawing up a school's sex education policy. I welcome and strongly encourage such consultation provided that it takes place within the context of deciding how such subjects can best be taught and not whether they should be taught at all. The core curriculum is just that: it is a form of educational spinal cord. By all means decide which form of posture is most appropriate for a school's particular circumstances and by all means emphasise the moral context, but if consultation means the right to decide to remove vertebrae then I am strongly against it. I hope that the Minister will be able to be crystal clear in her reply in stating whether the Government feel that a school should have the right to opt out of any part of the core curriculum.
I return briefly to the other areas of concern which I mentioned—that education about HIV transmission might encourage copycat behaviour and irresponsibility, and that AIDS and HIV is a problem affecting only a small minority of the population and poses little danger to the population at large. I should like to discuss those in the context of the second and third parts of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard—those allowing teachers to opt out and allowing parents to remove their children from particular lessons.
Two large and authoritative studies—the Rockefeller Foundation Report of 1984 and the Jones Report on teenage pregnancy of 1985—indicated clearly that sex education inculcates greater and not lesser responsibility in sexual behaviour. It is sometimes said that attack can be the best means of defence. In these circumstances I feel most strongly that it is knowledge which is the best form of both attack and defence. I would call as a witness a schoolchild participant in one of the HIV/AIDS events held by the National AIDS Trust during 1990 and 1991, supported and financed by the Health Education Authority. The child said:
"Sex education has to talk about reality. You can't censor life, you can only censor education. We are going to find out anyway, so isn't it much better to know the facts than the myths?".
Is HIV/AIDS a minority problem? Should one only target information narrowly at those user groups most statistically affected? In the UK the groups most affected are expanding enormously. By 1991, 24 per cent. of HIV infection was the result of heterosexual activity and the proportion is rising every year. The

1427
proportion of under 25 year-olds who are HIV positive is also rising fast. The majority of those individuals will have acquired the virus since it started receiving publicity and since it became the subject of government campaigns. The message has not got through to them. We owe it to their younger brothers and sisters and to the generations behind them to arm them with the necessary information that AIDS and HIV have the potential to harm each and every one of them.
I have some sympathy for the discomfort which many teachers and parents feel when confronted with the subject. However, I am entirely unconvinced that a statutory right for either party to opt out themselves or their children is a step forward. Certainly, no teacher should be forced to teach the subject against his or her will and no parents should be forced to have their children attend sex education classes if it deeply offends their religious beliefs. But in both cases I believe that these are matters which should be resolved between the governors, teachers and parents of the school concerned. What is critical and, in my view, indisputable is that the result of this process of resolution should be in the interests of the child, not of the parents, governors or teachers. It should be in the interests of the child.
The other day I heard a sad story. It has a particular poignancy because I expect we can all remember circumstances in our own childhood when we wholly misunderstood something and went through agonies of indecision and worry as a result. An eight year-old boy arrived back from school in a distraught state. He sobbed to his mother that because he had not paid a great deal of attention to his classes that afternoon, his teacher had accused him of being ignorant, and that must mean that he had contracted the HIV virus and would ultimately die. Disentangling the thread of his thoughts from his sobs his mother realised that the culprit was the major government sponsored campaign entitled "AIDS—Don't die of ignorance".
Knowledge is the key. Knowledge is the best deterrent, the best contraceptive and the best anti-viral remedy that we possess. Let us disseminate that knowledge wisely, sensitively, always accurately and in full. I feel most strongly that my children have the right to expect that of their school and of this country.
I sympathise with the genuine concern that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. A clear response from the Minister will be greatly appreciated by all sides of the House. When the Government's intentions are completely clear, the consultation process about the most effective way to teach this subject will be greatly facilitated. I also warmly endorse what the right reverend Prelate said about the Government's views on the funding for adequate training for teachers of this very difficult subject.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I greatly respect the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in moving this Motion. He is quite properly concerned
1428
for the spiritual, moral and physical health and well-being of children. I hope that in turn he will respect my motive for disagreeing with him.
I too am properly concerned for the health and well-being of children. I see Key Stage 3 of the national curriculum as the appropriate and proper stage to start schoolchildren learning, in the words of the revised national curriculum, how the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses, including the human immuno-deficiency virus, the abuse of solvents, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the booklet HIV amp; AIDS, which is subtitled A Guide for the Education Service. It is in no way intended as a school textbook. Teachers need themselves to have factual information. That does not mean that they will teach all that is in the booklet.
I should like to draw attention to another document published by what used to be the Department of Education and Science; namely, Curriculum Matters 6, "Health Education from 5 to 16". Paragraph 44 on "The scope of sex education" reads:
"The importance of sexual relationships in all our lives is such that sex education is a crucial part of preparing children for their lives now and in the future as adults and parents. In sex education factual information about the physical aspects of sex, though important, is not more important than a consideration of the qualities of relationships in family life and of values, standards and the exercise of personal responsibility as they affect individuals and the community at large. It is therefore quite common to find sex education taught as part of a programme of personal and social education,"—
known in schools now as PSE—
"sometimes in conjunction with religious education, as well as of a health education programme".
Nowadays in schools there is much teamwork on a subject as important as sex education. My experience of schools has been that there is very much a team effort in this field. While the facts may come within the science part of the curriculum, the personal and social education programme will be covered most adequately and very sensitively by the teachers of religion, the school nurse (who can take a very strong part in this teaching) and even teachers of English and History. If sex education is to be, as it should be, a part overall of health and wider education, it will come into every part of the curriculum.
I hope I can reassure your Lordships with two other documents which I urge noble Lords to read if they have not already done so. One is A Framework for School Sex Education, published by the Sex Education Forum. It has been endorsed by a great number of organisations—far too many for me to detail now. Perhaps I may just mention the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, the Jewish Marriage Council and the Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth. There is also a very important pamphlet published by the Health Education Authority which gives an outline of the training course which is directed at all those concerned with education and health—the health professionals, who have responsibility for training teachers in this area. A great deal of effort is now being put into helping teachers so that they can

1429
overcome the problems that have already been mentioned of embarrassment and, in many cases, lack of knowledge.
Education and health go hand in hand. In the last century Joseph Lister propounded the principle that bacteria must never gain entry to an operation wound. For that pioneering work in preventive medicine Joseph Lister was honoured with a peerage and a place in your Lordships' House. The team effort of the Department of Education, health professionals and teachers today is pioneering as effective a method of preventive medicine as possible to prevent the spread of this recently discovered virus. Antiseptics conquered bacteria in the 19th century. Education is the only hope we have at the moment to conquer the HIV virus in the 20th century.
In 1990 the Health Education Authority carried out research among 10,000 16 to 19 year-olds. Almost half of them said that they had been sexually active and nearly one third of them had had full sexual intercourse. The older they were and the more partners they had, the less likely they were to use condoms. Contraception to prevent pregnancy was seen as more important than safer sex.
The Health Education Authority believes that it is important for young people to have sound and appropriate sex education before they become sexually active. There is no evidence that sex education leads to promiscuity. It is mistaken to believe that children come to school as empty vessels and can be preserved in a state of innocence until adults decide that they are old enough to learn. Research by the Health Education Authority and others shows that even very young children have acquired information and formed opinions—often quite the wrong ones, as we have already heard—about health issues, including HIV and AIDS. Research indicates that children receive health messages from their environment and the media as well as from their parents. That is interpreted by them in a strictly literal sense to fit their own experience of the world around them. School health education needs to take account of the source of those health messages and of children's experiences. Teachers can then plan health education from the children's perspective, identify their health education needs and build a progressive programme in preparation for the HIV component contained within the statutory order for science.
Children want more information. A study carried out by Isabelle Allen for the Centre for Policy Studies indicated that 98 per cent. of school children want sex education in schools. It warns us not to confuse innocence with ignorance. The headmistress of Chapter School, a non-selective girls' school in Rochester in Kent tells me that in a recent survey carried out by Exeter University on what pupils think of school assemblies, one group of 12 year-olds said that they wanted more talks and information about "things like HIV and AIDS". Yet, according to a survey published yesterday, a quarter of schools have no sex education policy although that has been a statutory requirement since 1987. As stated so well in
1430
a letter to the Independent today, and stated in slightly different words, again very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, we ought to be asking how we can best teach the subject, not whether we should do so. Many parents also want more information from schools on these sensitive health issues.
The overall picture is this. Some aspects of sex education are contained in the national curriculum orders for science, Life and Living Processes. Five to seven year-olds (key stage one) should learn that,
"living things reproduce their own kind",
and eight to 11 year-olds (key stage two) should,
"understand the process of reproduction in mammals".
Eleven to 14 year-olds (key stage three) should,
"understand the process of conception in human beings [and] know about the physical and emotional changes that take place during adolescence and understand the need to have responsible attitudes to sexual behaviour".
In the delivery of the national curriculum in all its stages, consultation and involvement of parents, governors and teachers are not only desirable but essential. Consultation on a school's sex education programme is in fact required by law.
The core curriculum provides a basic framework for knowledge which is available to all young people which parents, teachers and governors can then present in a sensitive manner appropriate to the young people's age and stage of development. If the intention behind the Motion is that the consultation process might lead to schools not teaching this part of the core curriculum, that would have serious implications for other core curriculum subjects and potentially could open the floodgates to other areas being debated and removed.
There are other potential implications which are gravely worrying. If a conscience clause was interpreted as being a way of avoiding teaching the subject in the school, it would be totally unacceptable in that that would deny young people access to vital and possibly life saving information. Similarly, at present it is left to the discretion of governing bodies to decide whether parents can withdraw their children from sex education classes because of religious beliefs. I believe that that is the most appropriate way in which to ensure local sensitivity and respect for parental opinion.
Teachers have rights, parents have rights and children have rights. It could be five, 10, 15 or 20 years before today's school children will profit from the sensible health education that they received as part of key stage 3 science. We dare not put those precious children who are our charges at risk for the whole of their future lives through needless ignorance. We must debate how best to implement the revised science curriculum, not whether to do so.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this important issue, although I cannot agree with his solution.
Since the order that we are discussing relates to the science curriculum, it is worth saying a word on the basic science of HIV and AIDS, although it has not been referred to. In recent weeks many noble Lords

