Sitting of 3 March 1992

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

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he plans to curtail nuclear weapons proliferation.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent progress in multilateral disarmament.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The greatest immediate risk of proliferation stems from the break-up of the Soviet Union. I announced last week assistance to Russia in the safe reduction of its surplus nuclear warheads, and we are considering with other interested countries how best to help Russia use the skills of its scientists for peaceful purposes. We are also considering with partners measures to improve the operation of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguard regimes. As regards multilateral disarmament, the Government are fully committed to the greatest progress in the whole range of nuclear conventional, chemical and biological arms control negotiations.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that five months before the Gulf war, the Government told me that they had full confidence that Saddam Hussein was not developing nuclear weapons? If they are being fooled now by many other countries, is it not right that we must seek a strong, new, international non-proliferation treaty containing vigorous verification provisions backed by United Nations sanctions? Would not the best way to ensure that such a treaty would be accepted worldwide be for us to allow international inspection and verification of the numbers of our warheads?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are now engaged with the United Nations in the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The world has learnt the lessons from that, of the need for a more effective operation and for more intrusive inspections by the IAEA. I can certainly confirm on behalf of the Government that we shall take any sensible steps that are necessary, consistent with our security, to play our part in that effort.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was only by a consistent and credible policy of multilateral disarmament that the collapse of communism was eventually assured?
    Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital at this time, when there is the greatest risk of proliferation that the world has ever known and when the world's greatest nuclear power is in a state of disintegration, that we ensure that while we take every positive and constructive step to try to deal with that very grave situation, we recognise the need to maintain our essential safeguard, our own nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State referred to help being given to Russian scientists. In precisely what form is that help being given?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the statements made by US Secretary Jim Baker and German Foreign Minister Genscher. We are in close touch with our allies on this matter to see the ways by which assistance can perhaps be given, and contracts can be placed, for valuable work to be done which would occupy such scientists, in addition to the part that they might also play more directly in some of the work involved in the dismantling and disabling programme of that massive nuclear arsenal.
    Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he feels about the accuracy of the continued Russian accounting for nuclear warheads? Has he considered whether the western powers should purchase some of those warheads to prevent them from falling into the hands of non-nuclear powers that have no idea how to maintain or destroy them?
    Mr. King: It would be fair to say that our impression so far is that the previous Soviet systems were, in many ways, impressive and that the Soviet Union had good controls over its nuclear weapons. Our concern now is how good those controls remain, given that the situation is moving from union controlf—the Soviet Union—to control by individual republics. Four republics now have strategic nuclear weapons, although tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn within Russia. Our worries about the continuing control, however, are real, which is why we are making as positive a contribution as we can to help tackle that problem urgently.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State impress on the Prime Minister the need to raise with Mr. Yeltsin the substance of the conversation that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I had last Tuesday with Mr. Bikov of the Russian Academy of Science? Mr. Bikov said that on those secret sites, nuclear weapons were still being built. He said that, despite the fact that representatives of the Russian Parliament did not want them to be built and decisions had been taken for them not to be built, they were still being built because of the nature of the command economy that is being phased out. Was not that an important statement for Mr. Bikov to have made to us? Will the Secretary of State assure us that the matter will be raised with representatives of the Russian Government?
    Mr. King: Allegations of many kinds have been made about that matter and certain aspects of the command economy. While stocks in the form of raw materials last —I am not talking about nuclear weapons but general armaments—the production will clearly continue. The successor republics of the Soviet Union regard general armaments such as tanks and artillery as a valuable source of hard currency for their hard-pressed economies. The

    147
    information that the hon. Gentleman has, has not been confirmed to me, except in certain minor respects, but it is a serious issue with which we continue to deal.

    Royal Auxiliary Air Force
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making towards restoring a flying role for squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): There are no plans to restore a flying role to squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Royal Air Force is the only one of the three western air forces with significant operational experience since world war two—the other two are the Israeli and the United States air forces—not to have combat-ready reserve squadrons? A flying role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force would be exceedingly cost effective, particularly as air crews are being made redundant under "Options for Change". It is a marked distinction of the sensible policy of the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Reserve in that matter.
    Mr. Hamilton: We are considering whether a small number of test air crews from industry in the Royal Air Force Voluntary Reserve should be used as front-line reinforcements for fast jet aircraft. We are talking about costs and, as my hon. Friend will know, the cost of maintaining any aircraft, whether in the Royal Air Force or the reserves, is great, and I do not know how cost effective it would be.
    Mr. Rogers: In the early stages of "Options for Change" the Secretary of State said that he would put more resources and emphasis on the development and re-equipping of the reserve forces. How many extra resources have been put into the reserve forces since the beginning of "Options for Change"? Would he agree to support a review of the Reserve Forces Safeguard of Employment Act 1985 so that we shall not have in the future the rash of litigation that has been needed against employers who have declined to accept reservists back since the Gulf war?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating what my right hon. Friend will say on the matter. My right hon. Friend will shortly make a statement on the regular-reserve mix.
    Sir Hector Monro: While declaring an interest and reluctantly accepting what my right hon. Friend says about flying squadrons, may I ask him to confirm that there is a good future for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in view of its exceptional record and its cost effectiveness as a reserve force?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend will know and as hon. Members will hardly need to be reminded, a large number of roles are currently carried out by the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Those roles are valuable and we intend to build on them.

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on "Options for Change".
    Mr. Tom King: The "Options for Change" exercise was completed in July 1990. Since then, we have been concerned with implementing proposals to create the structure for "Britain's Defence for the '90s". The House is aware of a number of recent announcements, particularly for new equipment, to ensure that our forces, though smaller, will be more flexible, more mobile and better equipped than ever before.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Government's inaction on this matter has resulted in "Options for Change" being a shambles? There has been no positive action to give hope to those communities and workers involved with the defence industry. The Government have failed to take the opportunities before them. Will we have to wait for a Labour Government before positive action is taken? [Interruption.]
    Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, I do not usually have by breath taken away. But for the hon. Member to make such a statement, particularly today when, if I catch your eye, I shall make a statement about equipment procurement for our forces, leaves me breathless. I have made statements from the Dispatch Box announcing new tanks, new helicopters, new frigates, and new packages for the air force, our amphibious forces and our commandos. We have made our policies absolutely clear, not just by asserting that we have it in mind to take action, but by stating what we have planned and by making announcements for new equipment and new forces. I also hope to have something more to say on the reserves, which is an important development. For the hon. Gentleman to have the nerve to ask such a question when he was undoubtedly one of those who voted successively for large cuts in our defence expenditure, is mind-boggling.
    Sir Jim Spicer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that our infantry is second to none in the world. Does he also agree that a large part of the excellence stems from the fact that its members have the right training from day one, when they join the armed forces? Will he make certain that, in no circumstances, will there be an mismatch in terms of that basic training? Will he ensure that any suggestion of parachute recruits going to Lichfield to train with Royal Army Medical Corps recruits of both genders would be ruled out of court immediately?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend is ever vigilant of the interests of the parachute regiment. I do not think that anybody seriously believes that we can get much legislation passed in the House without his close observance and approval of it. We are looking at the training arrangements and are anxious to ensure that our future forces receive the best and most relevant forms of training in the most efficient and cost-effective way. There may be further announcements shortly.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While welcoming the briefing that is continually taking place, may I press the Secretary of State to bear in mind that the reserve forces are always an important aspect of our national forces? In an earlier reply he suggested that in Northern Ireland, those who wanted to volunteer for the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve

    149
    could volunteer for some other service. Does he accept that some people prefer to prepare for international emergencies and not necessarily be involved in the local scene? Will he bear that in mind as he considers further recruitment for the TAVR in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He will recall that when I made the announcement about the TA I made the point that even with the proposed changes the people of Northern Ireland will enjoy some of the best opportunities in the United Kingdom to take part in TA service. There are changes—the numbers were exceptionally high, as the hon. Gentleman graphically indicated just now—but still no one could claim that Northern Ireland was badly placed in respect of our proposals.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the anxiety that still persists in Staffordshire about the fate of the Staffordshire regiment is not mere local and parochial concern but is based on a wider concern for the strength of the infantry? Can he say anything this afternoon that will enable me to reassure my very worried constituents?
    Mr. King: I entirely sympathise with the feelings described by my hon. Friend. I was met by a very respectful group of Gordon Highlanders when I visted Aberdeen recently, when I said that I would have been on the line as well had I been in their position.
    We have made our plans; they involve change; they involve striking a balance. The Army has reached its decisions. My hon. Friend is concerned about what the strength of the infantry will be in three years' time. We are steadily working towards the plans that we set out. which we believe are right. Were the world to change significantly, we would of course have to look at them again.
    I do not want to be misunderstood. We have no plans to change: we believe that these proposals are right. We believe in smaller but better, which means a choice between the numbers of people and the quality of the equipment that they can enjoy. My hon. Friend will concede that we have more than lived up to our promise that our Army of the future, as the Select Committee report said, will be outstandingly well equipped. We intend that to apply to the Navy and to the Air Force as well.
    Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State pointed out in his last answer that on 21 February he expressed sympathy with some of the supporters of the regiments, and he said that he would have been standing outside under the same banners. He did not mention, however, that his answer on the same occasion made it absolutely clear that the proposed regimental cuts would proceed irrespective of the findings of the Defence Select Committee report. How could the Secretary of State dismiss so lightly and in advance a report which had not even been written at that date? Is not that a discourtesy to the Select Committee, which is made up mainly of Conservative Back Benchers? Will it not be regarded by them and by the regiments as an admission that he is unable to justify on security grounds the cuts that he has made?
    Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting a newspaper report on this matter? If that is the report to which he is referring, when asked how I would react to a Select Committee report I said that it would depend on what it said. It is not mandatory on any Government or Minister
    150
    automatically to accept every Select Committee report. We will respond constructively; if we believe that the report's criticisms are right and constructive, we will take them into account. If we disagree with them, we will say so in the most courteous and, I hope, respectful way we can.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high degree of dependence of the Plymouth travel-to-work area on defence-related activity? Does he agree that it is therefore essential that the area be involved meaningfully in future in our nuclear submarine programme and in the Devonport-based surface ships?
    Mr. King: Not only am I aware of that dependence; I am aware of the debt that we owe the area and of the real contribution made by the people of Plymouth to the Royal Navy and the Royal Marine Commandos, among other units involved. They would be the first to show their appreciation.
    We have made it absolutely clear that we are determined that Plymouth should have a good future. I do not want to go into detail now, but that is certain. How good that future is will depend in part on the performance of the dockyard, which is competing right now. I hope that the dockyard will be in a position to make a significant contribution to the work in future—our budget provides for that. Indeed, we are the only party to have made the financial provision to ensure that that happens.

    Young People
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many young people under the age of 18 years are currently serving in the armed forces.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As at 1 January 1992, the latest date for which we have information, there were 7,647 personnel under 18 years of age serving in the armed forces.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the growing international concern about the use of children and young people in various conflicts, especially in third-world countries, how on earth can the Minister possibly justify a situation in this country whereby a young lad can join the Army at the age of 16, or in some cases at the age of 15, but if he changes his mind and wants to leave after serving more than six months he cannot do so and is forced to continue in the armed services until the age of 21? Is not it about time that the Government stopped this practice of recruiting and exploiting young people who are deemed not old enough to cast a vote but in some cases are being forced to continue in the Army and can be put into armed combat, as they were during the Gulf war?
    Mr. Hamilton: The issue of people not being able to leave the forces until they are 21 was raised by the Select Committee that examined the Armed Forces Bill, now the Armed Forces Act 1991. We are looking at the matter and it is currently being considered by the Department. The hon. Gentleman asked about young people joining the armed forces. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman thinks he is speaking for, but I remind him that these people are volunteers and join with the approval of their parents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a person under the age of 18 should not have joined his unit in the

    151
    Gulf? I do not think that that would have been the attitude of the young men who were very keen to fight for their country and to serve with their compatriots.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his earlier answer emphasised once again how essential and right it was for the Government to stand up against allowing homosexuality in the armed forces? Many parents of potential boy soldiers, sailors and airmen would have been very reluctant to allow their sons to join the armed forces if homosexuality had been allowed among those who were to train them.
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. We carefully considered that issue, and I agree that many parents would have been reluctant to allow their children to serve with the armed forces at such a young age if homosexuality had been allowed.

    Trident
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to the Trident nuclear defence programme.
    Mr. Tom King: The Trident programme remains on time and within budget. The first submarine, Vanguard, is set to roll out of the Devonshire dock hall in Barrow tomorrow and, following a series of sea trials, will enter service with the Royal Navy in the mid-1990s.
    Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have had a consistent and unwavering policy on nuclear deterrence through the strength and use of Trident? Will he also confirm that the Government will place the order for the fourth Trident submarine as soon as possible?
    Mr. King: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. It is our duty to protect our nation against the risk of nuclear attack and nuclear threat. That cannot be done on an on-off basis. We must provide the means, the equipment and the training, and that must be maintained year after year. We cannot take risks. My great concern about the totally ambivalent position of the Labour party is that it is prepared to take risks by not having enough submarines to provide an effective deterrent. That applies even to the minority in the Labour party who believe in the nuclear deterrent. We have heard the ultimate nonsense from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who has said that if a Labour Government order a fourth boat they will not put any warheads on it.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Did the Secretary of State derive some comfort from the authoritative letter in The Times of 18 February from the noble Lord Lewin underlining the need for four submarines for the Trident fleet? Did he also note in the same letter the noble lord expressed the view that it may be possible to adapt Tridents to fill a sub-strategic role? In view of that, did not the Secretary of State pause to conclude that whatever NATO may require, there is no requirement for the United Kingdom to have its own tactical air-to-surface missile?
    Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support in respect of the fourth Trident boat. I give him credit for that, although I cannot give much credit to his policy of favouring a 50 per cent. cut in
    152
    defence expenditure, which means that there is not the slightest chance of his being able to pay for the extra boat. At least he is father to the wish, even if he cannot guarantee its achievement.
    As for the hon. and learned Gentleman's other point, I have made the NATO position clear before.
    Mr. Churchill: When my right hon. Friend goes to Barrow later in the week, will he congratulate Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. and its work force there on the excellent job that they have done in constructing the vessels to specification and to schedule?
    Is not it clear that a party which, a few years ago, was offering to do a deal with the Soviet leadership that would have involved the sacrifice of 100 per cent. of Britain's deterrent in return for only 2 per cent. of the Soviet deterrent cannot be trusted with Britain's defences?
    Mr. King: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall ensure that the message that he has asked me to convey is conveyed tomorrow, when I go to Barrow to mark the roll-out of the first Vanguard submarine. This is a great achievement on the part of all the company's work force, and of not only those who work in Barrow but those employed in the other elements that make up our Trident system. That system will now come into operation, and will be available for the defence of our country for many years.
    Mr. O'Neill: On Thursday, some of the Secretary of State's officials will give evidence about Trident to the Select Committee on Defence. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on 6 March 1991, in answer to question 40, Rear Admiral Pirnie said that Britain could maintain a continuous patrol with three Trident submarines, and that with one submarine in refit we could still maintain a continuous patrol with only two submarines? Is that still the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers?
    Mr King: That is a complete misintepretation of the original evidence, which related to the period immediately prior to Vanguard's first refit. The hon. Gentleman need not think that there is any military support for the idea that in the past the Navy has argued for a three-boat solution, and he will be given a very rough time by the Navy if he makes such a suggestion. As far as I am aware, no senior officer in the Navy considers it possible to maintain the nuclear deterrent without four submarines —and certainly no senior naval officer would support the suggestion of the Labour candidate for Barrow and Furness that the fourth submarine should be turned into a 17,000 tonne sub-sea supply vessel delivering oil instead of missiles.

    Orders
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the value of current orders placed by his Department with British Aerospace, Royal Ordnance, VSEL, Ferranti and Leyland Daf.
    Mr. King: The current value of outstanding contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with the companies listed is as follows: British Aerospace, £1,625 million; Royal Ordnance, £315 million; VSEL, £1,070 million; Ferranti, £360 million; and Leyland Daf, £105 million.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the lion's share of the contracts that he has just announced has been placed with defence factories in the north-west of England, including Lancashire. Will he confirm that, if he were sufficiently unwise—like the Labour party—to cut a further £6 billion from the defence budget, over and above the "Options for Change" proposals, there would be massive job losses in those factories? Will he also confirm that he does not intend to do that?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend referred to the north-west of England, and I can give him the figure for Lancashire. The current orders outstanding are worth £540 million. As he has asked, I can tell him that, were there to be a cut of £6 billion in the defence budget, the vast majority of those jobs in Lancashire would go and factories would close.
    Mr. Boyes: Nevertheless—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Conservative Members want to play infantile games, I am prepared to stand here.
    Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the number of defence jobs in the north-west has gone down from 23,000 in 1985–86 to only 12,000 in 1989–90, a cut of almost 50 per cent. in only four years? That does not take account of the many closures and redundancies announced since the end of 198–0 which have halved again the number of jobs in the north-west. Unless the Government are prepared to provide a forum for funds and expertise to assist the defence industry to diversify into other products, the job losses and the decline in Britain's economic performance will continue—but, then, the Secretary of State does not care.
    Mr. King: Not only do I care but the Government are meeting their obligations and providing procurement orders to ensure that our forces have the equipment that they need. The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman in his honest and decent way—the House respects his honesty—accepting with his opening word "nevertheless" that that is the implication of Labour's defence policy. I can tell the hon. Gentleman with the full authority of my office and my responsibility for the programme that if one cuts £6 billion from the defence budget no defence job in the country will be safe.

    Islander Aircraft
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of the Islander aircraft in service with the Army Air Corps.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The Islander aircraft fully meet the Army's performance requirements.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Islander aircraft have established a reputation as the Rolls-Royce of the skies, being virtually indestructible and operating in one of the most hostile environments in the world? Is not that a tribute to the Islander designers and the engineers who built them? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that they will remain in service for many years to come, unlike the scenario if the Liberal Democrats were ever to implement their 50 per cent. cut in our defence forces?
    Mr. Carlisle: Yes. I am glad to pay tribute to the aircraft and to PBN, the company which makes it. I welcome the support that my hon. Friend has always given
    154
    to that company. We have 10 of those aircraft in service. It is a robust and very useful aircraft which is cheap to run and has great endurance. It is a valuable piece of equipment, and my hon. Friend may like to know that in the next two or three years we shall proceed with some large modifications to it which we estimate will bring about £4 million worth of work to PBN on the Isle of Wight. I agree that if the Liberal Democrats came to power, that work would not proceed.

    Trident
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the ordering of the fourth Trident submarine.
    Mr. Tom King: Contract negotiations with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for the fourth Trident submarine are under way. We intend to place the order as soon as those negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded. Meanwhile, construction of steelwork and major engineering items is making good progress under long lead funding arrangements.
    Mr. Sayeed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and the answer that he has just given have comprehensively shot a number of foxes, but one is still up and running. Will he confirm that during its lifetime in service Trident will take about 3 per cent. of the defence budget and that no other known system could be so cost effective but still provide the same degree of security?
    Mr. King: I think that the figure is nearer 2·5 per cent., but that is correct. Whatever the Labour party's views in the past, it is incredible that any responsible party could be prepared to take risks with our defence budget and could be prepared to take risks with our nuclear deterrent when the world faces the biggest risk of nuclear proliferation that it has ever faced. Our position is that we shall ensure that we have a nuclear deterrent that is available at all times for the protection of our country.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State take a little time to reflect on a previous answer on non-proliferation? How can he, in logic or in practice, sustain a position whereby he is asking the Soviet Union, as was, to dismantle its nuclear deterrents while he is embarking on a system in which each missile provides the equivalent of 80 Hiroshima bombs? The Secretary of State talked about cost. How can he justify a cost per job in the strategic deterrent of £352,000 in a world in which the major powers are building down and renouncing weapons but he is building up?
    Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman seriously does not understand that point, he had better talk to President Yeltsin, who does. President Yeltsin, as he made clear outside No. 10 Downing street, understands that the position of a super-power which has 30,000 nuclear weapons is different from the position of the United Kingdom which will have as an absolute maximum only 128 warheads per submarine. There is no comparison, as President Yeltsin recognises. Indeed, his ambition is to move down now to a minimum deterrent. His idea of a minimum deterrent is to maintain 2,500 warheads.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend once and for all nail the myth of the credible three-boat Trident deterrent? Will he confirm that all the professional advice that he has received from the Royal Navy is that only four boats absolutely guarantees an effective nuclear deterrent for this country?
    Mr. King: That is absolutely right. The Opposition do not understand that we have to provide for the full life of the Trident system—for 30 years. Over such a period, as has already been apparent with Polaris, if we had only had three, we should not have been able to maintain that programme. I should have thought that that lesson was clear. The true description of Labour's position on that was given by Mr. Hutton, the Labour candidate for Barrow and Furness. When he heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggest that Labour could replace a Trident submarine with, for example, a Trafalgar class submarine on the order book, Mr. Hutton described his right hon. Friend as "ignorant and ill informed".

    Avionic Repair Department
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken with regard to transfer of the avionic repair department from RAF Carlisle to RAF Sealand.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: This matter is currently under consideration by the chief executive of the maintenance group defence support agency.
    Mr. Martlew: During last Thursday's visit to Carlisle, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and I were very impressed by the quality of the work, and by the efficiency and dedication of the work force at the station. However, there was grave concern about the future of the avionic department there. It is well known that the appraisal has been carried out and that the information is with the Minister. The 100 employees and their families will be disappointed to hear today that the Government are putting off their decision until after the election. The Minister is hiding behind red tape. If he does not take the decision before the election and if the Conservatives are re-elected, I am afraid that we shall lose another 100 jobs in Carlisle.
    Mr. Hamilton: As I have said, that is all up to the chief executive. We await any proposals to come from him, and we have had no proposals so far. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about fewer than 100 jobs out of the 1,000 people who are employed at Carlisle.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any study of avionic repair facilities does not affect the Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he recognises the outstanding work done at Fleetlands?
    Mr. Hamilton: I would, indeed, pay tribute to the work done at Fleetlands, and there is certainly no question of the avionic repairs at Carlisle having any effect on Fleetlands.

    Army Sports Control Board
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Army Sports Control Board will next meet to discuss funding.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The board will meet next on 20 August 1992 to discuss the allocation of non-public fund grants to Army sports.
    Ms. Hoey: The Minister is well aware that the armed services sports body does not give a single penny to rugby league. Will he please explain why, in the list of sports and games that are supported, we find that there are apparently more people who support and provide funding for model aircraft than support and provide funding for rugby league, and why a sport that is universally recognised as a great sport gets not a single penny from the Army Sports Control Board?
    Mr. Hamilton: The Army supports the most popular sports. There are a number of sports that are not supported by public funding and they include angling and archery, which are more popular than rugby league. Very few people want to play rugby league. The only time that a rugby league game was started off anywhere was in the Royal Air Force under a corporal at Coningsby who was very keen. He could raise only one team of 13 players, which left him with no reserves and no team against which to play. I am afraid that the evidence at the moment is that the game is not sufficiently supported by members of the armed forces.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposable income of 10 million mortgage payers is affected by two factors—income tax and interest rates? Is he aware that the Labour party will put up both—a double whammy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have brought down interest rates and we are determined to keep them low. We believe that the Labour party would do precisely the reverse. An average of 10 independent City forecasts shows that interest rates would rise by 2½ per cent. immediately if there were to be such a disaster as a Labour Government. That is Labour's message to home owners—more taxes and higher interest rates.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to all this shouting.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Mr. Graham Jackson, consultant cardiologist at Guy's trust hospital, who says:
    "You put"—
    seriously ill heart—
    "patients on a list to come in but, by the time their turn comes, the contract has run out and the trust administrator says there are no funds till the next financial year"?
    Does not the Prime Minister agree that such a system, which puts cash before care, betrays the fundamental principle of the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no system that puts cash before care. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that we have provided more additional resources in this Parliament than he was even prepared to promise in his last election manifesto.
    Mr. Kinnock: But does not Dr. Jackson have a powerful point when he says that the new system—[Interruption] This is a man working in the system. Does not he have a powerful point when he says:
    "The new system is run by accountants … who don't have to sit across the table from the patient and say cannot treat you'"
    until the new financial year? Will the Prime Minister recognise now that it is tragically wrong for treatment for seriously ill people to be determined by money rather than medical need?
    The Prime Minister: The view that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to that surgeon is certainly not shared by, among others, Nye Bevan's nephew. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's role in health is twofold: first, to provide the resources and, secondly, to make them work better for patients. The resources are at a record level, as the right hon. Gentleman must concede, and the new system is making sure that the resources work better for patients. There is no other way to improve health care and there is no doubt that the new system, across a range of treatment, is improving health care.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is going to borrow to fund tax cuts. Does he understand yet that the priority of the British people is to use all available resources for health and other essential services? The Prime Minister wants to bribe, they want to build—why does not he listen to them?
    The Prime Minister: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps he will tell us two things: how much extra would he provide for health, and where does health come in Labour's order of priorities? Labour has a long list of priorities: a £3 billion pledge on pensions —presumably health comes after that; health presumably comes after Labour's billion recovery programme and it presumably comes after Labour's £8 billion housing pledge. What else does it come after? The right hon. Gentleman's priorities do not add up and he knows it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put a cost on his compassion, for it is bogus.
    Mr. Lee: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lee: Since the Government came to power, my Pendle constituency has gained two new enterprise zones which are bursting at the seams, one new motorway and a brand new community hospital. Currently, 55 per cent. of employment is in manufacturing—the highest level in the country. Modesty prevents my asking my right hon. Friend what message he will send to the electorate of Pendle in the coming election. However, what message will he send to the electorate in the whole of the north-west?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly reiterate fully the message that I delivered when I visited the north-west a few days ago. The future and prosperity of the north-west are best served by a Government who are determined to
    158
    keep inflation down, who want to keep taxes down—and will not let interest rates rise as the Opposition would—and who recognise that the level of strikes is at its lowest for more than a century. In the north-west, we will continue to encourage domestic and inward investment and we will not discriminate against it.
    Mr. Ashdown: Now that we know what it means, will the Prime Minister reflect on the "double whammy" that he received from the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill last night? When will he accept that the best thing to do with that damaging and foolish Bill is to ditch it?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to providing more power for parents in relation to schools. I note that it is the Liberal Democrats' policy to take power away from parents and governors and to give it to centralised bureaucrats, and that is precisely like the Labour party policy as in so many things.
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dangers inherent in introducing unworkable proposals for devolution for Scotland? Does he accept that if such proposals were implemented, they would lead to a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland, enormous loss of jobs and the closure of military bases? The jobs that currently go to the military in the United Kingdom would be lost from factories in Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks of the devolution proposals which have previously been put before people. The Act of Union has served Scotland well and it has served England well. It has provided an essential cement for the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution proposals that we have seen thus far would damage that union and separately damage Scotland, England and the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand the emotional pull that devolution has for people in Scotland, but I hope that every Scot will examine very carefully what it would mean in practice for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Short: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Short: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on "World in Action" last night, which showed that one of his Ministers has been involved in smearing a private citizen? Does not this place give the Prime Minister the chance to show whether he is really against the smears that have been organised against the Labour party, or is he getting others to do his dirty work for him? Will he sack the Minister concerned?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady were sensible, she would look in the backyard of her own party.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: Will my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Faulds rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Sit down.
    Mr. Hill: Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously and robustly to negotiate the British contribution to the European budget and, at the end, submit it at a level which the House of Commons and the country can accept?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Community's budget is already £40 billion a year. The existing own resources ceiling has plenty of room for further expenditure without increased resources being committed. It is the Government's view that the Commission should be thinking of ways of saving taxpayers' money, not justifying fresh reasons for expending it. It cannot justify increased expenditure on the scale that it proposes, and we are not prepared to renegotiate in any way the present rebate to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the parents of Carly Reavill and everyone else know that he was misinformed on the circumstances concerning that child's tragic death? Will he accept that there is indeed an acute shortage of intensive care beds for children? Will he tell us precisely what action he intends to take so that never again will desperately sick children be turned away from hospitals which do not have the money to provide emergency treatment?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know, for he takes a close interest in this matter, that from next year, there is an extra £2·7 billion for the health service in its next budget, in a few day's time—up another 5 per cent., including efficiency gains. That is the most tangible way to demonstrate our concern for the health service and to continue to improve the service available to everyone in this country.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has been successful in building on the work of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in bringing the constitutional parties together. Will he accept that we are asking the Social Democratic and Labour party and the unionists to work more closely than parties normally do in Great Britain? Will he send a message to the Provisional IRA and the disloyalists that the mindless, aimless use of bullets and bombs will not be as successful as parliamentary debates and normal political election campaigns?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the whole House will share my hon. Friend's view on the latter matter. I warmly
    160
    welcome the decision of the Northern Ireland political leaders to start their talks again. It gives a clear and very welcome signal to all the people in Northern Ireland of their determination to find a political solution. That is very much needed. It also gives a very clear signal to the terrorists that the people of Northern Ireland will not be bullied by guns, by bombs or by any other form of intimidation. That goes for everyone on the mainland as well.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: As the restructuring of the armed services proceeds, the displaced and redundant service men will continue to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, as the Prime Minister is well aware. But if that policy is not extended to the displaced workers in the defence industries, does the Prime Minister accept that our high-tech base will be damaged, perhaps irreparably? Certainly, we can ask questions about the future of certain design teams and skilled and professional workers.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have substantial orders for defence equipment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a further statement shortly.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had a meeting with business leaders to discuss the policy of the minimum wage, they would tell both the House and the country what business leaders had to say about the damaging effect on jobs that such a minimum wage would have? Does my right hon. Friend think that the shadow spokesman on employment should do likewise?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The minimum wage policy has been condemned by everyone from The Guardian to Goldman Sachs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is apparently the only person in the country who does not yet believe that the minimum wage would cost a substantial number of jobs if it were implemented. The only debate about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be unemployed, wholly unnecessarily as a result of partisan dogma on the part of the Labour party.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statement.
    Mr. Faulds rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who is an old parliamentary hand, knows that I do not take points of order until after the statement. I will hear him then.

Air-to-Air Missile
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the procurement of a system to meet the RAF's future requirement for a short-range air-to-air missile. The missile will he fitted to RAF Harriers and to the new European fighter aircraft which we expect to come into service with the RAF at the end of the decade. This important project was originally initiated under an international collaborative arrangement with Germany, Norway and Canada. Following the withdrawal of the other partners in 1989 and 1990, we decided to hold a competition for the RAF' requirement.
Both before proceeding with this competition and during the past two years we have reviewed the justification for this requirement against the dramatic changes in the world and our strategy for "Britain's Defence for the 90s" and beyond. In this the air defence of the United Kingdom and the protection of United Kingdom and allied forces wherever they may be deployed remain important priorities.
One consequence of the rapid changes in the former Soviet Union is the increasing availability of very capable aircraft and weapons more widely in the world. Therefore, it remains essential to ensure that the RAF has suitable aircraft and weapons with which to face such potential threats. The Gulf war was the clearest reminder of the importance of air superiority in any conflict.
I can tell the House that the competition for this important order has been very keen and I am grateful to the three bidders, British Aerospace Defence Ltd., GEC Marconi and Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik, for providing the basis for a real choice. The key factors in making our choice have been the total cost to public funds, technical merit, operational effectiveness, and compliance with our requirement for taut contractual terms. Our overall aim has been to maximise value for money in the proposals, while minimising the future risks of either excess cost or delay.
I can now tell the House that subject only to satisfactory agreement on final points of detail, we have selected the British Aerospace proposal for its advanced short-range air-to-air missile—ASRAAM. Our intention now is to place a contract for development and initial production of the missile. The order will be worth about £570 million, which is already provided for in our forward expenditure plans.
The decision will bring welcome work, not only to British Aerospace's dynamics division in Stevenage and Lostock, near Bolton, but also to its principal sub-contractors—Hughes at Glenrothes in Scotland, Royal Ordnance at Kidderminster, Thorn EMI at Feltham, and Lucas at Bradford. In addition, other sub-contract work will be placed with up to 70 further companies in the United Kingdom. More than 80 per cent. of the work in total will be carried out in the United Kingdom.
The Government believe that this new missile will provide a vital enhancement to our air defence capability in the future and is a further demonstration of our commitment to provide our forces with the modern equipment that they need.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: In thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, may I express our appreciation that it was provided before Defence questions? However, we regret the absence from the Government Front Bench of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who would appear either to have gone AWOL, or to be in jankers for the insubordination that he displayed in the interview in the Sunday Times on Sunday.
The statement will come as a relief to the work force of those companies. We shall have to wait until election day to find out whether it will come as a relief to the Conservative candidates in the seats concerned. It is a tribute to the work force, the planners and the engineers that they have been able to crack an extremely difficult technical problem. However, it may not have come soon enough for the 450 people employed by British Aerospace, whose redundancies were announced on 6 February as a result of the delay in the announcement of this project.
When does the Secretary of State expect production to start? He has announced his intention to place the contract. When does he expect it to have an impact on employment? How confident is he that there will be an export market for the missile, given the withdrawal of the Norwegians and the Germans from the earlier stages of the programme?
Mr. King: To deal with the first point, I do not know what the workers in British Aerospace and other companies will think of the right hon. Gentleman's rather flippant introduction to an announcement which is of great importance to them. He then went on to express his concern about any workers who might lose their jobs. I should have thought that he would have welcomed this obvious relief.
Mr. O'Neill: What about those people who have already lost their jobs?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman said that 450 people may have received redundancy notices. He will be aware that the prime contractor of British Aerospace has claimed that the announcement will help to secure the jobs of 7,000 people. I like the right hon. Member personally, but it is hypocrisy for him to stand up—seeking to represent a party which has consistently voted for huge cuts in defence —and have the nerve to criticise the Government, who are not merely claiming and asserting that they will order equipment, but are proving it by our statements.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) has been closely involved in the planning of the order and it is a particular disappointment that he is not here. The reason why he is not here is that he is representing the United Kingdom, in support of British industry, at an extremely important air show at my specific request. I am grateful to him for undertaking that. His visit will be appreciated by British industry, even if the hon. Member for Clackmannan makes light of it.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the services will welcome this procurement decision because there is a need for an advanced short-range air-to-air missile. My right hon. Friend said that 7,000 jobs would be safeguarded in British Aerospace. Can he say how many jobs in the downstream

163
suppliers are likely to be safeguarded? Would any of them be safeguarded if a £6 billion reduction in defence spending was brought in by the Labour party?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes the point clearly. We have made it clear that there will be some changes in defence and some reductions in defence expenditure. I have set out before the House—the Government cannot be accused of not telling the country—that those changes will involve savings of about 6 per cent. in real terms. Our proposal is for smaller but better forces which are better equipped.
My statement is of enormous importance, as it will ensure that our future fighter aircraft have the capacity to defend themselves against the modern equipment that they may face. Soviet equipment, which is now much more widely available on the world market, has a sophistication and a capability which pose a real threat. Were we not to proceed in this way, our pilots could be at a severe disadvantage. Hon. Members know that that is true.
My announcement is important to our defence and it is a proper reward to many who work in the industry and for their skills. I mentioned the figure of 7,000 which the prime contractor has estimated will be the number of people involved in one way or another in the contracts. I also referred to the figure of £570 million—the House can draw its own conclusions about that—which will be spent over the next 10 years. The weapon will come into service first in 1998–99. It is a very important project indeed.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I also offer my congratulations to British Aerospace because, as the Secretary of State would acknowledge, it has fought long and hard for the order. Is not the announcement significant because the combination of the European fighter aircraft and the missile will contribute to the air defence of the United Kingdom and, without that marriage, that would be difficult to achieve?
Mr. King: Yes. First, we will install it to all RAF Harriers and then expect it to be installed on to the EFA. Although the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that export sales will be difficult if the collaborative partners have fallen out, I think that there will be important export opportunities for this weapon as there is no equivalent weapon available, with the exception of a Russian variety. I have taken steps with the United States and have spoken with Defence Secretary Cheney to ensure that we have the best export opportunities. Although Hughes manufactures in Glenrothes in Scotland, it will be keen to do development work in the United States and, to pursue opportunities that may well exist within the United States, the United States forces and third countries to which the United States exports aircraft.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which underpins the strategy of flexibility outlined in "Options for Change". Can he assure us that Hughes, whose parent company is based in the United States, will not run into problems of technology transfer when seeking to export?
Mr. King: There is an inter-company agreement between Hughes and British Aerospace on that. Hughes has a United States Government export licence for the
164
early stages of the programme and, as I have said, I have been in touch with my friend and colleague in NATO, the United States Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney. I have a satisfactory letter of assurance from him on their best efforts in that respect.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Elections are better than Christmas for some industries. In view of the long delay that there has been in the programme for the replacement of Sidewinder, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that breached the original memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the United States? That means that we have lost the opportunity to export many of these systems to the United States.
Mr. King: Let us wait and see. The arrangements may have been lost under the old programme—we know that the collaborative arrangement did not work out—but let us wait and see if there is a better alternative. There are those who believe that this will prove an outstandingly effective weapon, and it is fair to say that the Select Committee on Defence supports the programme and sees the merits that could lie in it. I am encouraged by what I see in the technical assessment of it. We have taken the decision to go ahead, so we are under way. Let us see who else is around and whether this weapon will command some quite interesting export opportunities.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of Bristol Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), who is unable to speak this afternoon? We have worked long and hard on the ASRAAM project and we welcome the decision announced this afternoon, which involves literally hundreds of millions of pounds. Will my right hon. Friend press British Aerospace and Hughes to take immediate action in encouraging the United States Government to look seriously at the commitment that the British Government have made, with the prospect of further orders all over the world?
Mr. King: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. While my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage is not able to speak, he is certainly not inarticulate in support of his constituents, as the whole House knows.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will understand when I say that I am struck by the contrast. Here we have an opportunity. We are investing in British technology and development—also in a collaborative international project—for a new system which can be of great benefit. We get sniping from Opposition Members about not doing something, and when we do it, we get them carping about some problem, with technicalities or whatever.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Secretary of State give more information about numbers? He gave the raw statistics and referred to 7,000 jobs, and we gather that they will be preserved or created by this order. In the last few weeks, we have had procurement orders worth over £1 billion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But all those were announced in connection with the defence White Paper, so the right hon. Gentleman is doing this merely for election purposes. I am not quarrelling with that, because all parties do it. I am seeking further information from the Scottish point of view. The only jobs that we can see being safeguarded as a result of

165
this order relate to Hughes in Glenrothes. Can the right hon. Gentleman give further information about the number of jobs in Scotland which will come directly or indirectly from this order?
Mr. King: I was careful—the hon. Gentleman will recognise this straight away—not myself to attribute claims to the number of jobs involved. It depends on how the companies handle the business and the number of subcontractors they use. The figure of 7,000 to which I referred was used by British Aerospace in the material that the company sent to a number of hon. Members in support of its case, saying that that would be the number of people involved in this country in the programme.
I cannot give specific figures for Hughes in Glenrothes —[Interruption.] Is it suggested that there is something wrong with investing in our armed forces? I do not know whether Opposition Members disapprove of the fact that we have been able to come forward with orders for new frigates, for new tanks, for a new helicopter with an anti-submarine capability, the Merlin, for the Royal Navy, with a new package for the Harrier, with an order for ALARM, the air-launched anti-radiation missile, and that we are giving our forces the resources and equipment that they need. Yes, they will be smaller, but they will be better equipped than ever in our history, and surely that is appropriate in an uncertain and unstable world.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend accept the deep thanks of hon. Members who represent north-west constituencies for the order, and in particular the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) who, because he is in the Whips Office, is unable to express his thanks personally in the House? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the order is in addition—to the £3·5 billion worth of defence orders placed with firms in the north-west about which he spoke some 20 minutes ago?
Mr. King: I certainly confirm that. I referred to £540 million as being the contract in Lancashire for defence contractors. That did not include this announcement, which I was not able to make until 3.30 this afternoon. I can confirm that, as a member of the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) cannot speak in support of the measure, but that does not disqualify him from representing his constituents in this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), he has done that most effectively. Lancashire will benefit significantly from the order.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the third paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State referred to
"the increasing availability of very capable aircraft and weapons"
from the Soviet Union being available
"more widely in the world."
Factually, is there any evidence to suggest that Russia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan or any other republic is exporting sophisticated Russian weapons? If so, to whom? To Iraq, Iran, Muslim states, Libya—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am intrigued to know how the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the statement.
Mr. Dalyell: I quoted the actual words of the third paragraph of the statement. The rationale of the whole statement is that we must have those orders rather than peaceful developments because Russian arms are being
166
scattered around the world. I was pressing the Secretary of State to tell me what the evidence is for Russian arms being exported and to whom they are being exported. Surely it should be conditional that aid to scientists and to the Soviet Union will not be given if arms are being exported. If the Ministry of Defence is right, the matter is extremely serious. What is the evidence?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is usually better informed on these matters. There is nothing new about it. The Soviet Union has been exporting weapons to a number of those countries for some time. One missile—the Archer missile—represents a serious threat and is probably superior to Sidewinder. That is already in service in the former Soviet Union and with certain export customers—
Mr. Dalyell: Which export customers?
Mr. King: It can be fitted on the Fulcrum aircraft and the Mig 29, which are highly sophisticated aircraft. It is already in service—
Mr. Dalyell: Where?
Mr. King: In Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. It was used by the East German air force and is believed to be used by Cuba, India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria. I wonder occasionally whether the hon. Gentleman knows what is going on. Perhaps he is so busy interrupting that he does not hear the answer.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for the order on behalf of my constituents who live around Stevenage. Does he agree that the crucial point about the order is that it will keep the technical teams together and enable us to keep ahead of the competition, not only with the air-to-air missile but with other related technologies that we need to boost our exports militarily and in civil industry?
Mr. King: That is right, and I pay tribute to the proposals that British Aerospace submitted. I said in my statement that the competition had been keenly fought and I pay tribute to GEC Marconi, which also submitted excellent proposals. We are fortunate to have two such excellent defence contractors in this country which can put forward proposals for such a sophisticated and complex project. I am grateful to them both.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since these pre-election statements have been made in the past fortnight, some £2 billion in public expenditure has been announced up to the end of last week? Why should Ministers believe that a country which has suffered such devastating unemployment and two major recessions will accept as genuine a dying Government giving goodies to certain marginal areas at this time?
Mr. King: I wonder what people working in British Aerospace, Hughes, Lucas Aerospace and Royal Ordnance will think of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, asking why we worry about unemployment. Those people are worried about unemployment. I have been criticised for announcing measures already foreshadowed in the defence White Paper. In this respect, a competition has been held and it was right to give the results of that

167
competition as soon as we could so that people know who the winners are. That is what we have done, and I make no apology for it.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Of course, the equipment is essential and vital for the future defence of the realm and we are proud that missile equipment of that sort is British. But is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe that he has picked the wrong contractor, which will be a bitter blow for GEC Marconi, the headquarters of which is in my constituency? Will he explain the details again to consider the applications and the possibility of an independent investigation? What promise does he hold out to GEC Marconi for further contracts to preserve employment, when jobs are already threatened both at Stanmore and elsewhere? What can he say about the superior technology of the GEC Marconi application, which was a genuinely all-British bid?
Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment. I have just paid tribute to GEC Marconi for the quality of the bid that it tendered. My hon. Friend has made a judgment—he is no doubt well qualified to do so —as to why the Marconi bid ought to have been chosen. It is a matter of huge importance to the Royal Air Force, and one on which the most thorough assessment has to be made. We are talking about an air defence weapon to equip our aircraft and fighter bombers for their fighter defence and self-protection role. The equipment will not come into service until the end of the decade, and it will have to serve and protect our country and pilots for the next 20 to 25 years. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, and it has been a matter of the most thorough assessment to determine which proposal should be chosen.
We have made it quite clear to GEC Marconi, as it would wish, that we wish to make a full presentation to it on the circumstances of its bid and the reasons why it was not successful on this occasion. I have a list of orders that have been placed. GEC Marconi is an important defence contractor. There has been an announcement in the past two weeks on air-launched anti-radar missiles, with which GEC Marconi is involved, and other defence contracts. There was an earlier announcement on the frigates for Yarrow, which is part of GEC Marconi, which remains and will continue to be an important defence contractor.
Mr. John McFall: I have a short question requiring a short answer. Does the weapon have the same capability as the original staff requirement SR(A) 1234 called for?
Mr. King: It fully meets that requirement.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having made representations about the project to my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Defence 18 months ago, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, which I believe is the correct one. Does he believe that it will maintain the vanguard position for the United Kingdom in that sphere? Will he be as sensitive in respect of the British Aerospace project which will replace the Hercules as he has been about ASRAAM?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The cuckoo has turned into a parrot.
Mr. King: Certainly not a stool pigeon.
168
If it were Vanguard, it would roll out tomorrow. It is not Vanguard, but an alternative weapon system, which will certainly put us in the lead and give our air force a valuable capability which it might otherwise lack. The appetite of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his new-found mode—to put it in defence terms—is insatiable. I cannot comment on the alternatives that he mentioned.
Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth that today's statement is not about defence, but about Tory marginal seats and another example of pork-barrel politics? There have been several references to exports and selling all around the world. We have already heard several times since the Gulf war about selling arms to Iraq and the penalties to be incurred as a result. Does the Secretary of State have a list of prohibited countries to which the weapon will not be sold?
Mr. King: That interesting introduction showed exactly how the hon. Gentleman regards defence. He sees defence as no more than pork-barrel politics. He has no interest in defence, no interest in whether our pilots in the RAF have the equipment that they need to defend our country—
Mr. Dalyell: Is there a list?
Mr. King: Of course there is a list of countries to which we do not sell, as every right hon. and hon. Member knows. But there are some countries to which we are prepared to sell weapons—
Mr. Skinner: What about Iran?
Mr. King: Despite the hon. Gentleman's new-found interest in these matters, he may not be aware that we are involved in large-scale arrangements with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to try to support its defence. There are those who believe that, if the Gulf countries' defences had been better equipped and resourced, we might not have had to ask our forces to go to their assistance.
We certainly sell to some countries; there are other regimes to which we would certainly not sell or provide our equipment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow questions to go on —exceptionally—for five more minutes, but there is another statement after this, so I ask for brief questions so that we may have brief answers too.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm appreciation of Conservative Members for this order, which fully enables him to live up to his word, given when outlining "Options for Change", that the forces would be smaller but better equipped. There will be many who had doubts at the time when "Options for Change" was announced who will warmly welcome today's statement—as they have welcomed similar statements in recent months.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know of his interest and the industrial concerns close to his constituency. I have no doubt that some of the subcontractors not mentioned by name today will be involved in this work, too.
Mr. David Sumberg: A number of my constituents are employed at the Bolton plant, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent news for the north-west of England.
Whenever there is bad news for the north-west, Labour Members queue up to condemn the Government. Today, in stark contrast, not one of them has come to the House to thank my right hon. Friend for this excellent news.
Mr. King: I do not always have time to stand back and analyse interesting details like that, but my hon. Friend is right—it is significant that not one Labour Member from the areas concerned has recognised news which will be a considerable relief to a significant number of their constituents.
Mr. Michael Stern: My right hon. Friend is right not to try to translate this order into exact numbers of jobs, but does he agree that the undoubted effect at British Aerospace in the north-west and at the design section of British Aerospace defence division at Filton in my constituency will be to ensure that a company which has suffered a steady succession of job losses in the past couple of years can look forward to a future in which jobs are secure and, if export orders come in, job numbers will increase?
Mr. King: Yes, that is true. I know of the close interest that my hon. Friend takes in this. As one who worked in Bristol for a long time, I well know the factory to which he refers. It is important for Bristol, and I am glad that this announcement has been possible.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I warmly express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend and remind him that, some 10 years ago, when the task force sailed south, Her Majesty's Government had, as an emergency measure, to buy at very short notice large stocks of AIM9L Sidewinders from the United States because we did not have enough effective short-range air-to-air missiles. As a result of that purchase, we had air superiority and the war was won, but this time the Government are taking the right decisions in advance.
Mr. King: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's knowledge of this matter; he puts it in clear perspective. The importance of this announcement to the RAF cannot be overstated.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the strategic threat to our country is far less certain in origin, and that air power with its flexibility has become even more significant in meeting and delivering strategic force to any area of threat? Does he agree that this weapons system will protect 7,000 jobs in vital high-tech areas, that it is a defensive weapon, and that the fact that it has been accepted by the Royal Air Force, whose standards are respected throughout the world, will greatly enhance its marketability throughout the world?
Mr. King: 1 am grateful to my hon. Friend for his last point—that the system may well give us a lead in certain countries. Apart from the former Soviet Union, we are not aware of any country with a weapon that could match our system when it eventually comes into service. Its potential to bring jobs and earnings to our country could be quite significant.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has been sending out clear messages to the rest of the world? Those messages are that whether it is the purchase for the Army of the Chieftain tank, the fourth Trident submarine for the Royal Navy, or today's announcement about a sophisticated British Aerospace weapon for the Royal Air Force, those are the deterrents that we must have. We are saying, "If you take on the United Kingdom, you do so at your peril."
Mr. King: It seems almost superfluous to add to the excellent and rousing words of my hon. Friend. He is precisely right. Although there are changes in the world and although it is possible to make some reductions, none the less instability and insecurity give rise to great fear among many of our friends and allies in the most unstable parts of the world. Our message of great comfort to them is that we are not retreating into isolation and adopting a little England policy of defending only our own shores but are ensuring that our forces have the requisite capability so that if our allies and friends are threatened we shall be ready and able to play our part in the United Nations, in NATO or in whatever international co-operation or coalition seems appropriate.
Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No—later, please.