1431
will have seen some considerable space in the press devoted to a theory that HIV does not cause AIDS and is not involved in its transmission in any way. That is certainly not the view of the majority of scientists concerned with the matter in this country. The group that I have the honour to chair held a well attended meeting on 2nd June at which that view was roundly refuted by some eminent scientists and the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health. I shall be happy to circulate a report of that meeting to any Member of your Lordships' House, whether or not he is a member of our group.
If HIV is the cause of AIDS, which is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists, and if HIV is sexually transmitted, among other ways, it seems absurd not to mention that in both the science curriculum and the more optional field of sex education.
I turn briefly to British Government policy which has been notably successful in containing AIDS compared with that of comparable European countries. On a comparable population basis, we have about half the incidence of Italy and one third of that in France and Spain. We need to ask ourselves why that is so. Although no effort has been spared in this country on treatment or research, the answer has to be prevention. That was reiterated strongly by the Chief Medical Officer at the meeting to which I referred. Despite our relative success compared with other countries, there is nonetheless significant evidence of a slow heterosexual spread into the general population, to which the Chief Medical Officer also alluded.
In his thoughtful and well informed speech, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, gave some figures. I need not repeat them. It would be a great mistake to retreat from any of the positions that have contributed or could contribute to the continuing success of government policy.
Turning to the Motion, there are a number of points which I wish to bring into play. Several have been mentioned already and therefore I shall be brief. First, I wish to deal with the breadth of opposition to the order. Much play has been made about the 4,000 letters of protest received by the department. I understand that nearly all of them came through a campaign orchestrated by the Plymouth Brethren, whose total membership in the United Kingdom according to the Christian Handbook for 1992–93 is 12,018. It is not therefore a large religious community. Apparently it carried out a similar campaign against the inclusion of computer technology in the national curriculum. I do not believe that it can be considered to be a representative group.
As regards other religious groups, it is certainly not the case that opposition is total. At a recent meeting of our own group we heard Mr. David Lankshear, deputy secretary and school secretary of the National Society (Church of England) for Promoting Religious Education at Church House. He said that many heads of Church of England schools felt that Key Stage 3 was the appropriate stage for the subject. However, there were some schools in inner London which felt that the subject should be introduced earlier in the age bracket, while outer London schools felt that it should be introduced later. There is sufficient flexibility for
1432
that to occur—at any rate that is my understanding. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked the same question and therefore it will be interesting to know from the Government whether that flexibility exists.
Catholic AIDS Link appears to share the Church of England view. Furthermore, it has suggested that if pupils are withdrawn there is a moral responsibility on parents to provide the information.
But casting our net wider than the Churches, it is interesting to note that a survey carried out in 1987 found that an overwhelming 96 per cent. of parents wanted sex education to take place in schools. There is, of course, a right of withdrawal in that regard, but when a school has adopted a sex education policy there are hardly any instances of the right being exercised. On the whole, parents in the United Kingdom appear to believe that such matters are better handled in schools. Where the science of AIDS is concerned, the belief that information should come from the school is likely to be even more widespread.
Another factor that we should not overlook is that, although we are talking, perhaps agonising, about Key Stage 3, there is among children much younger than 11 a great deal of confused knowledge about AIDS. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, read out a note from the Health Education Authority. I had intended to quote from it but she has done so for me. The Royal College of Nursing holds the same opinion. In a letter the general secretary wrote:
"Finally, research has shown that from multi-media sources, children have an awareness, and more to the point misinformation about HIV and AIDS … All the more reason for teachers to be charged with correcting this situation".
I venture to query whether a group of elderly people—perhaps with the exception of my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool—assembled in this gilded Chamber has much knowledge or even conception about what goes on in primary school playgrounds. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford mentioned graffiti, magazines and many influences of that kind. I have even heard of cases in primary school playgrounds where the word AIDS has been used by young children as a swear-word or even as a curse. Yet here we are worrying about introducing them to the subject at the age of 11 or perhaps up to 14.
A further canard is that such teaching gives children ideas that they would not otherwise have and that it encourages them in promiscuity. But strong evidence indicates that increased levels of sex education are correlated to a higher age for first sexual encounters and to a lower rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion. That was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and my noble friend Lord Russell, who gave the sources of those surveys.
I turn now to the specifics of the Motion. Consultation already exists on the sex education side of the coin. It would not normally exist on mandatory areas of the curriculum. However, as I have suggested, there is no reason why there should not be a variable response as to when to introduce teaching on HIV and AIDS within the overall scope of Key Stage 3, which is normally applicable to children aged between 11

1433
and 14. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, in his original Question tabled in March, before the election, spoke of 13 as being an acceptable age. That might well be the view of some schools and I know of nothing which would stop them proceeding in that way. Of course, we await the Government's confirmation on that matter. Alternatively, as I have suggested, it might be wise to introduce such teaching earlier in our urban schools—for example, those in London—with a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS.
If accepted, conscience clauses would give rise to some curious anomalies. I do not deny that some teachers might not wish to teach about HIV/AIDS on moral grounds. But I venture to suggest that by far the bigger problem is that many teachers may feel unhappy with the subject on grounds of lack of competence and lack of adequate training in a sensitive subject area. Surely that is a matter for pre-service and in-service training, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. It is in any case an area in which no sensible head will force a teacher against his sincere objections and will delegate the job to someone more willing and able. Furthermore, if opting out of teaching became widespread, the large majority of parents who want their children to be informed could be unfairly confronted with a patchy service across the country so that those wanting such teaching would not obtain it.
The final prong of the noble Lord's Motion, added only a couple of days ago—it would confer a right of withdrawal on parents—is the one with which I have the least difficulty. I can envisage some religious or ethnic groups which would prefer not to participate. However, I would believe that to be unwise and I believe that with Catholic AIDS Link a moral duty would evolve on the parents to fill the gap.
As regards the offending booklet mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and quoted from by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, it is guidance for teachers, lecturers and youth workers. Perhaps it might benefit from some improvement and updating, but it is not intended for raw consumption in the classroom. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, complained that there was no moral guidance in the science curriculum and that therefore that was an inappropriate place to teach these issues. It must be remembered that the science curriculum is not expected to do the whole job. The vast majority of schools have adopted a sex education policy. Only 6 per cent. have decided against sex education, while some 20 per cent. are still undecided. In nearly three-quarters of schools scientific presentation will be supplemented by sex education in a wider moral context. That matter appeared to cause some noble Lords anxiety.
All in all, I hope that the Government will not accept the Motion and will stick to the decision made by Mr. Clarke when Secretary of State and to the position taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, on 5th March. If they wish to move from that position we are entitled to know why. I and others have demonstrated that there are no grounds for complacency in our dealings with this
1434
virus, despite the relative success of this country which I have mentioned. It would be a thousand pities if the Government were to take any steps which conflict with or weaken in any way their successful policy to date. I hope that that is what we shall hear from the noble Baroness when she winds up the debate.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find it quite incredible that a Conservative Government should he preparing to oppose my noble friend's Motion. Let us see again what it says. It says:
"to amend the order to allow for consultation between parents, governors and teachers covering the teaching programmes on AIDS/HIV for 11–14 year old children; and to provide a conscience clause to allow teachers not to teach this subject to children of this age, and to allow parents to withdraw their children from particular lessons".
I should have thought that the Conservative Party and a Conservative Government would be in favour of everything that is said in that proposed Motion. I find it surprising that the right reverend Prelate could not support my noble friend.
Conscience clauses have been inserted in much legislation. Indeed, Part IV, Clause 76 of the Education Act 1944 gives parents the right to ensure that their children are educated in accordance with their wishes. As far as I know, that has never been repealed. Sikhs are allowed not to wear helmets on building sites in spite of the fact that that might endanger themselves and many of their colleagues. Time and time again conscience clauses are allowed but apparently they are not allowed to teachers and to parents.
I find it strange and incredible that so many speakers should not wish governors, parents and teachers to be consulted on matters of this kind. It is quite clear that teachers need to be consulted and helped. I am sure that all noble Lords will have seen the reports in the newspapers yesterday. I should like to quote from an article in the Independent headed:
"Children 'denied proper sex education"'.
It states:
"Thousands of schoolchildren are being denied adequate sex education in schools because teachers are too embarrassed to tackle the subject in depth and governors cannot agree what form it should take".
Therefore, already there is difficulty because teachers have not been properly consulted and trained. And yet, we are to impose a new duty on them to teach about AIDS and HIV.
Another paragraph in the article states:
"Education authorities frequently reported that teachers shied away from the subject. 'Some are uncomfortable teaching sex education, even after training', one health education co-ordinator said. Another said, 'teacher confidence, especially among males' was a problem".
Therefore, teachers already have a problem teaching sex education and yet we are proposing, without any conscience clause or consultation, to impose yet another duty which will cause even more difficulty for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said that this pamphlet is not to be used and will not be used as a textbook and that, in fact, the teaching would not be based on anything in it. And yet, page 13 of the pamphlet states:

1435
"The basis of any teaching offered",
that is, teaching on HIV and AIDS:
"should be the presentation of straightforward, factual information about the virus and about modes of transmission of infection—along the lines of the information provided in the early part of this booklet—in order to balance the incomplete and inaccurate impression which pupils may have gained from other sources".
We are assured that this pamphlet, which contains some lurid stuff, is really insignificant but the pamphlet says that its contents are to be the basis of teaching.
It seems to me that the Government are forcing schools to introduce ideas and concepts which would not normally occur to children, if that booklet is anything to go by. Indeed —and this concerns many of us here this evening and many of us not here this evening—it seems to me that homosexuality and heterosexuality are presented as moral equivalents. Most people in this country simply will not accept that.
In my view the order is yet another erosion of parental rights. It is the sacrifice of a parent's rights to guide the moral well-being of their children and it is sacrificing it to the newest politically correct attitude. Members of this House and another place then wonder why parents want to slough off their responsibilities when the state tells them that they may not have a conscience about what is taught to their children in our schools on matters of sex and sexual morality. As I say, it is little wonder that parents are becoming concerned about the state's attitude towards their ability to bring up their own children.
The Parent's Charter, which was put before the electorate at the last election, specifically provides that there should be choice. Where is the choice here to the parents as to whether their children should be taught in accordance with their own views and concepts? That right is being taken away from them and there is no conscience clause.
Even more incredible, if reports are to be believed, is that Conservative Ministers are now considering reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 16. Therefore, through this order, on the one hand the Government are seeking to prevent the spread of AIDS but, on the other hand, if reports are to be believed, they are considering—and I hope that those reports will be denied this evening—measures which must increase the practice of sodomy, which is a major cause of avoidable AIDS. Have they gone completely mad or are they in the grip of a powerful minority group determined to manipulate public opinion and the law to their ends and for their own purposes?
It is absolutely certain that Conservative Ministers are not listening to the electorate and are certainly not listening to their own party members. I wonder whether they consulted them before tabling this order. Did they even consult the Conservative Family Campaign which, just before the election, sent me a letter begging for a donation, though why they should send it to me I do not know. Of course I did not send a donation. I shall first wait to see what their attitude is towards the order. People as distinguished as Sir Bernard Braine, who is president of the organisation,
1436
and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—a Member of this House—are all concerned with the organisation. My guess is that the Government did not consult the Conservative Family Campaign group. Perhaps they did and I am doing them an injustice. If so, when the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will tell us the response.
It would be wrong to suggest that the Government are without friends in this matter. We see many of them in the House tonight. I do not know how, many there are on council and other estates throughout the country. According to an opinion poll 70 per cent. of the population would wish to be consulted about the matter. What is certain is that they have one friend in Capital Gay. It is a weekly newsheet for lesbians and gay men. It clearly supports the Government. On Friday 5th June it carried an article featuring my noble friend Lord Stallard and his amendment. Had I not seen the article I may not have spoken tonight.
The article states,
"The amendment, planned for debate on Thursday next week, has been slammed by Aids workers, who called the move `mindboggling.' Ceri Hutton, policy development officer at the National Aids Trust said they would light the move all the way through the Parliamentary process. She told Capital Gay: 'There is no way that religious or moral beliefs should get in the way of safer sex education"'.
We are there being told that moral and religious beliefs should not get in the way of what the state lays down as being proper safer sex education. In the last paragraph the article states,
"And while HIV and Aids does not specifically fit into lobbying group Stonewall's agenda, chief executive Ann Bond said the proposed amendment would put young people at risk because of their prejudices. Lord Stallard should look at his own conscience".
Clearly my noble friend has looked at his conscience. He has looked at it long and clearly. His conscience tells him, as my conscience tells me—let me make clear that unlike my noble friend I have no religious conscience—that it is not the state's business to ride roughshod over the consciences of other people. The prime duty to educate their children lies not with the state but with the parents. Let us never forget that. If in all conscience parents feel—whether religious or otherwise—that the state is not educating their child in matters of AIDS and HIV in a way which satisfies their own conscience, then those parents should have the right to say no.
That is all my noble friend is asking. He is asking that parents, teachers and governors be consulted. If they have a conscience then, in the last analysis, they should be allowed to exercise it. What, in the name of God in a democratic society, is wrong with that?
8.25 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the House may be surprised, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, may be shocked, to learn that I wish this evening to say a few words on behalf of the Christians known as the Brethren, or Plymouth Brethren, and to support their claim that as a matter of conscience they should be entitled to withdraw their children from lessons where the manner in which HIV is spread and steps to counter the spread are taught. That claim is not to be confused with the claim of conscience put

1437
forward, which I also share, that these matters should not be in a science syllabus; that if they are to be taught they should be taught within the sex curriculum where there is more room for teaching to be set in a moral framework.
The Brethren have been assiduous in their attempts to bring these matters before Parliament. I have been appealed to by one of them of my acquaintance. I have taken the opportunity also to question those of the Brethren who have been most assiduous in bringing their views to our attention in the hope that I may understand something of the views which are common to the Brethren. I sense that it would be presumptuous of me, a Roman Catholic, to claim to understand the full depth of their teachings or properly to express their case to the House this evening in any complete and fully understanding way. Perhaps for that reason I shall be brief.
Having said that, I understand that the Brethren find their rules of life and belief in the scriptures—the books of the New Testament. They hold in particular that they are to be and to live separate from evil. I understand that arising from that they find most orthodox Christians to be in error. I assume, put most simply, that it is because of our attitude to evil that they hold themselves apart from us. They seek to live in the world but not of it. A scriptural text they brought to my attention is to be found in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans:
"I will have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil".
The Brethren wish to teach their children about sexual matters within the family. First and foremost they wish to teach that the rule is that there should be chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. With that rule I wonder what need they and their children have to know of the possible spread of HIV by deviant sexual practices.
I conclude on this simple note. I could go on to ask whether children taught in that way are more likely to contract HIV than children stuffed with information. But I believe that that pragmatic question would not be consistent with the beliefs of the Brethren. So I merely ask that the consciences of the Brethren and of others who hold the same beliefs should now be respected and that they should have the right to take their children out of the teaching of HIV matters in the sex curriculum.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this matter in your Lordships' House. I am concerned with the content of what it is proposed to teach 11 to 14 year-olds under the order. I shall confine my remarks to the danger of acquiring AIDS through sexual activity.
Because of the gravity of the threat of AIDS I understand why the Government want to make the teaching compulsory. However, such a move makes it all the more important to get the content of that
1438
teaching right. In particular, it must be appropriate to the age of the children concerned and it must also be frank and realistic, even if the message is hard to take.
In my opinion the material being provided by the DES contains some points that are inappropriate to youngsters of 14, let alone 11. However, I do not want to pursue that aspect of the matter at this time.
Quite rightly, the material advises against casual sex, multiple sex and sexual experimentation in risky situations. It also advises the use of condoms. In other words, children are advised to adopt the so-called safer sexual practice. Provided that that does not lead to illegal acts and under-age sex, all that is good as far as it goes. However, to think that will be enough to ward off AIDS completely is to delude ourselves and to mislead the children being taught. Just to take one point, condoms have never been foolproof as a means of contraception and they are unlikely to provide a 100 per cent. defence against AIDS. It seems to me that to leave safer sex there would be rather like running an anti-smoking campaign and saying to people that they should smoke low-tar content cigarettes but not going on to say that they should not smoke at all if they want to enjoy good health.
The material does not appear to spell out with sufficient emphasis the hard truth, that if any two people have a sexual relationship without knowing for certain that they are both free of HIV or AIDS infection they are playing a form of Russian roulette with their lives. Yet that is the key point which has to be got across to all of us, however much we want to believe differently. As regards sexual relations, the only safe way, other than total abstinence, is for two people, themselves free from infection, to be partners, and faithful partners at that, for life. That is what I understand God to say to us through the Bible.
In recent years society has grown to assume that many young people automatically will have a sexual relationship as soon as they are old enough. When young people do so to some extent they are fulfilling that assumption. If they are to survive the AIDS epidemic they must be warned of the dangers and taught that there is another way. That way was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he quoted the World Health Organisation saying that the most effective way to prevent HIV transmission is to abstain from sexual intercourse or for two uninfected individuals to remain faithful to each other.
It is not a question of moralising but of facing the facts. The watchword must be one person, one partner, for life. Because I feel that at the very least the emphasis in the DES material is wrong, I support the Motion.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I am delighted that at last he is getting some support. I am staggered particularly by some members of my own teaching profession who seem unable to read the terms of the Motion. It is very simple in what it asks and I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. It is not saying that there should not be health education. There is no such suggestion. The fact is that sex education was originally included in a

1439
totally different way. It is now being transferred into science and that has changed the whole concept: The fact is that parents cannot now use a conscience clause but they could before.
There is nothing very strange about withdrawing children from a particular subject or withdrawing because of a conscience clause. I was educated at a Catholic school, and all Protestants and Jews who attended at that school had the right to withdraw their children from religious education. No one ever thought that that was strange. Those children did not miss any other part of the curriculum. We must give the parents and the teachers the right and ensure that it cannot be taken away from them. There is an effort to be fashionable. Some of the remarks that some of us make are not fashionable any more. Conscience—what is that?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, one must be politically correct.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, that is right. One partner—that? I have grandchildren of all ages —I am very blessed—and great-grandchildren. Today's 14 year-olds are not very different from the 14 year-olds in my day. As a teacher I know that if you teach children something and tell them intensively about AIDS and how to avoid it, and if you explain about oral sex and other perversions, a 14 year-old is at just the age to experiment. As my noble friends say, you do not have to use everything in the pamphlet. That point has been put right. Why is it in the pamphlet and given to the teachers? It provides the background.
I watched a group of my grandchildren the other day. I could not see any evidence of this great desire to have some kind of sex. They did exactly the same as the children did when I was teaching: the boys got together in a corner and rather enjoyed pushing one another and the girls got together in another corner discussing things. I could not see any evidence of sex. I have discussed with them whether they see drugs at school and whether they hear this or that. I asked them what they understand. They talked to me freely. You must put over a straightforward message.
I still believe that the Old Testament had something to say. I was delighted when my noble friend mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. If you wish to see evidence of global warming and of all the other events which are happening, you have only to reread the Old Testament, the literature about the fall of the Roman Empire, if you want to be a little more up to date, or the fall of the Greek Empire. Those accounts include greed, perversion and all the matters which will become prevalent in our society if we are not very careful.
I know it is unfashionable, and I am sorry, but in my view it is the duty of the parents to talk to their children about such matters. What kind of parents are they if they cannot explain a simple thing when a small child says "How did I get here?". Do they say, "I am sorry, dear, I cannot tell you that. You had better run and ask the teacher". What total nonsense!
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that AIDS is a killer disease. Applying that test, children should
1440
have explicit information about lung cancer which is also a killer disease. They should also have explicit information about heart disease, cancer of the pancreas and various other illnesses which are all killer diseases. Those matters can be included in health education. I cannot quite see where they can be fitted into science. That is the whole point. These issues are being shifted from one subject to another because of a particular order.
I believe that some of your Lordships have not visited schools lately. It is now quite acceptable to have boys and girls in every school. I do not care who you are, but it is not easy to give sex education to a mixed class of teenagers. I have listened to the people who give it in the social sense. They very dispassionately talk about this kind of thing and say: "Oh, you want to know about an orgasm. Well, it is something like this". We are talking about the basic aspects of human life which are love and procreation because we want children. These are the kind of subjects which we have to discuss with our children.
My noble friend is asking for something which is very simple, but what he has had to put up with! He has had all kinds of insulting letters. It is even worse if you say anything about dogs! There have been some very insulting letters about that subject. I have had hundreds of letters from parents, not cranks. I give this warning to the Government: several parents have said to me: "Why cannot we have a Bill that will make some of these issues totally legal, such as the right to withdraw?" We do not want to become threatening, but the parents feel very strongly about these matters. Rather unfashionably, some of us have tried to voice these issues. I know that the Minister is a woman of great understanding. We hope that, if she cannot give us the answers, she will at least pass on the questions to her noble friend. After all, Mr. John Patten is a very good practising Catholic. I note that he has not returned to listen to what we have to say. I must have a chat with him one day. How does a Minister think? Does one put one's conscience or one's job first? Although one cannot have everything, I was a bit disappointed by the right royal—
Noble Lords: The right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Phillips: Yes, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. All this reading about the Royals has been confusing me.
I like a clear message. If I ask somebody something, such as, "Can I do this or not?", I do not want that person to dissemble and to say, "On the one hand, but then again on the other hand." I want a yes or no answer. There is nothing wrong with our children that we cannot help them with and there is nothing wrong with our teachers, but let us give them at least some rights if they really do not want to teach this particular subject.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this Motion for our consideration today. It raises a