Local Government (Wales)
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr.Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of local government in Wales.
When I first met the Welsh local authority associations just over a year ago in January 1991 to discuss my review, they impressed upon me the widespread consensus throughout Wales for the establishment of unitary authorities in the Principality. Last June I published a consultation paper, in which I said that unitary authorities represented the best way forward for local government in Wales to meet the challenges of the future. I called for an extensive and wide-ranging debate. The Welsh local government associations and thousands of members of the public joined that debate, together, of course, with Members from all parts of the House. This has been a productive and an instructive exercise in consultation.
I now put before the House the conclusions that I have reached. The local government system which should emerge from this review should permit local people to understand the role of local government, enable them to identify with it, and provide them in a responsive way with high quality services efficiently and economically. I therefore reaffirm that there should be a single tier of unitary authorities throughout Wales, to replace the present two-tier structure.
I propose to replace the present eight county councils and 37 district councils with 23 unitary authorities. I am placing in the Library and in the Vote Office copies of a map illustrating these proposals. In preparing this plan, I have observed the district building-block approach set out in my consultation paper, as likely to produce the least possible disruption to Welsh local government, but I am inviting further views on whether that approach should be modified in particular cases.
My approach in identifying these 23 authorities has been as follows. First, I want to restore to the largest centres of population—Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and also to Wrexham—full control over their own affairs.
Secondly, in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties, such as Penbrokeshire, Montgomeryshire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey and, of course, we recognise the position of Meirionnyddshire and Carmarthenshire. I shall consult further on whether to extend that approach to separate authorities for Radnorshire and Brecknock.
Thirdly in the south Wales valleys I want as far as possible to take account of the intense local loyalties that are such a feature of the area. Taking account of demographic and other factors, however, I also consider it necessary for some of the present district councils in the valleys to come together to form new unitary authorities.
These are detailed proposals, to which the House will wish to give careful consideration. Let me make it clear that, once the new authorities that I have proposed are in place, I will wish the Local Government Boundary Commission to examine their boundaries to ensure that any minor anomalies can be dealt with as quickly as possible. That is a most important part of the process.
Let me now turn to the delivery of services under the structure that I have proposed. I have made clear my commitment to increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness
172
and my determination that the real administrative cost of service delivery should not be greater than under the existing structure. My proposals reflect that approach.
I repeat that I am looking for the efficient, effective and economical delivery of high-quality services. I do not want a proliferation of joint-board arrangements to deliver the present county services. I should remind the House, however, that the delivery of the law and order and fire services requires special consideration in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor—in relation to magistrates courts—will be undertaking their own consultations with respect to those services.
In general, though, I shall be looking to the new unitary authorities to provide the full range of local government services that are now provided by county and district councils, as I set out in the consultation paper. The rapid development of the enabling role of local government, and voluntary co-operation between authorities—including agency agreements—mean that services can be delivered efficiently and economically, without the need for excessive and centralised bureaucracy in large and remote units of local government. I have already had detailed discussions about that with the local authority associations, and I shall wish to consult further about putting in place appropriate arrangements for individual services.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the reorganisation that I propose must not lead to an increase in the cost of local government; that is quite unnecessary. I am satisfied that the structure that I have announced today should cost no more than the present system, and, indeed, should be capable of producing some savings. I shall be looking to ensure that that happens.
One matter on which there has been many responses in consultation is the future role of community councils. My consultation paper made clear the importance that I attach to them, especially in their role as the voice of their communities. It has, however, been put to me that the role and place of community councils in Welsh local government is of sufficient importance to merit a separate consultation exercise. I agree, and I intend to publish a further consultation paper on the subject in due course.
The House will, of course, wish to know about my plans to implement the proposals. Following the further round of consultation, I intend to publish, later this year, a White Paper setting out my final decisions. I shall then present a Bill as soon as possible. I propose to take powers to establish a residuary body to wind up existing authorities' affairs, and a staff commission to protect the interests of local government staff during the transition.
My proposals represent a fundamental change in Welsh local government. I believe that they are bold, challenging and realistic; and they build on a wide consensus in Wales that the time for unitary authorities is now. The local government structure that I have outlined today will, I believe, serve Wales well as we move into the 21st century, and I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the Secretary of State aware that his consultation process has been completely inadequate and that the imminent general election should not be the reason for this botched statement made on the back of a Tory central office envelope? Are not the Government seeking to divide and rule, seeking to divide the Welsh district councils from the Welsh county councils on the eve of a general election?

173
Does the Secretary of State understand that we also accept that community councils are important units of local government?
Have not some of the proposed council boundaries been drawn more with an eye on the electoral process than on best forms of local government? In other words, it smacks of gerrymandering, and the statement is also an attempt to divert the attention of the people of Wales from the worrying state of the economy, the national health service, the education service and homelessness in Wales, as well as from the impact of the poll tax in Wales. The objective behind the timing of the statement is to throw dust into the eyes of the people of Wales to prevent them seeing the real issues at this time.
Has not the Labour party set the agenda for unitary authorities in Wales? Is it not the case that our detailed proposals have been on the table for two years? Was not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—responsible for the previous mistakes in local government reorganisation? Has not the 1973–74 reform cost millions and millions of pounds which have been wasted? It was a ruinously expensive failure by the Conservatives.
On the numbers of local authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, does he not recognise that his proposals for 23 unitary authorities will not necessarily create the efficient and effective structures of local government which the people of Wales require? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we have proposed unitary authorities in the upper twenties and that we shall now scrutinise everything most carefully? We are not convinced that the proposals will necessarily lead to the most efficient and effective delivery of local services.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have undermined local democracy by taking away powers through the poll tax, and that if that undermining of local government continues, the structure of local government is academic? Would not a fourth Tory term of office—no matter what the structures—mean centralisation, diktat from Whitehall and an end to local democracy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the new authorities are to survive the test of time, they must be linked to the communities that they represent? Artificial and made-up authorities for merely political purposes will not be good enough. I note the link of, for example, Wrexham and Deeside with incredulity. I have previously advised the right hon. Gentleman not to be so silly. Should he not acknowledge that the north is very complicated? Is it not the case that, as a Secretary of State with an English constituency, he frequently misjudges and overlooks the passionate commitment to community in the valleys, in our steel towns and also in the quarry towns in the north? If he ignores local traditions—wherever they may be—he does so at his peril.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the consensus on an assembly for Wales? Why is he dragging his feet? Why has he failed even to refer to his tame nominated economic forum? Is it because, as The Daily Telegraph said last week, the Cabinet has thrown it out on the Prime Minister's instructions? Has not the right hon. Gentleman been made to back-track on even the first hesitant step to decentralisation? Is it not a complete waste of money to reorganise local government and not to plan for an assembly?
174
The statement seeks to divide and rule. It is based on insufficient consultation. It is constructed and timed with the general election in mind. It fails to propose an assembly. There is the whiff of gerrymandering. Above all, it seeks to divert attention from the state of the economy, from unemployment in Wales, from homelessness, from crumbling schools and from the Government's attitude to the national health service. It is a missed opportunity, and at the general election it will be rejected.
Mr. Hunt: There were 10 points there, and the hon. Gentleman helpfully summarised them in his conclusion. The first point was inadequate consultation. I have already made the House aware that I first announced the review to local authority associations in January 1991. I then published a consultation paper in June 1991. So much for the back-of-the-envelope consultations and design. On 24 September, I had a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government, a further meeting on 6 November, a further meeting on 2 December, a further meeting on 16 December and a further meeting on 27 January, with meetings of the structures group, the statistical sub-group and the finance sub-group. Inadequate consultation? There has been extensive consultation.
Mr. Ray Powell: You ignored it all.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) shouts out that I ignored it all. The point is either that there was inadequate consultation or that there was adequate consultation but I did not listen to the hon. Gentleman's points.
The second point made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was that the proposals were gerrymandering I have pointed out, and pointed out again to the House today, that I am using the existing building blocks of district councils. I am asking the local government boundary commission to look at boundaries, but I have not sought to change the boundaries. I have built on the existing blocks.
The third point was that the proposals were a diversion —an attempt to make people in Wales forget about the economic bad news. I have news for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. If he carefully scrutinises the newspapers in Wales, he will see that there is a consensus that Wales is coming out of recession. I quote the headline of one article yesterday: "Wales set to lead UK upturn". The hon. Gentleman is losing so far.
The hon. Gentleman then said that Labour's agenda for local government had been in place for two years. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I have read carefully through Labour's proposals. As I understand it, the first proposal, some two and a half years ago, was that all the country and district councils
"should be abolished and replaced with a single tier of between 17 and 25 most-purpose local authorities in Wales for all local government functions."
There was then some discontent in the Labour party about the proposals. There was then a rethink—not proposals that were two years in place, but a rethink.
The latest idea is that there is to be a Welsh assembly, although the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has thrown further doubt on that—
Mr. Alun Michael: No, he has not.
Mr. Hunt: On the proposals for local authorities, although conference—I quote from the document—agreed in 1989 that
"the number should be between 17 and 25, we have now decided that the view should be changed and that we should have between 25 and 30 most-purpose local authorities."
That is hardly an agenda that has been in place for two years.
The fifth point is that I am undermining local government. If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside looks at his proposals, he will see that he proposes a Welsh assembly which would look after, for example, special education, housing, health and community care, and planning and development control. It is also proposed that most-purpose authorities would look after schools, housing, health and community care, and local planning and development control. That is a recipe for utter confusion. I have said that local government responsibilities will continue as before, as outlined in the consultation paper.
The hon. Member then said that I had made a mistake in failing to recognise the unitary authority of Alyn and Deeside. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me suggesting that, and I replied that I would find it helpful if I could see how he envisaged the future of Alyn and Deeside as a unitary authority set against all the other unitary authorities in Wales. I invited him to let me have this proposals—on a map—for local authorities in Wales. I have yet to receive a reply.
The hon. Gentleman's seventh point was that I ignored local traditions at my peril. In fact, I have sought to recognise and strengthen local communities.
The hon. Gentleman's eighth point was that I had ignored the consensus for a Welsh assembly. I do not believe that there is such a consensus. I would merely refer the hon. Gentleman to the referendum, which established by a 4:1 majority that the people of Wales were not in favour of a Welsh assembly. Moreover, that proposal does not sit easily with the hon. Gentleman's notion of local authority control. I believe that his proposals for an assembly would take power and money from local authorities and the communities they serve, and that the system
"would be even more centralised than the present system."
Those are not my words but the words of the Leader of the Opposition. quoted on 27 February 1979 in the South Wales Argus.
The hon. Gentleman's ninth point was that I had dropped the idea of an economic forum. I must tell him that I am still considering a proposal to that effect from the Council of Welsh Districts.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that I had produced the proposals with the general election in mind. I hope that people in Wales recognise that these are ideas from a Government who intend to remain in office. I do not intend to stand idly by and allow Wales to return to the failed policies that the hon. Gentleman stood for when he was last in office. I want it to move forward with the progressive pragmatic policies of this Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is unusual to have two statements on a day on which the main business is subject to a timetable motion. I will allow questions on the statement to continue until 10 minutes to
176
5; then we will move on to the ten-minute Bill. We must be on the main business by 5 o'clock. May I ask for brief questions—and also, please, for brief answers?
Mr. Ian Grist: Does my right hon. Friend understand that his statement will be warmly welcomed throughout Wales and particularly in the capital city of Cardiff, which never really appreciated or understood the two-tier system? Will he undertake to consider seriously the proposal that Cardiff should expand beyond its present boundaries and incorporate the bulk —if not necessarily the whole—of the present county of South Glamorgan? Will he also say something—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Two points are enough for today.
Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the proposals. I believe that the proposal for a single tier of unitary authorities represents a bold step forward. I welcome and share my hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of Cardiff of the capital city of Wales. Further consultations will be initiated with a view to defining the northern and western boundaries of the new authority.
Mr. Geraint Howells: May I congratulate the Secretary of State? We have waited a long time for these sensible proposals, and the people of mid-Wales in particular are indebted to him for introducing them. We have all been pressing for unitary authorities in Wales for a decade or more. I should like to make one plea to the Secretary of State, however: will he consider once again leaving the people of Radnorshire and Brecknockshire, who are proud of their identities and counties, separate? I hope that he will do just that. Finally, will the Secretary of State reaffirm his intention to consult people on community councils?
Mr. Hunt: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given for the proposals. He will know of the part played by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—for example, in ensuring the restoration of the historic counties of Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire. I am proposing working names, and I very much look forward to representations about what those names should be.
With regard to Brecon and Radnor, when the hon. Gentleman scrutinises the map, he will see that I have placed a dotted line between the old counties of Radnor and Brecknock, and I will be consulting further on that.
Of course I will consult widely on the community councils. For example, I will be consulting on whether we should maintain the existing law, which requires the abolition of community councils if there is a local vote in favour of that.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: The abolition of the artificial tier will be very warmly welcomed in Wales, as that it real devolution, taking decision making to the closest level, especially in my city, where it will mean that Cardiff will again be a real capital of Wales. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that process will be implemented as speedily as possible and that any review of Cardiff's boundaries will be most minor and rapidly accomplished?
Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the proposals, and I invite the Labour party to publish its proposals in full. I am told that they have existed for two years and I have shown that I do not think

177
that they have. Will the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside now publish his proposals so that we can scrutinise them? I hope that they will endorse what my hon. Friend has said—that any proposals must recognise the important position of our capital city.
Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State accept that there will be great disappointment in my constituency, as Port Talbot and Neath have a long tradition of serving both their communities well? Are not the proposed authorities too big for some purposes and too small for others? Will there be 23 directors of education in Wales?
Mr. Hunt: Yes. I have already pointed out to the hon. and learned Gentleman in my statement that certain authorities are better off seeing the future ahead in combination. My proposals set out that Neath and Port Talbot should work together as a unitary authority in future. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said that I should consider the northern boundary of Neath. If there are any detailed representations of that kind as we proceed, I shall be perfectly happy to consider them.
With regard to the 23 directors of education, it was clear that the counties wanted eight unitary authorities, and they made a presentation to me detailing that. The districts wanted 27. I believe that my proposals today represent the right way forward.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 23 unitary authorities that he proposes make an all-Wales co-ordinating authority all the more necessary to discuss and decide upon major strategic planning, infrastructure and transport issues? Will he further agree that the savings that he envisages from a move to unitary authorities would more than cover the cost of running such an all-Wales authority?
Mr. Hunt: I recognise my hon. Friend's strong feelings on that issue. However, I have announced today a very positive step in the direction of returning greater local decision-making to local communities. I would not at the same time want to see any move to snatch back that local decision-making by imposing a bureaucratic assembly running Wales from Cardiff.
Mr. Ray Powell: I know that we are limited in respect of time, but I am surprised that we are trying to ask the Secretary of State questions about a document which, if he wants consultation, he could have produced earlier so that Opposition Members could have seen the boundaries. The Secretary of State has referred to dotted lines and to a map which I have not seen and which, in all probability, no other Opposition Member has seen.
If we are talking about the reorganisation of local government, could some of those boundaries eventually form parliamentary seats in Wales? It is gerrymandering of the Secretary of State in the fag end of the Government t introduce such proposals knowing that, on 16 March, we will perhaps lose you, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker of this place and that there will be a new Government on 9 April. The proposals will not be accepted by the Labour party, and a Labour Government will undertake further consultations after 9 April. Why waste the time of the House now?
Mr. Hunt: That was not a very helpful contribution. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the consultation
178
paper which I produced, he will see that I have set out very clearly the boundaries of the authorities under a number of solutions. I have come forward to the House with my proposals. They are set out very clearly. I have received strong representations in certain parts of Wales that the existing boundaries between district authorities should be looked at again. I had hoped that it would be warmly welcomed that I was prepared to undertake a furtherr consultation process in those areas where the dotted lines are shown.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the consensus to which he referred was based on there being an all-Wales elected body and that, in bringing forward that model, he has left a strategic vacuum in Wales, with units that may be too small for strategic purposes? Would not the sensible way forward now be for him to set up an all-Wales elected Parliament and give it as its first remit the review of local government in Wales, taking this along with other proposals as a starting point?
Mr. Hunt: I suppose that I could respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is a premise that could be accepted only if it were intended to snatch back from the new unitary authorities some of the existing functions of counties and districts. I have made it absolutely clear that I believe that the way ahead in Wales is to return closer to local communities more power to the people. The ideas that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward would fly in the face of that.
Mr. David Wilshire: Although I am an English Member—
Hon. Members: Disgraceful!
Mr. Speaker: It is not disgraceful at all. This is the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Wilshire: I anticipated that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm that I have taken a close interest in this matter from the very beginning, and I would think it unfortunate for the people of Wales if Opposition Members were not prepared to listen to the lessons from elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend take on board two points from the English experience? First, when he seeks to consult further on his local communities—
Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order has occurred.
Mr. Hughes: You have put a time limit—
Mr. Speaker: I have indeed, and the hon. Member is taking time from it.
Mr. Wilshire: First, when my right hon. Friend thinks further about local communities, will he give as much weight to the importance of the views of local people as he gives to the views of local councillors and local authority associations? Secondly, when thinking about whether 23 new authorities means 23 of this and that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long question from an English Member.
Mr. Wilshire: Will he realise that direct delivery is not the only way of achieving good services?
Mr. Hunt: I realise that my hon. Friend holds differing views from my own, and I am rather grateful to the Opposition for seeking to shield me from my hon. Friend's questions. My proposals represent the right way ahead —taking power, authority and decision-making closer to local people. I have very carefully considered—my hon. Friend has made representations to me—setting up a commission in England to determine the number of authorities, but within Wales we have never had a commission, and I believe that the proposal that I have put forward today for 23 unitary authorities represents the right way forward.
Mr. Alan Williams: I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition of the need to restore unitary status to Swansea and to include the Lliw valley in that authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), because it may also predetermine the shape of the outcome of the parliamentary boundary commission that is due to report in about two years? Would it be the right hon. Gentleman's intention, if re-elected, for that boundary commission to be confined within the district boundaries that he has outlined today, or would it be able to cross those boundaries? It is crucial to know what the decision would be.
Mr. Hunt: Parliamentary boundaries are not an issue that I am addressing. I recognise, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, that there may be consequential changes as a result of the proposals that I am putting forward, but those were not and are not considerations. I greatly welcome his enthusiastic support for the recognition of the city of Swansea's importance within the boundaries that I have proposed.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Secretary of State said in his statement that he was putting the proposals before the Welsh people for their endorsement. What percentage of the vote at the next election would he consider to be a mandate for his proposals?
Mr. Hunt: The proposals have all-party support, so they are not as divisive as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The proposals have been made by councillors representing all parties. It is shameful that the hon. Gentleman injects party politics into a matter on which there is consensus.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Why has the Secretary of State used the building blocks of the districts which were created in 1974? In the area of Clwyd, they enshrine all the problems that we have had since 1974. A Vale of Clwyd tier of authority will be created. It will have tremendous problems, because it is a disparate area and it will have no resources. As the Secretary of State has not proposed any regional government solutions, how will he possibly deal with all the services which are handled on a wider scale?
Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the map which I have published this afternoon, he will see that there are dotted lines around his constituency. The local authority of Glyndwr and people from various parts of Glyndwr have told me that some areas may seek to join other authorities. I want to consider that. That is why I have not reached a final conclusion on those aspects.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his proposals he has wiped out Llanelli completely? On the map which is attached to the statement, Llanelli's name is completely erased. How does he reconcile that with his professed desire that the proposals should reflect intense local loyalties?
Mr. Hunt: In the last map that I produced, there was no boundary delineating Llanelli.
Mr. Davies: It does not appear on the map.
Mr. Hunt: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will explain.
Today I have introduced a new element into my proposals. First, my proposal restores the much-loved and historic county of Carmarthenshire. However, I recognise that, despite Llanelli's cultural and administrative links of long standing with the rest of Carmarthenshire, it is an industrialised area with a strong sense of community. Therefore, with a dotted line I have delineated the present area of Llanelli. I would welcome the opportunity to consult further about the future status of the existing borough. Hence the broken line on the map.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Do I understand from the map that has been published with the plan that the proposal to split Dinefwr so that the northern half joins Carmarthen and the southern half joins Llanelli has been decisively rejected?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman can see the proposals as I have set them out. I should have thought that he would welcome my recognition of the historic entity of Carmarthenshire. The views expressed in the Llanelli area have convinced me that there may be a need for further consultation before final decisions are taken about its future. As for a proposal about joining Llanelli with the Lliw valley, I decided that I did not want to cross a boundary of enormous historical significance.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the two-tier system set up by the Tories means that there are not abstract notions about local authorities in Wales and that some county authorities have good departments which provide good services? Similarly, some district authorities provide good services. However, both district and county authorities provide indifferent services in other parts of Wales. Who will decide which personnel and which teams should have responsibility for crucial matters in Wales such as the building of roads, planning and so on? Will it be the Secretary of State or the people of Wales?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman highlights one of the paradoxes. There are differing standards throughout Wales, but it is important that the proposals that I have made this afternoon are seen in the context of seeking the formula that produces the highest quality of services. Of course, it will be for the new authorities that I have delineated today to work together to establish the right staffing arrangements and future arrangements for delivery of services in their area. Of course, it will be for the Secretary of State, in the positive partnership that we have in Wales, to ensure that the highest-quality services are delivered.
Mr. Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State will know that Newport will warmly welcome the

181
return to the unitary authority that we had before 1973. But people will be puzzled that, although the reorganisation that took place as a result of a decision by a Conservative Government—I served on both authorities at that time—was ruinously disruptive and very expensive, the Secretary of State has come to the House without a peccavi or a mea culpa to say that he is returning to the previous system. Will he apologise for that?
Mr. Hunt: It is not the same system as that which existed before 1974. I forget the exact number, but there were more than 180 authorities in Wales then. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition that the proposals underpin the historic status of the town and former county borough of Newport. I welcome what he said about that. But he should not belittle the achievements of the existing authorities, such as the county council of Gwent and the existing authorities. I do not regard my proposals today as a victory or a defeat for any one type of authority but rather as the way ahead for the new unitary authorities.
Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State must know that there is no local enthusiasm for joining up Wrexham with Alyn and Deeside. Will he publish the representations that he has received in favour of that scheme, or at least tell us how many representations were made? If and when he establishes a staff commission, I hope that he will ensure that no grossly large salaries and no golden handshakes are paid as a result of any reorganisation. Senior staff in particular should be relocated and given good jobs at fair rates of pay, not rates of over £70,000 per annum, as are paid at present in Clwyd.
Mr. Hunt: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would accept that my proposals recognise the special place of Wrexham in the context of not only north Wales but Wales as a whole. Historically, the cities of Cardiff and Swansea and the town of Newport were the three main areas of population in Wales. I am anxious to see Wrexham grow in strength and influence in the coming years. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome my proposals on Wrexham.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a staff commission. When I published the consultation paper, there were nonsense stories in the press about thousands of redundancies. I hope that the establishment of the staff commission will reassure everyone who works in local government.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Newport's county borough status should not have been taken away in the first place, because the authority has the resources to provide a full range of local government services? Does he recognise that the 1972 reorganisation of local government was carried out by a Conservative Government? It cost the earth, and in the end we had a worse formula for local government. Does the Secretary of State recognise, as I am sure the House does, that he is merely going through the motions, and that the real reorganisation of local government will be carried out by a Labour Government with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) as Secretary of State?
Mr. Hunt: I was waiting to see whether there was any approval for that notion. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of Gwent are ill-placed. The county council has done
182
extremely well in maintaining the highest quality of services. Today is not a day on which any one type of authority is defeated. Nor is it, indeed, a victory for any other type of authority. I have sought to place clearly on record in the House the way ahead for unitary authorities which brings together the best of the existing counties and the best of the existing districts.
Mr. Allan Rogers: May I thank the Secretary of State for one of his last acts as Secretary of State for Wales? Far from delineating authorities in Wales, the map, with all those dashes, will mean that he will no longer be known as "Dai Poll Tax" but as "Dai Dots". That is how he will go down in history in the valleys.
My last homily to the Secretary of State is that local government is all about providing services to people. Some of our valley communities are immensely poor. The Secretary of State can shuffle the structures as he will, as can any other Government, but unless resources are put there so that services can be provided, it is nothing other than a paper, and perhaps a dotty exercise.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has a bit of dash about him, but I hope that he does not view this as merely a dotty exercise. I listened carefully to the points that he raised with me about the need for a unitary authority in Rhondda. If he recalls, the initial proposal for 20 unitary authorities included a large authority for the Glamorgan valleys. I recognised the validity of his arguments. I hope that he will welcome my recognition of his constituency as a community with a long and a special tradition.
I am confident that my decision to merge Rhondda with areas to the south will not diminish that tradition. I am sure that communities throughout the new authority will be strengthened through the association, and I look forward to publishing the White Paper underlining that point after the general election.
Mr. Michael: Does the Secretary of State accept that the inadequate answers which he has given in this exchange show that he has rushed out this dotty statement, without dealing with the real issues, simply to give himself and the Conservative party an inadequate fig leaf for the general election?
The boundaries of Cardiff and the vale of Glamorgan are more than a mere detail. So are many of the other issues that he has left vague and ill-defined. He has dragged Conservative party politics into arrangements that should be neutral. Has he not followed the usual central office diktat to misquote shadow Ministers and to misrepresent Labour documents? He has rushed consultation, and he did not listen to what he was told. In contrast, the Labour party has consulted and listened to the people who know their areas and communities.
The Secretary of State says that he will restore one-tier decision-making to Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. Was it not the Conservative party which destroyed the previous unitary authorities? So will he apologise? Was it not the Conservative party that did away with the traditional counties? Will he apologise?
In his statement, the Secretary of State claims to have a commitment to increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. He pretends to be interested in efficiency. Is not the reality that he intends to continue to expect local authorities to do the impossible with inadequate cash from central Government?

183
Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit that, when he talks of the rapid development of the enabling role of local government, he is signalling the Conservative party's intention—if. God forbid, they form the next Government —to kill local government in Wales and to reduce our councils to emasculated, contract-placing bodies? He still has not answered basic questions about the functions that he would give to local authorities.
The people of Wales should suspend judgment on this document. The general election will sweep away this Government and then my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), as a Labour Secretary of State, will do a proper job, in partnership with councillors and communities, which he and Labour Members understand.
Mr. Hunt: I would have more confidence in the hon. Gentleman's response if it had not been so carefully written in advance. I hope that he studies the pre-1974 position, when there were indeed 13 counties, four county boroughs, 32 non-county boroughs, 73 urban districts, and 58 rural districts, which makes 180 councils altogether.
In the reorganisation, eight county councils were created and 37 district authorities. The county councils suggested to me that they wanted eight unitary authorities. The districts told me that they wanted 27 unitary authorities. I believe that I have found the right way forward by endorsing 23 unitary authorities.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point about my misunderstanding the Labour party's approach, I was not criticising it for consultation. I was criticising his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside for having said that the plans were clear and laid before the people for two years. I am merely pointing out that the Labour party has changed its mind. It may well change it again. I challenge the Labour party to publish its proposals in a clear form, so that the people of Wales can judge.
To find Labour's plan for the future of the Welsh assembly, one has to look at a document called "A Statement on the Future of Local and Regional Government in Wales". Labour's proposals would create the most tremendous confusion with such a regional assembly, and between its new unitary authorities. It proposes that similar functions should be exercised by both. I hope that Labour will rethink its proposals, and will come round to the view that what I have presented to the House is a valid way forward and will receive endorsement from the people of Wales.

Points of Order
4.56 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Before I take a point of order, in the presence of the Welsh Members of Parliament, may I repeat how much I enjoyed my visit to Wales last weekend as Speaker of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Powell: I am glad that you enjoyed your visit to Wales, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will come in your retirement and when you are in the other place. You are welcome to Ogmore at any time.
My point of order concerns page 2217 of the Order Paper. Could you make inquiries on behalf of the House to find out whether the computer is out of order? In past discussions, you have ruled that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that all Members are entitled to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales. You will notice that six questions on the Order Paper were put down by Conservative Members, who were not elected to Welsh parliamentary seats. I am not making great play of that, because we have had discussions and correspondence and we accept your ruling on all issues, especially on this one.
However, I am concerned that, if the computer has not gone wrong, it is passing strange that three Conservative Members who are not elected in Wales could come first, second and third in the ballot, while I came fourth and another Conservative came fifth. I wonder whether inquiries could be made to find out if the computer is working properly.
Mr. Speaker: The best advice that I can give the hon. Member is to watch the computer at work. I assure him that no human hand comes into it at all. I am afraid that it is purely a matter of luck.
Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, a parliamentary colleague passed to me some sheets of paper—six different stereotyped sheets. They have the heading of "The Hornchurch Labour Party" and were found beside a House of Commons photocopier. The letters appeal for assistance—I can see why that might be necessary in Hornchurch. None the less, would you confirm that that is an improper use of House of Commons equipment, which was possibly added to by use of the free mail service, for all we know, and that it is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money for items that can and should be borne only by the parties themselves?
Could you please consider bringing to the attention of all Members and their staff their responsibilities in this matter? It is grotesquely unfair that taxpayers should pay for party political publicity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to it. That matter is raised frequently, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) well knows. He should draw it to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms. Then an investigation will take place.
Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I had pointed out the other day, for the benefit of Conservative Members, that there are usual channels to take up such complaints. I am prepared to do exactly that.
I have boxed under the Marquess of Queensbury rules, and I have been in a few street fights in my time—that is why I have a face like this. Any type of combat suits me. If the Tories want to bring that type of case to the Floor of the House on points of order I am prepared to do so. When I look around the House, I see one Conservative Member who has been the subject of complaint. I have already given a complaint about the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) to the Serjeant at Arms. The Financial Secretary had to pay for 4,552 pre-paid envelopes because he abused the system. If Conservatives want to do this, I am prepared to do it every day on points of order.
Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask, through you, whether the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who raised that shabby and sanctimonious point of order, had the graciousness and courtesy to inform the hon. Member involved that he intended to raise the matter of the Floor of the House?
Mr. Simon Burns: What Member?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is the Member concerned.
Mr. Squire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I clarify the matter, because it is clear that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not understand? The offence was not committed by an hon. Member from the Labour party, but by a Labour parliamentary candidate. I am drawing attention to the
186
fact that the abuse, which may or may not have taken place, was committed not by an hon. Member, but by someone who does not work in the Chamber and, as far as I know, does not work in the House.
Mr. Speaker: I said earlier, take it to the Serjeant at Arms, but I agree with the Opposition deputy Chief Whip that such matters are best dealt with through the usual channels.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions on the motions relating to the Statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put .forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 ( Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  STATUTORY SICK PAY
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Hydatidosis Control
5.1 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit dogs being fed on raw meat and offal derived from fallen or casualty livestock; and for connected purposes.
I welcome the opportunity to introduce the Bill, to highlight the fact that dogs fed on raw meat and offal from fallen livestock are a major source of a disease that not only costs the farm and meat industries millions of pounds, but annually kills people and puts hundreds in hospital for surgery.
Under present arrangements, a provision by the Government enables fox and other hunting packs to bypass health regulations on the disposal of dead farm animals. Hunting hounds are virtually all fed on uncooked meat and offal from fallen stock from farms, despite the fact that European directive 90/667/EEC requires that animal waste be disposed of by rendering, burning or burial to prevent the spread of diseases.
At present, at least 25,000 hounds are kept in Britain to hunt foxes, deer, hares and mink. Virtually all of them are fed on uncooked meat and offal from farm casualties. The hounds ingest taenia hydatigena tapeworms from the uncooked casualty animals and then defecate the tapeworm eggs back on to pasture while the hounds are out hunting. Sheep and lambs, in particular, ingest the eggs while grazing and become reinfected with the tapeworm, which damages the animals' livers and causes cysts.
Investigations by veterinarians published in The Veterinary Record have revealed that, in a single abattoir, lambs' livers were so badly damaged by tapeworms that the majority were rejected for human consumption, representing in that abattoir an annual loss of £25,000 at 1984 prices. Another investigation published in The Veterinary Record concluded:
"Taenia Hydatigena causes very high rates of liver condemnation and it is probable that, nationally, it is now the major cause of the lesions and losses in lambs' livers."
In all reports, researchers state that untreated raw meat and offal from fallen livestock should never be fed to dogs.
The Meat and Livestock Commission claims that such tapeworms cause
"considerable harm to the production of sheep."
It adds:
"About a fifth of lambs slaughtered in Great Britain are infected with cysts. This loss is caused solely by tapeworms in dogs and is avoidable … Never feed raw meat, offals or sheep heads; feed only cooked meat … Working dogs and hounds are the main reservoir of dog tapeworms affecting sheep; foxes and pet dogs much less so."
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Agricultural Development and Advisory Service also acknowledges the dangers of hydatidosis to human and animal health. It points out:
"Eggs laid by the tapeworm are passed in the faeces of the dog and this may contaminate herbage consumed by cattle and sheep or vegetables intended for human consumption."
If an egg is swallowed by livestock or humans, it hatches in the intestine and eventually ends up in the liver, where it develops into a cyst. Cysts can also form in the lungs, bones or even in the brain. Records from ADAS state:
"on average 12 persons die each year from hydatidosis. In addition several hundred persons have to undergo surgical operations for the removal of the cysts."
188
In recent answers given to me by the Ministry, I have been able to establish that at least five people died in the past 12 months because of that illness. ADAS advises:
"Dogs must not be fed raw meat or offal. It is safer to boil or sterilise all meat and offal before feeding."
I have a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, which states:
"Undoubtedly, hounds, or hunting dogs, arc also sources of tapeworm infection …studies by the Ministry's veterinary officers have demonstrated that hounds are frequently infected with a variety of tapeworms, including Taenia Hydatigena and they may contaminate pastures over which they roam."
A further report published in The Veterinary Record stated that an examination of 11 packs of hounds in the west country—seven packs of fox hounds, two of stag hounds and two of beagles—found that all but one were fed on uncooked raw meat and offal. Tapeworm segments were even found in the faeces of hounds wormed every two months.
MAFF has written to the League Against Cruel Sports saying that its officials have regularly met the Masters of Fox Hounds Association. That correspondence stated that it had
"brought to their attention the risks which hounds may pose to the industry … and the need to feed cooked offal" However, virtually all hunts still continue to ignore that risk to human and animal health. The Government refuse to order hunts to feed cooked meat and offal only to their hounds, despite the acknowledged damage that the disease causes to livestock and human life and health.
The Dogs Act 1906 makes it an offence to leave sheep carcases unburied because of the risk of dogs finding and feeding upon them and thereby spreading parasites and disease. However, it is not an offence to feed deliberately such carcases raw to dogs. It is an offence under the Protein Processing Order 1989 and the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 to include unprocessed animal material in feeding stuffs for livestock or poultry. It would be a simple matter for the Government to amend the orders to apply the same regulations to the feeding of dogs. However, because the Government choose not to do so, I find it necessary to present the Bill.
The House might also wish to know that The Veterinary Record of 4 January 1992 contained a letter from two experts in the disease who complained that a control scheme in south Powys had been "eased". Mr. T. M. H. Walters, the co-ordinator of the disease control campaign and Dr. S. Lloyd of Cambridge university's department of clinical veterinary medicine warned that that easing of controls might lead to a breakdown, and added:
"such a breakdown might first be confirmed as new cases in children."
Hydatidosis is a disease which, if tackled in the way that the Bill suggests, could be eliminated from Britain as it has been from Iceland, which had a much greater incidence of it. New Zealand is also engaged in a similar eradication campaign, with considerable success. Those countries have taken steps to prevent dogs from having access to condemned offal.
It is clear that Britain will continue to suffer human death and illnesses, as well as the loss of millions of pounds to the farming and meat industries, if the Government refuse to ban the feeding of uncooked meat and offal from casualty stock to the 25,000 hounds that run in packs, two or three days a week, for nine months of the year on agricultural land.

189
I have access to video film and photographs taken last summer at the kennels of the Tegryn fox hounds in Pembrokeshire. Those hounds were kept in a ramshackle hut and pen, which they shared with the rotting carcases of sheep, cattle and ponies "donated" by local farmers. That exposure has led to those kennels being closed, but it is safe to assume that similar conditions exist elsewhere, particularly among the 40 unregistered "fox destruction clubs" in Wales.
On boxing day every year, about 400 hunts assemble in their various local centres. The hunters encourage children to fondle the hounds, which, unused to such affection, are often seen licking the children's faces. Allowing hounds fed on raw meat and offal from casualty stock in various stages of decay to lick and be fondled by children is totally irresponsible. A child need swallow only one egg from the thousands produced by a single tapeworm to be infected by a disease which could result in hospitalisation, surgery and even death.
All the evidence shows that the hidden costs to farming, the meat industry and the national health service caused by hounds defecating disease on grazing pasture and crops must be considerable. My Bill seeks to save the country those costs. Hunt kennels should cook or freeze the meat and offal that they obtain from farmers before it is fed to their dogs.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Bob Cryer. Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Richard Caborn and Mr. Terry Lewis.

Hydatidosis Control
  HYDATIDOSIS CONTROL
  Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit dogs being fed on raw meat and offal derived from fallen or casualty livestock; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
Orders of the Day
  Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords]
    ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    New clause 1

      REPORT ON PROVISION FOR ADULT EDUCATION
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, for each calendar year, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on provision for the education of adults, following consultation with the higher and further education funding councils, local education authorities, designated institutions, appropriate voluntary organisations, training and enterprise councils, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine.

      (2) Any report under subsection (1) above shall set out—

      (a) the allocation of resourses for adult learning;

      (b) what adult education opportunities are available in each local education authority area and in the area served by each further education corporation;

      (c) the numbers of people progressing between sectors, and other agreed outcomes of adult learning programmes, by local education authority and further education corporation catchment area;

      (d) the numbers of participants, and the extent to which the participants in educational programmes for adults reflect the whole population served by each local education authority, further education corporation and designated institution;

      (e) the Secretary of State's judgement on the extent to which the educational needs of the population are served by higher and further education institutions, by designated institutions and by local education authorities;

      (f) the Secretary of State's judgement on the quality of provision and the effectiveness of resource allocation;

      (g) the capital programmes committed to the education of adults; and

      (h) plans for the development of adult education in subsequent years.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.12 pm
      Mr. Derek FatchettI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The one positive outcome of our debates on the Bill has been to raise the profile of adult education as an issue and a service. That has been important, as millions of our fellow citizens benefit from the adult education classes organised by local education authorities and voluntary organisations, and often on a self-help basis.
      In Committee, many of my hon. Friends referred to their immediate and direct experience of adult education and the way in which it had provided them with a ladder, leading to new employment, education and help in their self-interest. They also spoke as people who had taught in the service and realised the benefits that they, as adult educators, had provided for others in society. Adult education is an important service.
      The new clause would impose a responsibility on the Secretary of State to prepare a report each year, and to provide Parliament with that report, so that we could understand the extent to which the adult education service was secured and guaranteed under the legislation.

      191
      None of my hon. Friends would go along with the Further Education Funding Council mechanism as the best way of providing for adult education. In that context, we are looking for a way to lessen what we see as damaging provisions affecting the service. The amendments that we attempted to secure in Standing Committee were all designed with the one purpose of securing the funding of adult education. We listened to the thousands of voices throughout the country, and read the many letters that we received during the Committee stage, expressing unhappiness with the provisions of the Bill. The main fear is that there are no guarantees for the future of the adult education service.
      All our amendments were rejected. They were turned down not because our arguments lacked strength but because we have in power a Government concerned only with the general election timetable. They are not concerned to take note of the debate on education issues or about the future of adult education. When we debate the next education measure, with Labour in power, there will then be a Government who will listen to people concerned about the adult education service.
      Mr. James Pawsey rose—
      Mr. Fatchett: I will give way later. We are operating under a tight guillotine. The hon. Gentleman voted in favour of it. Having done that, it is remiss of him then to try to disrupt our proceedings, albeit in the best natured way.
      Within a few weeks, we shall have in power a Government who will listen to the voices of students, teachers and administrators. I promise them that that Government will be sensitive to the needs of adult education.
      All members of the Standing Committee, including Conservative members, appreciate the importance of the adult education service. The difference between us is that my hon. Friends recognise, and want to secure, the value of the service, while the Conservatives recognise its value but do not appreciate the consequences of this legislation.
      In that context, I will take the House through the complex system of funding that the Bill provides. The Secretary of State has created a division in adult education provision, some of which will be deemed to be schedule 2 work. In Committee, the Minister of State referred to schedule 2 work as "national priority work". It was clear from his words that while the Government had dropped the rhetoric suggesting a split between vocational and leisure courses—because they realised that it was insulting to hundreds of thousands of people—they had continued with their assumption that some courses in adult education should have greater priority than others.
      That is what schedule 2 is about. It contains the notion, as the Minister of State put it in Committee, that there can be some guarantee of resources for schedule 2 courses. But courses which fall outside schedule 2 will no longer be regarded as national priority courses.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar)indicated dissent.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Minister may not have used those words, but that is the logical implication of what he said.
      192
      Clearly, if he believes that some courses are a national priority, others cannot have that priority. So some provision will find itself in extreme difficulty.
      The Secretary of State goes on to say in this extremely complicated system—presumably it would be equally complicated in practice, although it will never become practice—that non-schedule work should be the responsibility of the LEA. That is where the Government's argument runs into trouble. LEAs are under no statutory responsibility to provide for adult education.
      Conservative authorities throughout the country have been making cuts in their adult education services. For example, last year there were substantial cuts in Hampshire's budget, so we already know that at local authority level the Tories give a low priority to adult education. Deep cuts in the service are being made in Warwickshire this year. The Secretary of State is not keen to defend such cuts.
      That all goes to show that the system relies on non-schedule work being provided but of LEA resources. The first weakness in that argument is that LEAs in many parts of the country, sometimes for ideological reasons, are not prepared to make the resources available. The second weakness is that, because of the poll tax and standard spending assessments, many LEAs are faced with particularly tight budgets. Anyone who has been reading local papers in the past few weeks will have seen that Labour and Conservative authorities have been battling to set a budget and work out their poll tax. That shows the downward pressure on local authority expenditure.
      The Secretary of State asks us to believe that, once individual authorities have lost control over further education colleges and schedule 2 work has been transferred to the further education funding council, local authorities faced with scarce resources will then make money available to support adult education. That is a fanciful notion. We already know what has happened in Tory authorities and about the squeeze on budgets in all parts of the country.
      The Government's notion then runs into real difficulty. Who will fund schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work? Will it be funded by local authorities, which are tight for resources?
      Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State is searching for schedule 2.
      Mr. Fatchett: If the Secretary of State is now looking for schedule 2, that is an improvement on Second Reading, when he did not even know that it existed.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I covered schedule 2 on Second Reading. I am looking up clause 11, because I shall shortly remind the hon. Gentleman of the statutory duty on local education authorities to provide adult education. It is one of the several errors that he has made in his speech so far. He should not make such basic errors, having spent so long debating the measure.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State falls into a trap in his own legislation. He knows that the duty under clause 11 does not mean that individual local authorities have to provide an adequate or satisfactory service. The provisions of the clause can be met in minimalist terms. If the Secretary of State says that clause 11 provides that local

      193
      authorities such as Hampshire must expand their adult education services after last year's cuts, that will be real progress.
      Mr. Clarke: Clause 11 sets out the statutory duties on local government as they are now and as they have been during the period of expansion of adult education in the past few years. When we were drafting the Bill, I took care to ensure that, although the existing statutory duties will be divided between the funding councils and the local education authorities, no statutory duty was removed. The hon. Gentleman's claim that there is no statutory duty on local authorities is therefore nonsense. The same statutory duty lies on them now as in the past, and it has enabled a general expansion across the country.
      Naturally, the different local authorities can make different judgments. Hence Labour-controlled Lancashire is currently cutting back on adult education, and Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire cut back savagely on its grant for the Workers Educational Association in the current year, although its resources for education as a whole have risen by 16 per cent.
      Mr. Fatchett: Despite all the words, the Secretary of State's answer to my question seems to be no.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What question?
      Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Lady will listen, I will tell her what the question was. The Secretary of State will not have the power, under that provision, to make a judgment about Hampshire or Warwickshire. His final comment reinforces my argument. He recognises that individual local education authorities will be totally free to make cuts in their adult education services.
      One of the arguments that the Minister of State often used was that local education authorities should be essentially written out of post-16 provision because they could not be trusted with the strategic and detailed role of providing it. In Committee, the whole of the Government's rhetoric and argument amounted to an attack on local education authorities. The growth in adult education occurred under the control of local education authorities under a system which the Bill will abolish.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman talks about local authorities' success in expanding adult education under existing statutory provisions. We are restating the statutory provisions in their entirety. We are merely dividing them between the funding councils and the local authorities. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that the same statutory provisions are inadequate to allow expansion in future.
      Mr. Fatchett: The point that the Secretary of State has just made reinforces my argument: there is no consistent system. The Bill changes the system by bifurcating the responsibilities. Local education authorities will be responsible for non-schedule 2 work and the funding councils will be responsible for schedule 2 work. It is extremely difficult to see how the Secretary of State can maintain the pretence that that is the same system which existed before the introduction of the Bill. The Bill proposes a change.
      We have been promised that the Government will give some reassurance on local authorities' spending on adult education and on standard spending assessments. The
      194
      Minister of State promised us that by Third Reading a DES survey of local education authorities would be available—
      Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
      Mr. Fatchett: Yes, he did. He said that the survey would be available by the end of February, showing that adult education would be secure. Because of the rush with the Bill, the House has been denied the prospect of seeing that survey. We do not know how much money will be available or the current expenditure. All we know is that the Government are offering sweet words but no guarantees to secure an adult education service.
      We have a complicated, bureaucratic system which divides responsibility and considers some courses as being of national priority while others have a lower status. The system depends on local education authority funding at a time when local education authorities are squeezed for resources and under the Bill will lose the ability to manage their total post-16 provision. The Secretary of State asks for an act of faith when he says that the system is secure under the Bill.
      I suspect that all hon. Members will have received letters from adult education centres in places such as Devon. Such adult education centres will be larger in terms of adult education provision than the neighbourhood further education colleges. What will happen to those institutions? If they have schedule 2 work, they can ask the neighbourhood further education college to make a bid to the further education funding council, but they cannot make that bid in their own right. Thus they are dependent, despite being successful institutions, on the further education college's willingness to submit a bid to the further education funding council. The institution cannot do that on its own.
      Dr. William Waterworth, who chairs the management committee of the St. Clare's centre in Devon, says:
      "the system is difficult to understand and will be complicated.
      He draws attention to the quality of provision at St. Clare's, an institution which may be familiar to hon. Members. He says:
      "Despite operating in a scattered rural area, St. Clare's has built up a comprehensive adult education programme over the last 21 years. We enrol 1,500 students a year and 25 per cent. of these join courses leading to academic or vocational qualifications. Our overall pass rate for GCSE A-levels, RSA and City and Guilds is over 90 per cent. and about a third of our candidates are awarded grade As or distinctions. All of this is now threatened by the legislation as it now stands."
      That letter shows the dangers that exist in the Bill. I will take the House through it stage by stage.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have made a careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that adult education colleges will be dependent on the further education colleges being willing to submit a claim to the funding council. Those were his precise words. That point was raised with me by my adult education college, so I took the trouble of discussing the matter with the chief executive designate of the funding council. He said that he would not permit any further education college simply to try to sweep under the carpet a bid from an adult education college. He said that, if the college did not forward the bid to him, he would want to know why. If there were a dispute between the college of further education and the adult education college, it would be reasonable in the circumstances for him or one of his team to go to the college and discuss the matter in extenso. He