1441
most important topic and I fully support the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord and those underlying the Motion.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I, too, should like to hear a clear message. Unfortunately, however, this is not a dead simple subject about which we can be given a crystal clear message. I would align myself rather more with all that my noble friend Lady Cox has said, and despite the strictures that he received from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has said. This is a complex issue which needs the careful consideration that your Lordships have been giving it this afternoon.
I must apologise for I have a prior commitment and therefore cannot stay for the wind-up speeches which I should very much have liked to hear. I look forward to reading in Hansard tomorrow the reply of my noble friend the Minister to the questions that have been put to her. However, as I have said, I have a prior commitment for which I am already extremely late.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, correctly, he said that he hoped that this debate would not be about whether such teaching should be given, but about how it should be given. Therefore, in answer to what my noble friend Lady Brigstocke said, I hope that the debate on the question of how such teaching is to be given in our schools will continue. As I see it, we are all agreed on the necessity for such teaching.
Some have said that the teaching should be left to the parents. I am a parent and, like others, think that it is often easier for those who are not the parents to give such teaching. I do not believe that I have been as perfect in my dealings with my children on this subject as I should have liked. It is not easy. However, parents undoubtedly have a vital role to play and co-operation between parents and teachers is vital if this issue is to be dealt with adequately. I understand that, by far and away in most circumstances, such teaching is excellently given in our schools. However, there is undoubtedly a minority of schools in which it is not handled correctly.
Although we are dealing not only with the sexual method of the transmission of HIV and AIDS, but also with all the other methods, most of our discussion has centred on the sexual issue. I should like to endorse what some noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak ridge, have said, that the only safe way of not transmitting this disease sexually is total abstinence. As a Christian, I believe in the value of that and in the importance of stating it. From what I have read I understand that the use of condoms provides only a 95 to 97 per cent. safe method. I have been distressed by the DES guidelines that suggest that the use of condoms is a totally safe method. I believe that that is a misleading view which could be dangerous. If the guidelines are to be revised, I hope that there will be a change of emphasis along those lines.
I should like to comment briefly on the three sections of the Motion. First, I totally endorse the necessity—not just the importance—of
"consultation between parents, governors and teachers"
1442
as expressed in the Motion. I hope that the guidelines will emphasise that that consultation must be real, not just theoretical. All parties have a vital role to play.
I should also like to pick up what the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Guildford said about the value of schools informing parents about when teaching about HIV and AIDS is to be given. I say that for two reasons—first, so that the parents are ready and can have gathered the information that they need themselves; and secondly, so that parents can put this subject in the context of family values. I appreciate that that will be an extra bit of administration for schools and a pain; but if it can be done, I believe that it will be valuable every time.
The withdrawal of teachers would be unusual. However, if a teacher has a real conscience about the administration of such teaching especially to such a very young age group—and I accept that that is possible—I believe that there should be a right to pass such teaching to another teacher. There should be consultation with headmasters and headmistresses so that the right person is correctly equipped to carry out such teaching. Providing training and help for teachers is crucial given that we are talking about this young age group. I shall return to this point in greater detail in a moment. I hope that more training and help can be given to teachers because 10 times more sensitivity is needed when teaching this subject to this age group than when dealing with an older age group.
I turn now to the question of the right to withdraw children from such teaching. Let me say outright that I am unhappy about parents being given the right to withdraw their children from this teaching unless other effective teaching is substituted for it. The facts are important—especially for the older age group with which we are dealing. If such pupils miss out on some of the relevant facts, such as some of the dangers involved and the reasons for total abstinence or for taking other precautions, great injury could be caused.
My noble friend Lord Liverpool has already suggested to your Lordships that ACET—the AIDS Care Education and Training organisation—should be permitted to conduct this teaching. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could comment on whether that might be an alternative way of providing the teaching. If this matter was put in a Christian, biblical, sensible and sensitive context, many of the anxieties that parents and others have expressed about this subject could be overcome. ACET's people are trained, equipped and experienced in providing such teaching.
The question of how far parents should have the right to withdraw their children from national curriculum teaching is a difficult issue and one over which I shall leave a question mark.
I turn now to the age groups involved. I have discussed this matter with headmasters in order to sound out their experiences and views in the light of having had to administer this subject. It is disquieting to learn that some schools do not have an adequate policy. I hope that those schools which do not will think through these issues and will not shove them

1443
under the carpet. I am doubtful on the whole about whether it is right to administer any teaching on this subject to 11 year-olds.
I should like guidelines to schools to cover that issue. We are talking about the 11 to 14 age group because that is what is being stated; but I am doubtful about that. I suspect that it is right on the whole to give to 12 and 13 year-olds the scientific facts but to leave to 13 and 14 year-olds the emotional issues that are involved. This requires great sensitivity. I do not feel that the current guidelines are sensitive enough. Someone said that they are too heavy handed. Perhaps in the light of experience and what has gone on since their issue there will be scope in the coming year or two for their contents to be reconsidered.
I should like to take up the question of the right reverend Prelate on the context in which teaching is to be given. I believe that it should be given in the context of human relationships and of the family. That issue is sadly neglected.
In conclusion, I believe that this is an important issue. It needs to be treated with greater sensitivity. I hope that there will be a wider consultation on it.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I did not want to break into his well thought out speech but he was kind enough to comment on mine. He said that I was in favour of total abstinence. That would solve the housing problem rather quickly—total abstinence outside marriage.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I fully accept that point.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity of debating this most important matter. I hold the noble Lord in the highest esteem. He is one of the most caring and kind Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord and I share the same denomination in our Christian faith. I can understand the concern that the noble Lord and other noble Lords and Baronesses have in supporting the Motion to amend the order covering the teaching programmes on AIDS and HIV for 11 to 14 year-old children. Some noble Lords may remember that when the Education Reform Bill was passing through the House in 1988 I moved an amendment to include health education and life skills in the curriculum. At numerous conferences and meetings since I have heard many people interested in the promotion of good health say that this is necessary.
Until one has been involved very closely with people dying of AIDS I do not think it is possible fully to realise the devastation and full meaning surrounding the consequences of HIV when it leads to AIDS. AIDS is now a worldwide issue. It is not something vague which might happen in the future. It is with us. We cannot and should not be complacent. However pious and worthy are the sentiments underlying this Motion I do not think one can relax the need for a clear message so that young people growing up realize
1444
that they have to live alongside an infectious virus which is yet not fully understood and which can be a killer.
I should like to quote a passage from The Catholic responses to the challenges of HIV/AIDS education. It reads:
"As the primary teachers of their children, parents clearly have certain rights and duties as to the education of their children in personal, moral and spiritual matters. This places a responsibility upon parents to ensure that their children develop as healthy, emotional, sexual and spiritual persons. The refusal of parents to allow their children to be taught important information regarding such a major pandemic as HIV could be judged as failing in their responsibility to ensure both physical and sexual, as well as emotional health".
Children have inquiring minds. I know that from personal experience. Many children from about five years old want to know why I have to use a wheelchair. When I tell them that I have broken my back they often want to know more about how the spinal cord works and about the nerve supply. Once the explanation has been given, they seem satisfied. I feel that if teachers are going to teach children, many of whom will have inquiring minds, the teachers should be fully equipped to answer questions about the complex subject of the HIV virus and how it can develop into AIDS. Does the Minister feel that the teachers who will be doing this necessary part of education are fully trained and confident? I feel that teachers should opt out of their responsibility only if they feel that they are not adequately prepared to do a satisfactory job. This has been an important strand running through the debate. I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously.
Now that governors and head teachers have more responsibilities in running the schools, I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any way of ensuring that they are fully aware of the meaning of HIV/AIDS, so that they can answer questions which may be forthcoming from concerned parents. Parents should have the opportunity of understanding what their children are being taught, so that there is back-up between children, parents and teachers. In reality it can be difficult for many parents to communicate with children over personal matters. Children and parents can feel embarrassed and there can be a breakdown of good relationships. I sometimes feel that parents feel left out and ill informed. I should also like to ask the Minister whether parents will have a right of appeal if they feel that the way their children are being taught is unacceptable.
With the more open way of discussion which is typical of our modern way of life and with the use of radio and television, the real problems of violence, child abuse, rape and all the difficulties of life are uncovered and talked about in public. AIDS is an added problem, hanging over the world like a dark shadow adding to these dangers. I would hope that our aim will be that all human life should be seen as sacred and that its dignity should be respected and protected. Sensible, responsible education about HIV/AIDS is one way of helping to protect our future generations.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in urging the Government to amend the statutory order which makes AIDS education compulsory in the science curriculum and to allow for consultation with parents, governors and teachers and for parents to withdraw their children from these lessons if they so wish.
In other areas of legislation the Government have quite correctly encouraged parental responsibility and involvement. It seems odd that this commendable theme has not been followed in this instance. Indeed the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 makes parents and governors responsible for sex education.
I am not against teaching about AIDS in schools, although it may sometimes be more appropriately done in the home. However, I certainly take the view that parents who wish to undertake that role themselves should be permitted to do so and to withdraw their child from the relevant class. Indeed, the guidelines to teachers are negative in approach, containing what I would describe as crude condom-based information and dealing with perverted sexual practices which, in many cases, would not occur to 11 to 14 year-old children.
The order appears specifically to contravene the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which states that,
"where sex education is given [in schools] it is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to that provision earlier in his opening speech. The order also cuts across the European Convention on Human Rights and its five protocols. The convention says that when the state assumes the teaching burden it must respect the right of parents,
"to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
Finally, it ignores the 1991 Parent's Charter, which deals with parental rights and choice in the education of their children.
The message is clear: if you do not want to get burned, stay away from the fire. Alternatively, put another way: if you want to avoid AIDS, the wisest course of action is chastity outside marriage and fidelity inside marriage. Surely that is the message that the Government should be advocating, rather than a mishmash of somewhat questionable clinical measures which may inhibit the spread of the AIDS/HIV virus.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I did not originally intend to speak in the debate because I did not wish to oppose my noble friend Lord Stallard, for whom I have great respect and affection. Indeed, I have been a family doctor in his former constituency of St. Pancras for many years. I know at first hand what a friend he has been to local people. He has fought on their behalf time and again and won many battles for them against injustice and plain incompetence on the part of officialdom. I only decided to oppose the Motion when I realised that it might perhaps, without my noble friend's full agreement, be used as a Trojan Horse—or more appropriately perhaps the thin end of
1446
the wedge, because it is quite visible—to undermine a potentially promising development in our educational practice.
I submit that sex education cannot be divorced from teaching about AIDS and HIV. Sex education can equip young people to understand their developing bodies and emotions while they are at school. That helps them to cope better in the outside world both when they are at school and afterwards in early adult life. When properly taught, sex education does not deal simply with the mechanics of sex alone; it brings it into the whole context of human relationships, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It also deals with the emotional struggles through which all children go as they change into young adults. To arm them with understanding and knowledge of their bodies and feelings is widely acknowledged as the best way to help them avoid the twin dangers of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, which now of course includes AIDS, as well as the emotional pain which can result from mistaken acts committed in ignorance.
Those issues were discussed many times and for many hours in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Education Acts of 1986 and 1988. As a result, safeguards for parents were built into the legislation. The governing body of every school is required to draw up:
"its own sex education policy in which they should take account of the statutory requirements of the Core Curriculum which are relevant".
At the time that the Bill was being enacted the AIDS epidemic was only just being faced. It is true that in the original Act HIV per se was not mentioned as part of the curriculum. But because of the grave importance of the AIDS epidemic it was felt vital that children should learn about it. Last October the revised national curriculum orders for science, as my noble friend pointed out, require pupils in Key Stage 3 to learn how,
"the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses, including HIV".
In addition, Curriculum Guidance No. 5 of the National Curriculum Council recommends as part of health education and as a cross-curricular theme that young people should be able,
"to discuss sensitive and controversial issues, such as conception, birth, HIV/AIDS, child-rearing, abortion and technological developments which involve consideration of attitudes, values, beliefs and morality".
It seems that they are all important areas of knowledge which should help to produce informed and responsible citizens. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers, it is surprising how much more mature are today's teenagers when compared with ourselves at that age, and perhaps for some of us in this House even with our own children. They are not shocked or embarrassed by such topics. As many noble Lords pointed out, reference has been made to those matters in the media. Last Wednesday ITV screened "A Small Dance" at 8 p.m. I thought that it was a brilliant play. I thoroughly applaud ITV for having screened it. It centred on the plight of a girl who was going through a teenage pregnancy due to her own ignorance.

1447
I suggest that very few parents know enough about AIDS to inform their children of its nature in any detail, should they wish, for instance, to withdraw their children from the lessons about AIDS in school. There are many myths about how the disease is spread, as well as the embarrassment which many parents feel when they are discussing sexual matters with their children. I suggest that to allow them to deprive their children of the chance to receive accurate and unbiased information, as my noble friend's Motion would do, would be entirely wrong. I assure my noble friend that children are not embarrassed by this kind of information. They are likely to be more attentive in fact than in any other class if the subject is effectively taught. To receive knowledge does not mean, as has been pointed out by at least four noble Lords, that children will be more promiscuous. In fact, there is evidence that the reverse takes place.
However, the continuing high rate of teenage pregnancy is a matter of concern for all of us, as is the ever-increasing demand for termination of pregnancy. There is plenty of evidence that this is due to lack of or inadequate sex education at school. Although AIDS is not spreading quite as fast as originally projected, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out, thanks very largely to our explicit and frank public health education, heterosexual spread of AIDS, as he also pointed out, is increasing. Therefore the need for knowledge is urgent.
Perhaps I may divert here to say that the standard, style and courage of the health education which has been used in this country against AIDS is much admired by other countries which have not been as successful as we have in slowing down the spread of the epidemic. This is especially true of the United States, where, although the problem is much worse than it is here, much more prurient attitudes, surprisingly, prevail. Such attitudes put a curb on effective health education.
As for the second part of my noble friend's Motion, no school is likely to force a teacher to teach sex education or knowledge of HIV or AIDS if they do not want to. In any case that would be completely counter-productive. The subject requires special preparation, and not all teachers wish to take part. I suggest that the situation is similar in National Health Service hospitals, where no doctor who has a moral objection to performing an abortion is required to carry one out. Current practice, I think, covers the problem envisaged by my noble friend and I do not think that he need have any fears if things stay as they are now.
What I fear may happen is that the Government will use the sort of fears—
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I did not want to interrupt him, but he is not comparing like with like. Under the Abortion Act there is a conscience clause to allow that physician to exercise his conscience and not participate in that kind of operation. That is all I am asking for. It does not apply under the science curriculum.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend need not worry. There is no headmaster or headmistress who would insist on a member of staff taking one of these classes if they felt unable to do so or did not wish to do so. What I fear is that the Government might use the kind of fears that are expressed by my noble friend —which I think are unjustified—to hold back funding for training teachers to undertake this vital part of education. It is not a skill which all teachers have and many do not feel prepared to take on the role since it did not form part of their curriculum at their teacher training college.
A recent survey by the Sex Education Forum, which in fact sparked off the article in the Independent which my noble friend Lord Stoddart, mentioned, suggests that the national curriculum, extracts from which I have quoted, is not being implemented fully in the important areas which we are discussing. Fewer than half of the local authorities surveyed still did not know how many of their schools had sex education policies. That seems to conflict with the data produced by the right reverend Prelate, but I think that they are possibly compatible. It suggests that there is more interest in sex education at the point where it is carried out in schools than by the local authorities. They do not seem to know what is going on in their schools.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, only 6 per cent. of schools have actually decided against having sex education policies or including it in their curriculum. The National Union of Teachers says that the Government appear to be cutting time and money for teacher training in sex education—the same skills that are required for sex education are required for education about HIV and AIDS. I hope that the Government will not be swayed by the minority lobby, which has been quite vocal this evening, in under-resourcing this extremely important part of education for real life.
9.13 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing the Motion and giving us the opportunity to look at this sensitive question and to focus upon the importance of arriving at the right, balanced decision which is vital to our young children and which will affect their whole outlook and approach to sexual behaviour. It is generally accepted that this is not a party political matter, and so I feel no embarrassment in telling the House that I support wholeheartedly everything the noble Lord said.
These issues are sensitive. On the one hand, the Government's perceived view, until now, as expressed by my noble friend Lady Denton in answer to the Starred Question standing in my name on 5th March this year, was that the disease of AIDS was so serious that the facts about it and how it is contracted must be compulsorily taught in all schools in pretty graphic detail from the age of 11 upwards.
On the other hand, I join with a number of noble Lords who, while agreeing that the disease is serious and that school children should be taught about it, question the wisdom of the relevant part of the 1991 national curriculum order on three main grounds:

1449
first, that 11 is too young to be taught the subject in such detail; secondly, that it should be brought within the general sex curriculum and not taught in an amoral way by the science or biology master; and, lastly, that there should be a provision for parents, on grounds of conscience or strong religious beliefs, to enable them to obtain permission for their children to opt out of that teaching, provided that they undertake to teach them the dangers of the disease in the privacy of their home.
As noble Lords are aware, there is a provision enabling parents to do that in the school sex education programme. There is some question—the point was raised by my noble friend Lady Cox—that if the Government maintain a compulsory education stance, they may be contravening the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that parents must be allowed to ensure that their children's education fits their religious views. I do not believe that there would be anything more than a relatively minimal—if I may use those two words consecutively—number of requests from parents for their children to opt out, especially if, in the view of the parents, it was being taught by the right specialist organisation, such as ACET, which I mentioned earlier this year and which was mentioned tonight by my noble friend Lord Brentford. That would do much to defuse the situation which is causing some parents considerable anguish and worry. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reflect on this matter. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
I shall deal briefly with how our European partners cope with the conscience question. I studied some constitutions. The constitution of the Swiss Federation states:
"It shall be possible for the adherents of all religious beliefs to attend public schools without being affected in any way in their freedom of creed or conscience".
The Spanish constitution contains similar words and provides:
"The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction compatible with their own convictions".
Article 42 of the constitution of Ireland provides under "Education":
"The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children".
Lastly, the constitution of the Netherlands states:
"Education provided by public authorities shall be regulated by Act of Parliament paying due respect to everyone's religion or belief".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the Parent's Charter. Unfortunately I am unable to quote that verbatim but I suspect that it will contain some similar words.
France is the only European partner country about which I have been able to make inquiries as to how the subject is taught. I am told that until last year students were taught the subject between the ages of 14 and 16. As from this year, the minimum age has been reduced to 13, but parents have the right to enable their children to opt out on grounds of conscience or
1450
religious beliefs. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, 13 is the age from which children should first be taught the subject.
I thought it might be helpful to have the views of the Professional Association of Teachers on this subject as that association is a representative of the teaching profession. Two days ago I rang the general secretary of that association, Peter Dawson, who made some interesting and, I believe, helpful comments. I shall briefly outline those comments.
He agreed with me that the age of 11 was too young for children to be taught this subject. He endorsed 13 as the age he would prefer to see such teaching commenced. He said that it should be brought within the sex education programme. In other words he agreed with my views on that matter too, but I must assure your Lordships that I did not pressure him in any way at any stage during the telephone conversation. Mr. Dawson also stated that it was his view, and therefore the view of the association—I presume that was the case—that there should be a conscience clause as there is with sex education.
Finally—I thought these were his most important remarks —he stated that education is a partnership between teachers and parents and it is hard to think of any subject where this tenet should be more strongly recognised. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brentford for mentioning the possibility of using the services of ACET. I suggest that that is an avenue which might profitably be considered by the Government and by my noble friend the Minister. I hope she will express some view on that matter.
I accept that under the national curriculum order as it stands the Government are making worthy efforts to alert school children to the dangers of a disease for which at the moment there is no known cure. I repeat that that aim is a worthy one. However, I part company with the Government's stated view up to now in that I believe it is necessary to introduce some fine tuning along the lines proposed in this Motion and by noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Motion this evening.
As far as I am aware, there has been no debate in another place on this subject and it is therefore much to be welcomed that we have been able to give this subject an airing in your Lordships' House tonight. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give us cause to hope that this particular aspect of the science and national curriculum order 1991 can still be amended to take into account the concerns that have been expressed tonight.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I speak now as I did not wish to interrupt his interesting speech—as he has firmly pegged his argument to the age of 13, which he appears to think is a suitable starting point, does he accept the point I made that much misplaced knowledge and misconception is rife in particular in inner city primary schools at a much earlier age? How would the noble Earl address that problem?
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is impossible to control misinformation. However, I feel the right age