      195
      said that there would be no question of further education authorities being allowed simply to bin the applications of adult education colleges.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I do not deny the words of the chief executive designate of the funding council. He makes almost the same point as Dr. William Waterworth, and shows up the cumbersome nature of the procedure.
      I will explain what would happen. The individual adult education centre would have to ask the further education college to submit a bid to the funding council. Time scales are important. The college may well refuse to do so. Let us set that up as a hypothesis and presume that the college is not co-operative. In those circumstances, presumably the adult education centre will take the problem to the Further Education Funding Council, and Mr. Stubbs can then intervene.
      Previously, the system would have been that the matter would have been resolved locally by the local education authority. Now there are at least three distinct parties: the funding council, the further education college, and the adult education centre. That is no way to increase the efficiency of the system.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I will take the argument further. We have been talking about an adult education college. In my county there is an adult education service—a countywide service—with a range of individual colleges and services. My county is divided between north and south Humberside, with different further education colleges. There are problems about which college will make a bid and how the bid is to be made for a complete service, not just one college. If the system is bureaucratic in relation to one college, it will be almost impossible in terms of a complete service.
      Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes much the same point as has been raised in many letters to us. The system is likely to be inefficient and to lead to a reduction in the overall provision.
      The letter from St. Clare's is important. That successful adult education centre is providing a range of schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 provision. How will that centre be funded in future? It could ask a further education college to make a bid to the funding council for schedule 2 provision—the first mechanism. Let us assume that there are no difficulties there. Some of the work—I calculate about one third—will be through the funding council. The other two thirds will need to go to the local education authority to seek permission and resources. That is a messy system.
      As the committee chairman says, at present Devon local education authority, which has a substantial commitment to adult education, for which I praise it, is able to devise a programme and a set of resources to help St. Clare's run an expanding programme. What sense does it make not to listen to those powerful arguments and not to produce an efficient system based on them?
      In Committee, we tabled an amendment that would have dealt with some of the problems and circumvented some of the administration. We moved an amendment to allow the individual adult education centre to make a bid
      196
      to the Further Education Funding Council. The amendment was voted down by Conservative Members. It would have helped to alleviate some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and would have helped many of those who have written to us about what has happened to their service.
      As a result of the guillotine, I do not have time to mention all the letters, but I refer the House to some of them. They do not come from just one part of the country and are not merely a lobby organised by the Labour party or a trade union, which is how the Secretary of State often dismisses such opposition. They come from people in all walks of life, from all parts of the country and represent important views on adult education. We have letters from Reading, Leicester, Chelmsford, Essex, Derby, Devon, Yorkshire and Humberside, all reflecting deep anxiety about the provisions.
      If, in Committee, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State had listened to the arguments and voices, the adult education centres, of which there are many up and down the country, could have had automatic designation so that they could have tendered the bids to the funding council. That would have helped the position. That system would not have been ideal as it would have created a divided responsibility, but at least we could have made some progress, rather than being faced with the existing position.
      Mr. Toby Jessel: Do not a vast number of individuals, companies, education and arts bodies, and institutions of all sorts obtain funding from more than one source? Is that not perfectly normal in this country? That is not normally seen to threaten the future of those organisations or individuals, provided that the sources of finance are sound?
      Mr. Fatchett: We have a system that works.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Government claim that there has been an expansion—an expansion funded under the existing arrangements.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) should have listened to what some of his colleagues said on Second Reading about adult education and, more broadly, in terms of further education. They made the simple point that, if something is working, we should not mend it or change it. The system is working at present. If the hon. Gentleman were the principal of an adult education centre and were told that he might now have to make bids in two or three different directions to raise money for a programme previously financed from one source, he would have some difficulty being persuaded that that was the most efficient way of making progress. That is what we said throughout the Standing Committee. That was what was said in our amendments and by many thousands of people up and down the country who are worried about long-term provision.
      That is said in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. The flourishing adult education centre in his constituency is much better served by the existing arrangements than it would be under the change that is likely to come about under the legislation.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he predicates that all except

      197
      Conservative-controlled local authorities are well intentioned towards adult education. However, the snag is that local authorities' standard spending assessment money is never earmarked, but always at large. The money going to the funding council is categorically to be used for one purpose, and cannot be taken away—it is much more certain. In my county, I would far rather trust my adult education students and the funding council, directly or indirectly, than leave the matter to Lancashire county council which has just completely cut off discretionary allowances to those aged 19 and over for a whole year.
      Mr. Fatchett: In a sense, the hon. Lady has taken the argument half way. I will take it a stage further. I agree with her that the money for the further education funding council is ring-fenced, so it may be guaranteed. We do not know how much money there is, but we cannot criticise that, as Government programmes are coming forward. However, the other part of the funding for non-schedule 2 work—the bulk of the work of an adult education service in a county such as Lancashire—has to come from the local education authority. The hon. Lady is absolutely right in terms of her argument when she says that there can be no guarantee that individual local education authorities will spend the full amount.
      But that is the weakness, not in my argument, but in the Secretary of State's, because to make his proposed system work he has to rely on individual local education authorities picking up the bill. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may find that amusing, but millions of adult education students do not. LEAs have to pick up the bill in circumstances of a tight SSA and a tight budget and in which the local authority, Labour, Conservative or Liberal, will have just lost control of its further education college.
      The weakness in the Secretary of State's argument lies in the fact that, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to see how local education authorities can pick up the bill and meet the demands for an adult education service.
      Mr. Terry Rooney: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), does my hon. Friend agree that the funding council will probably enjoy the same guarantee of funding under this Government as training and enterprise councils did?
      Mr. Fatchett: That is a good point; anyone from Bradford or Leeds will know of the large cuts in TEC budgets.
      Once it is clear that the schedule 2 work is crucial work that will be funded through the Further Education Funding Council the signal sent to local authorities will surely be that their other work is of secondary importance.
      We debate the new clause against a backcloth of anxiety about the future of the adult education service. That anxiety has not been whipped up for political purposes—
      Mr. Simon Burns: It was whipped up by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attribution to me of power to influence millions of people throughout the country. The fact remains that people who do not vote Labour or Liberal but vote Conservative are worried about this Bill—although they are less likely to vote Conservative in the future as a result of its provisions.
      198
      The new clause is all about putting the Secretary of State's word to the test. Let us set up a highly unlikely hypothesis: that the Government win the election and the Bill is passed, whereupon the proposals are implemented. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to remain in his office if there is a Conservative victory, but he has said that the proposals will work. New clause I merely builds into the Bill the necessity to find out whether they will. That is a reasonably modest responsibility to impose on the Secretary of State.
      Sir John Farr: I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to improve the Bill, although he has taken a long time to get to new clause 1. He has just mentioned it for the first time in a quarter of an hour. Can he give us any idea how much the new clause would cost? As I read it, it will provide for an army of additional civil servants. It would be—untypically—dishonest of the hon. Gentleman if he did not provide the House with that information.
      Mr. Fatchett: The costs will be minimal. The information, however, is crucial and it would allow us to make judgments on issues about which I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned. This is a modest measure —certainly not so draconian as the hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 7 which would have written out clauses 1 to 61. Our ambitions are much more modest—we are merely trying to get from the Government some information about the future of the adult education service. We need this information. We believe that the Government's proposals for a new system of funding will not work. They will lead to a reduction in the service, which is why the new clause is designed to elicit the truth in the unlikely event that these proposals are implemented, although I doubt that they ever will be.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am pleased that the new clause gives us the opportunity to debate education for adults. The Government have an excellent record of presiding over a great expansion of provision. The Bill gives us an opportunity to improve on that record, and I welcome the chance to respond to the fears continually being raised —that somehow the Bill threatens to check progress of the service or to restrict local education authorities' ability to provide the sort of adult courses about which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) expressed anxiety.
      At one point, the hon. Gentleman rather disingenuously denied that the national campaign on this subject was politically motivated. I do not accept that; it has been sustained for quite some time, although I would not pay the hon. Gentleman the compliment of saying that he had organised it all. I do not think that the women's institutes have been involved for purely political reasons, but I do see the hand of the Labour-controlled Association of Metropolitan Authorities behind the campaign.
      5.45 pm
      A great number of ridiculous fears have been whipped up. Many who take these courses have been alarmed by what they have been told will happen: it is all total nonsense. It has been one of the sillier campaigns with which the Labour party has been associated in recent months—a highly competitive field that has been, too. The Bill in no way reduces the legal responsibilities of various

      199
      public bodies to provide adult education of all kinds; nor does it reduce the availability of public funds from the Government for such education.
      The Bill is expressly designed to extend opportunities further. I shall make one final effort to persuade Opposition Members of the basic principle underlying the Bill. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central claims that the purpose of the new clause is to offer some basis, in the form of reports, on which a future Parliament might be able to determine how well adult education has fared under Conservative rule. I certainly agree that in these debates we should be judged by those outside on our respective records, so let us look at the Conservative Government's commitment to adult and further education over the past decade.
      During the past 10 years, the number of enrolments in adult and further education of all kinds has risen by about 27 per cent. and the numbers now taking part have increased by more than a quarter. The numbers in further education colleges alone have increased by more than 50 per cent. and approach 1·5 million enrolments a year in England.
      Access courses, preparing adults for entry to higher education and virtually unknown 10 years ago, are now available. There are more than 700 in England alone. Partly as a result of those courses, the number of mature students in higher education rose by 55 per cent., or to 216,000 by 1990.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State talks about an expansion, but all of it has taken place under the existing system administered by local education authorities. Will he take this chance of congratulating those authorities on their success: and will he answer the question asked by a number of his hon. Friends on Second Reading: if the system is working, why bother to change it?
      Mr. Clarke: I accept that the expansion has been achieved by LEAs and colleges and by all engaged in adult education—and all with the active and practical support of the Government, who have provided increased expenditure leading to the expansion.
      Let me underline the practical support that we have given and show what has happened to spending on adult and further education services. First, expenditure on adult education centres increased between 1979–80 and 1989–90 by 31 per cent. in real terms. Spending on further education colleges—here I cannot give figures which disaggregate adults—increased in real terms by 16 per cent. in the same 10 years. That is a substantial increase in public spending on adult education centres and further education colleges and is in stark contrast with the record of the last Labour Government. When Labour last had an opportunity to act, it neglected that whole area.
      I shall not dwell for long on the period many years ago when Labour was last in power. I trust that many years will pass before we see a Labour Government again, because we do not want a repeat of the shocking record of the last Labour Government. Between 1975 and 1979, spending on adult education centres went down by 12 per cent. in real terms, and spending on further education colleges rose by only 1 per cent. above inflation.
      Under the last Labour Government, adult education was declining and further education colleges were
      200
      stagnating. In the past 10 years under this Government, further education and adult education of all kinds have been expanded. The Bill's purpose is to improve on that.
      Mr. Pawsey: Given the appalling record of the last Labour Government, does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that Opposition Members rise as the defenders of further education colleges?
      Mr. Clarke: They do it without shame. When that sector of education was declining, it was apparently the fault of Conservative local authorities, but when it expands it is apparently because of Labour local authorities. Labour's partisan bias on this supposedly non-political campaign is becoming utterly childish and simplistic. When Labour was in office providing the resources and setting priorities, this part of education was neglected and declining. It required a Conservative Government to give priority and resources, and we have presided over a period of dramatic expansion. That is accelerating, because enrolment rates at further education colleges are high this year. The Bill seeks to expand education, and the vast majority of principals agree with us that it is likely to enable them to expand opportunities even faster than before under the Government.
      Labour's dramatic contribution to the debate is, "If it works, don't fix it." For the past 10 years, England has had the only left-of-centre party in western Europe which is against changing anything. On most social issues, Labour has no policy worth the name. It occasionally invents a quango, but it resists any reform at the behest of some vested interest. That is about Labour's only contribution. Labour's years in power are a history of neglect of the subject, but our years in power have been marked by expansion, and all that Labour can say is, "Don't change anything. We prefer to keep the present arrangements."
      The broader discussions on the Bill have shown that its purpose is to speed progress and expand opportunities. We want to build on our record and improve further the education opportunities that are available to adults. Schedule 2 sets out, for the first time, a list of the courses which we want to see available all over the country and for which we propose national funding. Access to those courses should not depend on where a person lives, as often happens at present. Therefore, we are making the Further Education Funding Councils responsible for securing adequate provision of those courses.
      The courses are not, as some people claim, solely vocational. They go a long way beyond that and include academic, access and basic skills courses, courses for those who need to improve their English and courses for the disabled. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, schedule 2 describes our national priorities. They are national, because we shall provide national funding for them and we wish to guarantee access to such courses to everyone who can benefit from them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) rightly said that such funding is a positive advance for that part of further education because at the moment it is possible for funds that are intended in part for further education to be used by local authorities for something else. The principals of sixth form and further education colleges are anxious to have the provision whereby money will be made available to a funding council for a specific purpose and cannot be filched by councils such as Labour Nottinghamshire and

      201
      Labour Lancashire for other purposes. That money will have to go into further education. Principals know that we are following for funding councils the pattern that we established for polytechnics, which have had expanding resources and growing provision, and there has been a tremendous growth in education.
      Mr. Tony Speller: I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says and congratulate him on his admirable desire to provide wider education opportunities. However, I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with the more specific point of Devon's local community colleges where the existing machinery works well. Does he agree that such colleges would respond better to local needs in rural areas if they operated on a manageable timetable? I fear the problems of an appeal taking overmuch time while courses are being structured. Our community colleges reinforce the Government's successful implementation of the local management of schools. Because they are locally based, community colleges can suss out exactly what is needed locally for adult education. I agree that funding should come from the centre outward to rural areas, but it need not come via the local sixth form college, which might have a tendency to abstract.
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend takes me to my second point—courses which will still normally be funded locally. Under clause 11, community colleges will get funds from the local authority for some courses, and schedule 2 will provide funding council funds. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central tried to describe that procedure as complicated, slow and threatening. I know that there are concerns about that in Devon, Leicestershire, Richmond and elsewhere. I sought to address those concerns on Second Reading and I shall repeat the process.
      It is a simple debating device for the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to read out the provisions in as complicated a way as possible and to say that this is a wholly complicated way to get funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke about concerns in Devon and the fear that the timetable would be elaborate and slow. The Further Education Funding Council has made it quite clear that it will have to establish a timetable for dealing with clause 6(5) applications to ensure that there is no chance of worthwhile applications being lost because of delay.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, Central could benefit from the initiative demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster. He could visit the chief executive-designate, who is well respected on all sides, to go over the mechanics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) said, countless education facilities are used to getting funds from more than one source. Almost every further education college principal does that already when obtaining funds for various courses. Dual funding is not necessarily complicated. The Labour party continues to speak about such funding as if it is some arcane new discovery, in an unnecessary attempt to sound alarm bells in rural areas. It says that the funding council will not be able to cope with dual funding, but there are perfectly adequate facilities to ensure funding.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State can continue to insult the Labour party because that is par for the course. Why is it that, after Second Reading, Committee and proceedings in the other place, he has still failed to
      202
      persuade the principals of colleges and their governing bodies in places such as Devon and Leicester? Is that a policy failure or a failure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's eloquence?
      Mr. Clarke: I think that it is as a result of continual campaigning by those who wilfully fail to follow the explanations, and set out to fan the fears again.
      I am being somewhat aggressive towards the Labour party because I do not think that Opposition Front Benchers genuinely believe in the case that they are advancing. They have known all along that there is no threat to the less formal adult education classes, but they have invented legalistic and other arguments that have aroused understandable fears among those who take the courses and those who provide them.
      Although debate on this important Bill is timetabled, Opposition Members are devoting a large part of it to an attempt to fan those fears yet further. They have not adopted the simple expedient of doing Ministers the courtesy of listening to their arguments—presented on the Floor of the House and, repeatedly, in Committee—rather than constantly misrepresenting those arguments. Moreover, had they taken the elementary step of consulting the chief executive of the funding council and asking for reassurance about the practicalities, they would have dispelled most of their fears.
      Opposition Members do not want to listen to the arguments. It is easy to lark about on the Floor of the House, misreading the Bill and getting the issues slightly wrong in the hope of securing cheap votes. Labour does that because it is devoid of any sensible policies on further or adult education: on this and every other subject, the party is entirely wedded to bureaucratic control by local authorities.
      6 pm
      Sir John Farr: I am anxious to do all I can to support my right hon. and learned Friend. Given the rate at which we are progressing and the strict timetable by which we are governed, it is possible that we shall not reach new clause 7, which deals with a specific worry affecting my constituency in Leicestershire. Under the new clause, colleges of further education, and the basic adult education system, would remain untouched, and further education colleges would have the right to apply directly to the funding councils.
      I will not go into detail, but my right hon. and learned Friend knows what we want in Leicestershire. We have a splendid system there: Her Majesty's inspectorate has visited the area and praised it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least tell me that he recognises that that system works, and that it will therefore be allowed to continue to work as effectively as it does now?
      Mr. Clarke: I have given my hon. Friend such an assurance before, and I now give it to him again. I realise that the point is addressed more directly by new clause 7 —tabled by my hon. Friend, among others—but the hon. Member for Leeds, Central has drawn us back to it, and it is partially relevant to the report that is being discussed.
      I have just been covering the procedure whereby the moneys will be pursued. In my opinion, closer examination not only of the Bill but of the declared intentions of the funding council and its chief executive make it clear that

      203
      there is no threat to the system in Leicestershire, the system in Devon or the position of Richmond college, or to the service provided in Humberside.
      I shall make one further attempt to explain matters—first, the local authority powers, because they have been challenged, and then the procedures applying to an adult education college wishing to pursue funding council money for the part of its work that falls within schedule 2 to the Bill.
      Mr. Morley: I am not convinced by what the Secretary of State said. The anxiety that I have encountered has been expressed by professionals in the adult education system —who provide a first-class service—rather than by members of the Labour party, or any other party.
      The Secretary of State has not addressed this point. We are not talking about just one adult education college; we are talking about—in some cases—a full service, with many centres all around the country. How can those colleges bid for the element of funding that they will lose: funding for basic education, access courses and award-bearing courses? How can they plan to maintain the full structure of their services, when they have no idea whether they will receive the money? If they do not receive it, the infrastructure—small centres in rural areas—will collapse, and the service will deteriorate.
      Mr. Clarke: Those colleges will obtain a large part of their funding in the ordinary way, from the local authority. It will fall within the part of further education provision —adult provision—that continues to be determined locally. That does not mean that it will be given a lower priority, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. Given the variety of less formal courses that exist, it is much better to judge the position at local level.
      To deal with that part of the funding—50 per cent. in the case of the Humberside service, according to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central—the local authorities will retain the powers that they have now. Those powers will be re-stated: they will not be lessened at all. As we have always made clear, the funding will be based on what the colleges spend now. Not only will we maintain the local education authority's duty to provide the courses for adults that are not the responsibility of the funding council; as we have said repeatedly, we will ensure that local education authorities have—through the revenue support grant system—at least as much money in real terms, allowing for inflation, to fulfil their duties in 1993–94 as they had in 1992–93.
      Let me repeat that the 50 per cent. that will continue to be provided locally will not be affected by the Bill. That aspect of adult education will not change. Campaigns about what have been described as leisure courses have been organised. The Bill, and the Government's policy, will not affect the present position; nor will it affect funding for such courses in any way. The case made in regard to the so-called leisure courses was entirely misconceived—and remains misconceived, where it continues to be made.
      Because local provision and local authorities are involved, authorities will have discretion either to increase or to reduce provision—to raise fees, or to lower them. Some LEAs are raising fees now, and seeking somehow to attribute that to the Government's reforms. The fact is
      204
      that those reforms make no difference to so-called leisure courses, or to the many other vital adult courses that lie beyond the funding council's remit.
      If a service is being cut or the fees are being raised, that is because local councillors are making their own determined judgments, for their own reasons. There is no point in bringing in party politics—some Labour-controlled local authorities have a poor record of either sustaining or expanding expenditure in that regard.
      Another point that gives rise to concern is the fact that adult colleges providing services that fall within the provisions of schedule 2 will look to guaranteed funding council money. As was made clear at length on Second Reading, clause 6(5) explains how a college or service will have access to funds if it is not designated under other provisions in the Bill. Under clause 6(5), institutions maintained by local education authorities that make provision for adults should be able to apply, through the further education colleges, for funds to support that part of their work that falls within the funding councils' remit. The further education colleges must forward their applications to the councils where the provision in question would not otherwise be adequate in the area.
      The whole purpose of clause 6(5) is to enable community providers to have their schedule 2 work considered by a funding council. We have not merely stated that as an intention; a number of safeguards have been provided to ensure that it happens. If the procedures are to work effectively, a clear framework will of course be needed. We do not want complications, inefficiency or delay, for—as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North rightly says—that would threaten essential provision in some places.
      The Government will assist by giving guidance on the procedures for schedule 2 applications. A circular letter issued recently by my Further Education Funding Council unit includes the initial guidance for institutions on clause 6(5), and we shall follow it up with further guidance on procedures as soon as possible.
      As we said on Second Reading, the Further Education Funding Council will lay down a timetable which will allow plenty of time for the clause 6(5) procedures to work. Local education authorities—and through them, their institutions or services—will be given good notice of when applications should be made. The colleges will be asked to prepare for the applications by making sure that they are well acquainted with all the existing schedule 2 provision in their areas.
      The colleges will be given time to consider the applications and, certainly if the descriptions given to me by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Twickenham and for Devon, North are correct, I am sure that in most cases where relationships are perfectly satisfactory, the colleges will put them to the council. However, if they do not and if all the suspicions that have been fanned are correct, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is right and they will have to notify the council. The council will not tolerate further education colleges ignoring the provisions of clause 6(5) and failing to put forward well judged applications for services that are accessible either because they are in rural areas or because they merely happen to be convenient in urban areas and people wish to pursue them.
      Where a bid is not put forward, the provider—the college or the service—will approach the council. In England it will approach its regional office which, as Mr.

      205
      Stubbs apparently said in the meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, will seek to resolve the conflict. It is not necessary to write that into the Bill. There is one overriding protection in the Bill to which the council will have regard when deciding what to do. The council has a statutory duty to ensure that adequate provision is made in different parts of the country.
      I am sure that Mr. Gunn, the chairman-designate, Mr. Stubbs, the chief executive-designate, and the people appointed to the Further Education Funding Council will not stand by if people in Devon or Leicestershire start saying that the colleges are not forwarding well-judged applications for schedule 2 funding. The funding council will be under a statutory duty to secure adequate provision in different parts of the country. I do not believe that the procedures that I have described are overly complicated or will cause delay. If for some reason they do not work and if the community provider is still unsatisfied, it is open to the college to appeal to the Secretary of State on the ground that the further education college or the council has acted unreasonably or has failed in its statutory duty.
      We can return to these issues, if we wish, when we debate new clause 7. There are perfectly clear mechanisms which people will follow but they can be made to sound complicated. When we discuss on Report a Bill which has necessarily been drafted in legal language, it is easy to debate it in terms which sound unfamiliar to the layman. With the greatest respect, I have been in the House for a long time—unlike most Conservative Members, I can remember being in opposition—and I confess that I have probably played that trick of making something sound frightfully obscure and complicated. But there is no point in alarming people in Devon or Leicester and making them fear that there is no perfectly straightforward procedure to get the funding council and the Secretary of State to sort things out if a local further education college starts messing about and not forwarding applications. We can deal with that when we debate new clause 7.
      Mr. Morley: If there is a countywide service, could that service make an application through one particular college, bearing in mind that some of the other colleges in the county would have annexes which would include part of the adult education service?
      Mr. Clarke: Again, I am sure that we can correct this later if I am wrong, but a service would not have to go to the nearest further education college. If there were a countywide service, it would go to one within the county but a college would not have to go to the nearest FE college if it feared that the FE college might regard the adult college as a rival. It must go through a further education college in the locality to get the college to hand on the application to the funding council if the college is satisfied that there is a legitimate claim.
      I hope that we have covered that issue adequately at this stage. I accept that it is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who is very experienced in these matters, is very concerned about the state of affairs in Leicestershire, but I believe that repeated debates will at least satisfy people that a procedure exists which will maintain the worthwhile provision needed to maintain an adequate service in all parts of the country.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Jessel: Where there is split funding for an adult college and a request for capital provision, can my right hon. and learned Friend throw any light on who would be responsible for the funding where incorporation had taken place?
      Mr. Clarke: It depends on what the funding is for—that is my first reaction. Again, I shall write to my hon. Friend. For most purposes, if the capital bid is to provide schedule 2 funding, it is plain that one will look to the capital provision that we have made for the Further Education Funding Council. If it is for local services, one will look to the local authority. However, just as money from two sources will not defeat the flow of revenue, split provision will not defeat the flow of capital.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State is opening up an interesting new part of the Bill. If a bid from an adult education centre is for capital, largely in relation to schedule 2 work, is the Secretary of State saying that the centre would have to make that bid through a further education college, or can it make its bid separately? If it can make its bid separately for capital, why cannot it do so for revenue?
      Mr. Clarke: If a further education college is incorporated with the funding council, it will make its capital bid to the funding council. If the adult college remains a local authority college, it will look to the local authority for its capital provision. It is the sector that will largely determine the source of capital. Of course, there are provisions under which colleges that do not automatically become incorporated as further education colleges within the funding council's ambit can apply to be incorporated if they so wish, but it is the sector that will largely determine their capital bids.
      Mr. Fatchett: I think that the Secretary of State is finding out more about the Bill as we go along. Is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that if the work is predominantly schedule 2 work and that, if there is a need for capital expenditure on the adult college in, for example, Richmond, that bid must be made through the local education authority—yes or no?
      Mr. Clarke: It would, if the college had decided not to seek incorporation; but if it had chosen to concentrate on schedule 2 work, it would perhaps be a straight decision by the college not to seek incorporation. The sector would determine the application.
      We have covered the same ground again. This debate is becoming well-trodden ground. It is a popular Bill with a non-contentious purpose—the expansion of further education, of sixth form opportunities and of adult education. Most of our debates have eventually come to rest in the narrow area of complication with the procedures for schedule 2 funding for adult colleges. That is because there is so little real dispute about the Bill among people genuinely concerned about the subject. The Opposition are ideologically committed to local authority management of this matter as they are in almost every other part of education. They know that most people involved in further and adult education disagree with them fundamentally.

      207
      The new clause is a red herring. It covers issues of genuine concern in some parts of the country, but I hope that the fact that we have debated it at great length yet again at the behest of the Opposition at the start of the timetable motion will enable us to put fears to rest. The Bill will expand opportunities for young people and for adults in all parts of education and training. I ask the House to accept that, to reject the unnecessary new clause and to enable us to move a step nearer to putting these new opportunities in place.
      Mr. Michael Carr: The Secretary of State referred to the success story of adult education under this Government, although he acknowledged when pressed that that may have had something to do with the local education authorities. That is typical of the Government, who like to claim success as a Government success, but who see failure in terms of local authority failure. We do not see that only in education.
      It was rightly said that every amendment tabled in Committee was defeated. That was not because Ministers did not accept some of the arguments, but simply because the Government want to get the Bill through before the general election. They can then claim that they did well to get it on the statute book.
      Hon. Members have received many representations regretting the haste with which the measure is proceeding. The representations have come not only from councillors, but from the providers and users of adult education and further education. They regret very much that the timing of the measure means that debate will be curtailed and that there may not be the right atmosphere for a considered discussion of the issues.
      There may be support from further education college principals for the aim of getting the measure on to the statute book quickly, but they represent only a small fraction of those who have an interest and an active involvement in using and providing the services. I counsel that the wider view, not simply the view of a narrow group, is heeded.
      As we know, schedule 2 work is to be transferred to the funding councils, and adult education colleges may apply through the further education colleges to the funding councils for their schedule 2 work. Would it not have been sensible to allow direct application from adult education colleges as many are larger than the FE colleges through which they may have to apply? It would also have been sensible to allow consortia of adult education centres to combine in applying directly for schedule 2 funding.
      The same applies to whole county adult education services, which should not have to go through FE colleges. Although the Secretary of State has spoken at great length today to try to reassure people that there is not a valid worry, there is a genuine worry that some further education colleges may be a little less likely to apply promptly if they see the threat of competition from another source.
      Since the White Paper was published last summer, hon. Members of all parties have received shoals of letters from people who are concerned about the proposal—from users and providers of adult education. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred in his inimitable way in Committee to the pile of environmental refuse around him, much of which was no doubt letters
      208
      that he had received on the subject. We all received such letters. The fact that Ministers have made many attempts—
      Mr. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that letters from constituents or from any one else were lying on the floor in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that correspondence from constituents is far too important and far too valued to be treated in such a cavalier fashion.
      Mr. Carr: I agree entirely. I did not seek to imply that the hon. Gentleman treats his constituents' letters with contempt. I know that that is not the case. I merely referred to the mountain of material, whether on the floor or on the Benches, as evidence of considerable correspondence on the matter. I trust that the hon. Gentleman accepts my explanation.
      Many letters have been received. Before I came into the Chamber, I talked briefly with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He told me that he had received more letters on this matter than on any other since he became a Member of Parliament. Only this morning, he met pensioners in his constituency. The two matters uppermost in their minds were the future of libraries and the future of adult education classes. Ministers have not yet convinced the public, many of whom have written since the completion of the Committee stage, that all is well.
      If the new clause were accepted, it would show the people who have written to hon. Members and those who are concerned that the Government's words of reassurance mean something. I strongly support the new clause, and urge the Government to accept it.
      Mr. Pawsey: From listening to Opposition Members, their new philosophy seems to be, "If it works, don't fix it". That seems to be a powerful argument for no change and no innovation. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), in whose speech I sought to intervene, referred to what he described as the first Bill on education that an incoming Labour Government would introduce. If he had given way—I was a little surprised that he did not—I would have asked him whether he would confirm that the first Bill on education introduced by a Labour Government would be an abolitionist Bill—a Bill to abolish the grammar schools, the grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges.
      I would have asked him how he would reconcile his "If it works, don't fix it" philosophy with those abolitionist policies. Everyone agrees that the grammar schools certainly work, that the grant-maintained schools certainly work, that the city technology colleges certainly work and that the assisted places scheme certainly works. The problem with Opposition Members is that they cannot see excellence when it stands up and hits them in the face.
      There were many comments about the success of local education authority policies. I remind Opposition Members that the polytechnics were part of the local authority empire. They have been freed up, and no one seriously argues that the polytechnics should return to the LEAs.
      I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr). Has he had an opportunity to read an article in The House Magazine by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)? I accept the

      209
      commitment of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley to higher education and especially to further education. I listened to him with interest in Committee and I felt that he developed some interesting points. Can he tell me why—I will give way—in the whole of the article by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro, I cannot find a reference to FE colleges or to further education?
      Mr. Burns: What? It must be there.
      Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend expresses surprise. I was equally surprised. If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley wants to answer the point and to tell me why his hon. Friend the Member for Truro failed to mention further education, I will give way.
      Mr. Farr: I do not presume to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on that. He was invited to write an article for The House Magazine, which he duly did. I suggest that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) writes to my hon. Friend, who will answer him directly.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) acknowledge that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in a equivalent article did not mention adult education—an ignorance amply revealed in the debate?
      Mr. Pawsey: When I read the contribution by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in the same magazine, the only reference I could find was this:
      "Adult education has already been hit very hard by government-imposed cuts in local authority expenditure and poll-tax capping. The House should block this new assault."
      I find that remarkable, given the figures that my right hon. and learned Friend cited earlier. What did that "assault", as it was described by the hon. Member for Oxford, East consist of? It was an assault with money. There was an annual real decrease in expenditure on adult centres of 4 per cent. between 1975–76 and 1978–79, compared with an annual real increase of 3·1 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1989–90.
      Mr. Burns: Who was in power?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Pawsey: I hear my hon. Friend asking, from a sedentary position, "Who was in power?" I suspect that that is something of a rhetorical question. My hon. Friend knows that it was the Labour Government—the same Government who had to bring in the International Monetary Fund to sort out the problems that they had caused. That was the only time in the nation's history when it was necessary to bring in the outside bankers.
      Let me continue on the same theme. There was an annual real increase in spend on further education colleges of less than 0·5 per cent. between 1975–76 and 1978–79, compared with an annual real increase of 1·6 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1989–90. If that is Opposition Members' idea of an assault, I wish that people would assault me in the same fashion and pour money over my head as the Government have poured money into adult education.
      Mr. MorleyThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that the quality of adult education very much depends on the local education authority and on whether it is Conservative or
      210
      Labour-controlled. Would he like to explain why, in my county of Humberside, there was recently a scandal involving people from Lincolnshire giving forged Humberside addresses because they wanted to make use of the superior adult education facilities—facilities that are virtually non-existent in Lincolnshire?
      Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that I should leave questions of forgery to Opposition Members.
      The present Bill is another important education Bill which continues the main thrust of the Government's policy—a policy designed to reduce bureaucracy and give additional powers and responsibility to those involved in the running of the nation's institutions. It is a policy that is in marked contrast to that of the Opposition, to whom only the grey uniformity of LEA control is acceptable. I have never been able to understand the socialist reasoning that the only good state education is LEA education.
      Just as the Education Reform Act 1988 gave additional powers to parents and schools, and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1989 freed up the polytechnics and cut the apron strings that secured them to the LEAs, so this Bill frees the 450 colleges of further education. I am convinced that power and responsibility should reside more closely with those who are involved in the day-to-day administration. Such a system will enable them to respond that much more quickly to the demands and challenges of students, employers and local communities.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted that I have the support of my hon. Friend on that point.
      It should also be remembered that the LEAs are not always the colleges' best friends. Let me call in aid The Independent—not always regarded as the friend of the Conservative party. On 5 November last year, it said:
      "There is a tendency for LEAs to reduce funds to further education sector and put them into schools. But the provision of funds directly to a further education funding council will mean the funds being ring-fenced."
      The Independent may not normally be sympathetic to Government policy but on this occasion the newspaper certainly has it right. Under the Bill, funding for further education will be protected and—not before time—the unwelcome interference by LEAs in the running of colleges of further education will become a thing of the past.
      The Government now provide some £2 billion a year for further education in England and Wales. That funding will henceforth be protected. Money intended for further education will reach further education, to the benefit of all those studying in that sector.
      The Bill certainly cuts bureaucracy. At present, principals of colleges of further education must fight their corners every year with the officials at shire hall. They must take their place—often a lowly place—in the priority queue for funds with schools and administration. In future, all that will change.
      From the visits that I have made to the East Warwickshire college of further education in my constituency, I am aware that there is a wealth of talent in staffrooms and classrooms. The Bill will free up that talent and broaden the vision. It will do for colleges of further education what the 1988 Act did for the polytechnics.
      Let me give the House a couple of examples taken from the East Warwickshire college of further education. The principal tells me that he has plans to extend the college's

      211
      courses—and not just for local people locally participating. He is going national and will seek to attract students to a much wider range of courses. Already he has pioneered a unique money-back guarantee to any part-time student who is not satisfied with his course. The principal is prepared for his college to be placed on a commercial rather than an institutional footing, and he welcomes the challenge the Bill will present. The freeing up of the colleges will result in a substantial increase in the variety and number of college courses so that they become more attractive to a much wider range of students.
      I many ways, the liberation of polytechnics from local authority control will serve as a blueprint for this latest transfer of control from LEA to individual institution. Given the success of that operation, no one now argues that the polytechnics should be returned to LEA control.
      In Committee, it was argued with some justification that adult and further education had been something of a Cinderella. Funds had either been sucked into the schools or directed to advanced education, sometimes at the expense of colleges of further education which had become poor relations. The Bill changes that. If, in the past, we have not done enough for young people leaving school at 16, or for adults who, for whatever reason, require additional education and training, the Bill helps to remedy that defect.
      At present, the further education colleges take about 360,000 full-time students and 700,000 part-time day students, with another 700,000 part-time evening students. Those students are spread among 450 institutions. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has sought to dismiss those figures on the grounds that a substantial percentage do not receive a qualification at the end of the course. Although certificates are undoubtedly desirable, the fact that not everyone receives one on completion of a course does not mean that either the student or the course was unsatisfactory. In many cases—particularly in the case of short courses for adults that are designed to improve the quality of life through general education or leisure pursuits—certificates would be inappropriate. The absence of a certificate does not mean that a student has not benefited from the course that he has attended or that he has been wasting his time.
      In Committee, much emphasis was placed on the need to continue and extend adult education provision, whether for leisure or for learning. The Committee appreciated that good and useful courses do not always depend on certificates to justify their existence. Do I see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) looking at me quizzically? I shall willingly give way to him if he wishes me to.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: No. Just get on with it.
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will agree with me that, when control of the colleges is transferred, as it surely will be when the Bill is enacted, from the office of the director of education to the college principals, we will see a change of attitude and a substantial growth in opportunity.
      I said earlier that Opposition Members seem to believe that the only good education is that provided by the local
      212
      education authority. Grant-maintained schools show that that is not true. That trend, which was continued with the polytechnics, will now grow into a flood with FE colleges.
      I was disappointed to learn that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said recently in a speech to principals of FE colleges that, were there to be a Labour Government—God forbid—Labour would repeal this legislation. No wonder the principals who bothered to listen to the hon. Gentleman looked shell-shocked. They were looking forward to developing a spirit of enterprise. Instead, they were promised stagnation—not so much liberation, more a case of renationalisation. No wonder the hon. Gentleman uncharacteristically remained silent in Comittee when I challenged him specifically on that point.
      Mr. Richard Caborn: Did the hon. Gentleman issue a press release of his remarks before he made his speech?
      Mr. Pawsey: I never issue press releases of my speeches, because they are always so good that the press always pick them up anyway.
      When the hon. Member for Leeds, Central opened the debate, he said that new clause 1 was a probing new clause. I believe that it is mischievous, and I hope that the House will reject it.
      Mr. John Bowis: I am delighted but rather surprised to be called next to follow the eloquent and modest comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), because I would have expected more Opposition Members to be present to participate in this important debate.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: We are not participating in the debate because we are quite happy that our local authorities are doing the job. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) forgot to point out that the local authority which is so obnoxious in his area is Conservative-controlled.
      Mr. Bowis rose—
      Mr. Pawsey rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One intervention at a time, please.
      Mr. Bowis: I will come back to the local government point, but of course I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
      Mr. Pawsey: I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that I was a member of Warwickshire county council for about six years, from 1974 to 1979 or thereabouts. I do not believe that Warwickshire county council is in any way obnoxious. Had the hon. Member for Rhondda been present for our debate on 4 February, he would have learnt that I spoke strongly in defence of my county. It is all there in Hansard. I happen to think that in many ways—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. I call Mr. Bowis.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Bowis: I feel like a letter box, but I am honoured to pass the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

      213
      Perhaps I can now declare two interests as I am an adviser to the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education and the Association of College Management. As a former governor of the polytechnic in Kingston, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said about the experience of polytechnics moving from the local authority nursery to independence.
      I also want to pay tribute to the local authorities that nurtured the polytechnics in their early days and so allowed them to become independent. As a former governor of an FE college in the royal borough of Kingston, I pay tribute to the role of local government in Kingston and elsewhere in respect of the way in which local government has brought up our FE colleges so that they are not ready to become independent.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that it is not just the college principals who are in favour of the Bill. It has received endorsement throughout the further education sector. My colleagues have been urged over the past few years to introduce such a measure and they have responded to that urging. The college principals, governors, teaching staff and other staff members as well as people in local authorities working with the colleges have supported the measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, they are dismayed at the possibility that the Bill might be undone were the unthinkable to happen and a Labour Government elected who reneged on this forward-looking measure.
      New clause 1 relates to adult education, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to refer to that subject. I am a great believer in continuing education, which I believe lasts from the cradle to the grave. No doubt some hon. Members will say that it goes way beyond the grave. Up there, in the wide blue yonder—I stress the blue—no doubt there are former educationists and Secretaries of State for Education and Science who are busy providing continuing education beyond this life—and that is as it should be.
      Adult education is a crucial part of overall education, and it should be encouraged. I know of many people who, as a result of adult education services, have found new opportunities in life. Many people have discovered quite late in life that they have the ability to benefit from further education as a result of their introduction to education through the adult service.
      New clause 1 paragraph (2)(c) refers to
      "the numbers of people progressing between sectors".
      We should be considering that important point. I have said before in this place that I have been impressed by people of all ages who have taken tip adult education courses even in fairly innocuous pastimes such as cake decoration. I was impressed by the fact that some people who took cake decorating courses progressed to FE courses in how to set up their own businesses. Other people who had been kept out of education because English is not their first language have found a welcome mat at adult education and gone on to courses in English as a second language.
      Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is an adult education centre in my constituency called the Percival guild house? I recently visited the house and witnessed the courses available, which ranged from local history and the way in which the canals and railways emerged to practical courses in French, German and other
      214
      languages. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is critically important that such centres are maintained. Under the Bill, matters will be easier, not harder.
      Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. New clause I is useful because our debate has sent a message to local education authorities that there is nothing to stop them providing the excellent provision that they provided in the past. Some people have been concerned about the apparent divide between leisure and vocational work, but there is no reason why that should be anything more than an imaginary barrier, because there are different ways of achieving funding. The message from the debate should be that we expect our local education authorities, good as we may deem them to be, to continue to provide that excellent range of and access to education.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Although everybody appreciates and welcomes the efforts by local authorities in adult vocational and further education in particular, does my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread concern about the future funding of adult education and what appears to be the intrinsic contradiction in the current legislation in relation to the funding and composition of regional councils?
      Mr. Bowls: I accept that funding is important. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also referred to funding. In future, there will be various methods of funding adult education. The size of resources does not necessarily equate to the quality of provision. I recently handed out certificates at the annual prize-giving ceremony at I he Wandsworth adult education college. In its first year, having been liberated, to use the term that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, from the clutches of the ILEA, that college has not only enabled adult education to thrive but has taught record numbers of students a far wider range of subjects than would have been possible under the ILEA. It was not a matter of resources: it was a matter of the efficient use of available resources for local education authorities to spend on adult education.
      When I think of the quality of those courses, I think of the range of students who undertook GCSE art, all of whom managed to attain an A grade. Their ages ranged from 18 to 85. I think also of the quality of the work being done for special needs students. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has made provision for that. Some students never thought of being able to achieve a certificate, but their receiving certificates is another sign of quality adult education within existing resources. Of course we want resources to be expanded. They are available if they are efficiently used.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend mentions adult education. He will know that there has been much concern in many local authorities about the distinction between vocational and non-vocational courses. All resources necessary for vocational courses are coming through from our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Local authorities are receiving funding for non-vocation courses through the Department of the Environment, but they are not making that clear to their local people. People are being told that a reduction in funding is the reason why their non-vocational courses are being cut. That simply is not true. Will my hon. Friend address that point?
      Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is correct. As a former governor of an FE college and a former chairman of an educational committee of the ILEA, I know the pressures that one is under as chairman of education when it comes to resources which, in theory, are being passed down the line from the Government and which other departments of a council are all too quick to snatch up. That is one of the main reasons why we have had pressure from the colleges for this measure. They believe that, with a future separate funding council, that money will be put directly into the sector and not be hived off for the management expenses of an authority or for whatever dubious works a council may have in mind, often according to its political persuasions, or its preferences for spending money on a traffic management scheme rather than on education.
      As a sector, FE will have its own financing system through the funding council. As a result, we will give adult education the opportunity to benefit. It is not a matter of not allowing all adult education into the funding sector. We are saying to adult education, "We will permit you to benefit from the funding system that is coming into further education." My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) rightly pointed out that, if funding does not come through as the result of an application through an FE college, a system of appeal can be used to ensure that the decision is vetted. At the very least, there is a possibility that the college would be overruled in its refusal to pass on the application.
      Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, in the case of community colleges, there is a problem about direct access to funding councils? There may be a contradiction between further education colleges and community colleges apparently bidding for exactly the same money from the regional council.
      Mr. Bowis: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has also heard it and will respond. I do not have community college experience in my constituency or indeed in my LEA, but I take note of the problem in Devon, Leicester, Richmond and elsewhere.
      I hope that the Government will look carefully in future at the way in which adult education colleges have or have not the right to apply directly for funding. Under the Bill, there is a way in which they can apply for direct funding if they succeed in obtaining incorporation, but that is not the most simple or straightforward way of achieving it. Some adult education colleges are concerned that the Government should keep that point under review and see whether there are ways in which colleges can get a direct connection. We must not allow education colleges which are doing FE work which is comparable to that done by FE colleges to be regarded as second-class citizens.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State also to consider concern in the FE and AE sectors about the transitional period. That may well be a matter for regulations rather than the Bill, but there is concern that, in the coming year, local education authorities will not spend as much as they might otherwise spend on the sector for the obvious reason they are making a commitment which will be paid direct next year by a funding council. I hope that that point will be taken into account and that those concerns can be put at rest.
      The new clause is unnecessary and expensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)
      216
      mentioned. It is ineffectual because, apart from anything else, its forward planning is based on figures that nobody has seen. It is Government interference in the running of local councils. For these reasons, I oppose it.
      Mr. Jessel: I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). [H0N. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I have been asked to speak up, and I am trying to do so, but several colleagues are making their own speeches. We have far too many reports. We have stacks and stacks of them. There is far too much reading matter. Most of it is unread and wasted. We need fewer reports. We should remember the philosophical principle of Occam's razor—do not multiply entities beyond necessity. I shall therefore vote against the proposal that we should have one more annual report.
      The new clause gives us the opportunity to debate the merits of adult education and to raise our anxieties about adult education in our constituencies. The growth in adult education under the Conservative Government has been tremendously impressive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, if I heard him right, that there had been a 55 per cent. increase in the number of mature students in Britain in the past 10 years. The figure is now 215,000 or 216,000. That is a substantial number. It reflects well on the adult education departments of local authorities, of whatever political hue, which have sponsored and supported mature students.
      7 pm
      My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) are well served by the Richmond-upon-Thames adult college, and we are both tremendously proud of it. It is a first-class college which offers an excellent range of courses. Last year, my hon. Friend and I were glad to sponsor an excellent art exhibition from the college in the Upper Waiting Hall of the Palace of Westminster. Conservative and Opposition Members alike will have been delighted to see that exhibition. It was to a high standard, as is much else that the college produces. It provides a great deal of enrichment and fulfilment of the lives of many of our constituents, both in the arts and on the vocational side—I share the view that it is often difficult to draw the line between the two.
      If I thought that anything in the Bill threatened Richmond-upon-Thames adult college, I could not support the Bill, but I do not see any such threat, despite a great deal of scaremongering. Some of the scares have gained some credence among gullible people, but it seems to me that the college is in no jeopardy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes and I have received many letters reflecting the anxieties of some people in our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met my hon. Friend and me in the Department on the morning of II February before the debate on Second Reading, and we expressed those anxieties. During the debate, in response to a question from me, my hon. Friend the Minister referred at some length to the particular case of Richmond-upon-Thames adult college. He said:
      "It is widely recognised that that is an excellent college which serves the local community well. I am well aware of the concerns felt in Richmond about the future of the college, and I wish to put them at rest."—[Official Report, 11 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 903.]