1451
at which the ordered informing and teaching of children should start should be at the age of 13 and no younger.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in rising at this late hour to support the courageous Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I am aware that much of what I wanted to say has already been said. Therefore I shall try to be brief. However, I wish to repeat that Section 46 of the 1986 Act places a duty on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to ensure that any sex education is given in such a manner as to encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. The long and the short of it is that making it compulsory to teach 11 to 14 year-olds about HIV and AIDS opens the door for those who wish to flout those provisions of the 1986 Act. I join other noble Lords in saying that this kind of sex education must remain optional for 11 year-olds, and should be a matter for their parents' discretion.
At first sight, one might have been slightly less suspicious of those who secured its inclusion in the compulsory curriculum because they slipped it into science, even if they did so when they thought no one was looking. Science teachers are, I suppose, less open to the propaganda of the politically correct sex, race and class brigade than are teachers in softer disciplines. But, on the other hand, science teachers may not be entirely at ease with all the moral and family considerations required by the 1986 Act, not because they are not thoroughly moral people themselves but because it is a pretty boggy area, as I hope I shall show.
Science teachers may, therefore, have to rely on extraneous material. As other noble Lords have suggested, I am afraid that it would be natural for them to rely on the Department of Education and Science's booklet, HIV and AIDS: A Guide for the Education Service, of November 1991. I am glad that other noble Lords have referred to that document in suitably disparaging terms.
One cannot but agree that that booklet encapsulates an aggressive disregard for Section 46 of the 1986 Act. Nowhere does it contain the smallest concession to moral considerations or the value of family life. For instance, paragraph 10 casts doubt on whether homosexuals are particularly at risk to AIDS. Paragraph 11 continues as follows:
"In teaching about HIV and AIDS, therefore, it is important to avoid giving any impression that it is a condition confined to certain 'high risk groups'. People risk infection because of what they do, not what they are".
The recent series of articles in the Sunday Times would appear to cast some doubt on that statement. To ram some of the rest of that amoral booklet down the throats of even 14 year-olds, especially girls, would be a deeply immoral act.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke gave examples of other teaching materials which are available and which are less offensive. I have here some material which I understand is widely used in schools. I fear that I should quote from some of the pamphlets put out by the organisation concerned, which is called
1452
AVERT, or the AIDS Education and Research Trust. I have two pamphlets here, one called AIDS & Young People, and the other called AIDS Working with Young People. Both pamphlets are entirely technical. There is no question of any moral or family value in any of the material. The bits which I suppose I should quote to your Lordships, with much distaste, concern oral sex, which is not exactly what one wants promoted to even one's 14 year-old daughter.
I shall spare your Lordships the technical details of oral sex, which are described at some length, but I hope noble Lords will get the flavour of the pamphlets from the following two quotes. The headline is a large one: "Oral Sex". Underneath it says, "Risky?" It goes on to say, having described that activity in great detail:
"This can be very pleasurable and is common among heterosexual couples and homosexual couples of both sexes".
The next headline continues:
"Are there any sexual activities which are completely safe?"
We are told that there are a few. Then the pamphlet advises as follows:
"There are also no risks of infection from mutual masturbation, so long as you don't have cuts or sores on your hand".
I would be happy to put those documents in your Lordships' Library, but I assure noble Lords that the flavour continues in exactly the same way. The thought of forcing that material down 14 year-old Moslem girls seems to me to be asking for riots.
So, to finish as quickly as I can, perhaps I may press my noble friend the Minister as to whether the Government could not take teaching about the sexual aspects of AIDS and HIV out of the compulsory curriculum and place it in an optional area instead. One option might be to put AIDS education into the non-statutory guidance produced by the National Curriculum Council. I understand that Curriculum Guidance (No. 5) on Health Education, from the NCC already refers to AIDS. No doubt that could be suitably expanded, if necessary.
I cannot help feeling that the much respected chairman of the National Curriculum Council might welcome that suggestion. In a letter to me yesterday he agrees that it is impossible to teach children about the HIV virus without giving information about how the disease is transmitted. That might be a question of degree, I suppose.
But then he goes on and he—the Chairman of the National Curriculum Council—writes in a rather interesting paragraph:
"As I understand the legal position, sex education in the 1986 Act is only voluntary where it does not conflict with the statutory requirements of the National Curriculum. My Council felt that the science Order should refer to the HIV virus and also to related topics which raise moral issues but that they should be properly and sensitively handled within the school's own approach to these matters".
Then comes the key expression:
"As a parent, however, I recognise that the issue is finely balanced".
If such an eminent person as the Chairman of the National Curriculum Council thinks that the decision is finely balanced, why not let parents take it for their children? Surely the Citizen's Charter goes at least as far as that. Another possibility might be to let AIDS

1453
education form part of the personal and social education curriculum, which on the whole is a pretty dreadful subject, largely controlled by the sex, race and class vigilantes. But at least it is voluntary.
I am sure there are other parts of the voluntary curriculum where AIDS education could be made available to 11 to 14 year-olds. As a last thought in this regard—I do not know what the right reverend Prelate may think of it—I wonder whether it might form part of religious education where, I venture to suggest, science may yet come to discover that it belongs anyway.
I support the Motion and very much look forward to my noble friend's reply to those questions.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand many of the concerns that my noble friend Lord Stallard expressed when moving this Motion. I know that they derive from strongly held convictions and from his faith. I know too that he is most concerned about AIDS and its spread. I respect his views but I regret to say that on this occasion, as he knows, I cannot support him. I must assure my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon that it has nothing to do with being politically correct. Indeed it is a little insulting to those Members of your Lordships' House who oppose this Motion to suggest that the reason for doing so is that they are politically correct.
I oppose the Motion, first, because I believe that it would set an unfortunate precedent which would undermine the national curriculum. I oppose it secondly and more strongly because I have been convinced by the many expert bodies concerned to stop the spread of AIDS that it is vitally important for all young people to be properly informed about the disease and that the right place to do that is as part of the normal curriculum in schools.
Consultation on how to teach sensitive issues is of course desirable. There can certainly be no opposition to that. However, at present there is nothing to prevent consultation between a school and parents on any matter. Indeed, it should be encouraged not just on this question but on the science curriculum more generally and on the curriculum as a whole. Successful schools always involve parents in their work wherever they can. They certainly should consult widely and inform parents about their policies.
It is already a statutory requirement for school governing bodies, on which parents and teachers are represented, to draw up their own sex education policies and take into account the statutory requirements of the core curriculum where they are relevant. Consultation is needed both to take into account the parents' suggestions and to allay their fears. I accept what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said; namely, that we need to be sure that more parents are aware of their rights in this respect, in relation not only to sex education specifically but to the rest of the curriculum too.
However, there is no need to amend the statutory order to allow for consultation, as I am sure the
1454
Minister will agree. It is allowed for. So it is a little hard to see how that part of the Motion would have any useful effect. The opportunities are already there.
The second part of the Motion provides a conscience clause which would allow teachers to opt out of teaching the subject. What is the point of having a national curriculum if we make it possible for teachers to opt out of teaching it? There is little doubt that a conscience clause of this kind would undermine the national curriculum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he made the point that there are many aspects of the national curriculum on which teachers might feel strongly, ranging from texts provided in the English curriculum to the question of whether children should be tested on certain aspects of the curriculum. Despite what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon said, a provision for a conscience clause in the secular curriculum could create serious management problems for head teachers and for governors. I believe that it is unnecessary too. The statutory order does not specify that provision for teaching about HIV/AIDS must be by a science teacher in a science lesson, although that would be the normal expectation. However, as other noble Lords have said, schools have flexibility to find the most appropriate teachers to take on the task; and that is what I am sure will happen. Teachers who are ill-equipped to do so through insufficient training on how to handle a sensitive area such as this, should not be required to take it on. I very much agree with those who have made that point. However, it does not require what seems to me the rather heavy-handed approach of the conscience clause to take into account the difficulties that some teachers may have.
What is needed—I agree with my noble friend Lord Stallard and other speakers—is better training, both initial and in-service training, and more resources and support for teachers to develop both their skills and their confidence in dealing with the sensitive issues involved. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
It is also important that teaching should not be narrowly scientific but should, in the context of health education and sex education, more broadly draw out the moral questions and discuss the context in which individuals make choices about their behaviour. However, in my experience many science teachers already do that when teaching, for example, about human reproduction. I thought my noble friends and others were a little unfair to science teachers in some of the comments that they made.
The third part of the Motion—that parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from particular lessons in the secular part of the national curriculum —again raises problems. It seems to me to set a rather undesirable precedent. I share the concern that was expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It could open up many other parts of the curriculum to the same pressures. It could mean that lessons and planning were disrupted and could pose a problem for schools about what to do with pupils who had been withdrawn. Worst of all, it could mean that some pupils, though perhaps only a few, would be withdrawn from classes which all should attend in

1455
order to acquire some understanding about a devastating but entirely preventable disease to which any of them could be exposed if they remain ignorant about how it is contracted. Moreover, it is a disease which they in turn can spread to other young people whose parents did not withdraw them from lessons about it. We must ask ourselves whether it is right to expose young people to risks in that way.
Learning about the disease at school should not be a taboo subject. Nor is it possible, even if we wished to do so, to protect young people from exposure to the issue that it raises. They will hear about it in the playground. They will see, hear or read about it in the media. As the right reverend Prelate said, surely it is better that they should be informed by responsible adults with experience of teaching and dealing with young people's questions and anxieties in a sympathetic way. The alternative is that they pick up hits and pieces of information from various sources which may or may not be accurate and which they may or may not understand.
I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon when he implied that sex education is primarily a parental responsibility. It is also a responsibility of schools and teachers, as others have already said during the debate.
Some speakers have suggested that 11–14 years is too young to start learning about HIV and AIDS. It will be up to individual schools to decide when they introduce the subject into the curriculum within that age group. Many may prefer to leave it to the age of 13 or 14, as the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, proposed. That is probably acceptable but to leave learning until later would not be acceptable. We know from recent Health Education Authority surveys that one-third of young people have had sexual intercourse by the age of 16. We also know that one-third of 16 to 19 year-olds do not believe that it is necessary to change their lifestyle as a result of HIV. It is worrying that young people appear to see HIV as a threat to others but do not see themselves at risk. We must get across the fact that all sexually active people are at risk if they fail to take sensible steps to protect themselves. It is a frightening statistic that one-quarter of 16 to 19 year-olds say that they would have unprotected sex with a new partner.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, young people also need to be aware that HIV/AIDS is spreading rapidly within the heterosexual population. The number of cases of AIDS acquired by heterosexual intercourse increased by almost 80 per cent. last year. Moreover, HIV/AIDS has concentrated more and more among young people; 20 per cent. of new HIV-positive cases are aged between 15 and 29 with 50 per cent. under 29. Among women with AIDS, 40 per cent. are aged between 15 and 29 and most became infected in their teens.
I am aware that many of your Lordships would prefer us to delay the teaching of such a delicate and difficult subject until the children are older. I have some sympathy with that but the statistics confirm what all health education experts say; that we must inform young people before it is too late. It is also
1456
unrealistic to hope that most people will accept the view that premarital sex should not take place. They will not.
Any of us who have had friends who have died from AIDS, as I have, will know that it is a terrible disease. At present we cannot cure it, although we must hope that a cure will soon be found. Until it is we can stop its spread only by improving public understanding of how the infection is transmitted. We must ensure that all pupils have access to that information; to do otherwise would be thoroughly irresponsible. However difficult and unpleasant the task, the human and economic costs of failing to take it on are too great to ignore.
I hope that my noble friend will not wish to divide the House on this matter but will instead allow the Minister to take away what has been said and to examine it carefully. In particular, I hope that the Government will reconsider the guidelines on how to combine the teaching of factual information in the science curriculum with teaching about relationships in the cross-curricular subject of sex education. In that way parents will be able to have their say within a more coherent structure. I hope that they will be persuaded of the importance of their children being given the information that they need to avoid contracting this terrible disease. I believe that they will be persuaded that it is needed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to make one comment because she is so involved in education. There is the added problem that many young children in schools, perhaps in primary schools, have HIV. Therefore, the problem is more than sexual; there must be an understanding of the virus so that children are not frightened of it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Baroness said and I totally agree with her.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I start by saying that I think the issue we are considering this evening is for many of us one of the more sensitive and difficult questions that we are likely to face in this House. It is a matter in which few of the arguments are clear cut; and where for many of us there is a real conflict between two incompatible courses of action, both of which are intended to safeguard the well-being of our young people and both of which carry, in their own ways, a cost. It is also about education and the role of schools in fulfilling their responsibilities under the law; that is, that all teaching should be concerned with the moral, spiritual and cultural well being of our children as well as their physical and academic well being.
In considering these courses of action, it is important for us to be clear on the agreed facts surrounding this issue. Perhaps I may spend a moment or two setting these out. Here certain facts about the threat presented by HIV and AIDS are, I think, generally accepted. Although its origins remain obscure, it seems that few cases of AIDS were known

1457
before the beginning of the 1980s. The virus was identified in 1983. My advice from the Department of Health is that, according to estimates by the World Health Organisation, some 10 million to 12 million people worldwide have already been infected with HIV, of which 2 million have developed AIDS. In the UK, 5,451 cases of AIDS had been reported by the end of 1991. Approaching 17,000 people in the UK were known to be HIV positive; but the true total of those infected is likely to be much higher.
In many countries, the rise in cases of HIV infection and of AIDS has been considerable. In the UK, we have been, relatively speaking, very fortunate in that overall the numbers affected by AIDS and known to be infected by HIV remain low.
The evidence from other countries suggests that continuing public education is needed if our relatively low growth in infection is to be sustained. In the absence of a cure—and it is important to note that there is as yet no cure, and that in spite of the intensive scientific effort devoted to the matter, there seems no likelihood of the development of a cure in the near future—the only weapon available to us in our efforts to curb the spread of the disease is awareness and improved lifestyles. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said, a more moral lifestyle would certainly go a long way towards reducing the incidence of HIV and AIDS.
It was for those reasons that my right honourable friend concluded last Autumn that those who had expressed strong concerns about the need for specific provision for education about HIV in the revised science order of the national curriculum had a sound case.
The revised science order, which is due to come into effect on 1st August, requires pupils at Key Stage 3 to study:
"ways in which the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses (including the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV))".
I should say also to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that there is absolutely no flexibility whatever as regards transferring that responsibility to the age of 14 plus.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps the Minister misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that the responsibility should be transferred to 14 plus. I suggested that there is a possibility, within the 11 to 14 age group, for individual schools to decide the best point at which to introduce teaching about HIV and AIDS.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, believes personally but she referred to something which my noble friend Lord Liverpool, said; namely, that that subject may be taught more appropriately to an older age group. I believe that the noble Baroness said that there is flexibility to do that. I am merely stating that there is no flexibility at all.
Key Stage 3 means, broadly speaking, the age range 11–14: but it is of course for teachers to judge the point within that span when their pupils' level of maturity and understanding makes it appropriate to introduce
1458
the topic. I should perhaps make it clear that the original order gave the opportunity for teachers to introduce the topic. The revised order makes that opportunity a requirement, with the aim of ensuring that schools give their pupils accurate information about the virus. Here I must stress that—deliberately —the requirement is phrased in sufficiently general terms to give schools wide discretion to decide exactly how they should fulfil that duty. Some may decide to incorporate teaching about HIV into the science curriculum. Others may prefer to incorporate this teaching into their wider programmes of personal, social and health education or sex education. And I have already noted the discretion schools have to decide the age at which their pupils should be introduced to the topic, except that it must be dealt with within the age range 11 to 14. I shall come in a moment to the legal framework within which schools should discharge their responsibility and the clear guidance my department has given as to the context within which sex education should be delivered.
The inclusion of the reference to HIV in the statutory order does not denote any change in the department's policy on teaching about HIV and AIDS which was first set out in the mid-1980s, when the department first issued guidance and teaching materials to schools after extensive consultation with interested organisations—including, in particular, the Churches. The department's Circular 11/87, which remains in force, stressed the importance of introducing pupils in their later years of compulsory schooling to the facts about HIV and AIDS, and the need to ensure that the topic was approached in accordance with the school's overall policy on sex education. Material has been prepared to help teachers in that task, some of which I fear is not very good. Indeed, having read through most of it I must say that some of it is wholly inappropriate. If I can do no more tonight, I hope to raise parents' awareness to challenge the schools, the departments and the teachers who are peddling the sort of literature referred to by my noble friend Lord Pearson.
Governors have the power under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to determine the way in which the subject is taught, the content and indeed the materials used. Therefore, any materials which come to a school can be rejected by governors and teachers. There is no requirement on the governors to consult with parents. Best practice suggests that they should, and it is my department's wish that they should. But there is no such requirement.
There may be a little confusion on the interaction of the national curriculum and the legal requirements relating to sex education, and I should like to take this opportunity to clear that up.
The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 introduced two major requirements relating to sex education in schools. First, it specified that governing bodies should determine whether their school should offer sex education and, if they so decided, what its form and content should be. Secondly, the governors and others involved in providing sex education were also required to ensure that as far as possible such education was given in such a way as to encourage pupils to have due

1459
regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Those responsibilities and that clear moral framework remain in force. Again, referring to the comments of my noble friend Lord Pearson, I have some doubts, but if the part of the literature to which he referred was produced in the classroom in the form he described, it would be in clear breach of the moral framework.
The national curriculum, introduced following the Education Reform Act 1988, now requires all secondary schools to teach certain basic elements of sex education. Pupils at Key Stage 3 are required to learn about the processes of conception in human beings, to know about the physical and emotional changes that take place during adolescence and to understand the need to have a responsible attitude to sexual behaviour. But it remains the responsibility of all those responsible for providing sex education in the school—governors and teachers—to do so in such a way as to bring home to young people the moral dimension and the prime importance of the family. That applies equally to those elements specified within the national curriculum, including, from the Autumn term, the requirement to teach about HIV, and to any more extensive programmes of sex education which governors decide their schools should provide. I believe that that is a crucial safeguard of which all parents should be aware. If they are not, my department could issue guidance to schools about it. I will go away with the strength of this debate behind me to ensure that we do just that.
Parents should know that governors must draw up, and keep under review, a written statement of their sex education policy. As parents they have the right to see such a written statement and, if they wish, to raise the issue with governors at the annual meeting which every governing body must hold in order to allow parents to discuss the way in which they are discharging their duties. The department's Circular 11/87 emphasised the need for schools to involve parents as fully as possible in the formulation and development of such policies.
I hope that parents will take full advantage of their rights in this difficult but important area. If parents are unhappy with what is being taught and the form in which it is being taught they should pursue their anxieties with the head teacher and the governors. When they believe the law is being breached and governors are not accepting their responsibilities they should inform my department. There are avenues of complaint if they fail to secure satisfaction. I should myself be glad to be advised of flagrant examples of breach of responsibility.
In particular, I would encourage parents to open up to debate the need for schools to consider their own circumstances and the differing needs and levels of maturity and understanding of their pupils. For example, the policy developed, after full discussion with parents, by the governors of an inner city school may well reflect a high level of pupil awareness, even among relatively young pupils, of the existence of HIV and AIDS. Such a policy will be very different from the approach adopted by governors in areas of the country where the prevalence and the level of
1460
awareness of HIV and AIDS are much lower. It is, I believe, one of the strengths of our current arrangements that such differences can fully and properly be accommodated. It is also worth noting that Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibits a local authority from promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. Again, some of the matters which we have heard in the course of the debate tonight highlight the need for that clause in the Act.
I should now like to turn to the specific question of right of withdrawal from certain aspects of the curriculum. Your Lordships will be well aware that we have long enshrined in law a right for parents to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship. That stems in some measure from the historical organisation of schools in this country. We have derived great benefit from a system which embraces both state-maintained schools, where religious education has been effectively nondenominational, and Christian, and voluntary schools, most of which are associated with a particular faith or denomination. Not all of the children attending a school, whatever its character, will necessarily belong to the faith or denomination which that school's religious education reflects. It has therefore been accepted that the parents of such children should be able to withdraw them from that specific area of teaching and from that area only.
The introduction of the national curriculum was within the context of an aim specifically stated in the Education Reform Act of 1988 to ensure that all children were fully prepared by their schooling for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Parliament agreed at that time that it should be possible to reach a broad consensus on what education would be needed to fulfil that aim. It ensured that the shape and content of the secular curriculum should be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny through an extensive process of consultation and legislative procedures. For religious education new provisions in the shape of local committees were introduced to ensure that the framework for religious education in any area accorded with the wishes of its population.
There will occasionally be areas where those two interests, the secular and the religious, to some extent overlap. The current case is one. There are strongly held and irreconcilable views. After careful consideration of the issues, the Government have taken the line that they should follow the broad principles which Parliament agreed should be enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988: that the curriculum should fully prepare all pupils for the challenges and problems, as well as the opportunities, which their adult lives will present; and that to this end all pupils are entitled to receive a broad, comprehensive curriculum. To create rights of exemption from aspects of the secular curriculum would not in my view be in the interests of securing an effective, broad education for every child. That must be our first concern. However, I must repeat that the teaching of sex education and HIV within national curriculum

1461
science must, and I repeat must, have due regard to moral considerations and the value and promotion of family life.
I fully understand the strength of feeling which exists on this extremely sensitive issue. Indeed, I personally share the concerns of many who have spoken today. I believe that we all recognise the dilemma facing us: on the one hand, there is a clear need to do all we can to protect young people from this disease; on the other, we are properly reluctant to introduce them to its implications during what ought ideally to be a period of their lives when they should be free of the worries that such matters may bring.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government have weighed these two considerations very carefully. We do not come lightly to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of our children to ensure that they are all made aware, as sensitively as possible, of the facts and issues surrounding HIV and AIDS at an age when they are able to understand them. We insist that this must be undertaken by schools in such a way as to bring out fully for young people the moral considerations and the importance of family life. Teaching in this sensitive area cannot be value-free and it is for governing bodies to ensure that the national curriculum requirements are put into a clear moral framework.
We are embarking on a programme of inspections of all our schools. Inspectors will be required to look at all areas of the school curriculum, especially in relation to national curriculum requirements. They will look at how cross-curricular themes are dealt with, including health education. They will look too at the governing body's policies concerning the curriculum, including their policy on sex education and HIV and AIDS, and say whether the curriculum taught in the school is consistent with those policies. They will be under a duty to report on pupils' moral and spiritual development.
I should now like to pick up on a few points that have been made during the debate. Like other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock was worried about flexibility between the key stages. There is a considerable amount of flexibility between the key stages; but, as I said earlier, the science order requires that an introduction to information about HIV be given in Key Stage 3—that is, between the ages of 11 and 14. There is no discretion to delay the introduction beyond the age of 14.
I have been asked about consultation. There has been some criticism about there being very little consultation. The HIV reference was inserted in the science order as a result of the constructive representations that were made during the consultations on the Secretary of State's proposals. There was then a further stage of widespread statutory consultation on the draft order, which included the reference.
I have also been asked about teacher training. We have provided grant support for the in-service training of teachers, youth workers and advisers. In 1987, under the LEA training grant scheme, the department introduced a separate programme to support
1462
in-service training for education professionals—initially on drugs-related issues, but since 1990 it has included wider preventive health topics, including HIV and AIDS. It is estimated that during the period 1987–91, some 100,000 training course places were provided for teachers, advisers and youth workers.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked that secular education should not be introduced too early in the key stage. I believe that he said that it was a matter for the judgment of the governors. It is certainly a matter for the judgment of governors and teachers, but the science order is sensitive about this and emphasises that knowledge of their bodies' natural processes should proceed in pace with the changes that take place during adolescence. A statement of attainment requiring an understanding of reproduction is pitched at level seven, which is the top of the range of the levels for Key Stage 3. That is a clear signal to teachers that this is material for pupils who are approaching the end of the key stage.
I was asked whether it is important that teaching about sex and the HIV virus should be within the broader context of social education. I must repeat that the placing of HIV in the science order does not remove the protection of the requirement to pay due regard to moral considerations and to the importance of the family. That provision of the 1986 Act continues to apply to sex education, whether it is within the science curriculum or the secular part of the curriculum.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the HIV booklet. It states early on—I believe in paragraph 3—that its purpose is to provide basic information for all teachers for professional purposes. There is a specific reference in paragraph 37 to the provisions of the 1986 Act.
On the issue of whether there is a discrepancy between the 1986 and the 1988 legislation, I must advise your Lordships that the 1986 Act provides no arrangements for consultation with parents. The discretion is for the governors who may or may not consult the parents. That is something that I must take back to my department for discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked whether there is a right of appeal. There is no right of appeal. Parents can challenge only if a school is in breach of its legal obligation. There is no right of appeal if parents simply do not like what is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about consultation with parents. I refer him to paragraph 11 of the department's Circular 11/87. I could send it to him if he would find that helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether teachers have access to good teaching materials. The department issued to all secondary schools in 1987 a video pack entitled Your Choice for Life. Since at that time there was little material available for use within schools an independent evaluation indicated that schools found it useful. Since then a good deal of additional material has been produced by various organisations, including the Churches. The Health Education Authority maintains a regularly updated