      217
      He went on to outline two ways in which the college could be funded in the future. The second was under clause 6(5), whereby the college would apply for funds through another college. I for one, regard that second option as undesirable—indeed, unacceptable—and I believe that it should be ruled out. It is not right that that excellent college should obtain its funding by applying through another college.
      My hon. Friend the Minister had outlined earlier the first option, which to my mind is the preferred one—that the college should be incorporated under clause 16, which my hon. Friend said was expressly designed to cover cases such as that of Richmond upon Thames adult college. Under that option, the college would apply for its basic funding to the Further Education Funding Council to be set up under the Bill. The college would he incorporated so that it received its basic funding from the FEFC.
      There is no need to amend the Bill to enable the college to receive that basic funding because that is already provided for in the Bill. However, the other part of its funding would continue to come from Richmond upon Thames borough council. That council, under Conservative control until 1984 and since then under Liberal control, has done its best over the years to uphold and advance the highly valuable and useful work of the college. The council's record has been good under both administrations, and I have no doubt that that good record will continue.
      There is no reason to believe that the council's intention to uphold the work of the college would diminish. First, we understand that the Bill places a statutory duty on the council to uphold the work of the college. Secondly, there is enormously strong and vociferous local public opinion in favour of adult education. It would be politically impossible for Richmond upon Thames borough council, under the control of whatever party, to desert the cause of adult education. Thirdly, the council has always upheld the college and there is no reason to think that it would stop.
      There is therefore no threat to the second part of Richmond college's funding, let alone to the first part of its funding through incorporation under the relevant clause of the Bill. Those who, for whatever motive, try to foment false fears in others act dishonourably. The college has provided an extremely impressive range of courses and an excellent service. I am happy that its future is safe and I am sure that the college will step forward with confidence into the future. I know that that is also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes.
      Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the new clause because Opposition Members, and especially the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), made certain assertions which he said were the background to new clause 1. He said that the background to the new clause was that Conservative education authorities were cutting their further education budgets and that the whole system under which the Bill was introduced would therefore come apart.
      I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to Labour-controlled Lancashire local education authority, for example. Its budget was increased by 16 per cent., but it has nevertheless cut its further education budget. But I especially wish to draw the attention of Opposition Members and in particular the hon. Members
      218
      for Leeds, Central and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) to Labour-controlled Birmingham education authority. Last year, Birmingham city council was awarded £456 million by the Government for education. It spent only £392 million. It chose to spend the remainder on such things as marrying up statues, marble steps for the council building and Caribbean night clubs.
      This year, Birmingham city council has been awarded £5 million by the Government and apparently plans to spend only £423 million. It then has the gall to seek to persuade the people of Birmingham that it has increased spending by £30 million. Of course, the richly deserved award to teachers will take up the majority of that increase in any case. The real increase is nearer £2 million. Once again, it will not spend the full amount that the Government have given it to spend on education.
      Therefore, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central cannot assert that new clause 1 is necessary because Conservative-controlled councils have cut their budgets for further education and therefore the Bill will come apart. It is perfectly obvious that Labour-controlled local education authorities have treated further education in a scandalous fashion. Birmingham is a good example.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also made much play of the number of representations that he had received from various people involved in further education and adult education. He might be interested in the example of my college of further education—Hall Green college in my constituency.
      I rang the principal and the deputy principal to ask them their views on the Bill, and they said, "We pray you get it through as soon as possible." I have just given the House the reason—they do not trust the local education authority in Birmingham to give them the money which is theirs by right.
      Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend can scarcely be surprised that his colleges do not trust the local education authority, when it is not prepared to spend the funding that the Government make available. The catalogue of wasteful expenditure that he describes is truly appalling. The sooner that the city of Birmingham rejects that Labour administration and brings in a sensible council the better.
      Mr. Hargreaves: I must agree with my hon. Friend. I hope and pray that the people of Birmingham will take that decision in the forthcoming local elections.
      In the meantime, principals in charge of further education colleges throughout Birmingham will he looking forward to the passage of the Bill and its implementation as soon as possible.
      It might be interesting for my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) to know that the underfunding has continued for some years. Birmingham city council has underspent the money which the Government have awarded it for education in the past four years. In each of those years, the Government have given it a substantial increase over and above inflation.
      When the hon. Member for Leeds, Central asks why we do not trust local education authorities, I tell him to look at Birmingham. Then he will see why we are trying to do something to set further education colleges free, and to give them the opportunity to thrive in the same way that polytechnics have been given that opportunity. New clause 1 is totally otiose in that process. It would merely add a huge army of civil servants. What would be their purpose

      219
      —to act as some form of unpaid research assistants for the Labour party? I think not. The new clause would serve no purpose.
      The funding council will ring-fence expenditure on further and adult education—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said—to the further education colleges, where it should go. It gives them the surety that they will get the funds that they have been awarded by central Government. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is why I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Allason: New clause 1 is utterly against all the interests of my constituents. We have a long tradition of community colleges in Devon. While I am utterly opposed to any report being submitted annually by the Secretary of State to the House, as new clause 1 provides, I have concerns about the funding of further education in Devon.
      Paignton community college broadly welcomes the Bill. It will do a great deal for adult education. However, there is continuing concern about the funding council. I hope that community colleges will be allowed direct access to funding councils.
      I shall not stray off new clause 1 on to the subject of the composition of the funding councils, as I hope that there will be time to discuss that later, but it is important that vocational and non-vocational courses should continue to be offered in Devon colleges. Furthermore, I hope that there would be an element of ring fencing to funding from central Government.
      The key issue is who will benefit from the Bill. If it were just the staff, I would certainly oppose it. The Bill will benefit everyone who has the option of further or adult education, whatever the subject of the course they take. It is important that those courses should be maintained, and that naturally boils down to money. I hope that the Minister will take another long hard look at access to the funding councils, which is the key.
      7.15 pm
      In Paignton and Torquay, adult courses are extremely popular. However, there is great anxiety, especially among staff, that, if there were to be some kind of competition for the limited funds, one college might be able to offer one set of courses and thereby poach students from another. Devon is such a widespread community that we do not have the same opportunities as the metropolitan areas to provide a variety of courses. It is essential that money be provided for those courses, and that the staff who teach them have confidence that what is happening to them does not mean an ultimate reduction in funding.
      There is concern about the funding councils, but my hon. Friend the Minister could get around that problem by arranging for community colleges—which are not unique to Devon but are certainly helpful—to be able to apply directly for funds.
      Nothing in new clause 1 will be helpful to students or staff of community colleges in Devon. I hope that the House will reject it and will thereby find time to discuss new clause 7, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and is an extremely important contribution to the Bill. Paignton community college has done sterling service—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not on new clause 7. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would hold his comments until that time.
      Mr. Allason: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing new clause 1, and I am especially concerned about subsection (2)(a)—
      "the allocation of resources for adult learning".
      That is my prime concern, and that of many of my constituents and the staff and students of Devon colleges which will be directly affected by the Bill.
      Broadly speaking, the Bill is welcome. New clause 1 would not be welcomed, because implied within it is a level of bureaucracy which would make life more complicated, rather than easier, for students and staff.
      Reports to the Secretary of State are not the key: the key is the confidence of staff that they have access to the money and that they will not have to compete with other colleges in the same area offering the same courses. Accordingly, I urge the House to reject new clause 1.
      Mr. Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution, and I apologise to the House for being unable to attend the earlier part of the debate.
      There has been a resurgence of interest in adult education during the past few years, as there has been in many other areas. The adult education school in Bury has a long and proud history. My mother and grandmother attended courses there. The importance of the college was emphasised to the local community last year, when it was under threat of closure by the local authority. A tremendous campaign was organised against the closure, and it was prevented.
      Following that success, however, people in the town became concerned about elements in the original White Paper upon which the Bill is based and about threats to the future of the college. At the time, I made representations to the Minister and to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg).Since then, I believe that developments in adult education have been more encouraging, and I have no doubt that adult education has put itself more firmly on the map as a result of the various representations made to my hon. Friend. I see from his wry smile that he acknowledges the impact which various campaigners have had upon him.
      I pay tribute to Molly Smith, who has led students of the adult education school in Bury extremely well, and to Cliff Baxendale, the principal, who, supported by colleagues in other parts of adult education in Bury, has also mounted an extremely good campaign.
      Pleased as I am with the responses, there are other problems affecting adult education. Hon. Members will note that my name appears on new clause 7, which will be debated later. However, new clause I will not deal with the problems adequately. It merely contains an element of gloss, as it simply requires a report to be made on adult education; it has no substance behind it.
      As so often, new clause 1 reflects the Opposition's view that they need not make a solid commitment. It is all a ploy; they raise an issue and dress it up, but they avoid the commitment to further expenditure which is required by Beckett's law on the future of public expenditure under a supposed Labour Government. The Opposition hope to have the best of both worlds.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) raised precisely that point. By the time all the reports had been filled in, one would have written a small book.
      Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I appreciate that that is the problem. If we wish to do something properly for adult education, new clause 1 is not the way to do it.
      The cause of adult education has been raised and given extra importance during the passage of the Bill and because of the efforts that have been made around the country. We all recognise the importance of adult education, but that recognition is not adequately covered by the new clause. My right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have addressed some of the problems, but others remain.
      Like most hon. Members, I wish the improvements made in adult education in recent years to be safeguarded. I also wish to safeguard the opportunities for adults to train through life, be they on vocational or non-vocational courses. That is for people to choose. It is important that such opportunities are safeguarded in the future. I am sure that there is nothing in the Bill that will actively harm them.
      I am happy to see that local authorities will retain a degree of control and that colleges will need to relate closely to the adult education schools in their area in order to provide a proper service.
      If it were possible to safeguard adult education by the issue of reports, the new clause would be an admirable way to achieve that. Unfortunately, that will not work, and I prefer the approach of my hon. Friends. If I have an opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a later new clause, I may suggest a way in which to improve things further.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided:Ayes 192, Noes 291.

      Division No. 103]

      [7.21 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Alton, David

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Carr, Michael

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cartwright, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Corbett, Robin

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Crowther, Stan

      Beggs, Roy

      Cryer, Bob

      Beith, A. J.

      Cummings, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunlitfe, Lawrence

      Bellotti, David

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Darling, Alistair

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

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelll)

      Benton, Joseph

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Blair, Tony

      Dixon, Don

      Blunkett, David

      Doran, Frank

      Boyes, Roland

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Enright, Derek

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Fatchett, Derek

      222

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Flannery, Martin

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Flynn, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Meacher, Michael

      Foster, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Michael, Alun

      Fraser, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Morley, Elliot

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gould, Bryan

      Mullin, Chris

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      O'Brien, William

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hain, Peter

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hardy, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Haynes, Frank

      Parry, Robert

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Patchett, Terry

      Henderson, Doug

      Pendry, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Prescott, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Home Robertson, John

      Radice, Giles

      Hood, Jimmy

      Randall, Stuart

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Howells, Geraint

      Reid, Dr John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rooney, Terence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ingram, Adam

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Short, Clare

      Kennedy, Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Snape, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Soley, Clive

      Lambie, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Leighton, Ron

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Stephen, Nicol

      Lewis, Terry

      Stott, Roger

      Litherland, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Livingstone, Ken

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McAllion, John

      Wallace, James

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Walley, Joan

      McCartney, Ian

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McFall, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McKelvey, William

      Winnlck, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Maclennan, Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      McMaster, Gordon

      Wray, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McWilliam, John

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

      Marek, Dr John

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkins, Robert

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Allason, Rupert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Amos, Alan

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Ashby, David

      Benyon, W.

      223

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gorst, John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gregory, Conal

      Boswell, Tim

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Grist, Ian

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

      Ground, Patrick

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hague, William

      Bowis, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bright, Graham

      Harris, David

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burns, Simon

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Burt, Alistair

      Hayward, Robert

      Butler, Chris

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butterfill, John

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hill, James

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

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

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Irvine, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jackson, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Janman, Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dicks, Terry

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kilfedder, James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dover, Den

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knapman, Roger

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knox, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Latham, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Lawrence. Ivan

      Fallon, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Farr, Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Favell, Tony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lord, Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gale, Roger

      Mans, Keith

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maples, John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mates, Michael

      224

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Shersby, Michael

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Sims, Roger

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mills, Iain

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Speller, Tony

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Squire, Robin

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stern, Michael

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Paice, James

      Thorne, Neil

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trippier, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Portillo, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Price, Sir David

      Waller, Gary

      Raffan, Keith

      Walters. Sir Dennis

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Ward, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Redwood, John

      Watts, John

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Riddick, Graham

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wilshire, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rost, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Shelton, Sir William

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 6

      UNIVERSITY PAY REVIEW BODY
      The Secretary of State shall establish a pay review body for university academic and academic-related staffs.—[Mr. Straw.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Hon. Members will note that the clause stands in the name of my hon. Friends and me and, I am pleased to say, three Liberal Democrats, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr). It proposes that a pay review body shall be established by the Secretary of State for university academic and academic-related staffs.

      225
      The proposition that university staffs should have a pay review body was widely supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The official Opposition were asked about our attitude towards a pay review body in June 1991, and I was happy to reply to the secretary of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers that the Labour party in government would establish a pay review body. I shall read from the letter that I wrote to those bodies setting out the terms on which a pay review body for university academic staff would be established.
      Since then—indeed, just over a month ago—the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) tabled early-day motion 597 proposing that there should be such a review body. I am astonished that, having gone to the trouble of tabling that motion, the hon. Gentleman is absent today.
      Mr. Fatchett: He is in China.
      Mr. Straw: I note what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is an assiduous attender here. Whatever else he may be learning from the Chinese Government, I suspect that the People's Republic does not yet have a pay review body for university academic staff. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) murmurs that there is a review body for everybody in the last state on earth which still practices democratic centralism.
      The early-day motion says:
      "That this House acknowledges the important contribution that universities have made to the country's economic and social well-being; recognises the productivity and efficiency gains that they have achieved as numbers have risen by 8·7 per cent. in 1991; is conscious that Britain's system of higher education is one of the finest in the world and is rightly held in great esteem; recognises that pay review bodies which cover such groups as doctors, dentists and school teachers do, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, enhance professionalism and the raising of morale; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish a pay review body for university academic and related staffs."
      It was signed by 71 hon. Members, of whom 56 were Conservatives. I understand why the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is absent—he is in China—but I doubt whether the other 55 are on that trip.
      The fact that only two of the Conservative Members who signed the motion are present to debate that important motion shows their lack of seriousness of purpose. We shall look with even greater interest later this evening to see how many of those 56 hon. Members go into the Lobby to support the proposal. I suspect that they thought that they could sign an early-day motion and tell their local papers that they were supporting it, but when it comes to the simple straightforward proposition that the Secretary of State should establish a pay review body for university academic and related staff, on the recommendation of the Minister and through the Whips, all those Members will be dragooned into the Lobby to vote against the proposal. It is highly probable that few of those 56
      Conservative Members will even know what they are voting about.
      I wish to place on record the body of a letter that I wrote to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers on 25 July 1991. I said:
      "After consultation with Labour's Treasury Team, I am pleased to confirm that a Labour government would, as soon
      226
      as practicable, establish a Pay Review body for university academic and related staff. This would be in respect of pay. I should like to consider further the question of how issues of conditions should best be settled, and I should be glad to have your views on this, as well, of course, those of the CVCP"—
      that particular copy of the letter was to the AUT. The letter continued:
      "This Review Body would operate in a manner similar to already established Review Bodies, such as the Doctors' and Dentists'. A Labour government would undertake, as in the case of other review bodies, to implement the Review Body's recommendations unless there were clear and compelling reasons to the contrary.
      The present government is proposing the amalgamation of the funding councils, and the end of the distinction between universities and polytechnics. We support both these proposals, and would implement them.
      This has clear implications for polytechnic staffs. I am therefore sending a copy of this letter to the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, National Association Teachers in Further and Higher Education, and the Association of Polytechnic and College Teachers to seek their views on future pay settlement arrangements for polytechnic staff. It would seem to me that there would be considerable advantage in having unified pay settlement arrangements for all higher education academic staff, though there are plainly some transitional matters which would have carefully to be considered."
      My announcement on 25 July last year that a Labour Government would establish a funding control for academic and related staff in universities has been widely welcomed. The present system for settling university teachers' pay is byzantine. With the revenue support grant, it reminds one of the Schleswig-Holstein issue. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), is a historian and will know exactly what I mean, if not the answer to the problem. The system of committees A and B and their 27 reports is obscure and has not worked to the advantage of the universities or university academic staff. There has been no parity as to exactly who is the employer, nor much clarity about the nature of the settlements.
      7.45 pm
      The Under-Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, may say that, although university teachers are paid principally from public funds, their employer is not central or local government but the universities, which rightly have a high degree of autonomy from the Government at a national level. That should not be an overwhelming problem in the settlement of university teachers' pay by a pay review body. Doctors and dentists are not directly employed by Whitehall, by the Department of Health in their case.
      Those who work in district health authority hospitals are paid by regional health authorities and those who work in opt-out trusts are paid by opt-out trusts. The fact that their employers are legally separate from the Department of Health has not prevented their pay from being settled by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body. General practitioners and dentists are self-employed. Nevertheless, the DDRRB settles the parameters of their pay.
      A similar if not exact parallel exists in respect of school-teachers. Their pay and conditions are settled by a review body. In the past they were settled by central negotiating machinery under the Burnham arrangements. The employers of teachers in county schools are local authorities and the employers of teachers in voluntary-aided schools are various boards and voluntary-aided trusts. I hope that the Minister will not make heavy

      227
      weather of the fact that university teachers are not directly employed by the state, because other groups who are the subject of pay review arrangements are not employed by central Government and the arrangements appear to work well for them.
      Another important issue that I raised in that letter was whether a review body for university academic staff should include consideration of conditions as well as pay. The school teachers pay review body is unique in that it is statutory and considers conditions as well as pay. The other review bodies consider only pay and conditions are left for separate, usually across-the-table negotiations.
      The specific commitment that I have given on behalf of a future Labour Government is that a review body for university and related academic staff would consider pay alone. As I said in my letter to Diana Warwick and to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, we would consider whether conditions should also be included in a review body's terms of reference. My initial view is that it would be better for conditions to be separately negotiated and that the parallel with the doctors and dentists review body should best apply.
      At present, because polytechnics have been a separate system, their pay is negotiated separately. There has been much need for the settlement of polytechnic staffs pay at a polytechnic rather than a national level. Naturally, there will be transitional problems as the polytechnics become fully fledged universities, both in respect of their funding arrangements—there has been a different methodology for those—and in respect of the settlement of their pay.
      If we are to make the polytechnics fully fledged universities with the same funding methodology as universities, it seems essential that once the transitional period is complete they should have the same systems for settling pay. Whatever the House decides is appropriate for one side of the old sector should apply to both. In our judgment, the review body should cover all staff within the new univeristy sector once the higher education funding council is established. A question mark will remain over those Higher Education Funding Council staff employed in non-university institutions. For the sake of tidiness, if nothing else, we believe that the pay review body should also cover those individuals.
      We had some interesting debates on the merits of review bodies six, nine and 12 months ago. In November 1990, on the day of the first ballot result of the Conservative leadership contest, the present Secretary of State came to the House and recommended that the House approve the first School Teachers Pay and Conditions Bill, which proposed across-the-table negotiations. I am glad that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is present, as he was in the House on that occasion when we were told that the new version of across-the-table negotiations was an almost perfect way of settling school teachers' pay and conditions.
      On that occasion, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was not entertaining any other alternatives, including that of a pay review body. That idea from the Secretary of State disappeared into a large black hole. Some months later, in the middle of April 1991—I think it was 18 April—the Secretary of State came to the House and said that he had abandoned that idea, which he had recommended to the House only five months before, and proposed a pay review body for school teachers. There was considerable debate about that in Committee and in the Chamber. We made it clear at the time that we had no
      228
      objection to pay review bodies per se. How could we, when we had happily endorsed the doctors and dentists and top salaries pay review bodies?
      Mr. Fatchett: And nurses.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend—to whom I am ever grateful—says, "And nurses." He might also have reminded me of the armed forces—I know that that was on the tip of my hon. Friend's tongue. We had also suggested that there should be a pay review body for ambulance personnel, which the current Secretary of State for Education and Science—then Secretary of State for Health —had resisted.
      The argument about a school teachers pay review body was then about the extent of potential control that the Treasury was seeking to exercise over the school teachers pay and conditions review body. Section 1 of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1991 provides for the Treasury to impose conditions not imposed on any other pay review body and allows for the establishment of the pay review body without discussion with, let alone the consent of, employers or formal consultation with associations representing staff. Neither of those considerations apply in respect of our proposition.
      The Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals both agree that there should be a review body. Obviously, that is a sensible way of proceeding. I think that the suggestion has the support of all Opposition Members and all Opposition parties, and of at least 56 Government Members. I hope that, in the light of that overwhelming support, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say that the Government accept the Opposition's proposal and are happy to endorse it.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Pay levels and conditions for lecturers in higher education institutions are currently matters for negotiation between employers and staff, and it is quite proper that they should be so. It would greatly detract from the autonomy of those institutions were that responsibility to be handed over to an independent body.
      The Labour party professes to be jealous and zealous on behalf of academic freedom. I do not accept that it can be consistent for the Labour party to claim to be the upholder of the right of higher education institutions to be autonomous managers of their own affairs while at the same time arguing in favour of responsibility for something so central to the management of those great institutions as pay determination to be taken to a central agency. Higher education institutions need to be able to manage their own affairs and arrange matters in the light of their particular needs and circumstances.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention so early in his speech.
      The Minister has every reason to know that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is, to a degree, jealous about issues of academic freedom, as is the Association of University Teachers. However, both organisations, particularly the CVCP, have called for a pay review body for academic staff. They do not believe that there is any remote threat to academic freedom posed by that.
      Mr. Howarth: In holding these two attitudes, those two organisations seem to be guilty of inconsistency. It would be presumptuous of me to speculate what is going on in the minds of their members—minds of great distinction. It appears that the importance of institutional independence recedes a little into the background of the consciousness of some vice-chancellors when they contemplate the device of a pay review body, which they suppose might be the means to secure more money from the tax payer to pay their staff. I understand the temptation they feel, but I think that there are inconsistencies in their position.
      The Government have set up pay review bodies for a comparatively small number of professions in the public sector because of their specific role in particular services. Many professions within the public sector do not have pay review bodies. There is no such body for the vast majority of civil servants or local government employees. Central Government and local government employees embrace among their numbers a range of professions including administrators, lawyers, architects, engineers and surveyors, to name but a few. They do not have pay review bodies.
      The analogy with schoolteachers put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not at all persuasive. Over the years, there have always been quite different arrangements for schoolteachers and university dons for settling pay. There are important differences between the employers. Local government employs the teachers, but is not involved in the employment of university academics. A locally managed or grant-maintained school is a different sort of employing body from a university.
      Universities are large, diverse institutions with important managerial responsibilities for large budgets and various sources of income. There would seem to be no sense in managerial terms in imposing externally determined rigidities on their biggest single cost—salaries.
      I emphasise that not having a review body is in no sense a slur on a particular group. The Government value immensely the efforts of staff in higher education institutions to sustain high-quality teaching and research, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their institutions. We applaud the way in which they do so.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend referred to the diverse funding of universities. Is he aware that, during the past five years, the university of Lancaster has increased its outside funding from £2 million to £8 million because of the excellence of its work? It has been rewarded in that it has received that 10·9 per cent. increase in research funding. That shows that good universities can do well out of the system.
      Mr. Howarth: As so often, my hon. Friend makes a useful point. I endorse her praise of Lancaster university and of the way in which it has diversified its sources of funding. About 40 per cent. of the income of higher education institutions now derives from sources other than the taxpayer—a powerful reason why it would be quite wrong of central Government to establish a pay review body to determine pay in institutions that depend to only a limited extent on the resources provided by the taxpayer.
      The Labour party appears to have taken up a rather curious variety of positions in review bodies.
      Mr. Straw: No, just one.
      8 pm
      Mr. Howarth: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the range of the Labour party's inconsistencies. During the passage of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, the Labour party demonstrated its opposition to the School Teachers Pay Review Body which we proposed and have created. Now that that body has been set up, the Labour party seems to think that it is rather a good idea that the arrangement which it criticised for school teachers should be extended to university lecturers. It is puzzling that the Labour party should be quite so confused once again. I suspect that the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) instruct their research assistants to ring round the trade unions to discover what they want. They exhibit an opportunistic set of inconsistent policies.
      For instance, Labour tabled a new clause requiring the Further Education Funding Council to ensure that, in each FE institution in receipt of a grant from the council, appropriate machinery is established for the determination of staff pay. So Labour is against a review body for school-teachers and in favour of one for academics—and it wants a funding council to be responsible for pay and conditions in the furthur education sector. So the Labour party advanced three different solutions to try to appeal politically to three different groups. That is irrational and nonsensical.
      Mr. Straw: I do not think it wise of the Under-Secretary to pursue the charge of inconsistency. He is a member of the ministerial team that has told us how wonderful pay review bodies are for teachers, yet despite the support of 56 of his hon. Friends for a pay review body for university teachers, he comes up with extraordinary excuses—I suspect that they were written for him by the Treasury —to explain why the idea should be resisted.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has not followed my earlier arguments. Judgments on whether particular groups of public sector employees or of those paid exclusively from the public purse should have their pay settled by a pay review body are made case by case in the light of prevailing circumstances.
      I illustrate the Labour party's woolly thinking in this area by noting that during the recent Committee stage of this Bill the hon. Members for Oxford, East and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) proposed a new clause that would have required my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure proper collective bargaining machinery in the further and higher education sectors. My right hon. and learned Friend would also have been required to ensure that new corporations established national negotiating machinery to determine salaries, wages, terms and conditions. So one day Labour Members want collective bargaining and national negotiating machinery; the next, they do a U-turn and want a review body. The Labour party does not know what it wants.
      Government policy on lecturers' pay is that it should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of the required quality. There is no evidence of general recruitment and retention difficulties. If problems occur in specific teaching disciplines, they can be targeted through the flexibility in the pay structure that we have been encouraging year by year.

      231
      As is well known, we are prepared to examine other proposals that are put to us by the CVCP or by the unions, but we have a disposition to look favourably on a rather more decentralised system, consistent with our encouragement of differentiation between the higher education institutions—each charting its own academic mission, which in turn should relate sensibly to the plurality of the sources of its funding.
      University lecturers' pay has increased by more than 14 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Last year's settlement was good for academics. They received 5 per cent. from 1 April, a further 1·4 per cent. from 1 September and an additional 1 per cent. from 1 January 1992, to be used at local management discretion. This must be seen in the context of inflation at just over 4 per cent.
      I am glad that our academics have received a real-terms increase in pay this year. We owe them much for all that they achieve, but it would not be sensible to establish a pay review body for them, and I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Carr: I note the Minister's comments about the inconsistency of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Perhaps one of the reasons why it supports a pay review body so strongly is that it does not want to become embroiled in the annual round of shilly-shallying that may result from having to determine a string of local pay agreements. That support is shared by the Association of University Teachers and other organisations.
      The Liberal Democrats have been consistent. We favour a pay review body. We supported the introduction of one for the schoolteachers: we would like one in further education and another to fix the salaries of academics in universities and polytechnics.
      A pay review body would be independent and fair. Among the groups whose pay is determined by this method are the so-called top people, the doctors and dentists, the armed services and now schoolteachers. There appears to be wide support for determining public sector pay for key groups by that method.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has heard the Minister clearly say that 40 per cent. of universities' funding does not come from the state. The other three bodies that he has mentioned are entirely state funded—a wholly different kettle of fish.
      Mr. Carr: I do not necessarily agree. There may be different sources of funding, but the people undertaking the work in the universities are employed by the universities. It makes sense to determine the pay of university teachers, especially those involved in research, in this way. They will have to compete against teachers and universities in other parts of the country. I do not accept that merely because some funding comes from elsewhere the pay cannot be determined by that method.
      The Minister himself said that the universities, not contributors of their funds, will determine pay—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The point is that the lively universities such as mine attract more funds and will be in a better position to pay their staff well. I see no earthly reason why universities such as Lancaster should have to subsidise other universities that do not get their act together. We attract research, we attract overseas students,
      232
      and we do exceptionally well. We are going up the ladder; I do not see why we should be dragged down by other universities.
      Mr. Carr: I entirely agree that Lancaster university is going up the ladder. I pay tribute to it, as I represent a Lancashire constituency myself. Nevertheless, the pay of university teachers will be determined not by those contributing their funds but, under the Minister's system, by the universities. Through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, universities have strongly supported the concept of a pay review body.
      In 1987, the Government recognised that the present system was not as effective as it should be. However, they have not presented any proposals to improve it. The Minister spoke about the salaries of university teachers. The present salary at the top of the lecturers' scale has 91 per cent. of the purchasing power that it had in 1971. Since 1979, university salaries, measured against the non-manual average earnings index, have fallen by 25 per cent. In 1979, a grade 7 civil servant earned the same salary as a non-clinical lecturer. Now, that same civil servant earns £4,000 a year more.
      Those three factors show the need to look again at the pay of university academics, and it should be looked at by means of a system that is increasingly recognised as being independent and fair—a pay review body. In Committee, and in today's debate, the Minister advanced arguments against such a body. I urge him to listen to the non-political voices of people in higher education who are calling for such a system.
      Mr. Straw: At least 56 Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion that unequivocally calls for a pay review body for university teachers. However, only four or five of those hon. Members are present in the Chamber.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are only three Members on the Opposition Benches.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady is twittering, as she sometimes does, from a sedentary position. The Opposition are not divided on the matter. We all support the setting up of a pay review body, and my hon. Friends are happy to leave matters to those of us on the Front Bench. There is a raging argument among Conservatives, because 56 Conservative Members have broken ranks and refused to accept the arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary of State. They have added their names to a proposition that clearly calls for a pay review body.
      An examination of the names of those 56 Members shows—surprise, surprise—that a whole string of them represent towns and cities with universities. I hope that I can remember the constituencies. The list contains the names of Conservative Members from Bristol. It contains the name of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) who no doubt has academic staff from the university of Lancaster and from the universities in Manchester and Liverpool in his constituency. The list contains the names of hon. Members from Leeds and West Yorkshire, and includes the name of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) who has in his constituency many university staff from the universities of Bradford and Leeds. The list has a surprising connection with Conservative marginals which could be affected by the student vote. [Interruption.] We shall have to send Hansard round.

      233
      I am sure that many of those Conservative Members who have signed the early-day motion feel threatened by the election and fear a loss of support from among academic staff. They will have told their local papers how they are standing up for university academic staff. They have said that they will take no nonsense from Ministers, but will fight hard for a pay review body. It does not take much to sign one's name on early-day motions. Hon. Members often sign them without realising what they are signing.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Absolutely.
      Mr. Bowis rose—
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Straw: Whatever else I might say about the hon. Lady, I would never accuse her of that.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who always knows what she supports and above all what she is against. It is one thing to sign an early-day motion and another to speak or vote in support of it.
      Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will not find my name on that early-day motion. He said that it was my motion in Committee which led to the setting up of the review body for teachers. There is a difference between institutions to which money other than taxpayers' money is committed and those which are funded by the taxpayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that. He also said that he had shadow Treasury approval for his commitments. I have a reasonably open mind on the subject and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much the review body and the research that will be needed to back it will cost. I think he also spoke about a commitment to bring polytechnic pay into line with university pay when they become part of the same sector. What will be the cost of that?
      Mr. Straw: I shall deal with those questions and then give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster. I would not dare not to.
      The hon. Gentleman is right to say that his proposition partly provoked the Government into reconsidering the Bill about teachers' pay and conditions. To explain away the Government's inconsistency on pay review bodies, the Under-Secretary of State said that their setting up had to be judged case by case in the light of circumstances. I think that those were his exact words. In one sense, that statement is entirely fair and may explain the position of the Government and the Opposition. We do not say that there should be review bodies for every area of public sector employment: nobody proposes that.
      The hon. Member for Battersea asked whether there could be review bodies for institutions which did not derive a significant proportion of their income from public funds. An increasing proportion of a university's income now comes from non public sector sources, and most of that income is used for research. It is not used for routine academic teaching, and certainly not for the teaching of undergraduates. We are considering the core teaching and publicly funded research activities of universities that are overwhelmingly publicly funded. I do not suggest for a moment that the review body should comment on the
      234
      remuneration that a specific group of researchers should receive for work that they are carrying out on contract for an individual company or, say, a medical charity.
      The 40 per cent. figure is slightly deceptive, in terms of the core activities of institutions. Every university contains a core of academic staff whose job is to teach undergraduates and postgraduates who are themselves, in the main, publicly funded. If they are "home" students, their tuition is paid for by public funds, and some of their research will also be financed in that way. I do not think that there is any distinction of principle between university academic staffs and schoolteachers—or, as I said earlier, doctors and dentists.
      Some schools now raise some of the costs of teachers' salaries through raffles, appeals and the like: I can prove that by means of letters that I have received. It is at the margin, but it takes place. I do not place the same weight on that point as the Minister appears to do.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A new point has arisen since I first tried to intervene. The point is not simply that 40 per cent. of funds are provided by bodies other than the Government; staff in universities are much more interchangeable. They may go into industry or the civil service, for instance: they move in and out of the academic world, while schoolteachers tend to stay in the teaching profession.
      My original point—which I tried to raise some time ago —was this. Of course it is our duty to consider carefully all representations made by our constituents, but our overwhelming duty is to consider the long-term welfare of the institutions that we represent. It would be all too easy to say to students, "I will vote for you to have much larger grants," but that would mean fewer students, and it would also mean had luck for those who were already five years down the road. Such a move would be popular, and it might mean a few votes for the hon. Member concerned; but he would not deserve them.
      The same applies to the university lecturers' review body. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has suggested, it is always easier to sign an early-day motion than to argue the case with, in this instance, a lot of very erudite lecturers, but I believe that this case should and can be argued. I believe that it would be entirely wrong to set up a university pay review body—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly, please.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I will put it briefly. I do not believe in signing early-day motions: I believe in arguing the toss, and getting it right.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: Beat that.
      Mr. Straw: I cannot. Long service on the Opposition Front Bench has taught me never to try to beat interventions by the hon. Member for Lancaster, but simply to duck.
      I do not think that there is more transfer of academic staff in universities than there is in school teaching. A small number of staff move in and out of academic work a good deal, but beneath that is a core that scarcely moves at all. We shall simply have to disagree about whether a pay review body would he appropriate. I do not subscribe to every representation that is made to me, and I hope that

      235
      few other hon. Members do; each of us must weigh up the merits of the case that is advanced, and then make a judgment.
      The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked what we expected our commitment to a pay review body to cost. First, there is the cost of the additional research that would, I assume, be carried out by the Office of Manpower Economics: I would expect that to be in six figures rather than seven—possibly in five. Such a commitment is marginal, even according to the fantastic imagination of Conservative central office.
      Then there is the potential cost of the review body. We have made no commitment in regard to additional resources for university academic staff, simply because of the existence of a pay review body. We are talking about the machinery for settling pay, not about pay levels themselves. I have read out a list of the conditions under which a future Government would consider the recommendations of a pay review body for university teachers, which would be the same as for the review bodies established for doctors, dentists and so forth. According to wording that has applied to successive Governments of different political colours, a Government would be ready to accept the recommendations of a pay review body unless there were "clear and compelling" reasons to the contrary.
      Mr. Bowis: What about the polytechnics?
      Mr. Straw: I dealt with the polytechnics in my opening remarks. We are still consulting, but, as the polytechnics are to become part of the university sector, I assume that, once the transition had been completed, the same arrangements would apply to them. as to other university staffs.
      Mr. Bowis: What about the cost?
      Mr. Straw: The same applies to that.
      I listened carefully to what the Minister said. His arguments were flimsy in the extreme. The flimsiest was his suggestion that academic freedom would be threatened by the establishment of a pay review body. I fancy that that suggestion will produce guffaws, not to say hysteria, in the offices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in Tavistock square. For a Higher Education Minister in the current Administration to pray in aid academic freedom in defence of the line that he is taking is most unusual.
      I am glad to see that even the Minister can see the joke. It was a good try on the part of his officials to make bricks without straw, to coin a phrase, but I am not sure that it succeeded. [Interruption.] I should not have said that. It was a grave error to make a pun on my own name.
      The case for a university pay review body is overwhelming, and it enjoys the support' of the 56 Conservative Members who signed that early-day motion. We shall, of course, consult each of the signatories to find out whether he is about to stand on his head and vote the proposal down. The new clause, however, would ensure that university teachers' pay was settled sensibly, without any recourse to industrial action, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 265.

      Division No. 104]

      [8.26 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)

      Alton, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hain, Peter

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hardy, Peter

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Haynes, Frank

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Ashton, Joe

      Henderson, Doug

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Barron, Kevin

      Home Robertson, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hood, Jimmy

      Beggs, Roy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bellotti, David

      Howells, Geraint

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

      Hoyle, Doug

      Benton, Joseph

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Blunkett, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Boyes, Roland

      Ingram. Adam

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Janner, Greville

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Caborn, Richard

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Lambie, David

      Carr, Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cartwright, John

      Leighton, Ron

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clelland, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Litherland, Robert

      Cohen, Harry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Corbett, Robin

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cousins, Jim

      McAllion. John

      Crowther, Stan

      McCartney, Ian

      Cryer, Bob

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cummings, John

      McFall, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKelvey, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      McLeish, Henry

      Darling, Alistair

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dixon, Don

      Madden, Max

      Dobson, Frank

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Doran, Frank

      Marek, Dr John

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Martlew, Eric

      Eastham, Ken

      Meacher, Michael

      Enright, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michael, Alun

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Flannery, Martin

      Morley, Elliot

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foster, Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foulkes, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Fraser, John

      O'Brien, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Hara, Edward

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Parry, Robert

      Gordon, Mildred

      Patchett, Terry

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      237

      Prescott, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stephen, Nicol

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Stott, Roger

      Radice, Giles

      Straw, Jack

      Randall, Stuart

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Redmond, Martin

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Reid, Dr John

      Trimble, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Turner, Dennis

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Wallace, James

      Rogers, Allan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rooker, Jeff

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rooney, Terence

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Short, Clare

      Worthington, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Allason, Rupert

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Amos, Alan

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Atkins, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkinson, David

      Dover, Den

      Baldry, Tony

      Dunn, Bob

      Batiste, Spencer

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bendall, Vivian

      Eggar, Tim

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Benyon, W.

      Evennett, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fallon, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Farr, Sir John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Body, Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Franks, Cecil

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      French, Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Gardiner, Sir George

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

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Burns, Simon

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Butler, Chris

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Butterfill, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorst, John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Ground, Patrick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hague, William

      Chope, Christopher

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Churchill, Mr

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Harris, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      238

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Page, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Paice, James

      Hill, James

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

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

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Portillo, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Price, Sir David

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jack, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jackson, Robert

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Janman, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jessel, Toby

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rost, Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shelton, Sir William

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knowles, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knox, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Squire, Robin

      Lightbown, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lord, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stevens, Lewis

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Marlow, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thorne, Neil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tracey, Richard

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Trippier, David

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Waller, Gary

      Moate, Roger

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ward, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Watts, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Moss, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Wilkinson, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wolfson, Mark

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wood, Timothy

      239

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 7

      ADULT EDUCATION FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
      '.—(1) A community college may, notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of this Act, for the provision of specific courses offering further or higher education to adult persons, submit direct to the Funding Council covering the location in which it is located, an application for financial support, to be given on terms laid down by the Funding Council concerned requiring the applicant to apply such funding only for the specified purpose.

      (2) Every community college applying under the provisions of subsection (1) above shall keep and maintain separate accounts to receive such Funding Council payments: and the money in such accounts shall he held in trust for expenditure only in accordance with the terms laid down by the Funding Council as a condition of making such funding available.

      (3) For the purposes of this Act, the term "community college" shall be taken to mean a school (whether or not owned by a local education authority) which offers to adults courses of further or higher education in addition to its primary function of providing secondary education to children of school age.'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 5, page 4, line 26, at end insert
      'or
      '(c) an existing service which provides a course or courses mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act and which is the local deliverer of quality provision meeting local needs.'.
      No. 14, in clause 6, page 6, line 21, at end insert;
      'or
      (c) where an external institution has an existing substantial and significant profile of courses falling within Schedule 2 to this Act, its governing body may seek permission from a regional committee to make application directly to a council subject to conditions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.'.
      Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The purpose of new clause 7 is to enable community colleges, for courses approved by the funding councils, to be funded directly by the funding councils after direct application has been made to them. By establishing that the payments received by community colleges for such courses shall be held in trust for the purpose for which the funding council provides them, that gets round the difficulty about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me last November, when he pointed out that community colleges do not have a legal identity. Of course, a trust fund does. This not only provides the legal identity, which was, I think quite authentically, worrying my hon. Friend; it also ensures that the money cannot be siphoned off by a malign LEA for another purpose. That other principal worry of Department of Education and Science Ministers is dealt with in this carefully drafted new clause.
      Is it desirable that there should be community colleges? We are not talking about something that does not exist.
      240
      We are talking about secondary schools—that is their main purpose—which also use their facilities, when they are not using them for providing secondary education for children, for providing a whole range of courses for adults. But, of course, the funding council would not fund the whole range of a community college's adult education courses, only those which met its criteria. There is no question that money provided by central Government would in this way be used for a purpose outside that which central Government intend. That is why I drafted the new clause—I drafted it myself—with very considerable care.
      I am aware that there are some community colleges —most notably Richmond—which do not fall within my definition of a community college, because they are not primarily secondary education colleges who provide adult education as an extra. What I am saying is that the community college structure within the pattern of our education makes the best possible use of the resources, not just the resources of buildings, but of the equipment, of the facilities and of the staff. Very often—although not universally—they are in rural areas: not universally.
      Plymouth certainly is not a rural area, yet it has a thriving community college. Indeed, its principal was one of the five whom I took to see, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), the Secretary of State very early in September to persuade him to write into his Bill, while he still had time to do so, the provisions which I am now bringing forth. He could, in fact, had he wished to, have thought up means of getting round his own objections. However, as that is, we have to assume, beyond the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen, well, I have done it for them.
      It is a particular pleasure to see that it has attracted support from both main parties and others as well. It is in no sense a doctrinare new clause, unless one calls it doctrinaire to try and get the fullest possible use out of educational facilities rather than leaving them to stand idle when they need not do so in evenings. It also gets round in rural areas the undeniable problems of the changing—rapidly changing—pattern of public transportation.
      The task, without this new clause, placed by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. and learned Friend, who is not gracing us with his presence tonight, on FE colleges is a very formidable one indeed because the FE college to whom community colleges will otherwise have to make their applications has to know about their accessibility and the accessibility of the community colleges by public transport. Because public transport can alter its pattern or, indeed, disappear after a week, the gift of prophecy is required, not just hard work to acquire knowledge.
      8.45 pm
      It is also, as I pointed out on Second Reading, necessary for the FE college not just to know what it is intending to put on itself, but to know what other FE colleges are putting on. That is quite a task, because the other FE colleges will not know what they are putting on until the course has been advertised and they know whether they have got a high enough response to decide to put it on rather than not to put it on. This is the reality.
      Yet before that is known, the FE college which has to handle the community college's applications has to exercise this quite astonishing degree of prophetic power, so that it can either forward it, saying in good faith to the funding council that it does not think—it cannot know —that there is adequate provision for the course

      241
      concerned without the community college putting it on; or that there is not adequate public transport to get potential students from the area where the community college is to the location where the FE college concerned is—or, hypothetically, another FE college. This is the problem it is going to be faced with.
      I do not need to speak at any further length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I really deployed the case for this on Second Reading. That case is unchanged. What I have had since then is a large number of letters from community colleges outside Devon—of course, I have been dealing with community colleges inside Devon before, but I have now had letters from community colleges all over the place where, frankly, I did not know that they existed, and very helpful some of those letters have been too.
      I will end again by saying that I have been at great pains to meet the specific objections which the Minister of State wrote in his letter as recently as last November to me. Those objections cannot apply to new clause 7. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend's response will be one of gratitude and acceptance. He will know that, if this is accepted and added to the Bill tonight, it does not reopen the whole Bill in another place. It only opens this particular new clause to acceptance, rejection or amendment. Since I do not doubt that there is a majority for it as it is in the other place, there will be every incentive for them to hasten it back here rather than to hold it up so that they lose what they have given plenty of evidence of what, in fact, they want—namely, a provision of this kind in the Bill.
      Mr. Carr: I do not intend to speak for long—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman looks lonely.
      Mr. Carr: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for being concerned about my apparent loneliness; I am greatly touched.
      I do not propose to make a lengthy speech because the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) argued his case admirably. Ever since I was a practising teacher—long before I came to this place— I have been surprised that the model offered by community schools and colleges has not been followed elsewhere. Many authorities and areas—particularly rural areas—would benefit from having community colleges.
      The community colleges offer a range of opportunities for adults to return to and continue with their education. They also provide a focal point for many other community activities. Although we are not here to discuss those activities now, it is worth mentioning that the community schools and colleges contribute more to the communities in which they are located than merely the provision of educational opportunities.
      Let us consider the schedule 2 provision that community colleges seek to make. New clause 7 certainly sets the matter out simply. There will be no problem about maintaining separate accounts. We heard from Ministers earlier about the receipt of funding for higher education institutions from a number of different sources. The arrangements do not appear to present a problem in respect of higher education institutions and there is no reason why they should present a problem here. The new clause will give community colleges the right to apply direct to the funding councils in respect of schedule 2 courses.
      242
      Many adults progress from community colleges to follow award-bearing vocational courses and, in rural areas, the Bill as drafted sheds some doubt over those arrangements. I am not from Devon and I am not familiar with Devon's pattern of provision, but I am assured, in letters that I have received from Devon, that the community colleges there are widely supported and highly regarded by those whom they serve. Right across the community, and irrespective of political or other affiliation, there is a desire to ensure that the colleges continue to provide the excellent education facilities that they offer at present.
      The Government have rightly given flexibility to schools through the local management arrangements. Despite Ministers' rhetoric about decentralisation and the devolved administration of educational establishments, the Bill is a centralising measure, in the sense that it gives powers to funding councils that are answerable to Ministers. The new clause recognises the role that the community colleges have played and the fact that they need to be separately funded from further education colleges.
      Sir John Farr: I support the new clause so ably advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop). Fortunately, my amendment No. 6 has been grouped with it. That gives me an opportunity not only to explain my support for my hon. Friend's proposal but to touch upon the real concerns that we still have in Leicestershire.
      I say "still" because my hon. Friend the Minister of State was kind enough to see me on two occasions with two delegations of Leicestershire Members. On the first occasion, we said, in a nutshell, that we wanted amendment No. 6—or, rather, an amendment identical to that amendment. He said, "Come back with your experts and convince us." A week later, my hon. Friend was kind enough to see several of my hon. Friends representing Leicestershire constituencies, together with our chairmen of governors and our community college and adult basic education principals.
      I think that we won the argument, and at the time I was confident. I was utterly shocked to learn a couple of weeks after our last meeting with my hon. Friend that the Bill was to proceed in its present form. In view of the fears that are felt in Leicestershire and elsewhere in the country—colleagues from East Anglia and Essex are also a little concerned about the consequences of the Bill as drafted —the least we expected was that my hon. Friend would proceed with the higher education part of the Bill and leave the further education part for further reflection and consideration. He did not take that course, and I therefore have no option but to support the new clause.
      As I explained, amendment No. 6 is a chrysalised version of the original amendment which I submitted to my hon. Friend the Minister of State before Christmas. It is the amendment we wanted and the one we talked about when we were lucky enough to see my hon. Friend in January and February.
      Let me explain why we wanted the amendment. In Leicestershire we have a highly advanced system of adult basic education as of right. We are proud of our system of one-to-one education in the home and feel that it is something on which we should build. Her Majesty's inspectors have recently examined our adult basic