1463
annotated list of the resources currently available. I repeat my plea to parents to take an interest in the materials that are used in the school.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the Minister said that she is not quite happy and will take the matter back to her department, does she feel that there should be a right of appeal if parents are worried that what their children are being taught is not what they would like them to be taught?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, parents have powers to challenge. They can certainly challenge schools that are in breach of the Act. It is also possible under one part of the 1986 Act for parents to have a view about the content and the way the subject is taught. They do not have the power to say whether it should be taught, a point that has been at issue during the debate today.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that children pick up their values from home. I was not sure whether he was saying that that is where they should pick them up. I make a plea here for that large and, sadly, growing number of young children who do not pick up their values from home and have no point of reference and no framework in which to pick up values other than at school. For many children schools are now the only anchor in their lives. It is an absolute responsibility of government to ensure that the framework within which children grow up is a moral framework. We must promote all that is good in a young person's life. It is not enough to say that it is a matter for parents. We have a responsibility as government, as schools and as teachers.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I would not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I did not wish to imply that I thought that all such education should take place in the home. I said that a good deal inevitably takes place in the home but that there is equally a responsibility on the school. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that clarification.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that only 6 per cent. of schools have a policy of not wishing to have sex education in schools. The figure may only be 6 per cent. of schools but that is more than 1,000 schools. In fact, I believe that the figure is almost 1,500 schools. That represents a large number of children. There is an inconsistency in those schools having a quite unequivocal view about sex education but finding that they have to have sex education as part of the science curriculum.
Reference was made to the Plymouth Brethren. I know very little about the Plymouth Brethren and so it is not for me to comment on their views, rather as my noble friend Lord Coleraine said himself. However, the view that, because they are a small group, their point of view is not valid is not one I share. Any point made by any Member of this House on behalf of one or more people is a valid point which we must respect in the way that we have learnt to respect in this House each other's points of view.
My noble friend Lord Brentford asked whether a teacher who is uncomfortable or has a conscience
1464
about teaching this as part of the curriculum can be made to. The answer in theory is that a teacher can be made to, but the practice is that in most schools ways are found by the head teacher and governors so that a teacher is not too compromised. But in theory the straight answer is that the teacher would have to teach the subject.
One problem that I have picked up as I listened to the debate tonight is not so much that children should not be taught the dangers of the disease HIV/AIDS, but what could be described as value-free education and the reluctance on the part of some of those charged with the responsibility to teach the subject to say what is moral or amoral, what is desirable or undesirable behaviour and what is right and what is wrong. I believe that parents and governors can do a great deal to redress such issues in their schools. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may return to the hypothetical question of a teacher who, on the grounds of conscience, refuses to teach the subject even though he is thought to be the most suitable person to do so by the governors and has been instructed to do so by the head teacher or the headmaster, as the case may be. If that teacher continued to refuse, what would his position be? Would he be subject to dismissal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall answer the question in two ways. In theory a teacher could be made to teach it in the way that a teacher can be made to teach any subject of the national curriculum. This part of the national curriculum theory is no different. However, what I am saying is that, in practice—and there is a distinction between the two—most schools will find a way to ensure that a teacher is not so compromised. If the answer is different from the one that I am now giving the noble Lord, clearly I shall have to write to him on the matter. I have taken advice during the course of the debate because I wished to clarify the matter. From the answer that I was given, my understanding is that, in theory, a teacher does not have the right of a conscience clause.
Perhaps I may deal with one final criticism; namely, that, somehow or other, the people who are concerned about the matter are either zealots or, as has been said, just small groups like the Plymouth Brethren. To counter that, I must pray in aid the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Stallard, Lord Robertson, my noble friends Lord Brentford, Lord Coleraine, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Liverpool, Lord Pearson and Lady Cox are not zealots and are not over the top. They have a concern which I believe probably can be addressed by increasing parents' awareness and by ensuring that the obligation to consider the moral and spiritual dimension of education is properly addressed in our schools.
I can assure noble Lords that I shall bring the views expressed in this debate to the attention of my right honourable friend. He will carefully consider whether, within the overall framework of our provisions for the curriculum, any further means may be found to meet

1465
the concerns expressed. I should like to conclude by repeating my hope that all parents will take full opportunity of their right of involvement in the development of the sex education policy of the governing body of their children's schools and ensure that their voice is heard.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, she attempted in her summing up to excuse her department's booklet, HIV & AIDS A Guide for the Education Service, by referring us to paragraphs 3 and 37. I have taken a little time to read those two paragraphs. I have to tell my noble friend that I do not see how one could read into those paragraphs any support for the moral position, or the values of family life, as envisaged by Section 46 of the 1986 Act. I mention that for her information, so that it goes on the record.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords,I shall verify the matter and, if I have given my noble friend an inappropriate answer, I shall write to him.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it only remains for me sincerely to thank all those who have spoken, from whatever viewpoint, in what has been an extremely interesting, comprehensive and instructive debate. One positive fact that emerged was the universal acceptance on both sides of the House of the seriousness of the HIV virus. That is a good sign.
Much as I would like to, it would be impossible to reply to many of the points which were raised due to the late hour and complexity of the subject. So I shall refrain from that, except perhaps to ask one or two questions of the noble Baroness who has replied. I should like to congratulate her on her reply and her contribution. I would not call it a summing-up. It was part summing-up and part contribution, and I thought her contribution where she let her own conscience deal with the points in question was better than the part which she read from the brief. However, that is just my opinion.
The Minister quite rightly stressed a number of times the moral framework of the 1986 Act. I am still not absolutely clear that she is saying that that applies to the science curriculum and that the statutory rights of parents, governors and teachers under the 1986 Act will now apply to the science curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say absolutely unequivocally that it does apply. Not only does it apply to sex education as it relates to HIV and AIDS within the science curriculum, but it applies to the whole of the national curriculum too.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, so there is the right then to appeal? If the statutory rights from the 1986 Sex Education Act apply, then there is the right to appeal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not want to confuse the noble Lord about appeal. There is the
1466
right to challenge if it is believed that teaching is not being done within a moral, spiritual and cultural framework.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I shall certainly examine that point very closely. It would be foolish to try to go into detail at this time of night and after such a long reply. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall scrutinise that reply extremely carefully and we shall probably have to come back to it at some other time.
The Minister did not mention the position of private and independent schools where children are equally at risk. How does the curriculum proposal affect them, or does it not? Does it not matter about those children? That will upset many people. But I still feel that the Minister was again making the same error in relying mainly on the 1986 Act and replying in relation to that Act. The Minister was using the 1986 Act almost in error to discuss the science curriculum. There is a difference and the Minister herself said there is a difference, but it is still not clear to most of us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, because this is such an important debate I think I should make myself clear. The 1986 Act states that sex education should be within a moral and spiritual framework. Within the context of the secular curriculum there is the right not to teach sex education at all. Governors can make the decision that it shall not be taught. Indeed 6 per cent. of schools have chosen to do that.
The moral and spiritual framework is carried through into the national curriculum. What is not carried through into the science curriculum is the right to choose whether sex education shall be taught. There is no choice as to whether it shall be taught; it must be taught.
Lord Stallard: All right, my Lords. We shall go into that even further when we look at this matter again. I was not introducing anything strange when I mentioned conscience clauses. This country, Government and Parliament, have a long and proud tradition of recognising people's consciences in all aspects of life, be it military service, health or the wearing of helmets, as referred to by one noble Lord, and there are various parts of the education Act where we already have these conscience clauses. I shall not be happy until I get a satisfactory reply and progress on the basis of applying and maintaining that. People may say that it is a dangerous precedent to allow teachers, parents and so on to opt out, but it is an equally dangerous precedent to prevent a conscience clause from operating in the crucial areas of social and educational life.
Those are the aspects that I shall be looking at when I re-read the debate as many times as I have to and then, it is to be hoped, come back to the noble Baroness with further questions and detailed correspondence. In the meantime I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion to resolve, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  A.1 DUAL CARRIAGEWAY: TIMETABLE
  A.1 DUAL CARRIAGEWAY: TIMETABLE
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN CENTRAL LONDON: REFURBISHMENT COSTS
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN CENTRAL LONDON: REFURBISHMENT COSTS
  CITY CHALLENGE
  CITY CHALLENGE
  "PARTNERSHIP IN DEALING WITH OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY": CONSULTATION RESULTS
  "PARTNERSHIP IN DEALING WITH OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY": CONSULTATION RESULTS
  LETTER OF 23rd MARCH TO CHARITY COMMISSIONERS
  LETTER OF 23rd MARCH TO CHARITY COMMISSIONERS
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS: AVERAGE COST
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS: AVERAGE COST
  BAIL AND PROBATION HOSTEL PLACES: AVERAGE COST
  BAIL AND PROBATION HOSTEL PLACES: AVERAGE COST
  AFTER-CARE HOSTEL PLACES: AVERAGE HOME OFFICE GRANT
  AFTER-CARE HOSTEL PLACES: AVERAGE HOME OFFICE GRANT
  PRISONERS' HEALTH CARE
  PRISONERS' HEALTH CARE
  MAXWELL COMPANIES: PENSIONS
  MAXWELL COMPANIES: PENSIONS