      243
      education system in the county and say in their report—of which 1 have a copy—that it is the sort of system that should be built upon.
      I come now to further education, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke so ably. In Market Harborough, we have a community education centre called Welland Park community college. The buildings are in full-time educational use. As soon as the kids from the local secondary school go home at tea time, the FE college takes over. Full use is made of those fine buildings, for the benefit of the community.
      After I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister with my experts from the county, I had a meeting with them and they told me that they felt that they would lose unless changes were made in the Bill. They listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. In relation to provisions in clause 5 which I have mentioned, he referred to parts of clause 6. We had a further meeting in Leicestershire and the education experts considered what was said. They felt that, unless specific mention was made somewhere in the Bill and colleges of further education had direct access to the Further Education Funding Council, we would lose out.
      Mr. Fatchett: I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I know the Leicestershire system very well, as I was the parliamentary candidate for Bosworth in the 1979 general election and I got to know Leicestershire very well. I lost on that occasion and I am not sure what that says about the people of Leicestershire. However, the adult education service and the community colleges in Leicestershire were supported by all the electorate and all political parties. It is interesting to note in Leicestershire the extent to which the development of the community colleges has occurred not on a partisan basis but across all three political parties, largely because of the nature of the local authority.
      Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Leicestershire has a hung or balanced local authority. For many years, no one party has had overall control. The adult basic education structure and further education structure in the county has blossomed so much because the three parties have got together around the committee table and done what is best for the people who created that balanced authority.
      9 pm
      The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to encourage funding councils to recognise and retain existing high-quality provision such as free-standing adult basic education and English as a second language schemes in Leicestershire which have a structure that meets the needs of local users.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) came with me to meet my hon. Friend the Minister. However, there are still real fears that, as a result of the Bill, the county will lose out in respect of its present highly regarded situation.
      There has been much comment about the damage that may be caused to the county. As my hon. Friend the member for Tiverton said, we do not have a system in Leicestershire that is based specifically on FE. Some of the
      244
      education takes place in community colleges and some in students' homes, in village halls, in very small groups or, quite frequently, on a one-to-one basis in the home. The purpose of our FE structure is to build up the confidence of people who found school difficult and to whom a classroom atmosphere has always been alien. That is why I will vote in favour of new clause 7.
      I want to finish by leaving with the House a message contained in a letter that I have just received from Mr. Lee, the head of community education at Welland Park community college, after he and I had the benefit to meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He wrote:
      "The Government would create a lot of goodwill if they allowed selective other institutions—ie Welland Park college —to have direct access to the funding councils."
      I endorse that request and nothing that my hon. Friend the Minister said has led me to change my view that we, in Leicestershire, have something that is too precious to lose. I will vote for the new clause.
      Mr. Morley: I welcome amendment No. 14 and give it my full support. I cannot understand why the Minister of State continues to say that there is no problem in community colleges, adult education colleges or adult education consortia which can go to various further education colleges and make applications. If they could go through that system, it would surely make a lot more sense to accept the amendment.
      It worries me that the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and his hon. Friends have gone along to the Minister of State with local experts, local people and principals of adult education colleges and community colleges to put that point. I am sure that they put their point fairly and professionally in a non-partisan manner, but they have been completely ignored. That is what worries me about the thrust of the Bill. If there are issues in it that the Government consider worthy, why do they not listen to the reasonable arguments about securing important parts of the adult education service, whether it be the community college side or the adult education service?
      I fail to understand why the Government cannot allow those organisations to make their own bids in the same way as a sixth form college or a further education college would. Why should they be treated in that way? I do not accept the Minister of State's assurances. We have already seen the Secretary of State floundering when answering a question by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) about capital allocation and how it will work.
      I now refer to the adult education service on a countywide basis. Some very important difficulties have not yet been cleared up, or I certainly have not heard the answers. I appreciate that the Secretary of State tried to be helpful in dealing with some of the points that I raised with him, but he did not satisfactorily answer my question. For example, if there is a countywide service and more than one community college, if they have to make a bid to the existing FE college, which FE college will it be? In the case of community colleges, does it have to be the nearest FE college? The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that they could channel a bid through one college. I take that as a helpful clarification of what can be done.
      The Humberside adult education service is bigger than most of the FE colleges in the county. It is a matter of how the bid is channelled through the colleges. In my constituency, the adult education service has several adult education centres. One of those centres is in a building

      245
      known as Ancholme house. The building is owned by the FE college, but the adult education service operates within that building and provides a range of services, including basic education, which is actually being taken away from it by the Bill. There is a further complication. To get the service back, it would have to bid possibly through the very college which has the service within its own buildings. One can see the potential for complications and difficulties in such a situation.
      There is no doubt about the value of adult education in community colleges or consortia. That point has been made time and again. It is not good enough for the Government to say that there will be no changes and that every level of service will be guaranteed. At present, they are not in a position to say that because of the way those colleges will have to bid. The amendment would safeguard community colleges at least and make the position much clearer and more coherent in respect of obtaining funding. For adult education consortia, there is still a worry about bidding and how they will obtain money.
      The Minister of State fails to understand that, with a countywide service, a consortium and some community colleges which will be part of such a consortium, the service is provided on the basis of the total number of courses. The service is staffed to meet those courses and it is resourced to meet those courses. Under the proposals, in my county of Humberside 50 per cent. of those courses would be lost and would go technically under the control of the colleges of further education. They may or may not be given back to the adult education service as part of its bid. We do not know: no one knows. The Minister does not know, and I certainly do not know. The service does not know.
      The adult education service has an infrastructure of adult education centres. I went round the one in Priory road in my constituency recently and I have visited the one in Ancholme house. I saw the nature and range of the work that the adult education service does. If the service loses half its staffing and half its funding, the county council LEA will not be able to maintain all those centres, whether in villages, towns or cities. The level of provision and potential level of service of the whole consortium will be undermined. That issue has not yet been dealt with satisfactorily by the Government.
      The principle behind the new clause is perfectly sound and rational. If the Government believe that there will not be a problem, why do they not accept the new clause? All of us in the Chamber believe that the new clause is a much more rational approach to funding adult education than the bits and pieces approach under which no one is clear what will happen. I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) can persuade as many of his hon. Friends as possible to vote for the new clause and send it back to another place, where it can be given sympathetic consideration to speed this part of the Bill through.
      Earlier we heard a diatribe from the Secretary of State against local authorities, and Labour authorities in particular, but he grudgingly conceded that adult education under LEA control has prospered and done well, despite all the obstacles that the Government have put in its way. Standard spending assessment calculations, which are bizarre, and the threat of poll tax capping have had an impact which has been felt by adult education services.
      246
      In my county, despite all the problems that Humberside LEA has, I am pleased to say that the LEA spends its full SSA allocation on adult education and provides one of the highest levels of service in Britain. It is one of the largest providers of adult education. It has every right to bid as a service direct to the funding council to ensure independence, continuity and the same high standard to which the service has been delivered by Humberside county council. The principle behind the new clause is sound and I hope that the House will support it.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Unless I have misunderstood the Bill, there is no great merit in the new clause. As I understand the Bill, the further education colleges, and perhaps sixth-form colleges, will have to bid to the regional further education funding council for their funds. Some vocational and academic courses are run in community centres or community schools. If those courses lead to a certified national award, I am sure that the FEFC will be willing to fund them.
      The Bill is about the pursuit of excellence. We want to compete with the rest of the world and develop our brain power. The only way to do that is to ensure that our higher and further education is second to none.
      Community education, on the other hand, is basically leisure and recreational, although much of it may lead towards a more vocational course. It is terribly important in terms of building people's self-esteem and giving there a social life outside their home. As I understand it, it is to be funded by the LEA.
      Both in writing and verbally, we have all heard from the Secretary of State that the LEAs will not be underfunded, and that community leisure and recreational courses will continue as normal.
      I represent two boroughs, Rochdale and Oldham. About 20,000 people enjoy community education in both boroughs. If some of those community centres or schools run vocational or academic courses, the proper place to get funding for the continuation of the courses is through the FE college, via the regional FE funding council.
      I do not think that the people of Littleborough, Saddleworth or the village of Shore would wish to be dragged into the centre of Oldham or Rochdale to the FE college, as it would mean long journeys late at night. People, and especially the elderly, do not like travelling late at night because of transport costs, difficulties with transport and fear of travelling at night, which is a real fear and one that must not be set aside.
      As I understand it, the Bill does not try to make difficulties for education but tries to improve it. I cannot believe that, if a well-supported course—which leads to, or is part of, a vocational or academic qualification—is run in a village a long way from anywhere, the bid by the FE college locally, through the FE funding council, will not be successful and allow the course to continue.
      If I have understood the Bill correctly—I think I have —there will be no need for my hon. Friend's new clause or for the fears expressed by some of my hon. Friends and by the Opposition. I shall wait until I have heard what the Minister has to say, and I shall reserve my judgment.
      I honestly believe that I have understood the Bill correctly and that we are talking about the pursuit of excellence—ensuring that the United Kingdom develops people to their full potential so that we can compete with the rest of the world in terms of brain power, which will

      247
      make us successful. If we do not do that, we might as well stay at home, because we will not be competitive or win orders throughout the world. We must not forget that this nation produced the jet engine, which made the world smaller, and television, which came from radar, We have always had brain power. We had it long before we found mineral wealth.
      I am sure that the Bill is designed to encourage the development of our brain power and to prevent a brain drain abroad, so that we can develop our nation and go forward in the pursuit of excellence.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised at that contribution from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tavistock. Is it Tavistock? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tiverton."] I am sorry. I visited that beautiful town during the summer recess last year.
      Mr. Burns: Which one?
      Mr. Haynes: Tiverton. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was a little cheeky upstairs. Now he is being cheeky down here.
      Mr. Fatchett: He will not be here after the election.
      Mr. Haynes: No, he will not.
      I support the new clause. We shall be looking to see whether the Government take it on board, and I want to tell hon. Members why. Honestly, we never won a thing in Committee. The Minister rejected every amendment out of hand. That is what will happen tonight, unless the Minister tells us at the Dispatch Box that we have won and that he accepts the new clause.
      The important thing is that I am back on the subject of Fred Riddell, who—for your information, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is the chairman of Nottinghamshire local education authority. If we are not careful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we will lose a fair amount of what we already have, and the situation will get worse.
      Make no mistake about it: the Bill is full of obstacles, and that is why the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and his hon. Friends have tabled the new clause, especially in the interests of adult education.
      It is all right the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth talking about facilities for leisure in the community. That is an important thing to our constituents.
      Mr. Dickens: That is what I said.
      Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman flippantly went across it, and he blew it out of the water.
      We want to be able to provide the proper facilities for adult, further and higher education. However, when the community colleges make an application to the funding councils, we must remember that the Minister and his cronies will have loaded the councils with their own kind. Nine times out of 10, the councils will say, "Get lost. You can't have anything." That is what is wrong with the system and that is what we are afraid of.
      The Labour party will change all that after 9 April. My hon. Friends will be sitting on the Government Benches
      248
      and some of the Conservative Members will be sitting on this side. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be in the Chair listening to a Labour Government. The Labour Government will make all the changes that are necessary to further, adult and higher education. There is no doubt about that. People outside the Chamber, who are clamouring for change, will get the satisfaction that they do not get under this lot. The Government are destroying further education.
      I never forget Fred Riddell telling me what happened in Nottinghamshire as a result of the Government's provision of resources. We know that the Government want to put money into the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor. Those people who have been put out of work and cannot get jobs want to better themselves in adult and further education and, if they can, in higher education. This lot and the Bill have put a block on that.
      I will be in the Lobby to support those Conservative hon. Members who tabled the new clause, because it is a good one.
      Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) misrepresented my speech. I said that community education built self-esteem.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
      Mr. Speller: I have enjoyed not just the debate, but the work which led up to it. It has been one of those occasions when one is rightly obliged to consult principals of community colleges and those in further education colleges and to listen to what is said.
      Three points have come over most strongly to me. The first is that many non-vocational courses that are taken almost for pleasure may lead to a vocational course. It would be criminal to make cuts and force a student to go to authority A for one course and authority B for another.
      The excellent community colleges in Devon have been referred to at some length. The principals have community tutors and teachers who make full use of the premises for youngsters by day and for older students in the evening. They are fully aware of what the local community requires. With the best will in the world, the worst thing one can do is to seek to impose national uniformity across a country where, over recent years, we have sought to allow local folk to take control of local matters in the educational sector. It would be a retrograde step, when we have attempted to improve local choice and responsibility and appointed local governors, to seek to apply the whitewash of uniformity.
      I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that money has been well provided. I do not suggest that both sides of the House do not want the same thing, which is better education for both youngsters and older people. I have been interested in the arguments of hon. Members in all parts of the House, who all want the best. Some are schoolteachers and, years ago, I was a chairman of a local education authority at a time when our schools were turning comprehensive even though that was against my political wishes. We can be successful in education only by working together, with all-party co-operation. We must not mess about with education.
      If education needs anything today, it is a period of peace. I fully understand the need for change where change is necessary, but we must now allow the education

      249
      authorities to settle down. I plead with the Minister to remember that dual decision and dual funding are the classical bases for dispute. That is bound to happen, be it in the health service or in the social services. Where there is national and local funding, the question who is to lead and who is to pay the greater proportion is bound to arise. Where one authority is producing the cash and making the decisions that makes sense.
      I agree almost entirely with the principles behind the Bill and should hate to have to vote against it in toto because i disagree with it in part. I urge the Minister to be cautious. I have spoken in North Devon to my intelligent and principled principals, their associates and local governors, all of whom have told me, "Our present sustem is good." I have been worried by the ministerial argument today which says, "Because it is only working all right, we must somehow improve it." I am happy with it as it stands, so I support my hon Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop).
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said more than once, "If I understand the Bill correctly." He does not understand it. He does not understand the process of adult education correctly. He is equally lost in understanding the new clause.
      Adult education is not, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest at one stage, a substitute for a course of psychiatric treatment, although I do not deny that he might have regarded it as such at one time. Nor is adult education about providing certificates in every subject. It is about people wanting to participate in the education process without necessarily obtaining a qualification.
      The hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) talks about community colleges providing liberal, non-vocational, adult education. In that sense, it will not at the end of the day have to deliver a certificate as a result of a course having been taken. That is not to say that the content of the course might not be far higher than many purely academic courses leading to a qualification. Had the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth attended extra-mural or local authority courses in the areas of which we are speaking, he would be aware of the wonderful provision that we make in Britain.
      Adult education is in many respects non-political. My experience of it in Wales is that it did not matter what was the politics of the local authority. It was purely and simply a matter of whether people were committed to education. Whatever their political complexion, if they had a commitment to adult education, the facilities were provided, but if that commitment was missing, the resources were not made available.
      The hon. Member for Tiverton is trying to ensure that the money and resources not for further or higher but for adult education in free-standing community and adult colleges are available. We may have funding councils and give money to local authorities, further education colleges, and so on, but experience shows that when demands are made on the purses of those bodies, adult education is shuffled off and is the last item for which provision is made. The reason for that is sound in some ways. Because no certificate is awarded at the end of a course, local authorities understandably feel that they must fund certain courses because people depend on them for a living, so there is an imperative on those who dispense the money. If
      250
      we are to have a properly funded adult education service, which this country has never had, the Minister should take the new clause on board.
      9.30 pm
      Although I shall support the new clause, it could have been changed to take account of free-standing adult education colleges which operate like community colleges but entirely in their own premises. In answer to a letter, the Minister told me that those colleges would be properly funded, and there have been examples of that. Ministers keep giving that reassurance, which is fine, but how do we resolve the problem in Gwent, where a community college is attached to a school? It uses all the school's facilities but is separate from the school. How will such a college he funded?
      Mr. Dickens: By apportionment.
      Mr. Rogers: That may be so, but who decides? Ultimately, adult education is shuffled off the end.
      People go into adult education for different reasons. While some take psychiatric courses or courses to repair certain objects, others undertake courses as a development programme, to attain a certificate or even as access to further education. We need adult education and I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the new clause and accept it as it stands, perhaps amending it in the future if he wishes to do so.
      I understand why the Minister is against the suggestion that local authorities should run adult education. It is simply because the Government distrust all local government whether Tory or Labour. For some peculiar reason, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), did not like local government and it has been bashed for the past 10 years. It is about time the Government stopped bashing local government and Ministers were mature enough to get rid of their hang-up about local government.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful, as we should always he, to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) because he often tables amendments that enable us to express long-standing questions and grievances about the Bill that have not otherwise been identified. His ability to identify those issues is an example to us all.
      I hope that something good will come out of the Bill. The Minister must be well aware that in many community colleges throughout the country people are concerned, alarmed and distressed about what they think is happening. Although I have sent him only a few examples, he will also be well aware that many people who attend community colleges where leisure, recreational and education classes are provided together have been given to understand that, once the Bill becomes law, leisure and recreational classes will be closed down and fees for all classes will increase.
      I received four letters this morning from people who attend the dressmaking class at Ambleside Drive college asking me to get an assurance from the Minister that those classes will not close down because of his horrible Bill. Those complaints are not from people who go around with sledgehammers and throw bottles and bombs; they are from those who are among the huge number of people who very much enjoy the activities that community colleges

      251
      offer. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to get across some facts clearly.
      I have sent all my constituents a splendid letter, as the Minister says, saying that no money will he cut, no class will be required to close and no fees will need to go up. Although I am constantly sending such letters, people unfortunately have the impression that that what I have just said is not the case. The college staff are acutely worried about what is happening, with the result that posters are being put on the walls urging people to stop the Tory plot to close down the dressmaking classes at Ampleside Drive college.
      We know that the colleges are terribly popular. The attendance rate at Ampleside Drive college shows that it is undoubtedly a big success. We must try to find out what the Bill provides for and what the amendment provides for. I hope that the Minister will explain what good comes from the Bill.
      Does the Minister accept that there are some dangers posed to community colleges? We all know that, although county councils are wonderful organisations, when there is a change of Government policy, those councils—whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—sometimes do nasty things and blame them on the Government. That could happen in this instance. Some county councils might decide to close down classes such as the dressmaking class at Ampleside Drive college and let the Government carry the blame.
      Some colleges provide education, recreational and leisure classes, with the entire college working extremely well and efficiently. If one section of the college is taken out —for example, the education part—and shoved somewhere else, there is a danger that the college will not be so economically sound. As a consequence, instead of three colleges in one town, there may be only two or two and a half, and instead of five colleges in a large town, their numbers might be reduced to three and a half. That prospect worries college staff.
      What can be done now? I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, if the splendid Ampleside Drive college wants its education classes to continue, and wants to remain a leisure, recreational and educational college, it can seek to co-operate with the local further education college. It could ask the FE college to include it when the FE college makes its requests of the council. The FE college may say yes or no. In the short term it will probably say yes, as accommodation may not otherwise be available. Instead of education coming under the control of the college principal, there would be a system of subcontracting.
      Instead of the college superior, principal or director being in charge of everything, he would be in charge of leisure and recreation, while the control and administration of education would come under the remit of one of the clever people in charge of the FE college. I think that the Minister would accept that that would create problems, tensions, distress and alarm among college staff.
      Does the Minister appreciate that, if the amendment were accepted, it would mean that education would be commissioned directly from the funding council? Instead of being a sort of odd job done under a subcontract, the
      252
      college could go straight to the council to ask if it could run the education service. The college director would still be in charge of everything.
      It will make a big difference to a college if there is uncertainty—as there undoubtedly will be—first, as to whether some of the work might be taken away and, secondly, as to whether the local authority might do nasty things because of the change. In addition, college staff would feel humiliated at the education section being placed under the control of someone else. On that basis, I think that the Minister will see why there has been so much concern, distress and alarm.
      Will the Minister assure me that I can tell my splendid local college that it can still continue with the education classes if that is agreed with the council and the local FE college? Some of the staff have the impression that those classes will be whipped away. My understanding is that they will not be, but will continue.
      Mr. Eggar: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I promise my hon. Friend that I will sit down before 9.40 pm. I am sure that he will accept that, if there is to be change, it will cause upset, particularly among academic staff.
      I rarely praise Ministers—I like to attack them—but the Minister of State takes education seriously and is fair-minded. Does he accept that people in charge of colleges providing education, leisure and recreation may be humiliated when they suddenly find that the glowing part of their responsibilities suddenly come under the control of others? That will cause distress and allegations of unfairness, not to mention feelings of discontent. Outsiders who may be less highly regarded may take over control of important parts of these activities, and the luscious relationship based on direct funding from the funding council may come to an end. In those circumstances, will colleges be able to approach someone to have their problems discussed?
      The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton represents an attempt to give the colleges some security in the knowledge that they are maintaining a high profile and a direct right to provide education. That is important for their status. By contrast, the new clause undermines the work of the council. If further education is provided by new local bodies, some of them subcontracted, it will be undermined.
      I ask Ministers to accept that there is a problem of education humiliation for some people, and to accept that there is a real problem. I see no reason why these colleges cannot carry on providing education. I hope that the Minister of State will show understanding of this real problem and will assure us that some of our worst fears are not well founded.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: It is a measure of the importance that attaches to adult education and of the extent of dissatisfaction with the Government's proposals that we have heard so many speeches by Conservative Members this evening. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, there is a real problem, and his colleagues underlined its extent and the need for a solution by means of the new clause.
      It is to the credit of Conservative Members who support the new clause—it fits in well with our amendment No. 14—that they have listened to what is being said in

      253
      their constituencies and have heard, like the rest of us, the representations from colleges and centres. Conservative Members have listened, while the Government resolutely refuse to listen.
      The hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) outlined a commendably strong case for the contribution of community colleges in the south-west. He pointed out that they offer evening use and the effective use of resources, and he mentioned the difficulties that they could be caused by the Bill.
      These problems arise from the distinction or division that the Bill would entrench between schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work. We had some exchanges in Committee over the Minister's attributing less priority to non-schedule 2 work. He said then:
      "Schedule 2 encapsulates the course which the Government consider to be a matter of national economic and educational priority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1992; c. 223.]
      That cannot but give the signal that courses not in schedule 2 are not matters of national economic and educational priority.
      9.45 pm
      The second great fear of all concerned with adult education concerns the adequacy of the funding that would be left through the local education authority route, given the confines imposed on local authorities by poll tax capping and Government cuts. The Minister has said that the Government are undertaking a survey, but when I asked him about this on 14 February, he gave me a reply which was not much of a valentine for those in adult education. Dealing with the report analysing the distribution of present local authority expenditure between schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work, he said:
      "The consultant's report is expected towards the end of this month and I will deposit a copy in the Library."—[Official Report, 14 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 646.]
      That report had not appeared by the end of February, and it has not been deposited in the Library. That shows contempt for the public, for adult education and for the House. Hon. Members are being invited to pronounce on an issue without having had the benefit of seeing the evidence that the Government rely upon for their case.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) spoke about the important contribution made by community colleges in rural areas. I emphasise that that contribution is also important in urban areas. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke from his experience of community college provision in his constituency. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have made his last contribution to our debates. We shall all miss the characteristic sincerity with which he spoke on behalf of his constituents. He underlined the damage that the Bill would cause in Leicestershire. It will be interesting to see how his hon. Friends who represent Leicestershire constituencies vote.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made a powerful case for fairness of treatment between institutions which, under the terms of the Bill, will remain the responsibility of local education authorities and those which are incorporated. The new clause and the amendments are all about fairness. My hon. Friend spoke about the impossible difficulties that would be encountered through countywide services having to make bids via a further education college. He said that community education centres in Humberside
      254
      would be at risk. They will also be at risk in Essex, Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire, Devon, and Surrey and all the other areas from which we have had so many representations.
      Community colleges, adult colleges and community education services are being placed in an impossible position educationally, managerially and financially, because they will have to look to different sources of funding and will never know where they stand in relation to the planning of courses and the finance that is available for them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) was uncharacteristically soft-spoken and gentle in his demolition of the Government's case. My hon. Friend may be called in the Budget debate, but if his speech tonight turns out to be his last, we shall miss the force of his arguments, his personality and the brightness with which his political principles burn through all his comments.
      The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) made a persuasive case on the vital contribution made by adult education as a bridge to widen educational opportunities. Many people on so-called non-vocational or leisure courses have an opportunity for the first time to develop self-confidence, and their involvement in a collegiate atmosphere leads them to further studies and qualifications. When people start such courses, it is impossible to predict whether they will proceed to qualifications. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a powerful case for liberal non-vocational education which is provided in colleges all over the country. It is indefensible that that is totally overlooked in the Bill. The Government have not been interested in listening to what the public and those who are involved in adult education have been saying. From the publication of the White Papers last May to these guillotined proceedings, the Government have not paid attention to the hundreds of representations that they have received.
      If the White Papers and the Bill have one achievement, it is that they have assembled a formidable coalition of opposition. It is not, as the Secretary of State suggested, a politically motivated coalition, but one that is concerned about education and its members range from women's institutes to the Association of County Councils and from some Conservative Members to the Workers Educational Association and the trade unions.
      The Government have not listened to the concerns expressed by those bodies, any more than they have listened to the adult education colleges, the community education centres and the open college networks. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, they have treated adult education and the 3·4 million people it serves as poor relations—as an afterthought. They have hacked the service about to fit their predetermined policy on further education colleges.
      Deaf to the chorus of protest, the Government have whipped and guillotined to ensure that their measure goes through unchanged, threatening the division and destruction of adult education should the Conservatives be returned to power. The Government have not listened, and the Government have not learned; but the millions who care about adult education will know from the Government's shabby treatment of the service in the Bill that only Labour can be trusted to make a reality of educational opportunity for all our citizens.

      255
      The Conservatives will learn the hard way. Adult education will prove to be one more reason why they will lose the election and we will win. I urge the House to support the new clause and the amendments.
      Mr. Eggar: At least the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) had the decency to smile when he claimed that Labour would provide the solution for adult students. He knows the record of the last Labour Government. In real terms, funding for adult education centres fell by 12 per cent. over five years. Under the present Government, it has risen by no less than 31 per cent. in real terms; moreover, there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the number of adults educated in further education colleges.
      The Bill is concerned with finding ways in which to provide more students with a better quality of adult education. That is its whole objective. That is why we have chosen to provide ring-fenced funding for schedule 2 courses for adults, and that is why we have given a categorical assurance that local education authorities will have no excuse for raising students' fees or cancelling classes as a result of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) raised the question of capital funding. Capital funding for LEA-maintained institutions, including those which do schedule 2 work, will come from LEAs, and we shall expect LEAs to bid for capital allocations as they do at present.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked whether a countywide service could apply through one further education college. The answer is yes. The hon. Member for Oxford, East referred to the consultants' report. Ministers have not yet received that report, but as I have said, when they do it will be placed in the Library. In the meantime, the Labour party might urge Labour-controlled LEAs which have not yet returned their questionnaires about the provision of adult education to the Department to do so.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke eloquently about community colleges in Devon. I have not had the pleasure of discussing the Devon case with them, but I have discussed the position in Leicestershire in considerable detail with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). I recognise the very considerable service provided by community colleges to adult education. I am wholly committed to open and flexible learning, and I accept that community colleges provide a type of open and flexible learning which is especially suitable to rural communities.
      The Bill contains sound mechanisms to secure the funding of schedule 2 education which is provided in adult colleges and centres and in community colleges. There are three methods. The first is incorporation through clause 16, but I know that my hon. Friends believeunderstandably—that that is not appropriate for most community colleges.
      Another method which has been drawn to the Committee's attention is that of designation under clause 28. There has been some misunderstanding about designation because it is not appropriate for a college or institution which is not an independent legal entity. Therefore, as my hon. Friends have made clear, most community providers will decide to use clause 6(5).
      256
      Under clause 6(5), further education colleges must forward the community college application to the councils where the provision in question would not otherwise be adequate in the area—that is, the application from the community college. It is the specific purpose of clause 6(5) that community providers should have the opportunity to have their schedule 2 work considered for funding by the funding councils. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that there will be a number of safeguards to ensure that that happens.
      For the procedure to work effectively, there will need to be a clear framework and the Government will assist by giving guidance on the procedure for schedule 2 applications. Indeed, a circular letter has recently issued from the Further Education Funding Council unit which provides initial guidance to institutions on clause 5. That guidance will be supplemented at a later date by further guidance on procedures. I recommend my hon. Friends who have not yet seen the guidance which was issued on 28 February to study it. It states:
      "If it"—
      the further education college—
      "decides not to support such an application, it will be expected to give its reasons for not doing so. The LEA institution"—
      in other words, the community college—
      "will have the right to appeal against the decision to the Council."
      However, protection for community colleges goes further than an appeal to the council. Of course, I expect that this procedure of application to a further education college and then, if necessary, an appeal to the council will sort out almost all—if not all—the problems which might arise, but if the community provider is still not satisfied it is open to the community institution to appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the ground that the FE college or the council has acted unreasonably or has failed in its statutory duty. The Secretary of State will seek to deal expeditiously with such complaints. If it is not possible to resolve the matter before the funding council announces its annual allocation—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton—it will be possible to hold back the small sums involved for later distribution.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned structure in terms of the methodology of bidding. Community colleges will be able to bid to the funding council for a package of provision according to the timetable that has been set down. It will not be a matter merely of waiting to see whether the students turn up, as my hon. Friend implied. Bidding will be well in advance, on a timetable, so that colleges and community providers will know exactly what courses they can lay on.
      We believe that it is right that applications from community colleges and other community providers should go through the appropriate FE college. We believe that the FE colleges will act responsibly in response to local demands for courses. In most cases, if not the vast majority of cases, they will accept the bids put forward by the community colleges. We are totally committed to better quality adult education and to more being available in all areas. I urge the House to reject the new clause.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [11 February], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 300.

      Division No. 105]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Alton, David

      Gordon, Mildred

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Gould, Bryan

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Graham, Thomas

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hain, Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Hardy, Peter

      Beckett, Margaret

      Haynes, Frank

      Beggs, Roy

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Beith, A. J.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bell, Stuart

      Henderson, Doug

      Bellotti, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Benton, Joseph

      Home Robertson, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hood, Jimmy

      Blunkett, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Boyes, Roland

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ingram, Adam

      Canavan, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Carr, Michael

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cartwright, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Clelland, David

      Lambie, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cohen, Harry

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbett, Robin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lewis, Terry

      Cousins, Jim

      Litherland, Robert

      Crowther, Stan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cryer, Bob

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cummings, John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dalyell, Tarn

      McAllion, John

      Darling, Alistair

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McCartney, Ian

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Dewar, Donald

      McFall, John

      Dixon, Don

      McGrady, Eddie

      Oobson, Frank

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Doran, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      McLeish, Henry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eadie, Alexander

      McWilliam, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Madden, Max

      Enright, Derek

      Marion, Mrs Alice

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Ewing, Harry (Falklrk E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Farr, Sir John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Fearn, Ronald

      Meacher, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michael, Alun

      Flannery, Martin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grtmsby)

      Foster, Derek

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Foulkes, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fraser, John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morley, Elliot

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mowlam, Mariorie

      258

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      O'Brien, William

      Snape, Peter

      O'Hara, Edward

      Soley, Clive

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Stephen, Nicol

      Parry, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Patchett, Terry

      Straw, Jack

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Trimble, David

      Radice, Giles

      Turner, Dennis

      Randall, Stuart

      Wallace, James

      Redmond, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Reid, Dr John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooney, Terence

      Winnick, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ruddock, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wray, Jimmy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Short, Clare

      Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Tony Speller.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Butler, Chris

      Alexander, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Allason, Rupert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Carrington, Matthew

      Amess, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Amos, Alan

      Cash, William

      Arbuthnot, James

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Chope, Christopher

      Ashby, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Atkins, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Atkinson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Conway, Derek

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Couchman, James

      Benyon, W.

      Cran, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Day, Stephen

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dicks, Terry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Durant, Sir Anthony

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowis, John

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Evennett, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Favell, Tony

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

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      259

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lord, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Franks, Cecil

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fry, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Glyn, Or Sir Alan

      Madel, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Malins, Humfrey

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mans, Keith

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maples, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marland, Paul

      Gorst, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Mates, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Grist, Ian

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Ground, Patrick

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hague, William

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mills, Iain

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David

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

      Moate, Roger

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Harris, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hayward, Robert

      Moss, Malcolm

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mudd, David

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hill, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Page, Richard

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Paice, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Irvine, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Portillo, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jackson, Robert

      Price, Sir David

      Janman, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jessel, Toby

      Rathbone, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Key, Robert

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kilfedder, James

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knowles, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knox, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shersby, Michael

      260

      Sims, Roger

      Trippier, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller. Gary

      Squire, Robin

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wolfson, Mark

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Yeo, Tim

      Thorne, Neil

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thurnham, Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Speaker then put forthwith the remaining Question which he was directed to put from the Chair.
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 210.

      Division No. 106]

      [10.14 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      Aitken, Jonathan

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

      Alexander, Richard

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Allason, Rupert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Butler, Chris

      Amos, Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cartwright, John

      Atkins, Robert

      Cash, William

      Atkinson, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baldry, Tony

      Chope, Christopher

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Churchill, Mr

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Conway, Derek

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bos well, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dicks, Terry

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

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boy son, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dunn, Bob

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dykes, Hugh

      261

      Eggar, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knowles, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Knox, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Favell, Tony

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Latham, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lord, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      French, Douglas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gale, Roger

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Madel, David

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Malins, Humfrey

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mans, Keith

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maples, John

      Gorst, John

      Marland, Paul

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marlow, Tony

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gregory, Conal

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mates, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Ground, Patrick

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hague, William

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mills, Iain

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moate, Roger

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hayward, Robert

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Mudd, David

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hill, James

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Norris, Steve

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

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Paice, James

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Pawsey, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jack, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Janman, Tim

      Price, Sir David

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Riddick, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Kilfedder, James

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      262

      Rost, Peter

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tracey, Richard

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Tredinnick, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shelton, Sir William

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Sims, Roger

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Squire, Robin

      Whitney, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilkinson, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Wood, Timothy

      Summerson, Hugo

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Thorne, Neil

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Alton, David

      Darling, Alistair

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dewar, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Dixon, Don

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Doran, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Beggs, Roy

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Beith, A. J.

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bell, Stuart

      Eastham, Ken

      Beliotti, David

      Enright, Derek

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Benton, Joseph

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blunkett, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Flynn, Paul

      Caborn, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Callaghan, Jim

      Foster, Derek

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Fraser, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Carr, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Clelland, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Corbett, Robin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cousins, Jim

      Hain, Peter

      Crowther, Stan

      Hardy, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cummings, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Henderson, Doug

      263

      Hinchliffe, David

      Nellist, Dave

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kllsyth)

      O'Brien, William

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Howells, Geraint

      Parry, Robert

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Adam

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Janner, Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Redmond, Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reid, Dr John

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rogers, Allan

      Leighton, Ron

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooney, Terence

      Lewis, Terry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Litherland, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Loyden, Eddie

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McAllion, John

      Short, Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

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

      McFall, John

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

      McGrady, Eddie

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Snape, Peter

      McKelvey, William

      Soley, Clive

      McLeish, Henry

      Spearing, Nigel

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stephen, Nico!

      McWilliam, John

      Stott, Roger

      Madden, Max

      Straw, Jack

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marek, Dr John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Trimble, David

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Meacher, Michael

      Walley, Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Michael, Alun

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wilson, Brian

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Winnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Worthington, Tony

      Morley, Elliot

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Murphy, Paul

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Taxation of Cgargeable Gains Bill[Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.25 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a consolidation of the enactments relating to the taxation of chargeable gains presently found in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and in annual Finance Acts from 1970 onwards. It extends throughout the United Kingdom.
The legislation re-enacted in the Bill provides for the taxation of chargeable gains accruing to both individuals and to companies and has not previously been consolidated in one Act.
The Bill, which is pure consolidation, has been considered and approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. It has been drafted by a former parliamentary counsel, engaged by the Law Commission. The Law Commission and the draftsman are to be congratulated on their efforts in tidying up this complex aspect of the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Patnick.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
10.29 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £49·2 million in the 1991–92 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £4,725 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2,140 million for 1992–93, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1992–93 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.
The Northern Ireland block has faced significant resource pressures this year, with expenditure on a number of demand-led programmes being higher than anticipated. The extra demands placed on the law and order programme have contributed to this. But, in fact, the major increases are encompassed by the supplementary estimates we are now considering—in particular in the health and education programmes. In the interests of prudent financial management, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 9 December 1991 a temporary pause on spending on new capital contracts in order to accommodate those new demands. We have always made it clear that this would apply only to the current financial year. I am happy to be able to confirm today that this is so. Indeed, the moratorium is already effectively drawing to a close. Departments are gearing themselves to release those projects which will not now involve expenditure until the 1992–93 financial year. In addition, within the sums in the estimates, my colleagues and I will continue to take the opportunity to release projects selectively where resources permit.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Before we leave the issue of the dreaded moratorium, the Minister should be aware that what he has just said will provide a great deal of encouragement to those institutions and bodies that were clobbered as a result of it. Many of them were given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the clamp on expenditure would be long term. In some cases it was rumoured that programmes would be put back for three years. I am glad that the Minister has been able to give us an assurance about that.
Dr. Mawhinney: I should be distressed if people felt that programmes would be put back for three years as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement. It was always our intention, if at all possible, to limit the pause on spending to this financial year and I believe that we shall be able to do that.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Given what the Minister has said to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), is he aware that the Department of the Environment road services division has already written to local councils to inform them that schemes have been put off as far as 1995–96?
Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I have called into question what either he
266
or the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) have said. It is open to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and local councils to take this matter up again with Departments, should they so wish.
To give hon. Members the maximum time, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In Department of Agriculture vote 1, the major increases are £2·3 million for payments under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme and £4·4 million for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme, reflecting increases in rates of allowances and in numbers of eligible animals. Those increases are partly offset by reduced requirements of some £3·4 million on other capital grant schemes, where uptake and investment levels are lower than had been expected.
In Department of Agriculture vote 2, additional provision of £4·1 million includes £2·3 million for the disease eradication programme, following an upturn in the incidence of diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis.
For the Department of Economic Development, additional provision is sought on three votes. In vote 1, an additional £3·9 million is sought for expenditure on custom-built factory premises, including the building of two advance factories in west Belfast, an area of particularly high unemployment. That is offset by other adjustments, including increased receipts of £3·5 million from the sale of surplus land and buildings. In vote 2, an additional £1·1 million is sought for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Also in this vote, an additional £2 million is sought for financial assistance to the gas industry to cover expenditure on clearing the Ormeau road gasworks site in Belfast, and £4·6 million is required for consultancy costs in connection with the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland.
In relation to the Department of the Environment, vote I, an additional £4·5 million is required. That includes £1·3 million for roads and bridges, including a major road scheme in Craigavon; £500,000 is for road lighting, and £700,000 for payments to Northern Ireland Railways. Those increases are offset by reductions in other areas and by additional receipts, leaving a token increase of £ 1,000 in the vote. In vote 2, an additional £5·4 million is sought; £12·3 million is required for the Northern Ireland housing executive, mainly to enable it to repay loans. That is offset by additional receipts from housing associations and by a fall in the number of applications under the co-ownership scheme.
Department of the Environment vote 3, covering expenditure by the water service, shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations of resources within the vote, and includes an additional £3·4 million for consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage capital schemes associated with EC directives. In vote 4, an additional £3·3 million is sought. That includes £3·7 million for community economic regeneration schemes, bringing total expenditure on urban regeneration to £39 million. Funds continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need.
For the Department of Education, a net increase of £10·7 million is sought for vote 1. An additional £11·8 million is required for grants to education and library boards, including £4·5 million for the youth training programme; £8·7 million is for mandatory student awards, reflecting the success of Government policy to increase the proportion of school leavers who enter higher education.

267
The pause on capital expenditure has had an impact on a number of capital projects in the education sector, but I assure the House that all major works contracts will be reactivated over the next few months. We also considered it a high priority to make funds immediately available to provide temporary classrooms at St. Anthony's primary school in Craigavon, which was destroyed in a despicable IRA bomb attack. I have visited the school three times, once with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I pay tribute to the resilience of the staff, pupils and parents in their efforts to maintain the education process in such difficult circumstances.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of 2·8 million is sought in vote 1; £2·5 million is for grants to health and social services boards to meet increased costs; and £15 million is required for expenditure on the family health services. That arises from the new general practitioner and dental contracts, increased demand for sight tests and increased drug costs. Those increases are offset by increased receipts of £2·7 million and by reductions of £13·5 million in capital expenditure, which will of course, be reconsidered in the next financial year.
In vote 4, which covers social security, nearly £15 million is sought to meet increases in the numbers receiving a wide range of benefits, including income support and disability benefits.
In these brief remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to some of the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to detailed points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
10.38 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: These days, it would be strange to hear a Minister's speech that did not include an electoral bribe. Northern Ireland Members will be pleased to know that the expenditure on capital is to be removed in the next financial year. I presume that it is another example of promise now, pay later.
Dr. Mawhinney: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the unlikely and bizarre event of the Labour party being elected to power, the moratorium will continue throughout the next financial year?
Mr. Marshall: No, I am not saying that. Northern Ireland Members will have heard me make speeches before saying that we intend—economic circumstances permitting—to enhance public expenditure in the Province. I am simply saying that in the past few months, members of the Government have been increasing the public expenditure borrowing requirement with no apparent regard for the country's economic state of affairs. It just shows the depths to which they are prepared to stoop to bribe the electorate and gain a majority at the election. I have always respected Ministers who are responsible for Northern Ireland for their probity and lack of deceit and admired the open way in which they have addressed the House. It is appalling that, on this occasion, which is likely to be the last Northern Ireland appropriations debate of this
268
Parliament, the Minister of State should fall from his usual high standard of probity and honesty and stoop to such low levels. It ill becomes him.
I have often thanked Ministers in such appropriation debates in the past. Leaving the bribe issue aside, I should like to thank the Minister for going through the order with such clarity and lucidity. The House will be wiser for his speech.
I have enjoyed the debates in the past four and a half years and I hope that hon. Members will agree that I have always sought to be fair, even-handed and non-partisan. It is a little unfortunate that the Minister introduced a degree of partisanship into this evening's debate. I have an added pleasure this evening because, although this is the last appropriations debate of this Parliament, I know that in the next few weeks the Labour party will be responsible for administering the affairs of the kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland can rest assured that, when that situation arises, it will herald a fresh start for the socal welfare and economic life of the Province.
Dr. Mawhinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marshall: I shall give way in a few minutes, because the Minister may wish to respond then.
May I give a few words of assurance to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)? If the Minister of State retains his seat, the probability of which is a little higher than—
Mr. Roger Stott: Both their coats are on a short nail.
Mr. Marshall: May I make my own point? It is just as good as the one that my hon. Friend seeks to make.
The probability of the Under-Secretary retaining his seat is less than the probability of the Minister retaining his. The Minister has been looking harassed in the past few months. The strains and stresses of his high office over the past few years are showing, but they will quickly disappear once he is languishing on the Opposition Benches, an experience that will be new to him. It will outline for him a new life that he has not experienced since 1979, as a member of the governing party and, latterly, a member of the Government.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here this evening because I remember meeting him at the cricket ground in Leicester some years ago. He was showing his son the beauties of cricket and of the ground at Leicester. I am delighted that the Secretary of State—
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be possible to stick to the appropriate order, rather than wandering round the playing fields of Leicester? We have only an hour and a half, and such debates do not happen often.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a perfectly reasonable point of order. When the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) had finished, I was going to appeal for short speeches as I see that a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I should like to call all those who wish to speak.
Mr. Marshall: My speech will be short, Madam Deputy Speaker. This point is not out of order as the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 refers to the expenditure of Government Departments in the Province.

269
Naturally, some of that expenditure is incurred in providing services and facilities to Northern Ireland Ministers. I accept that Members from Northern Ireland wish to have a considerable time for the debate and I assure them that that will be available to them. I will not wander out of order.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is looking forward to renewing his love affair with cricket. I wish that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), were present, as we shall miss his private conversations becoming public. The absence of his knowledge of agricultural affairs will be a severe loss to me and., I am sure, to the general public.
For the past four and a half years I have always paid tribute to Northern Ireland Ministers for the way in which they have sought to protect the economy and social welfare system of the Province from the worst excesses and ravages of successive Tory Governments. I pay tribute to them again. But we must never forget that, since 1979, Tory policies have had a deleterious effect on the economy in the Province. Without any shadow of doubt, the industrial base of the Province is smaller now than it was 13 years ago. There is no doubt that a sound manufacturing base is essential for the future of the Province, as it is for the kingdom as a whole.
Nationally, we shall establish the economic conditions conducive to investment and growth—conditions that the Government have signally failed to obtain. In the Province, we shall create institutions to encourage inward investment, particularly in those industries based on the exploitation of the new technologies.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: My hon. Friend introduced the order with such rapidity that there was scarcely an opportunity to intervene. I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on one point. Page 28 of the report refers to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and the most appreciable increase of taxpayers' money that is devoted to it. Will the hon. Greater refer to that most appreciable investment and explain whether he finds it acceptable? Is taxpayers' money being wisely dispensed in that way?
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will refer specifically to the Housing Executive, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to respond to his specific point, I shall. I pay tribute to the Government for the good work that the Housing Executive has carried out. I am one of the first to pay tribute to the Housing Executive, which has sought to house people without discrimination and irrespective of the community from which they come.
One point that my hon. Friend will make—perhaps I can rehearse the argument for him—is that we are a little worried about the moratorium on capital expenditure in that sphere. We are also concerned that capital expenditure is being held down because of the need to pay compensation for damage caused by IRA terrorist activities. We hope that that moratorium will be removed and that the Housing Executive and those seeking public accommodation through that executive in Northern Ireland are not made to bear an additional punishment because of terrorist excesses. When the Minister of State replies, perhaps he will address that issue.
270
Previous industrial strategies have floundered on the lack of skills at all levels throughout industry. It is our intention to establish training programmes so that all young people are equipped for the labour market. We shall establish a pool of skilled labour that is attractive to new employers. Our objective is to establish a modern, diversified economic base for the Province, which offers the prospect of a job at home, rather than the prospect of dole at home or work over the water.
As proof of my good intentions—not to speak for too long—I shall conclude by saying something about the community workshops. That movement is in dispute with Ministers about levels of funding and the way in which it is provided. People in the community workshop movement feel that that reflects Ministers' lack of confidence in the movement. I should like the Minister to take this opportunity to allay that fear and to join the Opposition in complimenting the workshops on trying to provide a service to young people in the Province, especially the most disadvantaged among them.
I look forward to more being spent on the Northern Ireland Assembly. We hope that it will prove necessary to increase the budget of the Assembly so that it becomes a real, not a shadow, Assembly.
If I may be allowed to stray out of order for one final sentence, we wish the talks, whether they are held now or after the election, all the best.
10.50 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: We have heard speeches by both Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen this evening. The people of Northern Ireland will remember the old saying, "Live old horse and you will eat grass." The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) assured us that if the economic situation held up, we would be well looked after. That reminded me of the old professor in college who used to say that if a cow had a long enough tail it would reach the moon—"if".
I welcomed the comments by the hon. Member for Leicester, South about the community workshops. We have pressed the Minister on them before; I hope he can assure us that, far from falling over the next three years, expenditure on the workshops will be maintained, to deal with the challenges that await them.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Labour Governments have always sought to deliver to the Province on the economic front.
Rev. Martin Smyth: When Labour was in power we were treated as a full part of the United Kingdom, not pushed on to the sidelines—despite claims to the contrary. But the economic situation is not so bright as the hon. Gentleman painted it. He asked us to believe that there would be an economic revival under a Labour Government. What I have to say will be of cold comfort to the House, but the people of Northern Ireland will not be taken in by such promises.
I do not imply that the Minister misled the House tonight, but people in the Province know that the true picture is quite different. We look forward to the Minister's commitments this evening being put quickly into practice.
The Poswillo report made several sweeping recommendations on the use of general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation, but the Government have failed—we heard

271
nothing more about this today—to allocate funds to its implementation in Northern Ireland, despite having provided £9 million for that purpose in Great Britain, as announced in a statement on 22 January.
Dentists who do not receive help have two options: they can use their own money, thus cutting back on an already under-funded area of the national health service; or they can refer patients to hospitals and thereby take up beds and hospital time, both of which are under pressure from other sectors. Will the Minister ensure that the necessary funding is allocated?
Does the Department of Health and Social Services vote contain any provision to bring the allocation to the Northern Ireland hospice into line with that recently announced for England and Wales? I understand that allocations for hospice provision in England and Wales amount to 42 per cent., whereas it is 30 to 33 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will remember a conversation that I had with him and his colleague the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) about the funding of Fairholme in my constituency. I am still waiting for a definitive answer. I understand that the matter has been batted around Departments.
From time to time emergencies may cause upsets, but there is a degree of short-sightedness in the Department when planning future expenditure. I refer specifically to the provision of a surgery in Great Victoria street. That has been on the stocks since 1988 and the Department and its valuer have been aware of it. Now the Department says that it cannot even consider the matter at least until the summer, and possibly not until the 1993–94 funding. What is to happen to the property in the meantime? It is in a redevelopment area.
There has been talk about the needs of west Belfast. That property was in west Belfast before the last redrawing of the boundaries, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will confirm. It is in an area of need, and work in an inner-city practice is being held up because the Department is not able to say that the problem can be taken on board, although it has been aware of it since 1988 and has been seeking to provide a facility. The Minister should consider the practical outcome of delay and act accordingly.
10.56 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that to hon. Members who are not from Northern Ireland these appropriation debates seem exceedingly parochial. But until the House determines that it will deal with Northern Ireland business in a better way and until Northern Ireland itself has structures capable of dealing with day-to-day issues in a better way, Northern Ireland Members have no choice and therefore make no apology for getting down to grass roots issues under the appropriation accounts.
Vote I for the Department of Economic Development covers expenditure relating to the Industrial Development Board. I do not intend to make any cheap jibes about the publicised statistics on the IDB. All Northern Ireland Members are aware of the difficult task faced by the IDB
272
in trying to encourage investment in Northern Ireland. Now there is an opportunity for the Government to ensure something of a new start for the IDB.
When the Government are considering a replacement for the outgoing person in the IDB, Mr. Tony Hopkins, they should put in post someone who has the drive and enthusiasm to bring jobs to Northern Ireland and to sell the Province as a suitable location for investment. Much can be done if the right person is in post and I, like many others, think that it would be better to look to the business world for someone to fill it.
In the vote for the Department of Economic Development, under the heading of labour market services, expenditure is set aside for the use of the Fair Employment Commission. This evening's issue of the Belfast Telegraph states that on Monday the commission intends to publish its religious breakdown of workers in 1,700 companies in Northern Ireland. The list will give details of the number of Protestants and Roman Catholics in each firm in the Province.
That move has, I believe, been opposed by all the employers' organisations. It has certainly been opposed by my colleagues in the House and, I understand, by the Ulster Unionists. It is an act of utter folly: the commission will, in effect, be publishing a hit list for terrorist organisations.
I can think of no greater administrative lunacy than to publish a head count of Protestant and Roman Catholic work forces throughout Northern Ireland. It will help terrorist organisations to target employers who, in their view, are not employing appropriate percentages and enable members of a work force to know exactly who is Protestant and who is Roman Catholic, thus helping to isolate small numbers of people.
Just as serious in economic terms is the fact that such a list will undoubtedly provide a basis for the boycotting of certain goods throughout Northern Ireland. We shall now have Protestant and Roman Catholic goods, and people will be encouraged to buy goods that happen to have been made by firms that are either Protestant or Roman Catholic. That may seem far-fetched to some hon. Members on this side of the Irish sea, but there is not the slightest doubt that it will come about if the list is published.
Mr. Roy Beggs: My party opposed the proposal to publish such information, in the best interests of both communities, and to protect them in their work-places.
Mr. Robinson: I do not doubt that every hon. Member holds the same view. The danger is just as great for one section of the community as for the other. When disaster strikes—as it undoubtedly will—let them turn to Bob Cooper and ask him why he had to be so pig-headed and proceed with this lunacy, in the face of all the advice that he had received from so many people who had been involved in both the business and the political worlds in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, over the past few years, the commission has published a series of reports in respect of individual firms—for instance, banks and insurance companies? The reports have concerned a large number of employers, but there is no evidence that any of those firms suffered any diminution of their trade or income as a

273
result, or that their work forces were attacked. If evidence of what he says exists, will the hon. Gentleman present it to the House?
Mr. Robinson: We are not talking about large employers; we are talking about every firm in every back street that employs 25 people or more. The opportunities are thus multiplied considerably, and people will become much more exposed and vulnerable.
Let me join the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in supporting the call for the Government to make clear their intention in relation to the community workshop projects. Those hon. Gentlemen have already said that there is something of a crisis in the community workshops in Northern Ireland. I should have hoped that every hon. Member would strongly approve of those bodies because they have a very worthwhile role in the Province.
Indeed, if it were not so, the Government would not have funded them initially, but there has been no significant increase in the money available to them since the financial year 1989–90. To date, they have still not been told what increase—if any—there might be for the new financial year.
If it is the Government's intention to add the community workshops to the moratorium, those organisations will expect a reduction in the amount of money made available to them. Although, thankfully, inflation has decreased considerably in the past few years, it is still in the round and likely to be 4 per cent. in the next financial year. That means that there will be less money available to the community workshops in that year while, at the same time, their expenditure is likely to increase.
I ask the Minister, therefore, if he will assure the community workshops that the finance available to them will be increased above inflation because they are lagging behind, not only in terms of inflation but in comparison to equivalent organisations such as other training centres. I understand that the average cost per place is about £550 higher in the training centres than under community provision, so I hope that the Government will examine the issue and remove the concern of those deeply involved with the community workshops.
In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the moratorium. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that there had been concern in
274
Northern Ireland that the moratorium might have been longer lived than the Minister implied. There is much concern in Northern Ireland that vital projects—especially road and housing projects—have been held back, and for much longer than the Minister said. I cite the example of the roads programme.
In the borough of Castlereagh, two vital projects at Purdysburn road and Ballymaconaghy road have been put off until the mid-1990s well beyond the date of the moratorium. If those projects do not proceed, one can conclude only that the Department is not going to live up to the promise that it made in the Belfast urban area plan that, where it zoned for housing and other purposes, it would provide the infrastructure as a priority. If there is no such infrastructure, there will be no housing. If there are no houses, there will be fewer homes for people and fewer jobs in the construction industry.
I know that, if the Minister at the Department of the Environment had more money available for roads, we would certainly be able to use it. The Treasury must ensure that finance is made available for those roads. There are only pence in the purse of the Department of the Environment's roads services and the money must be increased considerably.
I was concerned to discover that, because of the IRA terror campaign in Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive's budget was being cut. It seems that the people of Northern Ireland have to pay twice for terrorism. They have to endure the attacks of the Provisional IRA and its bedfellows and, at the same time, the finances are cut for the essential projects that might make life much easier for them. That is unfair, especially for my constituency. When cuts are made, they hit east Belfast harder than west Belfast. I shall not take this opportunity to tell the Minister where the bombers come from who wreck Belfast and who cause compensation to be paid, but it is surely unfair that my constituency has to suffer more as a consequence of IRA terrorism. Indeed, it has to suffer twice over. If the Housing Executive has to make cuts, I hope that it will be even-handed.
There is a long-awaited report—this may stretch the Minister—on the Crumlin road and the consequences of separation. There are consequences for the community generally. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when the report will be produced and when the Government will be prepared to act on it.
11.11 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful to the Minister of State for speaking briefly and enabling more hon. Members to take part in the debate, but I would have been grateful also if he had outlined the reason for the moratorium on public expenditure. It commenced on 9 December, and it has caused great distress in Northern Ireland. The local buzz was that it was the result of the IRA bombing campaign in Belfast in the autumn of 1991 and onwards. It was thought, however, that the ensuing claims would not enter the pipeline for at least two or three years and could not be a draw, as it were, on the current budget. It was felt that a substantive budgetary error had been made.
During business questions and questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I requested that a statement be made to explain why a moratorium on all public expenditure—both capital and revenue, as far as revenue could be withheld—was applied for four months of the fiscal year, without explanation to the House. I find that remarkable and unsatisfactory.
I was told by the Leader of the House that I had an opportunity to raise the matter during this debate. It is only three weeks before the end of the fiscal year, and four months of the year have been dead in terms of expenditure. I do not understand why that should have been so, and I find it unsatisfactory. The moratorium had a devastating effect on the provision of services across the community. The construction industry and service industries suffered a tremendous cut, and that contributed in no small measure to increasing unemployment. Why did the moratorium occur? I hope that the Minister of State's assurances that it is now over will be further explained. I am not clear about what the hon. Gentleman said and what he meant.
The Minister who opened the debate was responsible for education and was involved with the Dromore high school's playing fields. There were difficulties because this large school had no playing fields and was landlocked. there was a willing landowner, however, and a contract, was signed, at long last, three weeks ago. Then the Department said, "Sorry, you can't do that. Send the money"—£600,000—"into the central kitty. It would not be fair to the North-Western education board which had to hand in £2 million, if you spent that money."
I inquired, and discovered that the North-Western board did not hand in £2 million. Are we now being told that that contract, which was signed, can be fulfilled tomorrow, and the £600,000 spent as planned by the Southern education board, in co-operation with Banbridge district council and the Department of Education? That would be a clear explanation of the whole thing and we would know where we were going from then out.
I wish to comment in particular on health and social security matters. It is evident to me from my constituency experience that massive cuts are being made in the provision of health care to the consumer —both in hospitals and in the community. I can only extrapolate from those experiences and assume that the rest of Northern Ireland is suffering in exactly the same respect.
Take the three hospitals in the South Down area—the Downe hospital, Downpatrick, the Mourne hospital, Kilkeel, and the Cowan Herron hospital, Banbridge. One has been closed; one is in a state of flux and no one knows
276
whether it is opening or closing; the other—the Downe hospital, Downpatrick—has been waiting 26 years this month for rehabilitation and resiting. A quarter of a century is a reasonably acceptable period after which to ask when and if that rehabilitation and resiting will happen.
The Minister will probably say that that is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. But the terms of the 1948 Act—if I remember rightly, require equity of treatment and accessibility of provision for the consumer. This has not been implemented in the Downe area and is not being provided by the board, and the Minister must surely have a duty to direct that they should be provided.
Similarly for community and residential care, there is a litany of closures. St. Leonard's house, Warrenpoint closed. Mourne house, Newcastle is threatened with closure. Navan house, Newcastle is to be closed, and other homes have been targeted—not on the basis given by the Southern and Eastern boards in those cases, which was to divert money into the community services. I know, as sure as I am standing here tonight, that we are talking not about transfers of finance but about cuts in finance.
The community service will never see the money that has allegedly been saved by the closure of those residential homes. The level of community service now is very poor indeed. Those cuts have allegedly been made in the interests of providing better care in the community, but I do not think that that will ever materialise. We are talking about straightforward financial cuts without any compensation. I shall be glad if I am proved wrong about that.
The closures also belie the Government's own policy on residential and community care. The Government have stated clearly that consumers will have a choice between the public and the private sectors. I have given a litany of cases tonight in which public provision is being obliterated in a scheduled way. There will be no choice for consumers: they will be forced into the private sector whether they like it or not.
On the general question of the provision of health care, will the Minister take on board—now that he has direct responsibility for it—the fact that waiting lists are growing day and daily? In nearly every aspect of medical care, including cardiac surgery, orthodontics, dermatology, opthalmology and the ear, nose and throat specialty the queues are getting longer.
In reply to my parliamentary question about cardiac surgery, which is probably the most vital surgery because without it, people die, I was told that, between 1981 and 1986, there was a 250 per cent. increase in the waiting lists for cardiac surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. The Minister will respond to that by saying that he has provided a fourth cardiac surgeon and has set up an additional unit. However, we need a fifth cardiac surgeon to keep alive the young men and women who are not receiving the medicine, care and surgery that they need. The House need not take my word for that; hon. Members need only refer to the detailed report of the Northern Ireland Chest, Stroke and Heart Foundation, which provides a more detailed story than I can relate.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the roads executive budget, which I believe he referred to as pence instead of pounds. I understand that, for the next financial year, there will be £3 million for actual road works. On the basis

277
of £1 million a mile, we are going to get three miles of new road in the next fiscal year. What annoys me so much about that is that, in the years of plenty, when roads were built, nothing was done in the area that I represent.
For 13 years, not a single pound has been spent on major capital road works in my constituency. The new ring road proposed for the town of Downpatrick has been abandoned in the past two months. That is a very sad reflection, because, like the hospital to which I have referred, it was subject to much study over the decades. Indeed, that led me to coin the phrase "paralysis and analysis". It got nowhere at all.
We must also consider unadopted roads. 1n that respect, I mean not necessarily roads on new estates, but countryside roads that have never been properly transferred into the public sector from the old days of local government.
I hope that the Minister will be able to address those points when he replies. If he cannot, I hope that he will write to me. This is my first experience of a Parliament running down and, although I am not sure whether it is appropriate, I want to put on record my sincere thanks to Northern Ireland Ministers for the courtesy with which they have always received my requests. On many occasions we have differed vehemently on policy and practical matters, but at all times I have received courtesy and help, which I appreciated.
11.22 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I can raise only two matters in the short time available to me if the remainder of my colleagues from Northern Ireland are to be allowed time to speak in this debate.
The town of Hollywood in my constituency has a very ancient history and concerned citizens of all ages from that town came together at a public meeting to protest in an orderly and effective way about the lamentable lack of recreation facilities in the town. Hollywood has grown in size by leaps and bounds in the past 20 years and, because of the size of its population, the town deserves proper facilities for all ages in the community, including the provision of a swimming pool. I have raised the issue in the House before and I have made representations to the Minister who always points out, rightly, that this is a matter for North Down council. However, I urge the Minister to use his considerable influence to persuade the council to place on its list the need for a recreation complex for Hollywood. If necessary, the Minister should earmark a sum of money for that provision.
The Queen's hall in Hollywood has been mentioned as a possible place where some recreation facilities could be provided, but I am against that because Queen's hall is the civic centre of the town of Hollywood and should be kept as such. Therefore, I ask that a separate site be provided for that much-needed complex for the people of Hollywood who deserve it. It would certainly be beneficial for people of all ages, in particular the young and the elderly.
My maiden speech in 1964 was about the needs of the elderly, and in the dying days of this Parliament it is right that I again refer to that matter. I have mentioned it many times during my time in the House. In fact, I have urged that there should be a Bill of Rights to protect the elderly and retired people in our community. Many people suffer mental stress worrying whether they can meet heating and
278
food bills, for instance. I pointed out in the House last month that many elderly people turn down their heating because they are scared that they will not be able to meet their bills. They worry about ill health and what will happen to them when they become ill.
Not only the elderly, but all retired men and women worry about whether they have made enough provision for old age. Retirement should not be the beginning of the deterioration of life but a period when people should be able to relax and enjoy life, having spent their lives working and contributing to the country. It is essential that the quality of life be maintained, and every support should be provided by the Government to enable people to do so in their own homes, in residential homes or in hospitals.
I note what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), said about cuts—sometimes savage cuts—in hospital social services. There is not time to mention all of them, but I refer again to hospitals, such as the Dundonald and Bangor hospitals where cuts have meant that beds have had to be closed and nurses dismissed.
The time may come when an invalid person must forsake his or her cherished independence and seek the support of a residential home. I am deeply concerned about the standard of some residential homes—fortunately, there are not too many such cases—and there is a need for more thorough and frequent inspections.
In my constituency is the Banks residential home. The Minister is a caring person, and he may have had that home pointed out to him. It is a beautiful building in an idyllic setting on Groomsport road, Bangor. It has a friendly atmosphere and efficient and helpful staff. I am shocked that the Eastern health authority is considering expelling the elderly residents and taking over that wonderful building for its own bureaucracy.
If officials need offices, there are plenty of places in Belfast, Dundonald and the streets of Bangor, but not in that beautiful place, which was specifically built for retired people. The bureaucrats in the Eastern health board have specially woven carpet in their entrance hall, at great expense to the taxpayer. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to make sure that those bureaucrats do not close the beautiful Banks home.
The board has offered the lame excuse that there has been a rapid expansion of the voluntary and private sectors and that there is no waiting list for the Banks. I assure the Minister that that is not correct. I know many people who are waiting for a place at the Banks, but they are turned away because the bureaucracy do not want to provide them with beds. If people are in that home, it will be more difficult for the bureaucracy to close the building and take it over for its own purposes.
The board also claims that it is under pressure to switch resources from residential care to domiciliary care—in other words, it is blaming the Government. It is high time that the onus was placed on the Eastern health board.
I now refer to a case involving one of my constituents. She is 94, it is not long since her husband died, and she is now living alone in a large house. On the evening of Monday 20 January, she became very ill. She called her doctor, who was worried when he examined her. She had a temperature and a bad chest cough. Naturally, as the patient was a woman of 94 years, he was anxious about her health. Therefore, the doctor called an ambulance at 11.15 pm to take her to hospital, where he thought that tests

279
could be carried out and she could stay for a period of observation. He gave the ambulancemen a letter in which he set out her medical condition.
At about I am the following morning, that elderly lady was told by the hospital medical staff that she was being sent home. The old lady, who has an agile mind, pointed out that there was no one at home and the fire would be out. She was agitated, but none the less she was turfed out of the hospital. She was brought home by ambulance and left in her empty house at 1.20 am. That is a disgraceful experience for a person of any age, but for an old lady of 94 years it is absolutely disgusting.
Not surprisingly, the lady's doctor was amazed. I am still amazed at the callous treatment that was meted out to her. I wonder how many other elderly patients have suffered in the same shocking way. It is possible that the duty officer decided that she was not in need of hospital care or medical observation, despite her doctor's comments and his anxiety, but how could anyone send a woman of that age who lived alone back to her home in the early hours of the morning? The reason could not have been a shortage of beds in the Ulster hospital: there are plenty of beds. The only trouble is that the Eastern health board has closed them. Surely a spare bed could have been found for her.
The reason may have been a shortage of nursing staff, as the board now employs fewer nurses—to the detriment of my constituents who are in need of nursing attention. I am deeply disturbed by that disgraceful position. I represent the area of North Down, which has an ever increasing number of retired people. We must protect the elderly. We must fight for them because they are vulnerable and they cannot fight for themselves. We must ensure that their dignity is not undermined and that their lives are not shortened as a result of callous and inhuman treatment.
11.31 pm
Mr. David Trimble: It has been said that it is only through debates such as this that Northern Ireland Members can raise matters that are probably local government matters and would be handled by local government in Northern Ireland if there was any local government worth the name. It is utterly unsatisfactory that we are given only this brief opportunity of merely an hour and a half to debate the matter. As other hon. Members wish to speak and we wish to allow the Minister to reply, one must keep one's comments extremely brief and simply highlight certain main issues.
As has been said, the moratorium has been handled in a most unsatisfactory way. There has never been a proper statement in the House. Proper information has never been given to the House. Written questions were tabled by me and other hon. Members. They were not answered. I hope that at some point the Minister will get round to giving an answer. We want to know the precise effect of the moratorium and what programmes have been affected. The Minister of State claimed that the effect of the moratorium was spent and programmes were being reinstated. We want details of what has been reinstated and when. I know of one scheme—the Minister knows to what I refer—which has not been reinstated. We would like something to be done on that matter.
280
I suspect that, if the truth were told about the moratorium, we would find that the financial affairs of the Northern Ireland Office and the Departments of Ministers were in a mess and that Ministers were not in a position to come clean about it. That underlines the need to have a more satisfactory way of handling such matters and to have better parliamentary scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Office. That ought to be done through a Select Committee. The Public Accounts Committee tells us that, of all the Departments with which it deals, the Northern Ireland Office is the worst in terms of how it handles its money. A Select Committee would remedy the lack of scrutiny.
I must raise one important issue—that is all that I can do in the short time available—concerning the United Meat Packers plant at Annsborough, near Lurgan in my constituency. As the Minister will know, a receiver has been appointed for the plant, with the consequence that farmers who supplied carcases to it are not being paid and are having to prove that they are unsecured creditors. They find the comparison between treatment of that plant—it is owned by the Halal group—and the group's four other plants, one in the Republic of Ireland and three in Great Britain, extremely distressing. The three plants in Great Britain were wound down and closed in a relatively orderly fashion and farmers there were paid in full. The plant in the Irish Republic is being administered by the court, under its equivalent of the "Chapter XI" proceedings, and farmers are also being paid in full there.
I am told by the Department of Agriculture that the plant in Northern Ireland was one of the best-equipped plants and was a profitable undertaking, but the Northern Ireland farmers who supplied it are not being paid. It appears that the financial liabilities of the firm have been cast upon a profitable element and that other elements, which were not so profitable, seem to have got away.
I appreciate that the Minister's actions are limited because of receivership. Will he find out whether there is some way to inquire into the financial affairs of the group, not merely at the plant in Lurgan but at other plants that it operates, and into the connections between plants and other overseas bodies which I believe were involved with it? At the moment we do not have a lot of information, but one gets the feeling that there is more to this story than meets the eye. It is an appropriate case for a thorough inquiry.
That was the major item that I wished to mention, but I cannot forbear commenting on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—the Fair Employment Commission's proposals to publish the religious breakdown of 1,700 firms within Northern Ireland. Only a couple of weeks ago we met the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and forcefully expressed to him our reservations about that course of action. We were told at that stage that, although the Fair Employment Commission proposed to publish that detail, the Secretary of State was considering the timing and content.
After that meeting, I felt that there was some conflict between what the Minister and the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission—who was also present—was saying, and I wrote to the Minister. I received a reply on Thursday last week, which, while somewhat opaque, left one with the impression that he was still seriously considering what was to be done about publication.
I appreciate that time is short, but I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will state exactly the

281
Government's position on the matter and what will be done. I endorse completely all the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East about the consequence of that publication.
11.37 Pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Time is short and the Minister will want to reply, so I shall be brief. I back up what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has just said about the fair employment issue. It is not right for the House to think that there have been no repercussions from other publications.
A frantic employer phoned me no less than seven days ago. His firm had been named before and his deputy managing director's car was shot up by a gunman in the factory yard because of the lady's religious persuasion. That man employs a large number of people and he told me, "I have now to decide whether I will close this entire undertaking and go back to where I came from." So it is wrong to say that there are not legitimate fears.
I also met Mr. Cooper with my colleagues and with two representatives of small firms, who said that there is a great difference between pinpointing the religious breakdown of a firm with 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 employees and that with only 25. There is great fear. I will hold the Fair Employment Agency responsible if those firms are picked out by gunmen, on either side of the divide, for intimidation or killings. The House should take note of that great fear.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that other reports on the religious persuasion of the work force in the banks have dealt with the total work force employed, rather than with the make-up of employees in specific branches? It is important to acknowledge that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, that point must be stressed.
If the Minister is unable to reply to me tonight, I hope that he can write to me about the progress reached on the local hospital in which I am interested. I know that an announcement has been made about money, but I should like to know about the timetable for progress. The Conservative candidate in my constituency announced that the brickwork for that hospital had been completed, but it has not even been started. Such is the honesty we are up against.
A deputation has been to see the Minister about the River Bush and we would like to hear what he has to say about it.
The Government must do something about the community workshops, which inspire a united front. The people served by those workshops must be treated properly.
I back up what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said about United Meat Packers. Is it the Government's policy to withhold their grants in respect of that firm? If the company changes hands and becomes viable, I trust that that money will not be taken by the present receiver to pay the debts to the banks. I hope that that money will be used to repay the debts to the farming community. In my constituency, a young man, not long in business but doing well, was owed £18,000 by that firm. His cheque from it bounced and that young man suffered a complete nervous breakdown. That firm has left a trail of sorrow.
282
I must not say any more, because other colleagues want to speak.
11.42 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I want to discuss Department of the Environment vote 1, which relates to the moneys spent on roads and certain associated services.
Many of my constituents on the Shore road at Green island are concerned about the proposed realignment of route A2. They consider that proposal even more objectionable than earlier ones, which were subsequently abandoned. The DOE officials seem to be judge and jury on their case. It is felt strongly that a process of attrition is being conducted by the visiting officials to wear down the objectors to the scheme proposed. Those officials have tried to buy off or negotiate away legitimate objections to the development.
Many of the 130 frontagers would have objected in writing, but as a result of contacts with others they have decided that that is pointless. It is disappointing that consultation should come to that and that those who believe that they have valid objections should give up rather than pursue them through appropriate procedures.
Has Government approval been given for the scheme? Is it not possible to hold a public inquiry? Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme is not flawed on social or environmental grounds and that his officials are not ignoring DOE legislation? Will the Department vest the land and buildings to enable the project to commence? If so, when will that happen, and when is work likely to start?
Various questions arise in relation to road work throughout Northern Ireland. For example, is the Minister aware that there is no regulation in force in Northern Ireland on noise insulation? Circular 10/73 entitled "Planning and Noise" has never officially been adopted in Northern Ireland, although it is recognised as a useful planning tool by planners and local authority environmental health officers. Will the Minister promise to examine the matter with a view to having the noise insulation regulations that apply in England, Scotland and Wales being applied to Northern Ireland?
I wish that there had been time to address many other matters. I would have gone into the failure to encourage the development of nursery schools; the difficulties faced by education and library boards because of the insurance policies, or lack of them, operated by the Department when schools and libraries burn down; and the failure of the Northern Ireland tourist board to consult adequately with district councils before publicising information internationally. Because time is short, however, I will resume my seat to enable other hon. Members to speak.
11.46 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: Time is not on our side tonight, so in deference to the Minister, who I know wishes to reply to the debate, I shall keep my remarks as short as possible. The House will have an opportunity on Thursday to debate the political future of, and security situation in, Northern Ireland, but the appropriation Orders that come before hon. Members from time to time raise the real bread-and-butter issues that concern the elected representatives of the Province. It is therefore only right that they should have the opportunity to explain to the Minister their difficulties and the problems facing their constituents. I make no complaint about that. I have often complained

283
about the Order in Council procedure, but it is not for us tonight to take up the time available to hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
I have a few matters to flag up to the Under-Secretary, who I appreciate is not responsible for education in the Province. The Minister of State was formerly responsible for education there and was responsible for introducing the relevant education instrument. I am pleased to see him in his place, because the only item in that instrument with which I agreed resulted from his dedicated work on behalf of the Province's integrated schools. I reinforce that view tonight, for he did remarkably well in helping the growth of integrated education in Northern Ireland.
Like other hon. Members, last week I had a meeting with the chief executive, Fiona Stevens, and chairperson, Fiona Stelfox, of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and we discussed the whole issue of integrated education in the Province. I will not tonight go into that in detail, but having listened carefully to the Minister's opening remarks about the financial allocation to the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, I was suprised that the hon. Gentleman did not once mention nursery education.
The chief executive and the chairperson of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education are extremely worried because their nursery schools, which are attached to the existing integrated schools in Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh, Larne, Portrush, Ballymena and Belfast, are feeder integrated nursery schools for four and five-year-olds who are at a crucial stage in their education development.
It must be remembered that we are talking about Northern Ireland. The two people who came to see me last week told me that, if funds are not forthcoming, all those nursery schools, which deal with a crucial stage of children's educational development and are attached to Northern Ireland integrated schools, will have to close in June this year. There appear to be no such funds in the appropriations that we are discussing this evening.
I realise that the Under-Secretary of State is not directly responsible for education in Northern Ireland, but something should be done, in the brief period in which the Government are the custodians in Northern Ireland before we take over, to assure the integrated schools movement that nursery provision is protected. Although nursery provision in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is woeful beyond belief, it is embryonic in Northern Ireland and we should ensure that it survives.
I should have liked to say an awful lot more tonight, but the best speeches always fall on the cutting room floor. In deference to the Under-Secretary of State who will answer the debate, I shall leave him the remainder of the time.
11.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for his kind generosity, which is typical of the courtesy that is extended on these occasions. I also thank all those who have participated in this debate for the measured way in which they have expressed matters of grave concern to them and their constituents. These debates are among the best that
284
we have and are a model for debates in the House of Commons. They rarely sink to the level of some of the parliamentary procedures that we experience.
I exclude the opening speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who had a good old go at the Government about the economy in Northern Ireland. In his visits to the Province, he must have ignored the health of Harland and Woolf and Short's. He said that the Government had denuded manufacturing industries of investment, but in the past three years output in production has risen by 6 per cent. and in manufacturing industry it has risen by 7 per cent., which is even better than in Britain. So the hon. Gentleman's target is completely wrong.
Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot deal with the points that he and others raise in interventions.
Mr. Trimble: May I draw attention to the recent survey of manufacturing firms, which shows that employment is likely to fall by 2 per cent. in the current year?
Mr. Hanley: A number of reports have been published recently. I was simply explaining that, over the past three years, Northern Ireland's economy has been extremely healthy, and that we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that that record continues.
Naturally we do not wish to impose a moratorium on the Province, but when one is managing a block of some £6·5 billion, resources inevitably need to be reallocated from time to time in line with new requirements and block priorities. During the year, we found increases beyond what we had expected in valuable areas. For instance, in education, there were higher numbers and costs of mandatory student awards and the increased cost of the youth training programme. In health, requirements under family health services increased. Those included general medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. Increases also arose from the review body for pay awards. In addition, the need for cover for security costs increased. All those items needed to be adjusted during the year.
The total amount that has been secured from that is only £30 million to £33 million net, so we have had good value. The impact on particular projects may seem severe to those who had expected them to be completed by now, but I am sure that they will be resuscitated within schemes as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned the moratorium on the Housing Executive. The amount of income to the executive from all sources has been reduced in total by the swingeing sum of 0·1 per cent. The only impact has been a delay in the starting dates of some of the schemes by two or three months.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is always wise and thoughtful, raised the subject of hospices, which are dear to my heart. I am sure that he knows that Her Majesty the Queen visited the Northern Ireland hospice last year. In Northern Ireland, there is already almost 50 per cent. funding of hospices, and the extra money that has been granted in England in the past few days was designed to try to give hospices here the high standard of support of those in Northern Ireland. We have a good record on hospices, and shall try to continue that—it is one of my priorities.

285
With regard to the Poswillo report into dental anaesthesia, there is four times the level of anaesthesia in dentistry in Northern Ireland than in England. It is therefore a serious matter which will be addressed, but at present there is no specific allocation of funding.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned a number of matters. I shall not be able to cover all the points. However, I assure all hon. Members that the appropriate Minister will write to them in the near future.
In relation to community workshops, the current youth training programme rates in Northern Ireland compare favourably with those elsewhere. Following representations made recently by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and representatives of the Northern Ireland Association of Community Based Training Organisations, the Government have agreed to extend assistance to the payment of redundancies and arrangements for advanced funding for a further period. Those concessions should help the community workshops to continue their important work.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House in the near future on the matter of prisons, which was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also mentioned the moratorium, and I believe that I have addressed that issue. He also spoke of care in the community. There is no relaxation in our drive for care in the community. The points that he raised were important and specific, and I will write to him on them. We are close to an announcement on waiting lists. There is a commitment in the patients charter, of which my hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke just a few days ago. We shall achieve the aim of a maximum waiting list of two years for almost all matters.
There are particular problems in relation to cardiac surgery, and we shall set a date slightly more than two years ahead to clear the backlog. But when the hon. Member for South Down says that, if a patient does not undergo an operation, that patient will die, I can assure him that clinical need is paramount. There will be no
286
shortage of operations for those registered as needing those operations now. Such operations now take place throughout the United Kingdom—the world is becoming a much smaller place in terms of heart operations. I am pleased that we shall be able to reduce that backlog. I hope that, within a time scale to be published within a few days, we shall be able to reduce such waiting lists to the two-year limit.
No one has espoused the cause of the elderly more assiduously and eloquently than the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), and I will certainly write to him about his 94-year-old constituent.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) also mentioned the moratorium and the case of United Meat Packers, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley. I am concerned about the issue. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North knows—although, if I were a betting man, I would not admit it in his presence—I would bet that everyone will be paid. However, that is a matter for the receiver. We in the Department of Agriculture are trying to help to find a buyer as it is a good plant and, unlike some of the other plants mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it is a going concern. There is a secure future for its suppliers, employees and customers, and we must ensure that we obtain exactly the right deal. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's show of concern today.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned Causeway hospital. I think that it will be taking patients before the end of the century—before the end of the decade. We hope to buy the land soon. Bricks and mortar will follow the purchase—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

PETITIONS

  Cold Weather Payments (West Yorkshire)
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I have great pleasure in presenting this petition which is from the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district and contains signatures from that district. It concentrates on my part of the constituency, the wards of Wyke, Wibsey, Tong, Great Horton, Queensbury and Odsal.
  The petition concerns cold weather payments and the criteria which the Government have imposed and which result in great difficulties for pensioners. They are left cold and confused and without adequate and easy means of obtaining payment for the cold weather to provide enough heating.
  The petition has been organised by Age Concern and is supported by Labour-controlled Bradford council. Councillors have also expressed their concern about the district being covered by different weather centres, and payments being triggered only when seven freezing days are predicted. That criterion leaves many pensioners cold and vulnerable to hypothermia.
  The petition is signed by a good friend of mine, Alice Brown, and reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of concerned citizens of Bradford, Bingley, Ilkley, Keighley and Shipley in the County of West Yorkshire. Sheweth that great distress is being suffered by the elderly inhabitants of our area during winter months; in particular those two-thirds of our elderly population who are entirely dependent on state benefits and who through poverty cannot afford to keep themselves warm, and for whom the current means of relief such as the Cold Weather Payment scheme are both confusing and inadequate.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Members of your Honourable House urge Ministers: (a) to carry out an urgent review of all those current means of relief given to the elderly to help with heating costs during winter months, in particular to the cold weather payment scheme.
  (b) to consider and implement new proposals which will ensure that no elderly person need suffer from the cold through poverty.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  I hope that the Government will do this before the election.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Education (Rochdale)
  12.1 am
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 12,000 electors in the Rochdale borough, many of them constituents who are worried about the underfunding of the education
  288
  service in the borough. The petition was organised by 60 head teachers who represent all 107 schools in the borough. They asked me to present the petition to the House, which I now proceed to do:
  The humble petition of the people in Rochdale, showeth: that we the undersigned express our grave concern at the serious underfunding of the education service and the effects further cuts to the service will have on our children's education. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that our children's education is fully and adequately funded. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Crime (New Cumnock)
  12.3 am
  Mr. George Foulkes: It is my privilege to complete the worthy trio of petitions today with a petition from the citizens of New Cumnock—from 2,176 adults, representing almost the whole adult community in the town. It is one of the small but important towns in my constituency, led by former Councillor Willie Goudy, Mrs. Mary Morrison, John McWhirter and other members of an action group formed by the community following a meeting of 400 residents in New Cumnock concerned about the unacceptable level of crime and intimidation in the town. The petition is to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
  The Humble Petition of the Citizens of New Cumnock sheweth That there is an unacceptable level of crime and intimidiation in their community.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House shall address the issues contributing to this situation and take such measures as to allow the citizens of New Cumnock to enjoy peace of mind and security once again namely:

  (i) To increase police resources in this rural area.

  (ii) Review sentencing policies in order to create a real deterrent to crime.

  (iii) To expedite the processing of trials.

  (iv) To instruct the courts to exercise greater discretion in the granting of bail to persistent offenders.

  (v) To ensure that appropriate compensation is made to victims of crime. The courts to take initial responsibility for payment of such compensation.

  (vi) To promote greater responsibility by increasing parent liability for their children's misdeeds.

  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

Selective Investment Brokers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
12.5 pm
Sir Charles Morrison: In almost 28 years in the House, this is only the second occasion on which I have the Adjournment debate. It will almost certainly be the last, because I shall not he here after the next election. The matter which I propose to raise is of great importance to many unfortunate people, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to air their real grievances and to call on the Government to consider now and later, action to ameliorate the condition of those people.
I emphasise that I raise the issue of Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry with the complete support of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). He has taken a lead in this matter and will continue to do so, if need be after the election. I am sure that he will be supported by other hon. Members who have written to me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North cannot be here because of his duties in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who says that in his view it is highly likely that the Committee will wish to look at the ombudsman's report on the case after the general election.
In early February, Anthony Wheeler, former mayor of Chippenham and formerly a respected local citizen, was convicted and sentenced to four years in gaol for fraudulent trading between 1986 and 1988. He was also convicted of the theft of money belonging to Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. and of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception.
Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. was set up in 1980 in Chippenham. Among the financial investment products that it offered was a tax-free investment in what was described as the Cotswold Trust. The trust gave all the appearance of being similar in every respect to a unit trust whereby the investors invested their money with the trustees who had absolute discretion to determine which investments would form the basis of the underlying trust fund. Investors, who consisted mostly, but not entirely, of local people, were advised to spread their risk by investing part of their disposable capital in well-known, authorised products, but including a proportion in the Cotswold Trust.
Before the passing of the Financial Services Act 1986, the operator was not a licensed dealer in securities, nor was he a member of any authorised body. After the passing of the Act, the operator became a tied representative for an authorised investment institution. The Cotswold Trust was an unauthorised investment product in any event and not one which could be lawfully marketed.
Since 1984, SIBL had been in receipt of statutory correspondence from Companies house regarding its failure to provide annual returns and accounts. On at least two occasions, Companies house had indicated its intention to exercise its powers to remove the company's name from the list of companies as it appeared that the
290
company had ceased trading. In 1985, Companies house had passed this information to the Inland Revenue. On all occasions, the company's auditors had replied to Companies house, stating that they were still trading and would supply the relevant returns and accounts in due course.
In November 1985, the company became the subject of an investigation by the special investigation department of the Inland Revenue, which concentrated specifically on the tax-free status of the products that the company was offering. The Inland Revenue served the company with an assessment of unpaid tax and demanded that immediate steps be taken to pay the unpaid amounts assessed while the Revenue carried out a full evaluation of the total figure.
In December 1986, an independent accountant preparing an account for a client contacted the Department of Trade and Industry to identify the trading status of the operator of the Cotswold Trust. His concern related to whether his client's investment in the trust was tax-free and whether the investment itself was authorised. His information was examined, and as a result it became clear that the DTI believed that an investigation of the affairs of SIBL was urgently warranted.
The DTI took no action, but invited the accountant to report his concerns to the Wiltshire police. The accountant wrote to the DTI again, expressing his surprise and concern at its apparent lack of interest and was yet again urged to report his concerns to the police. In April 1987, the informant went to the police.
In May 1987, the police found that they could undertake no immediate investigation into the company, as at the time they had no information that would constitute sufficient prima facie evidence that a criminal offence was being committed. They referred the matter back to the DTI, with the request that the Department undertake an urgent investigation using its powers under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. The DTI, however, took no further action in the case.
The company continued to solicit investment in the Cotswold Trust and, throughout the remaining period, accumulated in more than half a million pounds in new investments. In June 1988, the Inland Revenue presented its final accounting for unpaid revenue to SIBL, which resulted in the company's placing itself in voluntary liquidation, leaving investors with a loss of £1·3 million.
Those facts were subsequently reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who conducted an inquiry into an allegation of maladministration on the part of the DTI on the grounds of its having failed to take any action in May 1987, when it knew—or ought to have known—that the responsibility for investigating the company lay with it. Subsequently, however—in 1991—the ombudsman exonerated the DTI of maladministration, which occasioned amazement and disbelief.
Indeed, the ombudsman's findings were considered to be so transparently at odds with the facts of the case, and the precedents created by previous ombudsman's decisions, that the report was referred by the company's creditors—who had formed a group called Creditors in Action—to an independent QC, who conducted a full examination of both facts of the case and the ombudsman's investigation. He found that the

291
Ombudsman had erred in his findings and that the DTI's failure to act constituted maladministration of a most serious kind.
The case reveals a number of factors, adding up to a degree of inevitability that the investors would lose their money. It is, however, not simply the latest example of a series of cases in which the DTI has been shown to have failed to evince the most basic understanding of the meaning of investor protection, clearly illustrating the way in which regulatory incompetence leads to loss. What is perhaps most clearly identified—along with the degree of incompetence and maladministration displayed by the DTI in its failure to appreciate the urgency of the need to investigate the affairs of SIBL—is the obvious extent of its complicity in an unauthorised and unhealthy relationship with the Inland Revenue. That enabled the Revenue to collect moneys to which it would not have been lawfully entitled had the proper course been taken at the right time.
The DTI was aware that the company had not made any financial returns to Companies House for a number of years yet was continuing to trade. It was aware that the company was not authorised to conduct investment business and that it was dealing in investment products of an unauthorised nature. It was aware of the previous relationship between the operator of SIBL and another investment adviser who had been investigated in regard to a similar operation which had led to investor losses. It was conscious of the need to undertake investigations into SIBL as a matter of urgency, because that fact had been identified by a member of the companies investigation branch. It was conscious of the fact that investors' money was at risk.
The question that must be asked is, why did the DTI fail to take any action at the appropriate time? Also, why did the ombudsman lean over backwards to ensure that no findings of maladministration were proved against the DTI? It would appear that the explanation can be found in the relationship between the DTI and the Inland Revenue.
It is clear that SIBL owed the Inland Revenue a considerable sum in unpaid tax. If any action had been commenced to wind up the company, the Inland Revenue would have been unable to recover any of that money and would merely have been included on the list of non-secured creditors who would have remained unpaid. The only sums for which the Inland Revenue can claim to have a preferential interest are moneys collected by the employer for pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions. Therefore, stopping the company trading would have meant that the Inland Revenue would have lost a great deal of unpaid money.
However, permitting the company to continue to trade meant that the Inland Revenue could continue to receive moneys by way of assessment, moneys that it would not otherwise have been entitled to receive had the company been wound up—in other words, the Inland Revenue was enabled to be preferred directly at the expense of new investors in the company.
Had the ombudsman found that the failure of the DTI to act decisively in May 1986—when it knew or should have known that it alone possessed the power to conduct the necessary investigation into SIBL—amounted to maladministration, the legitimacy of the actions of the Inland Revenue would undoubtedly have been called into
292
question. If the practice of allowing the Revenue to collect unpaid but non-preferential taxes from companies that would otherwise be wound up had become widely known, a number of similar cases would undoubtedly have been uncovered, leading to questions being asked about the amount by which the Revenue has benefited at the expense of other creditors.
This case is an unattractive story which reflects badly on the DTI and the Inland Revenue. The DTI is a regulatory body, "regulatory"—I emphasise that word—on behalf of the public. On this occasion, the public were severely let down. The creditors of SIBL want the DTI to admit that it made a mistake and that investors suffered as a result. In consequence, the DTI should take action to put that right, and I hope that the Minister will make a start on that now.
12.17 am
The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) referred to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. I shall try to draw a distinction between the actions that could be taken by Companies house—striking off a company that is no longer active—and the actions that can be taken by the police or the investigatory authorities if there is suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) present in the Chamber. I know that he takes a great interest in this matter, which has affected some of his constituents.
I am naturally distressed to hear of the losses sustained by investors in the company. It was incorporated in January 1980 and went into liquidation in July 1988. The Parliamentary Commissioner criticised the actions of Companies house in failing to pursue SIBL for overdue accounts and for initiating action to strike off the company instead, but he did not find that that failure led to injustice or loss to the company's investors. Companies house accepts the criticism that it failed to pursue the directors of the company as it should have done, and I apologise to my hon. Friends and to the House on its behalf for that mistake.
The Parliamentary Commissioner also concluded that potential investors could have searched the records held by Companies house and obtained a warning from the lack of up-to-date information. Companies house records exist to protect members of the public who intend to deal with limited companies, and those services should be used. The fact that a company has not filed accounts or is late in doing so should act as a warning to people thinking of trading or dealing with it.
The Inland Revenue and other creditors can seek to prevent an active company from being struck off in error. An intention to strike off a company must be published in the London Gazette, and it would be open to the Inland Revenue or any other creditor to petition to avoid such an error being made.
Since the criticism by the Public Accounts Committee of the low level of compliance in 1984, Companies house has made great progress in raising the level of compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. The target set for Companies house is to achieve 85 per cent. compliance by the end of June 1992. This target is still less than I would

293
like, and I have told Companies house that raising compliance is the highest priority. Its efforts have met with considerable success. It sends out more than 2 million default letters and prosecutes a considerable number of directors each year. It is striving continually to improve the level of compliance still further. It has improved its computer systems, introduced road shows throughout the country, advertised nationally, and produced a publicity video which is widely available. July will see the implementation of late filing penalties. These will apply to any company which delivers its accounts to the registrar after the statutory period has expired. I hope to see a further increase in compliance as a result of these measures.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Parliamentary Commissioner found no evidence of maladministration in the actions of my Department's financial services division or of companies' investigation branch in relation to this case. When the matter was first drawn to the attention of the companies' investigation branch, my officials established that the Wiltshire police were undertaking investigations into associated business concerns. The police told my officials that they wished to extend their inquiries to Selective Investment Brokers. It was accordingly suggested that the complainant should contact the police with the complaint. This was eventually done, and my Department decided not to undertake an investigation under either the Companies Act or the Financial Services Act.
That decision was entirely in accordance with my Department's long standing and sensible policy not to duplicate police inquiries into a company. Such duplication would be wasteful of investigative resources and might prejudice possible police action. However, my Department will always consider whether to use its investigatory powers if requested to do so by the police or by the prosecuting authorities looking into the case.
Thereafter, as is stated in the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, the police said to my officials that the client of the firm of actuaries who had contacted my Department had declined to make a formal complaint. The police officer concerned told my Department that he would he reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said that he would be suggesting in that report that the Director should request my Department to undertake a confidential investigation under section 447 of the Companies Act, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
The Director, having considered the matter, decided
294
that the police report should not be passed to my Department. I understand that he was satisfied that the police had been unable to find any additional evidence which would add weight to the material which the complainant had passed to my Department. My Department took no further action.
The Parliamentary Commissioner weighed whether the DTI should have ordered a further inquiry at this point. He concluded:
"I do not consider that DTI acted maladministratively in waiting on the DPP or, in the absence of further approaches about SIBL from members of the public, in not having initiated a section 447 enquiry into SIBL before its liquidation."
The ombudsman is an independent figure who is empowered to look into these matters and to have a judgment independent of Ministers. His report speaks for itself.
Following the liquidation, it became apparent that much was wrong with SIBL and a further police investigation ensued. That resulted on 7 February in Mr. Anthony Wheeler, the principal director of the company, being sentenced to four years' imprisonment on counts of fraudulent trading, theft and breaches of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act 1958.
About 180 companies will be investigated under section 447 this year. The Department is not shy to use the section when it is the right means of investigating and when police inquiries are not already under way. In the first three quarters of this financial year, to 31 December 1991, 14 companies were wound up by the court on the petition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following investigations under the section. There were also 19 prosecutions. Additionally, a great deal of valuable information obtained through the use of these powers was made available through the statutory gateways to other regulators to assist them in the exercise of their functions. I am determined that Department of Trade and Industry and other regulatory powers should be used to expose fraud and malpractice wherever it is suspected. I have today met City regulators to discuss with them how they can improve their chances of detecting it earlier.
I am extremely sorry about the losses that my hon.
Friend's constituents have incurred, but I rest on the ombudsman's report.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Developments, London
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total estimated full cost(a) in cash and (b) at constant 1992 prices of (i) the Jubilee line extension, (ii) east-west crossrail and (iii) other currently agreed new rail developments in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Cash

  1992 prices

  Jubilee Line Extension

  1,811

  1,699

  CrossRail

  2,376

  1,939

  Croydon Tramlink

  166

  141

  Chelsea-Hackney Line

  1—

  2,000

  DLR Lewisham Extension

  1—

  150

  Heathrow Express

  1—

  250–300

  1 Project expenditure profiles not available.

  These projects are at different stages of planning and approval. Construction of the Jubilee line extension is expected to begin shortly after Royal Assent. Construction of crossrail is expected to begin in 1995–96. The route of the Chelsea-Hackney line has been safeguarded, but no decision has been taken about when or whether the project should proceed. The Croydon tramlink, the DLR Lewisham extension and the Heathrow express are all projects which the Government expect to be taken forward by the private sector.

  Bridge, Portrack
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 99, what are his reasons for maintaining the high-level road bridge at Portrack.

  Mr. Chope
  A new crossing at a lower level is not economically justified and it would be unreasonable to divert traffic via the existing Cannon Park lifting bridge.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of rail routes are electrified in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The percentage of rail routes electrified is as follows:

  Total route miles

  Electrified route miles

  Percentage electrified

  Scotland

  1,705

  389

  22·8

  England

  7,969

  2,663

  33·4

  Wales

  631

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland

  210

  0

  0

  Total United Kingdom

  10,515

  3,052

  29·0

  88
  Sources: British Rail, Northern Ireland Railways Co. Ltd, Transport Statistics Great Britain.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what rate of return on investment: he requires from projects for electrification of main railway lines in Scotland;

  (2) if he will take social and economic cost benefits into account in reaching his decision on the electrification of the railway line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday 2 March 1992.

  Airspace
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the results of the survey of infringements of regulated airspace in the first half of 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Matters of flight safety are the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I have asked the chairman of the authority to write to the hon. Member.

  River Thames
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the future administration of navigation and shipping on the River Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no plans to change the existing arrangements for the administration of navigation and shipping on the River Thames.

  Tugs
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review his policy of excluding certain tugs from regulations requiring safe manning certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The new Safe Manning Document Regulations will give effect to an amendment to the international convention for the safety of life at sea 19'74 and will require all United Kingdom sea-going ships of 500 tonnes or over to be provided with a document specifying the level of manning considered necessary to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the ship. Sea-going tugs of 500 tonnes or over will be included and the voluntary safe manning document scheme currently in place will be retained for all vessels under 500 tonnes. In addition, Department surveyors are able to assess the minimum manning requirements of a vessel during any inspection.

  Railway Imports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway engines and new or used rolling stock have been imported into the United Kingdom in the last five years; and what were the countries of origin.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Training Certificates
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether provisional certificates of training issued under EC directive 89/684 EC issued by his Department to meet the requirements of the directive will be recognised by the other EC member states.

  Mr. Chope
  They can only be used in the country of issue.

  Dangerous Substances (EC Directive)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take urgent action in relation to EC directive 89/684 EEC to ensure that British LGV drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous substances will not be stopped from entering other European Community states by not having in their possession the certificates and documentation required by the directive when it comes into effect on 1 July.

  Mr. Chope
  Administrative arrangements are in hand for training courses to run from April 1992 enabling drivers of road tankers, tank containers and vehicle carrying explosives to obtain the certificates before 1 July.

  British Rail
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Her Majesty's Government intend to raise the external financing limit for British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  In June 1991 we raised British Rail's external financing limit for 1991–92 by £400 million, to a revised total of £1,522 million. The limit for 1992–93 was set in the autumn statement at £2,041 million, in real terms the highest ever figure and an increase of 28 per cent. over 1991–92.

  Birmingham to Manchester Route
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost to the Exchequer of the competition for a new privately funded route from Birmingham to Manchester; how many proposals were received; and what studies have been carried out on the M6 widening scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible to disaggregate departmental staff costs for this competition from those for other privately financed road schemes. The Department obtained financial advice from consultants at a cost of approximately £50,000.

  Four groups responded to the invitation for privately financed proposals.

  Since the M6 widening scheme entered the trunk road programme in 1989, a detailed study of options for widening has been undertaken by consultants commissioned by the Department. The study has included engineering, environmental, traffic and economic assessments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.
  90
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Pay and grading reviews have been carried out during the past 12 months in the following parts of the Department, including executive agencies: The Air Accident Inspection Branch (Inspector grades); The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

  The Driving Standards Agency (Senior Driving Examiner grades).

  Consultants Price Waterhouse were involved in the DVLA review. Private consultants were not used in either of the other reviews.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures his Department holds showing the number of people owning cars for the years 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on car ownership is given in "Transport Statistics Great Britain". Table 2.14 of the 1991 edition showed that, in 1989, 66 per cent. of households, or 14·3 million households, in Great Britain had the regular use of a car. Figures for 1990 will be available in mid-1992.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about its investment priorities for 1992–93.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment priorities are regularly discussed with British Rail. BR is currently finalising its investment programme for the coming year as part of its budget, within the external finance limit of £2,041 million for 1992–93—the highest ever figure in real terms.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of successful applications for inland waterways freight facilities grants, section 36 grants, since they were set up in 1981.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have awarded seven inland waterway freight facilities grants under section 36 of the Transport Act 1981. The awards have been as follows:-

  £

  Millgate Investments Ltd, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire

  369,340

  Varma Services Ltd, Deptford, London SE

  859,200

  Sheffield Haulage and Storage Ltd, Rotherham

  61,375

  West Country Fuels Ltd, Gloucester

  26,950

  Colwick Petroleum Ltd, Nottingham

  63,494

  Sand & Gravel (Leeds) Ltd

  20,640

  Wimpey Hobbs Ltd, Greenwich, London SE

  402,832

  Roads
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures his Department holds showing the amount of money spent on building, maintaining and policing roads in 1991.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department of Transport's report for 1992—Cm 1907—contains outturn figures for 1990–91 and provisional outturn figures for 1991–92 for:—

  (a) Capital expenditure on new construction and improvement of national roads—those for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority,

  91

  (b) capital expenditure on structural maintenance of national roads,

  (c) current expenditure on national roads,

  (d) expenditure on priority routes in London,

  (e) current expenditure on local roads—those for which local authorities are the highway authorities, and

  (f) capital expenditure on local roads.

  These figures relate to England. Roads in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Information from the Home Office on the costs of policing roads in 1991 is not yet available.

  Secondary Traffic Signals
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at how many road junctions secondary traffic signals have been removed, pursuant to his departmental advice note TA/18/81; what extension of this scheme is proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for individual highway authorities to decide on the layouts of their traffic signals. The information requested is not available centrally. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 define the essential requirements and these are supplemented by departmental advice. There are no plans to revise departmental advice note TA/18/81 in respect of the provision of secondary signals.

  Liverpool to London Flights
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Midland to discuss the proposed withdrawal of the service betwen Liverpool and London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The chairman of British Midland has not requested a meeting. The decision to suspend air services between Liverpool and London was a matter for the company to determine in the light of its commercial judgment.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce an agreement for the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road; and if he will make a statement on the timetable he envisages.

  Mr. Chope
  I am pleased to announce that we have been able to complete with Midlands Expressway Ltd. the concession agreement for the Birmingham northern relief road. This will be the first privately financed toll motorway in the United Kingdom and the first road authorised under the provisions of the New Road and Street Works Act 1991. This project has been strongly backed by Midlands Expressway Ltd.'s parent companies, Trafalgar House and Iritecna of Italy.

  The new road, which should be opened in the late 1990s, will provide welcome relief to the M6 and to local traffic in the A5/A38 corridor. The agreement provides for a concession of 53 years and the concessionaire envisages that, on opening, tolls will be about £1·50 for cars and £3 for lorries at 1990 prices. The cost of engineering the Birmingham northern relief road will be some £270 million, including substantial measures for the mitigation of environmental impact.
  92
  Midlands Expressway Ltd.'s latest design reflect, significant number of changes to the scheme which. accepted as a basis for public consultation in the memorandum of agreement signed on 12 August 1991. This revised scheme will, I hope, address most of the points raised in the public consultation. Towards the end of this year I hope to bring forward orders to implement the scheme.

  A35 (Wilmington Bypass)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making to ensure the building of a bypass for the village of Wilmington on the A35 at the earliest possible moment.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: We shall be inviting bids from consulting engineers for the design work on this scheme soon.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total of revenue expenditure on(a) trunk roads and (b) all other roads in (i) Greater London and (ii) England for each year from 1980–81 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Total current expenditure by central Government and local authorities in £ million was as follows:

  (i) Greater London

  £ million

  Trunk Roads (including Motorways):

  1980–81

  n.a.

  1981–82

  n.a.

  1982–83

  8·3

  1983–84

  6·4

  1984–85

  5·6

  1985–86

  6·8

  1986–87

  12·0

  1987–88

  13·4

  1988–89

  14·9

  1989–90

  16·9

  1990–91

  17·6

  All Other Roads:

  1980–81

  n.a.

  1981–82

  n.a.

  1982–83

  60·8

  1983–84

  63·0

  1984–85

  74·1

  1985–86

  70·7

  1986–87

  79·0

  1987–88

  78·1

  1988–89

  94·7

  1989–90

  101·5

  1990–91

  n.a.

  (ii) England

  Year

  £ million

  Trunk Roads (including Motorways):

  1980–81

  50

  1981–82

  69

  1982–83

  60

  1983–84

  64

  1984–85

  78

  1985–86

  77

  1986–87

  93

  1987–88

  84

  1988–89

  102

  93

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  105

  1990–91

  121

  All Other Roads:

  1980–81

  894

  1981–82

  1,012

  1982–83

  1,037

  1983–84

  1,084

  1984–85

  1,124

  1985–86

  1,191

  1986–87

  1,248

  1987–88

  1,319

  1988–89

  1,302

  1989–90

  1,592

  1990–91

  1,592

  The figures are from "Transport Statistics Great Britain", an annual publication, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Figures for Greater London were not held prior to 1982–83. The figure for all London boroughs' expenditure on other roads for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total of capital investment in(a) trunk roads and (b) all other roads in (i) Greater London and (ii) England for each year from 1980–81 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Total capital investment by central Government and local authorities in £ millions was as follows:

  (i) Greater London

  Year

  £ million

  Trunk Roads (including Motorways):

  1980–81

  N/A

  1981–82

  N/A

  1982–83

  30·4

  1983–84

  22·6

  1984–85

  22·1

  1985–86

  59·6

  1986–87

  92·2

  1987–88

  97·2

  1988–89

  73·9

  1989–90

  135·7

  1990–91

  166·1

  All Other Roads

  1980–81

  N/A

  1981–82

  N/A

  1982–83

  139·5

  1983–84

  150·0

  1984–85

  147·1

  1985–86

  175·0

  1986–87

  174·6

  1987–88

  166·5

  1988–89

  198·0

  1989–90

  263·5

  1990–91

  N/A

  (ii) England:

  £ million

  Trunk Roads (including Motorways):

  1980–81

  472

  1981–82

  557

  1982–83

  672

  1983–84

  641

  1984–85

  718

  1985–86

  734

  1986–87

  766

  1987–88

  872

  94

  £ million

  1988–89

  897

  1989–90

  1,239

  1990–91

  1,689

  All Other Roads:

  1980–81

  429

  1981–82

  375

  1982–83

  456

  1983–84

  503

  1984–85

  508

  1985–86

  604

  1986–87

  629

  1987–88

  652

  1988–89

  873

  1989–90

  854

  1990–91

  831

  The figures are from "Transport Statistics Great Britain", an annual publication, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Figures for Greater London were not held prior to 1982–83. The figure for all London boroughs' expenditure on other roads for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  M25
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the traffic generated on other roads as a result of the building of the M25 motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: It is estimated that the amount of heavy goods vehicle traffic in central London has declined by 20 per cent.

  Unleaded Fuel
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures for(a) how many and (b) what proportion of (i) new cars use unleaded fuel and (ii) car owners have converted their cars to unleaded fuel and what proportion this is of cars that can be converted, (iii) new cars have a catalytic converter, (iv) new cars made in the United Kingdom have catalytic converters and (v) car owners have had a catalytic converter fitted.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The Information for (i) and (ii) is not available in the form requested although the hon. Gentleman may also wish to know that in December 1991, 43 per cent. of petrol sold in the United Kingdom was unleaded.

  According to a recent survey of barriers against further uptake of unleaded petrol, carried out by the Department of the Environment, some relevant information is as follows:

  (i) 95 per cent. of drivers with cars under two years old and whose cars can run on unleaded fuel, use it.

  (ii) 39 per cent. of regular drivers can and do use unleaded fuel. 7 per cent. of regular drivers can but do not use unleaded fuel.

  The rest of the information is as follows:

  (iii) According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, in the fourth quarter of 1991, 24 per cent. of new cars sold in the United Kingdom had a catalytic converter.

  (iv) In the time available it has not been possible to produce comparable figures for new cars made in the United Kingdom.

  (v) It is not known how many car owners have had a catalytic converter fitted.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) discussions undertaken and (b) decisions agreed on toxic waste exports, at the recent European Environment Council meeting in Estoril.

  Mr. Baldry
  The topic of toxic waste exports was not on the agenda for the recent informal meeting of EC Environment Ministers in Estoril.

  Rainfall
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the rainfall in each National Rivers Authority region during the last six month period for which figures are available; what is the normal average rainfall for each region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The monthly rainfall, and the monthly average over the period 1941–1970, for each region of the national Rivers Authority to October 1991 is published by the Water Services Association in "Waterfacts 1991". More recent information is available from the Meteorological Office.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of funding made from the National Heritage Memorial Fund for the purposes of safeguarding landscape features and wildlife habitats in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grants made available by the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to assist in the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of land of scenic and/or scientific interest over the last five financial years were as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1·429

  1987–88

  1·500

  1988–89

  1·157

  1989–90

  5·887

  1990–91

  1·071

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the county councils that are now free of long-term debt.

  Mr. Portillo
  Returns to the Department indicate that at 31 March 1991, Dorset, Lincolnshire, Suffolk and West Sussex were free of long-term debt.

  Travellers
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the representation from Nottinghamshire county council regarding the establishment of a permanent gipsy site at Fox Covert, Worksop; and what is the reason for the delay in announcing his decision.
  96
  Mr. Yeo
  Outstanding supporting information was received from Nottinghamshire county council on 3 January. The issues raised by all parties require very careful consideration, but the Secretary of State expects to issue his decision shortly.

  Home Acquisition
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost of acquisition by a local authority of a home in(a) London, (b) metropolitan districts and (c) non-metropolitan districts.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Local authorities acquire relatively few dwellings for continued housing use. Reliable information from which to derive unit costs of acquisition is not available centrally.

  Archaeological Heritage
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to ratify European conventions on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: We shall ratify this convention at the earliest opportunity.

  Planning Applications (Publicity)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he intends to publish details of how local authorities are to apply the new publicity arrangements for planning applications; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he intends to issue guidelines as to the procedures to be carried out by local authorities for compulsory publicity for all planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 5 February 1992, Official Report, column 166.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Sir Patrick Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council to discuss nuclear proliferation; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The NACC will meet on 10 March in order to admit members of the CIS. There are no other formal items on the agenda. I will represent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  We are working closely with our allies in NATO on ways to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, materials and expertise from the former Soviet Union, some of which may be raised at the meeting.

  Expresso Lucitania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the presidency troika under European political co-operation,
  97
  the banning by the Government of Indonesia of the Portuguese ship Expresso Lucitania; and if he will deliver a protest to the Indonesian embassy in London over the banning.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no plans to do so.

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to answer the letter sent to him by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority dated 10 February.

  Mr. Key
  The Department replied on 25 February to Merseyside fire and civil defence authority's letter.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lease Defaults
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps are being taken to review and protect the position of those who sell commercial or private leases on property from liability if the purchaser of the lease defaults; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1988 the Law Commission published its report," Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate", Law Com No. 174. It recommended that all the obligations created by leases should bind the parties who for the time being are interested in the land and that those parties should cease to have any liability when they part with those interests, except in cases in which it is objectively reasonable that their liability continue. It is envisaged that in many cases a landlord consenting to an assignment by a tenant of his interest will be able to impose a condition that the tenant guarantees the performance of the lease covenants by his successor, but only until any subsequent assignment. The Lord Chancellor is actively considering the report's recommendations and hopes to be able to make an announcement about them in the near future.

  Recorders and Judges
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many recorders and circuit judges are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 1 March there were 795 recorders in office, of whom 752 were men and 43 were women. There were also 469 circuit judges, of whom 447 were men and 22 were women.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many county court judges are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  County court judges comprise circuit judges and district judges. As at 1 March there were 469 circuit judges in office, of whom 447 were men and 22 were women. There were also 232 district judges, of whom 220 were men and 12 were women.

THE ARTS

  Libraries, Cheshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the expenditure of public libraries in Cheshire on book provision for the last 10 years at constant prices.
  98
  Mr. Renton
  Statistics about the public library service are collected and published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Real terms costs in Cheshire for the 10-year period up to 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, are:

  Year

  Expenditure on books per 1,000 population £

  1980–81

  1,205

  1981–82

  1,298

  1982–83

  1,318

  1983–84

  1,377

  1984–85

  1,204

  1985–86

  1,367

  1986–87

  1,291

  1987–88

  1,479

  1988–89

  1,324

  1989–90

  1,362

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many librarians were employed by Cheshire county council on(a) a full-time basis and (b) a part-time basis in 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not available. However, staff numbers in English library authorities as a whole have remained constant over the last 10 years.

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has for dealing with the problems encountered in the last report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art; and when he proposes to announce his intentions.

  Mr. Renton
  Following the examination of the system of controls on the export of works of art by the reviewing committee, I have consulted widely on the alternative approaches which would enable pre-eminent works of art to be retained in the United Kingdom. I have asked to receive representations before the end of March. I can assure my right hon. Friend that these representations, involving difficult and complex issues, will be fully taken into account before I take any decisions.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Renton
  Ernst and Young have been engaged to advise on the market testing programme for my Department and its agencies. The appointment was by single tender.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.
  99
  Mr. Renton
  During the last 12 months, two pay and grading reviews have been undertaken in my Department, one in the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, the other in the Civil Service Occupational Health Service. Outside consultants were not engaged in either case.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in Wales in 1979 and 1983 and the latest year available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of notifiable offences recorded in Wales was 127,467 in 1979, 160,882 in 1983 and 229,248 in 1990 which is the latest available year.

  Voluntary Admissions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 26 February,Official Report, column 515 and 5 February, Official Report, column 163, for what reasons information about the number of officers engaged in obtaining voluntary admissions during 1990–91 is available from the Chief Constable of Northumbria, but not from other forces, where more than 20 per cent. of their clear-up rate is accounted for by this practice.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of detectives employed in obtaining voluntary admissions in Northumbria was available because of a special study reviewing this practice which was undertaken in that force. Such studies are at the discretion of the chief officer.

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the compensation for wrongful imprisonment so far paid to(a) the four people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, (b) Mrs. Maguire and her six co-defendants and (c) the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and when he expects to reach a final settlement in each case.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has paid interim awards of compensation to each of those concerned, on the advice of the independent assessor, but it is not our practice to publish details of individual payments to applicants for compensation. We are in touch with those representing the applicants in these cases and will make final payments as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ki Tang
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Islington, North dated 8 March 1989, 12 May 1989, 4 April 1990, 5 September 1990 and 17 October 1991, regarding his constituent Ki Tang and the question of rights of appeal for his family who applied to join Ki Tang under the provisions of the United Nations convention on refugees (family reunion).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I very much regret the combination of circumstances which has caused this delay and shall reply to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of overseas voters registered for each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Final figures for the electoral register for 1992–93 will be published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the summer; available figures will be published immediately before the general election, should it take place before then. The numbers of overseas electors included in the draft electoral register for 1992–93, together with totals for each constituent part of the United Kingdom, are set out in the table. The figures do riot include valid applications which were received too late for inclusion in the draft register, which was published on 28 November 1991.

  Overseas electors included in the draft electoral register published on 28 November 1991 by parliamentary constituency

  Number

  England

  28,179

  Aldershot

  113

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  23

  Altrincham and Sale

  64

  Amber Valley

  15

  Arundel

  70

  Ashfield

  8

  Ashford

  69

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  13

  Aylesbury

  93

  Banbury

  51

  Barking

  9

  Barnsley, Central

  2

  Barnsley, East

  4

  Barnsley, West and Penistone

  14

  Barrow and Furness

  28

  Basildon

  35

  Basingstoke

  78

  Bassetlaw

  19

  Bath

  89

  Batley and Spen

  27

  Battersea

  142

  Beaconsfield

  110

  Beckenham

  86

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  25

  Bethnal Green and Stepney

  27

  Beverley

  55

  Bexhill and Battle

  92

  Bexleyheath

  33

  Billericay

  60

  Birkenhead

  30

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  58

  Birmingham, Erdington

  8

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  12

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  4

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  15

  Birmingham, Northfield

  31

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  14

  Birmingham, Selly Oak

  79

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  7

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook

  23

  Birmingham, Yardley

  11

  Bishop Auckland

  16

  Blaby

  45

  Blackburn

  26

  101

  Number

  Blackpool North

  19

  Blackpool South

  22

  Blaydon

  17

  Blyth Valley

  15

  Bolsover

  4

  Bolton North East

  20

  Bolton South East

  9

  Bolton West

  42

  Boothferry

  49

  Bootle

  16

  Bosworth

  46

  Bournemouth East

  63

  Bournemouth West

  63

  Bow and Poplar

  24

  Bradford North

  13

  Bradford South

  14

  Bradford West

  28

  Braintree

  87

  Brent East

  43

  Brent North

  112

  Brent South

  28

  Brentford and Isleworth

  114

  Brentwood and Ongar

  94

  Bridgwater

  46

  Bridlington

  46

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  61

  Brighton, Kemptown

  92

  Brighton, Pavilion

  94

  Bristol East

  22

  Bristol North West

  40

  Bristol South

  20

  Bristol West

  168

  Bromsgrove

  15

  Broxbourne

  46

  Broxtowe

  43

  Buckingham

  87

  Burnley

  13

  Burton

  31

  Bury North

  34

  Bury South

  67

  Bury St. Edmunds

  62

  Number

  Calder Valley

  40

  Cambridge

  259

  Cannock and Burntwood

  24

  Canterbury

  84

  Carlisle

  22

  Carshalton and Wallington

  53

  Castle Point

  39

  Central Suffolk

  50

  Cheadle

  72

  Chelmsford

  77

  Chelsea

  188

  Cheltenham

  86

  Chertsey and Walton

  137

  Chesham and Amersham

  129

  Chesterfield

  11

  Chichester

  96

  Chingford

  33

  Chipping Barnet

  83

  Chislehurst

  81

  Chorley

  53

  102

  Number

  Christchurch

  89

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  77

  City of Chester

  78

  City of Durham

  37

  City of London and Westminster South

  174

  Colne Valley

  47

  Congleton

  45

  Copeland

  25

  Corby

  39

  Coventry North East

  11

  Coventry North West

  21

  Coventry South East

  16

  Coventry South West

  47

  Crawley

  63

  Crewe and Nantwich

  33

  Crosby

  70

  Croydon Central

  49

  Croydon North East

  51

  Croydon North West

  31

  Croydon South

  89

  Dagenham

  10

  Darlington

  35

  Dartford

  40

  Daventry

  43

  Davyhulme

  44

  Denton and Reddish

  13

  Derby North

  32

  Derby South

  27

  Devizes

  99

  Dewsbury

  23

  Don Valley

  13

  Doncaster Central

  17

  Doncaster North

  9

  Dover

  64

  Dudley East

  8

  Dudley West

  20

  Dulwich

  96

  Ealing, Acton

  128

  Ealing North

  53

  Ealing, Southall

  56

  Easington

  6

  East Berkshire

  117

  East Hampshire

  154

  East Lindsey

  30

  East Surrey

  73

  Eastbourne

  82

  Eastleigh

  95

  Eccles

  19

  Eddisbury

  69

  Edmonton

  29

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  60

  Elmet

  32

  Eltham

  36

  Enfield North

  20

  Enfield, Southgate

  89

  Epping Forest

  58

  Epsom and Ewell

  93

  Erewash

  28

  Erith and Crayford

  18

  Esher

  153

  Exeter

  53

  Falmouth and Camborne

  51

  103

  Number

  Fareham

  110

  Faversham

  59

  Feltham and Heston

  43

  Finchley

  88

  Folkestone and Hythe

  54

  Fulham

  172

  Fylde

  60

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  44

  Gateshead East

  19

  Gedling

  27

  Gillingham

  36

  Glanford and Scunthorpe

  44

  Gloucester

  32

  Gosport

  63

  Grantham

  73

  Gravesham

  50

  Great Grimsby

  11

  Great Yarmouth

  29

  Greenwich

  60

  Guildford

  125

  Number

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  49

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  36

  Halesowen and Stourbridge

  32

  Halifax

  33

  Halton

  15

  Hammersmith

  93

  Hampstead and Highgate

  225

  Harborough

  60

  Harlow

  21

  Harrogate

  63

  Harrow East

  63

  Harrow West

  93

  Hartlepool

  18

  Harwich

  61

  Hastings and Rye

  64

  Havant

  87

  Hayes and Harlington

  28

  Hazel Grove

  37

  Hemsworth

  7

  Hendon North

  44

  Hendon South

  100

  Henley

  134

  Hereford

  58

  Hertford and Stortford

  110

  Hertsmere

  78

  Hexham

  53

  Heywood and Middleton

  4

  High Peak

  68

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  97

  Holland with Boston

  20

  Honiton

  78

  Hornchurch

  26

  Hornsey and Woodgreen

  192

  Horsham

  143

  Houghton and Washington

  11

  Hove

  92

  Huddersfield

  38

  Huntingdon

  79

  Hyndburn

  14

  Ilford North

  23

  Ilford South

  48

  104

  Number

  Ipswich

  45

  Isle of Wight

  55

  Islington North

  97

  Islington South and Finsbury

  98

  Jarrow

  15

  Keighley

  54

  Kensington

  162

  Kettering

  26

  Kingston upon Hull East

  11

  Kingston upon Hull North

  31

  Kingston upon Hull West

  8

  Kingston upon Thames

  138

  Kingswood

  31

  Knowsley North

  15

  Knowsley South

  21

  Lancaster

  72

  Langbaurgh

  44

  Leeds Central

  8

  Leeds East

  14

  Leeds North East

  46

  Leeds North West

  49

  Leeds West

  13

  Leicester East

  15

  Leicester South

  52

  Leicester West

  18

  Leigh

  15

  Leominster

  89

  Lewes

  98

  Lewisham, Deptford

  31

  Lewisham East

  56

  Lewisham West

  72

  Leyton

  25

  Lincoln

  37

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  26

  Liverpool, Broadgreen

  26

  Liverpool, Garston

  26

  Liverpool, Mossley Hill

  27

  Liverpool, Riverside

  14

  Liverpool, Walton

  12

  Liverpool, West Derby

  5

  Loughborough

  38

  Ludlow

  38

  Luton South

  36

  Macclesfield

  101

  Maidstone

  57

  Makerfield

  19

  Manchester, Blackley

  14

  Manchester, Central

  16

  Manchester, Gorton

  30

  Manchester, Withington

  79

  Manchester, Wythenshawe

  16

  Mansfield

  10

  Medway

  54

  Meriden

  51

  Mid Bedfordshire

  87

  Mid Kent

  45

  Mid Norfolk

  32

  Mid Staffordshire

  52

  Mid Sussex

  81

  Mid Worcestershire

  48

  Middlesbrough

  14

  Milton Keynes

  110

  Mitcham and Morden

  39

  105

  Number

  Mole Valley

  117

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  44

  Morley and Leeds South

  4

  New Forest

  86

  Newark

  37

  Newbury

  128

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central

  83

  Newcastle upon Tyne East

  16

  Newcastle upon Tyne North

  23

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  33

  Newham North East

  11

  Newham North West

  20

  Newham South

  6

  Normanton

  13

  North Bedfordshire

  108

  North Colchester

  104

  North Cornwall

  61

  North Devon

  55

  North Dorset

  70

  North Durham

  17

  North East Cambridgeshire

  38

  North East Derbyshire

  23

  North Hertfordshire

  88

  North Luton

  51

  North Norfolk

  51

  North Shropshire

  27

  North Thanet

  37

  North Warwickshire

  27

  North West Durham

  17

  North West Hampshire

  94

  North West Leicestershire

  24

  North West Norfolk

  56

  North West Surrey

  141

  North Wiltshire

  84

  Northampton North

  35

  Northampton South

  58

  Northavon

  95

  Norwich North

  46

  Norwich South

  92

  Norwood

  68

  Nottingham East

  37

  Nottingham North

  6

  Nottingham South

  42

  Nuneaton

  21

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  44

  Oldham Central and Royton

  18

  Oldham West

  12

  Orpington

  83

  Oxford East

  101

  Oxford West and Abingdon

  199

  Peckham

  22

  Pendle

  29

  Penrith and The Border

  32

  Peterborough

  40

  Plymouth, Devonport

  35

  Plymouth, Drake

  40

  Plymouth, Sutton

  53

  Pontefract and Castleford

  4

  Poole

  89

  Portsmouth North

  42

  Portsmouth South

  56

  Preston

  42

  Pudsey

  28

  106

  Number

  Putney

  156

  Ravensbourne

  72

  Reading East

  100

  Reading West

  69

  Redcar

  27

  Reigate

  106

  Ribble Valley

  55

  Richmond (Yorks)

  51

  Richmond and Barnes

  222

  Rochdale

  21

  Rochford

  58

  Romford

  25

  Romsey and Waterside

  84

  Rossendale and Darwen

  45

  Rother Valley

  10

  Rotherham

  10

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  102

  Ruislip—Northwood

  54

  Rushcliffe

  60

  Rutland and Melton

  76

  Ryedale

  50

  Number

  Saffron Walden

  73

  St. Albans

  164

  St. Helens North

  23

  St. Helens South

  13

  St. Ives

  57

  Salford East

  20

  Salisbury

  115

  Scarborough

  34

  Sedgefield

  14

  Selby

  50

  Sevenoaks

  106

  Sheffield, Attercliffe

  30

  Sheffield, Brightside

  19

  Sheffield, Central

  24

  Sheffield, Hallam

  113

  Sheffield, Heeley

  23

  Sheffield, Hillsborough

  20

  Sherwood

  31

  Shipley

  60

  Shoreham

  85

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  31

  Skipton and Ripon

  43

  Slough

  46

  Solihull

  67

  Somerton and Frome

  71

  South Colchester and Maldon

  71

  South Derbyshire

  54

  South Dorset

  54

  South East Cambridgeshire

  84

  South East Cornwall

  76

  South East Staffordshire

  16

  South Hams

  64

  South Norfolk

  68

  South Ribble

  47

  South Shields

  13

  South Staffordshire

  43

  South Suffolk

  41

  South Thanet

  55

  South West Bedfordshire

  83

  South West Cambridgeshire

  115

  107

  Number

  South West Hertfordshire

  113

  South West Norfolk

  49

  South West Surrey

  120

  South Worcestershire

  50

  Southampton Itchen

  53

  Southampton Test

  76

  Southend East

  47

  Southend West

  38

  Southport

  72

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  23

  Spelthorne

  77

  Stafford

  79

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  31

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  31

  Stamford and Spalding

  58

  Stevenage

  63

  Stockport

  39

  Stockton North

  2

  Stockton South

  94

  Stoke-on-Trent Central

  l0

  Stoke-on-Trent North

  7

  Stoke-on-Trent South

  8

  Stratford-on-Avon

  86

  Streatham

  121

  Stretford

  26

  Stroud

  81

  Suffolk Coastal

  81

  Sunderland North

  7

  Sunderland South

  16

  Surbiton

  83

  Sutton and Cheam

  81

  Sutton Coldfield

  59

  Swindon

  63

  Tatton

  51

  Taunton

  61

  Teignbridge

  61

  The Wrekin

  38

  Thurrock

  18

  Tiverton

  75

  Tonbridge and Malling

  84

  Tooting

  92

  Torbay

  64

  Torridge and West Devon

  63

  Tottenham

  23

  Truro

  59

  Tunbridge Wells

  88

  Twickenham

  132

  Tyne Bridge

  5

  Tynemouth

  46

  Upminster

  45

  Uxbridge

  45

  Vauxhall

  131

  Wakefield

  17

  Wallasey

  40

  Wallsend

  17

  Walsall North

  10

  Walsall South

  12

  Walthamstow

  30

  Wansbeck

  10

  Wansdyke

  37

  Wanstead and Woodford

  51

  Wantage

  97

  108

  Number

  Warley East

  16

  Warley West

  3

  Warrington North

  21

  Warrington South

  16

  Warwick and Leamington

  90

  Watford

  92

  Waveney

  52

  Wealden

  85

  Wellingborough

  33

  Wells

  56

  Welwyn Hatfield

  91

  Wentworth

  11

  West Bromwich East

  8

  West Bromwich West

  5

  West Derbyshire

  43

  West Dorset

  61

  West Gloucestershire

  52

  West Hertfordshire

  104

  West Lancashire

  33

  Westbury

  89

  Westminster North

  158

  Westmoreland and Lonsdale

  58

  Weston-Super-Mare

  45

  Wigan

  23

  Wimbledon

  138

  Winchester

  99

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  112

  Wirral South

  48

  Wirral West

  54

  Witney

  79

  Woking

  168

  Wokingham

  134

  Wolverhampton North East

  11

  Wolverhampton South East

  4

  Wolverhampton South West

  14

  Woodspring

  69

  Woolwich

  16

  Worcester

  52

  Workington

  12

  Worsley

  14

  Worthing

  75

  Wycombe

  97

  Wyre

  50

  Wyre Forest

  59

  Yeovil

  64

  York

  63

  Wales

  890

  Aberavon

  2

  Alyn and Deeside

  13

  Blaenau Gwent

  4

  Brecon and Radnor

  27

  Bridgend

  51

  Caernarfon

  24

  Caerphilly

  10

  Cardiff Central

  61

  Cardiff North

  37

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  20

  Cardiff West

  38

  Carmarthen

  31

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  39

  Clwyd North West

  33

  Clwyd South West

  26

  109

  Number

  Conwy

  29

  Cynon Valley

  0

  Delyn

  41

  Gower

  29

  Islwyn

  6

  Llanelli

  18

  Meirrionnydd Nant Conwy

  8

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  0

  Monmouth

  56

  Montgomery

  13

  Neath

  13

  Newport East

  11

  Newport West

  23

  Ogmore

  7

  Pembroke

  38

  Pontypridd

  27

  Rhondda

  3

  Swansea East

  7

  Swansea West

  31

  Torfaen

  2

  Vale of Glamorgan

  64

  Wrexham

  21

  Ynys Môn

  27

  Scotland

  1,679

  Aberdeen North

  16

  Aberdeen South

  51

  Angus East

  28

  Argyll and Bute

  14

  Ayr

  35

  Banff and Buchan

  9

  Caithness and Sutherland

  8

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  14

  Central Fife

  6

  Clackmannan

  5

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  13

  Clydesdale

  7

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  17

  Cunninghame North

  29

  Cunninghame South

  12

  Dumbarton

  38

  Dumfries

  15

  Dundee East

  31

  Dundee West

  12

  Dunfermline East

  13

  Dunfermline West

  18

  Number

  East Kilbride

  24

  East Lothian

  20

  Eastwood

  45

  Edinburgh Central

  91

  Edinburgh East

  26

  110

  Number

  Edinburgh, Leith

  37

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  65

  Edinburgh South

  97

  Edinburgh West

  61

  Falkirk East

  23

  Falkirk West

  18

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  28

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  20

  Glasgow Central

  15

  Glasgow, Garscadden

  8

  Glasgow, Govan

  15

  Glasgow, Hillhead

  51

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  15

  Glasgow, Pollok

  18

  Glasgow, Provan

  4

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  10

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  3

  Glasgow, Springburn

  5

  Gordon

  40

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  3

  Hamilton

  5

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  33

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  11

  Kincardine and Deeside

  55

  Kirkcaldy

  16

  Linlithgow

  13

  Livingston

  13

  Midlothian

  22

  Monklands East

  2

  Monklands West

  7

  Moray

  15

  Motherwell North

  4

  Motherwell South

  9

  North East Fife

  44

  North Tayside

  38

  Orkney and Shetland

  9

  Paisley North

  11

  Paisley South

  4

  Perth and Kinross

  28

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  30

  Ross, Cromarty and Sky

  25

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  12

  Stirling

  60

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  45

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  30

  Western Isles

  5

  Northern Ireland

  151

  Belfast East

  15

  Belfast North

  9

  Belfast South

  14

  Belfast West

  3

  East Antrim

  7

  East Londonderry

  9

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  8

  Foyle

  4

  Lagan Valley

  6

  111

  Number

  Mid Ulster

  12

  Newry and Armagh

  3

  North Antrim

  7

  North Down

  24

  South Antrim

  6

  South Down

  4

  Strangford

  13

  Upper Bann

  7

  United Kingdom Total

  30,899

  Inquests
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many inquests were held into deaths which involved allegations of medical or social service negligence in the last five years;

  (2) how many inquests were held into deaths which entailed potential collective or corporate responsibility in the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  These figures are not collected centrally.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the director general of the Prison Service next intends to visit Her Majesty's prison, Leeds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The director general last visited the prison on 25 February and has not yet fixed a date for a further visit.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to consult the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds concerning proposals for a national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 13 February,Official Report, column 582.

  Obscene Publications Squad
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the total cost from 1987 to 1990 of the Operation Spanner investigation by the obscene publications squad;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the number of occasions on which police forces other than the Metropolitan police consulted or liaised with the obscene publications squad in each year from 1987 to 1991;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the total running costs of the obscene publications squad in 1990 and 1991, and the projected cost in 1992;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the cost of the installation
  112
  of the obscene publications squad's paedophile database, the number of officers that are employed to maintain it, the number of names of persons currently listed on the database and the nature of other databases maintained by the obscene publications squad.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total and projected manpower costs of the obscene publications squad are as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  1855,286

  1991–92

  1883,606

  1992–93

  12871,302

  1 These costs cover salaries for police and civilian staff and a personnel administration charge for recruitment, training and the pay roll function. Other costs are not recorded separately.

  2 Estimated.

  The squad does not have a computerised paedophile or other database. Two civilian staff do however maintain a manual index containing about 12,000 records. There is a close liaison between the squad and other police forces when the need arises but no record is kept of the number of times police forces consult or liaise with the obscene publications squad.

  Records are not maintained in such a way that it would be possible to identify easily the costs of Operation Spanner. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Police of the Metropolis officers appointed to the obscene publications squad, the method of application or secondments used in selecting the officers appointed, the length of time for which officers are appointed to the squad and the considerations used in determining the time limit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are currently 18 officers, including the superintendent and detective inspector, working in the obscene publications branch. Vacancies in the branch are advertised in Metropolitan police notices.

  The criteria for selection are that applicants should be mature and well balanced, and able to carry out sensitive investigation in a professional manner with a minimum of supervision.

  Three years is the normal period for which Metropolitan police officers are attached to specialist units, but this is not an inflexible rule and it can be varied with an individual's suitability for the work.

  Informants
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the Home Office's guidelines on the use of informants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  General guidance about the use of informants by the police is included in the consolidated circular to the police on crime and kindred matters, at paragraph 1.92. Similar guidance about the use of resident informants is contained in Home Office circular 9/92. Copies of these circulars are in the Library.

  Offences
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in rank order the number of offences committed per head of population in the most recent year available for each police authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is given in the table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police per 100,000 population England and Wales 1990

  Police force area

  Offences per 100,000 population

  Northumbria

  14,236

  Cleveland

  13,363

  Nottinghamshire

  13,122

  Greater Manchester

  13,112

  Humberside

  12,201

  Metropolitan Police District

  11,642

  West Yorkshire

  11,420

  South Wales

  10,649

  West Midlands

  10,123

  Bedfordshire

  10,110

  Merseyside

  9,614

  Durham

  9,114

  Avon and Somerset

  8,987

  Northamptonshire

  8,353

  South Yorkshire

  8,286

  Leicestershire

  8,160

  Gloucestershire

  8,007

  Lancashire

  7,785

  Thames Valley

  7,551

  Norfolk

  7,298

  Dorset

  7,294

  Hampshire

  7,178

  Gwent

  7,084

  Staffordshire

  6,979

  Warwickshire

  6,811

  Cambridgeshire

  6,803

  Cumbria

  6,782

  Kent

  6,780

  Sussex

  6,700

  Lincolnshire

  6,677

  Essex

  6,552

  Derbyshire

  6,501

  North Yorkshire

  6,403

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,167

  Wiltshire

  6,013

  Suffolk

  5,888

  West Mercia

  5,836

  North Wales

  5,805

  Cheshire

  5,786

  Surrey

  5,724

  Hertfordshire

  5,513

  Dyfed-Powys

  4,427

  TOTAL

  8,986

  1 Including City of London.

  Television Licence Fees
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the television licence fees which will take effect from 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to my reply of 22 October 1991, column Nos. 536–637]: On 22 October 1991, at column 537, I announced that from 1 April the fee for a colour licence would be £80 and the fee for a monochrome licence £26·50. My right hon. Friend has today laid before the House the regulations necessary to bring these fees into
  114
  force. The regulations also increase the fee for a duplicate licence to £3·25 and for a dealer demonstration licence to £3·50.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Ethnic Minority Teaching
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for what reasons he has not replied to letters to him dated 19 November, 20 December 1991 and 22 January 1992 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to courses for teachers of ethnic minority children; and if he will now reply as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, CATE, submitted advice to my right hon. and learned Friend last year, following a review it conducted on teaching English as a foreign language, teaching English as a second language, and teaching English to speakers of other languages as specialisms in courses of initial teacher training.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has recently decided to accept CATE's advice and is writing to the right hon. Member to confirm his decision.

  Seven-year-olds (Testing)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he will publish the test results of seven-year-olds for Lambeth and Tower Hamlets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I undertook on 19 December that I would publish the test results from Lambeth and Tower Hamlets as soon as I had them. Parents and community charge payers have every right to know how their schools are performing. My Department had to press these two LEAs to get their results out.

  The results demonstrate that both Lambeth and Tower Hamlets need to give urgent attention to raising standards in their schools. In every single table both authorities are in the bottom quarter of LEAs. In the fundamental skill of reading, Lambeth succeeds in getting only 66 per cent. of its seven-year-olds to the level 2 targets for the age group and Tower Hamlets only 53 per cent. This must be a cause for immediate concern.

  The table sets out those results which were missing from the report on the national and local results published on 19 December. Copies of the tables published on 19 December, revised to take in the results from Lambeth and Tower Hamlets, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Percentage of pupils at level 2 and above

  Percentage of pupils at level 3

  English

  Lambeth

  71

  19

  Tower Hamlets

  64

  15

  Mathematics

  Lambeth

  68

  10

  Tower Hamlets

  63

  7

  Science

  Tower Hamlets

  85

  23

  Lambeth

  80

  26

  115

  Percentage of pupils at level 2 and above

  Percentage of pupils at level 3

  Reading

  Lambeth

  66

  14

  Tower Hamlets

  53

  14

  English Mathematics and Science

  Lambeth

  73

  18

  Tower Hamlets

  71

  15

  The results are based on returns from 83 per cent. of relevant primary schools in Lambeth and from 74 per cent. of relevant primary schools in Tower Hamlets.

  This summer I will require all local education authorities to send me the results of the tests of seven-year-olds from all of their schools. I do not expect the delays that occurred in last year's exercise to happen again.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following competitive tendering, the Department has appointed KPMG Management Consulting to advise on its market testing programme.

  Libraries, Cheshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the expenditure on school libraries in the county of Cheshire in the last ten years.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Schools (Commercial Products)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he issues to local education authorities about the free distribution in schools of commercial products; and what actions he intends to take with regard to the distribution of the product of which details have been sent to him.

  Mr. Fallon
  This Department does not issue guidelines to local education authorities about the free distribution in schools of commercial products. The distribution of particular free products is a matter for headteachers and their governing bodies to agree.

  Education, Cambridgeshire
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the amount of the increase in the central Government contribution to the cost of education in Cambridgeshire in 1991–92 over(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Local authorities are free to determine their own spending priorities between services within the framework of the annual local authority finance settlement. The overall amount of RSG which 116
  Cambridgeshire receives and its share of payments from the national non-domestic rate pool is based on its standard spending assessment, SSA, the Government's assessment of the expenditure which the authority would need to incur to provide a standard level of service. The education component for Cambridgeshire's SSA for 1991–92 was £225 million; and for 1990–91 it was £193·4 million—cash figures. There was no equivalent of SSAs in 1978–79. Cambridgeshire's outturn recurrent expenditure on education in 1978–79 represented some £191 million at 1991–92 prices. That figure includes the cost of higher education which in 1989–90 became the responsibility of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, PCFC.

  Education, Bournemouth
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those changes in education and to schools in Bournemouth since 1987 and those currently under way or approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In common with other parts of the country, schools in Bournemouth will have benefited from the reforms introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Statutory proposals have been approved for the enlargement of five voluntary aided primary schools, and for a new county primary school, providing additional places. Approval has been given for one secondary school to change its age range from 11 to 16 to 11 to 18.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has approved the applications for grant-maintained status from two local secondary schools, one of which has been operating since September 1990. He is currently considering an application from one other secondary school.

  I understand that the local education authority have plans to transfer one county secondary school to new premises and to make improvements at one voluntary aided primary school.

  Sport
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what Government grants have been paid to the cities of Edinburgh, Sheffield and Birmingham in the last 10 years in order to provide sports facilities of international standards; and if he will pay grants to cities providing facilities in connection with the Manchester Olympic bid.

  Mr. Atkins
  All Government funds for sport in England and Scotland are channeled through the respective sports councils which allocate them according to their policies and priorities. Cities are eligible to apply for grant from existing Government programmes provided normal grant criteria are met.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, and the county in which the outbreaks took place, in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years, and to date in 1992; and if he will make a statement.
  117
  Mr. Maclean
  There have been none.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 187–88, if he will list the amount of payments recovered or withheld under the set-aside scheme in England for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: This information is set out in the table. It takes account of developments since my earlier answer of 5 February and this has resulted in some very minor discrepancies between the two sets of figures.

  Set-aside scheme: England: Payments recovered/withheld

  County

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  623·80

  668·00

  478·80

  Berkshire

  6,898·00

  8,230·00

  459·00

  Buckinghamshire

  2,805·00

  6,055·00

  5,913·00

  Cambridgeshire

  114·75

  643·95

  774·92

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  521·49

  Cornwall

  —

  1,010·00

  815·70

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  585·00

  —

  Devonshire

  2,808·60

  329·00

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  1,065·00

  1,712·70

  Gloucestershire

  —

  2,024·00

  —

  Greater London

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  1,175·40

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  256·00

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  3,060·00

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  20,261·90

  Lincolnshire

  1,276·00

  2,747·72

  1,026·00

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  4,834·00

  105·14

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  16,000·50

  Northumberland

  162·00

  80·00

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  150·00

  6,193·20

  Oxfordshire

  2,133·00

  6,711·00

  9,259·00

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  2,184·00

  Suffolk

  —

  300·00

  —

  Surrey

  2,800

  —

  4,438·00

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  4,081·50

  —

  831·00

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  586·00

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  3,048·00

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  2,692·00

  Total

  26,762·65

  36,608·07

  77,556·26

  Group Marketing Grant
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the group marketing grant.
  118
  Mr. Curry
  The scheme will fall into two phases. In the first, farmers, growers and other producers will be able to carry out a feasibility study, which will need to demonstrate that the proposal has long-term benefits to producers, and is a viable proposition.

  With the aid of the feasibility study applicants will be able to apply for the second phase, of grant for developing existing groups or starting up new ones. Under this second phase aid is available for legal costs, salaries of key staff, training and expenses of outside directors. The maximum grant per group will be £107,000.

  This scheme has been designed expressly to help producers respond to the shortcomings perceived by supermarkets and other big buyers. It will encourage producers to come together in large professionally managed groups, so that they have the confidence and the clout to deal with retailers on equal terms. Producers will be able to choose the format which suits their enterprise—the scheme will not be limited to cooperatives.

  The scheme has been drawn up by MAFF after full consultation with the industry. It will be administered by MAFF with the advice of "Food from Britain."

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the benefits to importers from the postponed accounting system for value added tax from 1 January 1993; and what is the additional cost to the large domestic businesses which will be required to account for value added tax on a monthly basis from the autumn of 1992.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith),Official Report 25 November 1991, column 375. A new forecast will be available with the Budget statement.

  Some 90,000 businesses will make a cash flow saving in 1992–93 from the postponed accounting system equivalent to deferring payment for six weeks.

  Some 1,600 of the largest businesses will also experience a reduction in cash flow in 1992–93 as a result of the introduction of accounting for VAT on a monthly basis. They will still have the cash flow benefit of VAT paid by customers before it is paid to the Exchequer, albeit for a shorter period.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue yield, in the latest year for which information is available, from VAT on(a) hot takeway food and drink, (b) alterations to residential buildings, (c) alterations to non-residential buildings and civil engineering works, (d) newspaper advertising, (e) cereal bars, (f) non-residential construction and property development, (g) news services, (h) protective boots and helmets supplied by employers, (i) fuel and power supplied to businesses, and (j) water and sewerage services supplied to industry.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Detail about the revenue yield from VAT on specific items of expenditure is not collected on VAT returns. Estimated receipts for 1991–92 are as follows:
  119

  £ million

  (a) Hot takeaway food and drink

  400

  (b) & (c) Alterations to residential & non-residential buildings and civil engineering works

  800

  (d) Newspaper advertising

  100

  (e) Cereal bars

  10

  (f) Non-residential construction and property development

  500

  (g) News services

  5

  (h) Protective boots and helmets supplied by employers

  —1

  (i) Fuel and power supplied to businesses

  100

  (j) Water and sewerage services supplied to industry

  —1

  1 negligible

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue was generated in 1991–92 by the increase in VAT to 17·5 per cent.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 13 February,Official Report, column 595.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implementation of EC single market legislation associated with value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Commissioners of Customs and Excise have issued draft Finance Bill clauses relating to the VAT treatment of goods (and associated services), to relevant trade representative bodies for consultation. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the average gain per taxpayer in 1992–93 from a one penny reduction in the basic rate of income tax for those with incomes(a) below £5,000, (b) between £5,000 and £10,000, (c) between £10,000 and £20,000, (d) between £20,000 and £30,000 and (e) over £30,000, giving in each case the average gain if the same money were instead spent on increasing the single person's tax allowance, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  At 1992–93 levels a one penny reduction in the basic rate of income tax would cost about £1·95 billion in a full year. Increasing the personal allowance for taxpayers of all ages by £300 would also cost about £1·95 billion in a full year in 1992–93 compared with statutory indexation.

  Average reduction in income tax (£ per year)

  Annual income (£)

  One penny reduction in basic rate

  Increase in personal allowance of (£)300

  0— 5,000

  10

  60

  5,000–10,000

  30

  70

  10,000–20,000

  80

  80

  20,000–30,000

  170

  80

  over 30,000

  230

  110

  Total

  80

  80

  Child Care Tax Allowance
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 of introducing an allowance against income tax of(a) £1,000 and (b) £2,000 for all working mothers, giving both full and first year costs;

  (2) if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 of introducing an allowance against income tax of (a) £1,000 and (b) £2,000 for all working mothers, with at least one child under age five years, giving both full and first year costs.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the cost of introducing allowances against taxable incomes for working mothers and lone parents at 1992–93 levels are set out in the table:

  Cost (£ billion) allowance of

  (a) £1,000 per year

  (b) £2,000 per year

  All working mothers1

  0·6

  1·2

  All working mothers with a child under five1

  0·2

  0·3

  1 Including lone parents who are working.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 and in a full year of allowing the cost of child care against the income tax of(a) working mothers and (b) either partner in a two-earner couple, giving figures separately for children under five and those aged five to 16 years.

  Mr. Maude
  Information on child care costs paid by working mothers and by two-earner couples with different levels of income is not available. It is therefore not possible to estimate the cost of such a measure.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 and in a full year of introducing a child care tax allowance of £50 a week for(a) working women and (b) either partner in a two-earner couple, assuming that relief is available at the basic rate only, giving figures separately for (i) all families with dependent children and (ii) families with at least one child under five years.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the full year cost of introducing such an allowance in 1992–93 are set out in the table:

  Cost (£ billion) Allowance of £50 per week restricted to basic rate relief and given to

  (a) working mothers and lone parents

  (a) the higher earner in a twoearner couple

  All families with dependent children1

  1·4

  2·2

  Family with at least one child under the age of 5

  0·4

  0·8

  1 Includes dependent children aged 16 to 18.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 and in a full year of introducing a child care tax allowance of £50 a week for(a) working mothers

  121
  and (b) either partner in a two-earner couple, giving figures separately for (i) all families with dependent children and (ii) families with at least one child under five years.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates for 1992–93 are in the table:

  Cost (£ billion) allowance of £50 per week given to

  working mothers and lone parents

  the higher earner in a twoearner couple

  All families with dependent children1

  1·4

  2·3

  Family with at least one child under the age of five

  0·4

  0·8

  1 Includes dependent children aged 16 to 18.

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  Total income (£ million)

  Average income (£ million)

  Total earned income (£ million)

  Average earned income (£ million)

  1990–91

  Top 1 per cent.

  28

  107,400

  20

  78,000

  Top 5 per cent.

  68

  53,000

  54

  42,200

  Top 10 per cent.

  101

  39,600

  84

  32,800

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  160

  8,900

  145

  8,100

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  95

  7,400

  86

  6,700

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  12

  4,700

  11

  4,200

  All taxpayers

  354

  13,800

  313

  12,300

  1991–92

  Top 1 per cent.

  28

  113,000

  22

  88,400

  Top 5 per cent.

  71

  56,300

  59

  47,200

  Top 10 per cent.

  106

  42,000

  91

  36,200

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  166

  9,400

  152

  8,700

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  98

  7,800

  89

  7,200

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  12

  4,900

  11

  4,400

  All taxpayers

  368

  14,600

  332

  13,300

  Invisible Exports
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the value of invisible exports to the United Kingdom economy in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest estimates of the value of invisible exports were published in the balance of payments quarterly press notice of 11 December 1991. They are as follows:

  £ billion

  1980

  41

  1981

  57

  1982

  65

  1983

  66

  1984

  77

  1985

  80

  1986

  77

  1987

  80

  1988

  88

  1989

  108

  1990

  117

  First estimates for 1991 will be published on 6 March.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1991 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total and average income and earned income in 1990–91 and 1991–92 of(a) the top one per cent., (b) the top five per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the bottome 70 per cent., (e) the bottom 50 per cent., (f) the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers and (g) all taxpayers.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates are given in the table:

  Kirkwood) on 3 April 1990, Official Report, columns 525–26, and including two additional ranges of income, those from £70,000 to £100,000 and those over £100,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates of the reduction in tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances and thresholds are in the following table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1991–92 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation. A reliable analysis of taxpayers with incomes over £80,000 is not available.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the income base of 1991–92. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Reduction in income tax compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1991–92

  Number of individuals 1991–921 (million)

  Total reduction in (£ million)

  Average gain per individual (£)

  Under 5,000

  3·5

  450

  120

  5,000–10,000

  8·4

  2,600

  310

  10,000–15,000

  6·5

  4,100

  640

  15,000–20,000

  4·0

  3,900

  980

  20,000–30,000

  2·9

  4,400

  1,500

  30,000–50,000

  1·1

  3,000

  2,800

  50,000–80,000

  0·3

  2,600

  8,700

  Over 80,000

  0·1

  6,600

  45,600

  Total

  26·8

  27,800

  1,000

  123
  1 Individuals who would he liable to tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime.

  Return on Capital
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the average real rate of return on capital invested in British industry over the following periods:(a) 1964–1973, (b) 1973–1979 and (c) 1979–1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The average net real rates of return on capital employed by United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies are estimated as follows:

  Per cent.

  (a) 1964–73

  9·9

  (b) 1973–79

  6·5

  (c) 1979–89

  8·9

  The figure for each year may be found in the Central Statistical Office Bulletin 70/91, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Debt written oft prior to privatization

  Privatisation

  Amount £

  Type of debt

  British Aerospace

  60,000,000

  Public Dividend Capital

  National Freight Corporation1

  100,000,000

  National Loans Fund

  British Transport Docks Board2

  81,293,616

  National Loans Fund

  British Telecommunications

  2,789,865,772

  National Loans Fund

  British Airways

  160,000,000

  Fund Public Dividend Capital

  BAA

  43,503,340

  National Loans Fund

  British Steel

  500,000,000

  Public Dividend Capital

  British Steel

  3,480,000,000

  Borrowing under Iron and Steel Act 1982

  Water Holding Companies

  4,973,332,672

  National Loans Fund

  Water Holding Companies

  55,013,916

  Public Works Loan Board

  Scottish Electricity Companies3

  1,043,573,600

  National Loans Fund

  1 Privatised as National Freight Consortium (now NFC).

  2 Privatised as Associated British Ports.

  3 Prior to privatisation, National Loans Fund debt due to the South of Scotland Electricity Board nuclear programme of £1,368,390,398 was transferred to Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and subsequently written off.

  Taxable Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each social security benefit which is currently taxable indicating the numbers affected and the revenue obtained for the latest available tax year.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The table lists the benefits liable to tax together with provisional estimates, where available, of the number of people liable to income tax in receipt of each benefit for the whole or part of 1991–92. Table 9.6 of the 1991 edition of the United Kingdom National Accounts (the CSO Blue Book) provides an estimate of income tax attributable in total to these benefits, applying the recipients' average rate of income tax on the whole of their income to the amount of benefit received.

  Contract Compliance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to introduce contract compliance for firms employed on Government contracts and for organisations receiving Government funding.

  Mr. Maude
  None. All parties to a contract are expected to abide by its terms, which are legally enforceable.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the value of debt to Government written off in each privatisation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The table shows, by privatisation, debt written off and the type of debt concerned. This includes both debt written off as part of the privatisation process and debt written off in a company which was subsequently privatised.

  Taxpayers receiving in 1991–92

  Taxable benefit

  Thousands

  Industrial death benefit

  n.a.

  Retirement pension

  2,500

  Widow's benefit

  250

  Old person's pension

  n.a.

  Invalid care allowance

  n.a.

  Income support

  500

  Unemployment benefit

  500

  Statutory sick pay

  3,000

  Statutory maternity pay

  n.a.

  n.a.-not available

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost of increasing mortgage tax relief for first-time buyers to (i) 40 per cent. and (ii) 50 per cent.
  125
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: On the basis that such a relief would apply only to those buying for the first time after the relief was introduced, the cost of increasing mortgage interest tax relief from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. for every 100,000 first-time buyers would be about £45 million in a full year. Increasing the relief to 50 per cent. would cost about £75 million for every 100,000 first time buyers.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact in 1992–93 on the retail prices index of raising £1 billion from(a) tobacco products, (b) beer, (c) wine and spirits, (d) petrol, (e) VAT and (f) vehicle excise duty.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]:

  Percentage change

  (a) Tobacco products

  0·4

  (b) Beer

  0·5

  (c) Wine and spirits

  0·7

  (d) Petrol

  0·2

  (e) VAT

  0·3

  (f) Vehicle Excise Duty

  0·2

  These estimates are based on 1991 RPI weights. The weights for 1992 have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent figures for the number of non-taxpayers who are claiming mortgage interest relief at source, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: MIRAS is available on all qualifying mortgages regardless of the tax status of the mortgagor. A very approximate estimate, based on household survey information, is that there are about 1 million non-taxpayers with MIRAS.

PRIME MINISTER

  Libya
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to arrange a meeting with Colonel Gadaffi to discuss a solution to the Libyan incident.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Disability
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a specific Minister for the Disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1975, beginning with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) there has been a Minister for Disabled People with specific responsibility for disability issues and coordinating Government policies for disabled people.

  Open Government
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for improving open government.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will continue to review all areas of policy with a view to increasing 126
  transparency and enhancing accountability for the delivery of public services, and will announce future advances as and when they are made.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 3 March.

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

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by the United Nations in creating a mechanism to allow the trial by a neutral body of the Libyans alleged to be responsible for the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: UN Security Council resolution 731 makes no provision for any such mechanism. We now await a report from the UN Secretary-General about his recent efforts under that resolution to secure Libyan compliance with it.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Blood Plasma
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence has been made available to his Department concerning the dumping on the United Kingdom market of blood plasma products such as 8SM high purity factor 8.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is aware of this and other complaints about the working of the market in blood products. These complaints are being pursued with the Department of Health and the Office of Fair Trading.

  National Lottery
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received proposing that post offices,(a) in rural areas and (b) elsewhere, should handle applications for a national lottery.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received no representations in respect of post offices in any part of the country handling applications for a national lottery.

  Network Marketing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to regulate the activities of network marketing companies; and what estimate he has of the expansion of this type of selling in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  Network marketing is already regulated under part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Statistics are not collected on selling methods.

  Beer
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the effect the implementation of section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 will have on the use of traditional hand pumps in dispensing draught beer.

  Mr. Leigh
  No estimate is available.

  It will be possible to use hand-pumps. Whether or not to do so in any particular case will be a matter for the trade, as it is now.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect he estimates that the implementation of section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 will have on the price of a pint of beer.

  Mr. Leigh
  The effect of implementing section 43 will be to increase the transparency of the price because it will then relate to a full pint of liquid, which it seldom does at present.

  British Technology Group
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has held with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the privatisation of the British Technology Group.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on 25 February 1992,Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged where appropriate.

  Mr. Leigh
  No parts of the DTI, including its executive agencies, have carried out a review of pay and grading of staff in the last 12 months.

  Sub-postmasters
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce regulations to require all appeals against termination of sub-postmasters' contracts to be heard by an independent person or tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The conduct of appeals procedures, in common with all other employment issues, is an operational matter and therefore the responsibility of the Post Office. It would not be consistent with Government policy to seek to make regulations on such matters. All appeals against termination of subpostmasters' contracts are heard by an appeals authority of Post Office managers not connected with the case in question. This arrangement has been agreed with the National Federation of Subpostmasters.

  Electrical Appliances
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy that the proposal that all new electrical appliances can be sold only with a128
  pre-fitted plug will be implemented in such a way as to ensure that all pre-fitted plugs meet the requirements of disabled people, including people with wasting of the muscles and other difficulties in manipulating appliances.

  Mr. Leigh
  The proposed regulations will allow suppliers of domestic electrical appliances to fit plugs that are suitable for use by the disabled.

  Package Travel
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to consult interested parties on his proposals for implementing article 7 of the EC package travel directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has today issued a consultation letter on proposals to implement article 7 of the directive. This article requires the organiser and/or retailer parties to the contract to provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency.

  In our consultation document issued on 24 July 1991, we proposed the establishment of a licensing authority which would require all operators of packages, other than those already licensed through the air transport organisers licence system, to be licensed and bonded to a prescribed percentage of turnover. The outcome of this consultation has caused the Department to reconsider this proposal.

  The Government's objective in implementing the directive has been to do so in a way which would provide full implementation and proper protection for consumers, but would impose the minimum burdens on industry. It is now clear that the numbers of licensable operators would be large, but their average size would be likely to be small. A licensing system would thus be expensive and would conflict with the Government's objective.

  We now propose that it will be for organisers to have their own security for refunds in the event of insolvency. Failure to have adequate security will he a criminal offence, punishable by fines and personal liability, both criminal and civil, for any director or manager who has connived at the commission of the offence. Within the bounds of the implementing regulations, it will be for the individual operator to decide what form of security to adopt.

  It is envisaged that three broad possibilities will be offered in the regulations:
  organisers may be bonded, in a sum equal to the maximum amount they hold by way of pre-payments during the period of the bond, to an approved organisation;
  organisers may arrange insurance against insolvency, again in the sum equal to the maximum amount they hold by way of pre-payments;
  organisers may place pre-payments in a designated account from which they should only be withdrawn when the service against which the pre-payment has been made has been performed.

  In the case of packages abroad, organisers will be required to have security also against the cost of repatriation in the event of no longer being able to meet their obligations to customers.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November
  129
  (a) by private individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: Studies to determine the most promising areas for market testing within the Department are not yet complete. Guidance on the ethics of conducting business with the private sector is contained in the Treasury's public competition and purchasing units guidance—CUP No. 16—and the Department's own procurement and supply manual, which have been circulated to all purchasing units within the Department.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants and the total fees or other costs to date charged to his Department by them and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The Department is establishing a review panel, including officials and representatives of the private sector, to identify the most promising areas for market testing in the Department. The first meeting of the panel will be held in the near future.

WALES

  Local Authority Land Sales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total amount of land sold by each local authority in Wales at less than market value to(a) housing associations and (b) private developers for low-cost housing development in each year from 1988;

  (2) what was (a) the total original market value and (b) the total actual sale price of land sold by each local authority in Wales at less than market value to (i) housing associations and (ii) private developers for low cost housing development in Wales in each year from 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the sites in Wales currently utilised in order to monitor levels of(a) sulphur emission and (b) acid rain; and how much money has been allocated by his Department in order to undertake such work.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Sulphur dioxide—sites at Cardiff, Newport, Neyland, Port Talbot, Welshpool and Wrexham.

  (b) Acid rain—sites at Beddgelert, Plynlimon, Llyn Brianne, and Tycanol Wood.

  130
  The monitoring network to which these sites belong are funded on a United Kingdom basis by the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made by his Department of the use of fuel orimulsion to increase the output of power stations in Wales and the consequent effect of this action on acidification in upland areas and the level of sulphur emissions.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  One application to burn orimulsion fuel at a power station in Wales has been made by National Power, in respect of its plant at Pembroke. As required, National Power has made separate applications to the Department of Energy and to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 respectively. The Department is being consulted about both applications. In advance of decisions by the relevant bodies, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proposals, or on the Department's assessment of them, particularly in view of Ministers statutory appellate role under the Environmental Protection Act.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county areas how many tonnes of(a) sulphur dioxide, (b) nitrogen oxide and (c) particulate carbon were discharged into the atmosphere in Wales during the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available on a county level basis. However, information on United Kingdom estimated emission levels, by emission source and type of fuel, can be found in the Department of the Environment's publication "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" No. 13 1990.

  For emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate carbon, the latest available United Kingdom figures are for 1989—and are 3·67 million, 2·69 million and 0·15 million tonnes respectively.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of Tai Cymru's scheme to encourage the development of affordable housing for young people in the rural areas of Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The village initiative, which was launched in 1989, has resulted in the provision of 160 additional homes—seven more than expected.

  Housing for Wales is also finalising arrangements for joint working fora involving key organisations in north, mid and west Wales. These measures will help in targeting resources allocated to rural housing which in 1992–93 will amount to over 27 per cent. of housing for Wales's programme.

  Accommodation Above Shops
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants are currently made available by his Department for developing accommodation currently available above shops for renting purposes or for purchase as affordable housing.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In 1991–92, £4·6 million is being made available to assist Welsh local authorities in
  131
  providing schemes, specifically in the private rented sector, including flats above shops. A further £5 million is available for similar schemes in 1992–93.

  Market Testing Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte have been retained to offer advice on potential market testing candidates within my Department, its executive agency and non-departmental public bodies. Their appointment followed a competitive tendering exercise.

  Deaths and discharges from NHS hospitals with specified diagnosis recorded by age group

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  CD9

  Diagnosis

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  Code

  580

  Acute glomerulonephritis

  1

  0

  1

  4

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  581

  Nephrotic syndrome

  11

  25

  12

  29

  13

  16

  7

  20

  5

  21

  582

  Chronic glomerulonephritis

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  583

  Nephritis and nephropathy

  0

  5

  0

  16

  3

  8

  1

  17

  2

  4

  584

  Acute renal failure

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  585

  Chronic renal failure

  3

  9

  2

  5

  2

  18

  10

  12

  32

  17

  586

  Renal failure, unspecified

  0

  4

  5

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  587

  Renal sclerosis, unspecified

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  590

  Infections of kidney

  5

  9

  1

  18

  1

  16

  1

  10

  3

  6

  591

  Hydronephrosis

  2

  4

  8

  8

  4

  9

  9

  8

  7

  5

  593·6

  Postural protelnuria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  593·7

  Vesicouretono reflux

  5

  6

  4

  2

  4

  4

  6

  6

  2

  5

  595

  Cystitis

  1

  2

  1

  0

  2

  3

  0

  4

  0

  4

  599·0

  Urinary tract infection, site not specified

  192

  213

  137

  198

  166

  224

  196

  181

  189

  155

  599·7

  Haematuna

  16

  50

  13

  32

  3

  36

  9

  22

  14

  30

  753·1

  Cyetic kidney disease1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  0

  753·2

  Obstructive defects of renal pelvis and ureter2

  7

  1

  4

  0

  5

  3

  4

  3

  5

  5

  779·8

  Other and ill-defined conditions originating in the perinatal period; other3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  788·9

  Symptoms involving urinary systom system;other3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  997·5

  Urinary complications5

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1 Includes congenital cyst of kidney.

  2 Includes congenital hydronephrosis.

  3 Includes slow to respond.

  4 Includes extrarenal uraemia.

  5 Includes acute renal failure due to a procedure.

  Note: The information is based on data provided by NHS hospitals for hospital activity analysis. It may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths.

  Libraries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet(a) Clwyd county councillors and librarians and (b) the county council librarians of Wales, to discuss library provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The statutory duty to provide a comprehensive public library service rests with the library authorities. I would be prepared to consider a request to meet with those concerned with library provision, should one be made.

  Hospital Discharges and Deaths
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital discharges and/or deaths have occurred in Wales, in the age groups up to four years and five to 14 years, in the international classification of diseases (ICD) categories, in each of the years 1986 to 1991, 580 acute glomerulonephritis,(a) 581 nephrotic syndrome, (b) 582 chronic glomerulonephritis, (c) 583 nephritis and nepropathy, (d) 584 acute renal failure, (e) 997·5 acute postoperative renal failure, (f) 585 chronic renal failure, (g) 779·80 chronic renal failure in newborn, (h) 586 renal failure (unspecified),(i)788·9 uraemia, (j) 587 renal sclerosis, (k) 590 infections of kidney, (l) 591 hydronephrosis, (m) 753·2 congenital hydronephrosis, (n) 753·1 congenital cyst of kidney, (o) 593·6 postural proteinuria, (p) 593·7 vesicoureteric reflux, (q) 595 cystitis, (r) 599·0 urinary tract infection, site not specified and (s) 599·7 haematuria.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information for the years 1986 to 1990 is given in the table. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public libraries there are in Wales; and what is his estimate of the numbers of people employed in them.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The published estimates for 1991–92 indicate that the 13 public library authorities in Wales have 1,171 service points and a staff establishment of 1,260.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of manufacturing investment in 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The value of net capital expenditure by manufacturing establishments—Divisions 2–4, SIC (revised) 1980—in Wales in 1979 was £472·1 million at current prices. The value in 1989, the latest year for which the figure is available, was £1,114·5 million.

  Source: annual census of production, Central Statistical Office.

  Rural Conversion Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to set time limits for the payment of grants under the clawback arrangements for rural conversion grants awarded by the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Malignant neoplasms

  12,889

  14,033

  14,202

  14,959

  14,261

  Benign and other neoplasms

  812

  1,066

  1,316

  1,572

  1,691

  Total

  13,701

  15,099

  15,518

  16,531

  15,952

  Source: Welsh Cancer Registry

  Information about the treatment of those patients is not held centrally.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the amount of coal imported into Welsh ports annually for the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Anthracite, coking coal and steam coal imported through ports in Wales

  Year

  Thousand tones

  1987

  2,184

  1988

  2,499

  1989

  3,111

  1990

  3,587

  11991

  3,680

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  1 Provisional

  GP Expenses
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about family health services authority allocations in respect of general medical services expenses.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cash limited general medical services provision for 1992–;93 will be £36·117 million. This covers direct reimbursement to GPs as part of their expenses on practice staff and premises improvements, and the development of computerisation. I am today announcing the allocations to family health services authorities. These are:

  £ million

  Clwyd.

  4·698

  Dyfed

  5·056

  Gwent

  5·928

  134
  Mr. David Hunt
  The procedural details governing this grant scheme are a matter for the Welsh Development Agency.

  Cancer
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people develop cancer annually and are treated by(a) radiotherapy and (b) chemotherapy.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The latest available information about the number of usual residents of Wales who have developed cancer is given in the table:

  £ million

  Gwynedd

  3,823

  Mid Glamorgan

  5·984

  Powys

  2·194

  South Glamorgan

  4·652

  West Glamorgan

  3·782

  Total

  36·117

  These allocations will enable an average of 3 per cent. real terms improvement on committed investment for this year in respect of premises and staff; and improve and underpin the targets for GP computing levels.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each of the local authorities in Wales(a) the amounts of poll tax to be collected in 1991–92, (b) the poll tax actually collected in 1991–92, (c) the poll tax outstanding for 1991–92, (d) the surcharge on the 1992–93 poll tax for non collection in pounds, (e) the numbers of summonses for poll tax outstanding, (f) the numbers of people already served summonses and (g) the number of people who have served gaol sentences for non-payment of poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The information available by local authority is given in the following table. The total number of summonses issued by Welsh courts for the period 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1991 was 442,988; no breakdown is available by local authority area. Information relating to collection fund adjustments for 1992–93 is not yet available. Information relating to numbers of summonses outstanding and people committed for non-payment of community charge is not held centrally.

  Illegitimate Births
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list the number of illegitimate births to teenage girls in each year since 1980 in each registry area giving the age in years of the teenage mothers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Community charges in 1991–92 including 1990–91 arrears

  Estimated amount to be collected1 £ million

  Amount collected by 31 December 1991£ million

  Estimated amount remaining to be collected £ million

  Alyn and Deeside

  7·9

  5·0

  2·9

  Colwyn

  5·7

  3·9

  1·8

  Delyn

  6·8

  4·5

  2·3

  Glyndwr

  4·1

  2·3

  1·9

  Rhuddlan

  6·9

  4·0

  2·9

  Wrexham Maelor

  11·0

  6·4

  4·6

  Carmarthen

  2·8

  2·2

  0·7

  Ceredigion

  4·0

  2·9

  1·1

  Dinefwr

  2·1

  1·9

  0·2

  Llanelli

  5·3

  3·5

  1·8

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  3·7

  3·0

  0·6

  South Pembrokeshire

  2·5

  1·7

  0·8

  Blaenau Gwent

  5·1

  2·7

  2·4

  Islwyn

  4·8

  2·7

  2·1

  Monmouth

  7·1

  4·7

  2·4

  Newport

  12·8

  7·6

  5·2

  Torfaen

  7·3

  5·1

  2·1

  Aberconwy

  4·5

  3·5

  1·1

  Arfon

  3·7

  2·2

  1·5

  Dwyfor

  2·2

  1·8

  0·4

  Meirionnydd

  3·0

  2·4

  0·5

  Ynys MÔn

  5·9

  4·0

  1·9

  Cynon Valley

  3·0

  2·0

  1·0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3·4

  2·0

  1·3

  Ogwr

  6·6

  5·0

  1·6

  Rhondda

  2·2

  1·6

  0·6

  Rhymney Valley

  8·1

  4·7

  3·4

  Taff Ely

  7·8

  4·8

  3·0

  Brecknock

  3·1

  2·6

  0·5

  Montgomeryshire

  3·5

  2·7

  0·8

  Radnorshire

  1·6

  1·2

  0·3

  Cardiff

  26·1

  15·5

  10·7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  9·2

  7·0

  2·2

  Port Talbot

  3·3

  2·0

  1·3

  Lliw Valley

  3·4

  2·6

  0·8

  Neath

  4·3

  2·6

  1·7

  Swansea

  16·5

  10·6

  5·9

  WALES

  221·4

  145·0

  76·4

  Estimated as the product of the average community charge for 1991–92 and register population at November 1990, less Community Charge Reduction Scheme Grant and estimated Community Charge Benefit, plus arrears of 1990–91 charges.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Theft
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1991,Official Report, column 258, how many arrests have been made by the police in connection with reported thefts from the Palace of Westminster since 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The number of arrests made by the police in connection with reported thefts from the Palace of Westminster was as follows:

  in 1989-one;

  in 1990-one;

  in 1991-six;

  in 1992-nil to date.

  136
  Information for registry areas could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. Information for the mother's usual local authority of residence has been placed in the Library. Annual tables are available for 1980 and for 1982 to 1990, inclusive. Industrial action by registrars means that such a detailed analysis is impractical for 1981.

  Welsh Grand Committee
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he has made in arranging a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff to debate the future government of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Discussions are continuing through the usual channels and it is my hope that a Cardiff meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee can yet be arranged.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Rihand and Hindustan Zinc Corporation projects in India.
  137
  Mrs. Chalker
  Rihand power station and the Hindustan zinc mine and smelter in India are two of Britain's largest aid projects involving £200 million of grant aid. I attended ceremonies in India last month to mark the successful completion of both. The projects have already achieved record levels of production and include the latest emission control technology of its time.

DEFENCE

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of expenditure by his Department on the development and modernisation of the RAF facility at St. Athan over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  About £40 million.

  RN Workshops, Almondbank
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Naval workshops, Almondbank.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am glad to be able to announce that the Royal Naval aircraft workshops at Almondbank are to become part of the new Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence support agency on 1 April 1992. I will be announcing later today full details of the new defence support agency, including the targets being set to enable the chief executive to achieve maximum efficiency and value for money.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate for the amount to be spent by his Department on entertainment in 1991–92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is estimated that around £3·6 million will be spent in the financial year to the end of March 1992. This figure includes expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet representatives of the Commonwealth of Independent States to discuss defence issues of mutual concern.

  Mr. Tom King
  I met Marshal Shaposhnikov for discussions when he accompanied President Yeltsin on his visit to London on 30 January. I hope to meet CIS representatives during the meeting between NATO Defence Ministers and their counterparts from the CIS and central and eastern Europe which is planned for 1 April.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether following recent events at Brawdy and Trecwn he will review the way in which the Ministry of Defence communicates with employees when a decision involving closure or job losses is taken.
  138
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All such decisions are handled strictly in accordance with the Department's consultation agreement with the trade unions. Since the way employees are informed of such decisions forms a part of that agreement, it would be wrong to review these procedures now.

  Defence Cuts
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with other NATO Defence Ministers regarding cuts in defence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met my NATO colleagues collectively at the Defence Planning Committee meeting in Brussels on 12 and 13 December 1991. A copy of the communiqué issued after that meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Trident
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stage of procurement has been reached in respect of the fourth Trident submarine.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the programme for ordering and commissioning a fourth Trident submarine.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Contract negotiations with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for the fourth Trident submarine are under way. We intend to place the order as soon as these negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded. Meanwhile, construction of steelwork and major engineering items is making good progress under long lead funding arrangements.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of nuclear warheads that will be carried when the Trident programme is completed; and how many the United Kingdom had 10 years ago.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to specify publicly the size of our nuclear weapon holdings. However, no United Kingdom Trident submarine will carry more than 128 warheads.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on progress towards completion and commissioning of the first three Trident submarines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Construction of the first three Vanguard class Trident missile submarines at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. is making good progress, with all on schedule to meet their planned in-service dates.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Trident programe remains on time and within budget. The first submarine, Vanguard, is set to roll out of the Devonshire dock hall in Barrow tomorrow, and following a series of sea trials, will enter service with the Royal Navy in the mid-1990s.
  139
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the total cost of the Trident programme, including a breakdown of running costs and capital costs for each of the financial years 1992–93 to 1995–96.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The currently estimated cost of the Trident programme is £10·518 million. Estimated capital expenditure on the Trident programme for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 is £1,019 million and £827 million respectively. It remains our practice not to provide detailed forecasts of project expenditure more than two years in advance. We do not expect the level of running costs of the Trident force to be significantly different from those of Polaris.

  Equipment Expenditure
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposed defence spending on equipment for the years covered by the current public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Our plans for equipment expenditure are outlined in the departmental report by the Ministry of Defence on Government expenditure plans from 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Advanced Short-range Air-to-air Missile System
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce a decision for the advanced short-range air-to-air missile system.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Today.

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, when he next meets his European counterparts, he will discuss with them levels of nuclear deterrence.

  Mr. Tom King
  My next meeting with my European counterparts will be at the meeting in Oslo on 5 and 6 March of the Independent European Programme Group, which deals with equipment procurement issues.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the necessity for a continuing nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government believe, in common with our NATO allies, that nuclear weapons remain essential as the ultimate guarantee of our security.

  Air-to-surface Missiles
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about discussions he has had with his German counterpart about basing of tactical air-to-surface missiles on German soil.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 December 1991,Official Report, column 140.

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence support agency status for the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation.
  140
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation will be established as a defence support agency of the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1992. The NARO comprises a Royal Navy aircraft yard at Fleetlands, Gosport, and the Royal Navy aircraft workshops at Almondbank, Perth. Together, they employ some 12 RN personnel and 1,652 civilians, who will transfer to the agency. Also included within the agency is a subsidiary storage site at Wroughton near Swindon, manned by contractors' personnel with a small MOD presence. The full cost budget for the NARO for 1992–93 is assessed at £141 million.

  The role of the NARO is to provide repair, modification, overhaul and storage services for the tri-service helicopter fleet, their engines and selected components and for marine gas turbine engines and their components. The high professional standards of the NARO will be maintained and agency status will provide the chief executive with new opportunities to improve the efficiency and value for money of his organisation. Captain David Symonds, Royal Navy has been appointed as the agency's chief executive. The corporate strategy of the NARO will be centred on the following two principal targets:
  To deliver the core programme of work to the required standards of quality and timeliness and to the customers' satisfaction.
  to increase the efficiency of the utilisation of its capacity, assets and facilities by maintaining the optimum level of throughput, and by reducing the unit production cost of core work by 7·5 per cent. over the next three years and by 21 per cent. over the following seven years.

  The chief executive has been set the following strategic targets:
  Quantity—to complete 100 per cent. of the task as detailed in the DGA(N) schedule of identified repair work.
  Quality—to reduce by 2 per cent. the weighted number of allied quality assurance publication non-conformances in 1992–93.
  Timeliness—to complete more than 90 per cent. of contracts on time in 1992–93 and to increase this figure to over 95 per cent. by the end of 1994–95.

  Cost—Based on the values at the time of launch:
  —reduce cost of the direct output units—standard
  hour—by 2.5 per cent. by the end of 1992–93.
  —reduce cost of the direct output units—standard
  hour—by 7·5 per cent. by the end of 1994–95.
  Efficiency—Improve the efficiency index—measured work content divided by measured time taken—from 59·5 per cent. in 1990–91 to 62 per cent. by the end of 1992–93 and to 65 per cent. by the end of 1994–95.
  Productivity—Improve productivity from the 1990–91 figure of 706.7 to an average of 720 direct output units per employee by the end of 1992–93 and 750 direct output units per employee by the end of 1994–95.
  Market Testing—To commence a five-year market testing programme in 1992–93 to the value of £2 million.

  Private Robert Sean Thomas
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect to receive a substantive response to his letter of 23 October 1991, in the matter of number 24885335, Private Robert Sean Thomas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces provided a substantive response to my hon. Friend on 27 February.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have recently appointed Mr. Christopher Littmoden, finance director of Marks and Spencer, to act as a part-time private sector adviser on the Department's market testing programme. No consultancy firms are employed for this purpose.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the disposal of his Department's surplus land.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Surplus Ministry of Defence land is disposed of as quickly as possible.

  AWE, Llanishen
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the future ownership and management of the atomic weapons establishment, Llanishen, Cardiff; and if he will state the timing proposed for changes and the policy considerations underlying his decision.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following the passage of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Act through Parliament last year the Government intend to transfer the atomic weapons establishment, which includes the Cardiff site, to full contractor operation on 1 April 1993. The establishment will remain in government ownership. Contractorisation will enable the establishment to gain additional project and production management expertise as well as giving access to the corporate support of a major industrial company or consortium.

  Underground Nuclear Explosions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the proceedings of the seminar on the detection and

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax-paying families expressed at April 19912 prices (£)

  Date3

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  April 1961

  7·83

  10·65

  11·49

  9·71

  12·64

  13·37

  11·70

  14·52

  15·35

  April 1962

  7·41

  10·08

  10·87

  9·19

  11·96

  12·65

  11·07

  13·74

  14·53

  April 1963

  8·33

  10·94

  11·72

  10·07

  12·88

  13·46

  11·91

  14·62

  15·38

  April 1964

  8·16

  10·73

  11·48

  9·87

  12·62

  13·19

  11·67

  14·33

  15·00

  April 1965

  8·18

  10·70

  11·24

  9·98

  12·41

  13·04

  11·78

  14·21

  14·84

  April 1966

  7·90

  10·33

  10·85

  9·64

  11·98

  12·59

  11·37

  13·72

  14·33

  April 1967

  7·61

  10·03

  10·34

  9·36

  11·63

  12·22

  11·04

  13·32

  13·91

  April 1968

  7·34

  9·20

  9·76

  8·96

  10·81

  11·30

  10·57

  12·35

  12·91

  April 1969

  6·96

  9·10

  9·63

  8·49

  10·63

  11·16

  10·02

  12·16

  12·62

  April 1970

  6·59

  8·62

  9·12

  8·04

  10·06

  10·57

  9·49

  11·51

  11·95

  April 1971

  7·68

  9·73

  10·19

  8·87

  10·98

  11·45

  10·12

  12·18

  12·64

  April 1972

  7·22

  9·15

  9·59

  8·34

  10·33

  10·77

  9·52

  11·45

  11·89

  April 1973

  6·55

  8·21

  8·61

  7·75

  9·35

  9·75

  8·72

  10·32

  10·71

  April 1974

  7·52

  8·91

  9·25

  8·66

  9·95

  10·34

  9·60

  10·89

  11·28

  April 1975

  6·59

  9·11

  9·11

  7·52

  10·05

  10·05

  8·34

  10·90

  10·90

  April 1976

  6·91

  9·06

  9·06

  7·70

  9·85

  9·85

  8·41

  10·54

  10·54

  142
  recognition of underground nuclear explosions, held at the Royal Astronomical Society on 14 February; and if he will make a statement on the utility to his Department of participation in such discussion meetings.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. My Department welcomes and encourages participation in seminars in which there is an exchange of ideas aimed at resolving the technical problems associated with the detection and recognition of underground nuclear explosions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) under the revised strategy for the future of the resettlement units(a) to which voluntary agencies the resettlement units will be transferred, (b) what discussions have been held with voluntary organisations, local authorities and other interested parties concerning the proposal to transfer responsibility for the resettlement units, and (c) if it is intended to re-establish the regional review groups;

  (2) following the transfer of the resettlement units to voluntary organisations, (a) if the planned closure of the units and the rehousing of residents to suitable accommodation will still take place, (b) if the voluntary organisations taking responsibility for the resettlement units will be able to use the proceeds from the sale of land and buildings arising from the closure programme to fund replacement beds and (c) if resources made available to voluntary organisations include an allowance for inflation for both capital and revenue costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of the Resettlement Agency is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Child Support
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of child support for each child in standard rate tax-paying families in 1991 prices from 1961 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is in the table:
  143

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax-paying families expressed at April 19912 prices (£)

  Date3

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  April 1977

  6·64

  7·60

  7·60

  7·31

  8·27

  8·27

  7·89

  8·82

  8·82

  April 1978

  7·91

  7·91

  7·91

  8·53

  8·53

  8·53

  9·04

  9·04

  9·04

  April 1979

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  9·81

  November 1980

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  9·10

  November 1981

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  8·98

  November 1982

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  November 1983

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  9·98

  November 1984

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  10·02

  November 1985

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  9·71

  July 1986

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  9·69

  April 1987

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  9·48

  April 1988

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  9·12

  April 1989

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  April 1990

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  April 1991

  8·25

  7·25

  7·25

  8·25

  7·25

  7·25

  8·25

  7·25

  7·25

  October 1991

  9·11

  7·39

  7·39

  9·11

  7·39

  7·39

  9·11

  7·39

  7·39

  April 51992

  1 The combined value of child tax allowance after clawback and family allowance/child benefit.

  2 Based on the movement in the general index of retail prices at April 1991.

  3 Child tax allowance ceased after the 1978–79 tax year and uprating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4 And subsequent children.

  5 April 1992 benefit rates at April 1991 prices not yet available

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people in Wales in receipt of income support; and how many face prepayment deductions to meet various debts and unpaid bills.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest information available is contained in tables 1.4 and 10.1c of volume 3 of the "Department of Social Security Income Support Statistics Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State far Social Security when he received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the social fund; and if he has any plans to change the operation of the fund in response.

  Mr. Scott
  We have today received this report. We welcome its constructive approach, based on an endorsement of many of the principles on which the fund's operation rests and an acknowledgement of the services which social fund officers are providing. In considering its conclusions and recommendations, we shall wish also to take into account the findings of the university of York social policy research unit's report which we commissioned at the start of the fund and which should be published later this year.

  Meanwhile, we have today placed details of the 1992–93 social fund allocations in the Library. The discretionary budget will be £302 million in total. The budget is now over 30 per cent., or almost £75 million, higher than the April 1991 figure. Budgets have increased for both loans, by £51 million, and community care grants, by £23·3 million, since April 1991. As a result of this latest increase, over 70 per cent. of districts will receive increases of 10 per cent. or more on their loans or grants budget and no office will have a reduced allocation. These increases show the Government's commitment to maintaining an adequate level of provision for the social fund.

  These increased allocations will be supplemented with a number of improvements to the operation of the fund which are currently being introduced by the Benefits Agency. The improvements include a revised and improved application
  144
  form; improved training for social fund officers; improved guidance to assist SFOs in understanding the legal framework and framework for making decisions; improved forms to assist SFOs in making their decisions; and improvements to some of the letters which are sent to applicants to make them clearer and more informative. All these changes are designed to smooth the process of application to the fund and to provide a better service for the people who use it. In addition, we are on target for the introduction of a new computer system next year to administer the social fund. This new system will both considerably speed up the processing of claims, and improve the quality of the decision making.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the amount of money being paid out each month in benefit excluding attendance allowance to residents of residential care homes in the county of Hereford and Worcester.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Disability Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members selected to sit on the disability appeal tribunals are also in receipt of(a) invalidity benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) income support.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for the administration of disability appeal tribunals lies with the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour judge Holden. I have been advised by his office that the information requested is not yet available as recruitment of members is still taking place.

  Pensioners (London Weighting)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans for introducing a London weighting addition for people in receipt of state retirement pensions living in Greater London.
  145
  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so.

  Pensions
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the amount of the old age pension for a single person and for a married couple, (b) the rate of inflation and (c) the level of average earnings for each year from 1970 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Date of benefit up-rating

  (a)1

  (a)2

  (b)3

  (c)4

  November 1969

  5·00

  8·10

  —

  25·00

  September 1971

  6·00

  9·70

  16·5

  30·70

  October 1972

  6·75

  10·90

  8·5

  35·80

  October 1973

  7·75

  12·50

  9·9

  40·40

  July 1974

  10·50

  16·00

  13·5

  46·30

  April 1975

  11·60

  18·50

  17·7

  55·70

  November 1975

  13·30

  21·20

  11·7

  61·80

  November 1976

  15·30

  24·50

  15·0

  69·30

  November 1977

  17·50

  28·00

  13·0

  75·70

  November 1978

  19·50

  31·20

  8·1

  87·40

  November 1979

  23·30

  37·30

  17·4

  103·60

  November 1980

  27·15

  43·45

  15·3

  118·60

  November 1981

  29·60

  47·35

  12·0

  129·50

  November 1982

  32·85

  52·55

  6·3

  138·40

  November 1983

  34·05

  54·50

  4·8

  147·70

  November 1984

  35·80

  57·30

  4·9

  159·60

  November 1985

  38·30

  61·30

  5·5

  168·70

  July 1986

  38·70

  61·95

  1·7

  176·70

  April 1987

  39·50

  63·25

  4·4

  185·50

  April 1988

  41·15

  65·90

  3·9

  200·60

  April 1989

  43·60

  69·80

  8·0

  217·80

  April 1990

  46·90

  75·10

  9·4

  237·20

  April 1991

  52·00

  83·25

  6·4

  253·10

  1 Weekly rate of retirement pension for a single person.

  2 Weekly rate of retirement pension for a married couple.

  3 Percentage increase in the retail prices index (All Items) between benefit uprating dates.

  4 Average weekly earnings of adult male manual workers in the month of the benefit uprating.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Government Boundaries Review, Moyle
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been made by the Government of the Republic of Ireland in connection with the review of local government boundaries of Moyle district council.

  Mr. Brooke
  The question was discussed briefly at the intergovernmental conference in Dublin on 20 November 1991. Conference took note of the independence of the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner for Northern Ireland in drawing up his recommendations.

  Curriculum Monitoring
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the names of the schools involved in the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council monitoring programmes for English, mathematics and science in years one, five and eight.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The schools are:

  Primary

  Kilmaine, Bangor

  146

  Tirkane, Maghera

  St. Colmcille's Omagh

  St. Comgall's, Antrim

  St. Patrick's, Saul

  Orangefield, Belfast

  St. McCartan's, Dromore

  Sion Mills, Strabane

  St. Mary's, Strabane

  St. Columbkille's, Carrickmore

  Bridge, Banbridge

  St. Colman's, Kilkeel

  St. Mary's, Annalong

  Londonderry Model

  St. Joseph's Covent, Newry

  Donaghadee

  Dromara

  Mersey Street, Belfast

  Loanends, Crumlin

  Fullerton Prep, Belfast

  Mt. St. Catherine's, Armagh

  Lisnasharragh, Belfast

  Secondary

  St. Patrick's College, Armagh

  St. Columb's College, Londonderry

  St. Joseph's, Londonderry

  St. Louise's, Belfast

  Kilkeel High

  Faughan Valley High, Cross

  Larne High

  St. Colm's High, Draperstown

  St. Eugene's, Castlederg

  Lurgan High

  Special

  Manor House, Armagh

  Greystone Hall, Limavady

  St. Gerard's Resource Centre, Belfast Jordanstown

  Brookfield, Moira Fleming Fulton, Belfast

  School Meals
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children are not currently eligible for free school meals but would have been before the Social Security Act 1986; and what would be the gross and net costs of restoring their right to free school meals, in Northern Ireland.

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

  University Accommodation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated level of funding required by(a) Queen's university, Belfast and (b) the university of Ulster, to meet identified maintenance needs and refurbishment of existing accommodation together with additional provision required for increasing student enrolment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not currently available in the form required.

  The Universities Funding Council, in consultation with its working party on capital policy, has recently appointed consultants to undertake a detailed study into the accommodation implications of the growth in student numbers over the next decade for all United Kingdom

  147
  universities, including those in Northern Ireland. The council will advise the Department of Education for Northern Ireland on the needs of the universities in Northern Ireland in due course.

  The Department has, however, recently agreed to provide grant off £5·34 million to the University of Ulster to enable it to construct an additional 3,000 sq m block of teaching and staff accommodation on its Jordanstown campus. It has also provided grant aid, and allowed Queen's university to use the proceeds of property sales, to fund an extensive programme of rationalisations and refurbishment amounting to over £10 million in the last five years.

SCOTLAND

  Staff Accommodation
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make an announcement on the future accommodation for Scottish Office staff in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Lang
  Staff are being informed today that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of detailed negotiations the Scottish Office is to occupy a major new office building of 290,000 sq ft to be provided by Forth Properties Limited at Victoria quay, Leith. The new building which will accommodate about 1,400 staff from New St. Andrew's House and some other central Edinburgh buildings will be ready in the summer of 1994. St. Andrew's House will remain the headquarters of the Scottish Office.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans regarding the debt formerly owed to the National Loans Fund by the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I have decided that Scottish Enterprise should continue to take responsibility for the National Loans Fund debt formerly owed by the Scottish Development Agency. In turn, Scottish Enterprise will benefit from interest and capital repayments arising from on-lending financed by National Loans Fund loans. The original intention had been to extinguish the National Loans Fund debt and to return direct to the Exchequer income arising from related loans to sub-borrowers. Scottish Enterprise has been consulted about and is content with the revised arrangements, which have the approval of the Treasury.

  Education (Evening Classes)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the amount spent by each local education authority in Scotland in funding non-certificated evening classes in (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91 and (iii) 1991–92 and any projected level of expenditure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

EMPLOYMENT

  Radiation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Health and Safety Executive has to evaluate the work of the Medical Research Council radiation biology unit on the links between low dose radiation and cell abnormality.

  Mr. Forth
  The study undertaken by the MRC radio biology unit is one of a number of studies on the effects of low-dose radiation currently under way which will need to be assessed together. This is a complex field and it would not be appropriate to evaluate the results of a single study in isolation.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Jackson
  No contracts have been undertaken by any of the agencies in the Department for this purpose. Two private sector consultancy firms have been retained by the headquarters section of the Department for this purpose—Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and Ernst and Young. Both appointments were the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Jackson
  Reviews of pay and grading within the Employment Department group are taking place within the framework of the Government's plans for reform of civil service pay and grading. These were announced by the Chancellor at the end of July 1991 and give Departments and agencies the opportunity to develop their own pay and grading systems, to suit their own needs.

  The Employment Service conducted a small-scale study from July to October 1991, supported by Price Waterhouse Management Consultants.

  The Health and Safety Executive has begun a review of pay and grading structures which will be undertaken with the support of external consultants over the next six months. The consultants have yet to be selected.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the percentage of(a) female part-time workers, (b) male part-time workers, (c) female full-time workers, (d) male full-time workers, (e) all full-time workers, (f) all part-time workers and (g) all workers in (i) Scotland, (ii) Great Britain and (iii) each Scottish region, with hourly earnings of less than £3·40 an hour, excluding overtime; and if he will provide figures for the number of employees this percentage represents in each category in Scotland.
  149
  Mr. Forth
  The percentages requested, which are available from the 1991 new earnings survey, are given in the following table.

  It is broadly estimated, from the new earnings survey and other sources, that around 0·4 million employees in Scotland earned less than £3·40 per hour in April 1991, of whom two thirds were women and one half were part-timers.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) below £3·40 April 1991

  Women

  Men

  All

  Full-time

  Borders

  28·2

  1—

  1—

  Central

  23·5

  6·0

  12·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1—

  7·6

  13·7

  Fife

  22·3

  9·2

  13·9

  Grampian

  20·7

  8·5

  12·3

  Highland

  23·4

  7·4

  13·6

  Lothian

  13·1

  7·1

  9·5

  Strathclyde

  15·8

  7·3

  10·5

  Tayside

  20·1

  9·7

  13·6

  Islands

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Highland and Islands

  23·4

  7·9

  13·6

  Scotland

  17·5

  7·7

  Great Britain

  13·9

  5·7

  8·6

  Part-time

  Borders

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Central

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Fife

  54·8

  2—

  2—

  Grampian

  46·4

  2—

  2—

  Highland

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Lothian

  37·4

  2—

  2—

  Strathclyde

  38·6

  2—

  2—

  Tayside

  49·7

  2—

  2—

  Islands

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Highland and Islands

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Scotland

  42·4

  2—

  2—

  Great Britain

  38·8

  39·0

  38·8

  Full-time and part-time

  Borders

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Central

  32·3

  2—

  2—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  34·8

  2—

  2—

  Fife

  34·2

  2—

  2—

  Grampian

  30·5

  2—

  2—

  Highland

  30·2

  2—

  2—

  Lothian

  20·6

  2—

  2—

  Strathclyde

  23·3

  2—

  2—

  Tayside

  29·9

  2—

  2—

  Islands

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Highland and Islands

  31·2

  2—

  2—

  Scotland

  25·8

  2—

  2—

  Great Britain

  22·5

  6·7

  13·8

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  1 — Denotes sampling error too large or sample error too small for reliable estimate.

  2 — Denotes information not available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the need for legislation to assist small businesses to obtain prompt payment of bills; and if he will make a statement.
  150
  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans at present to introduce prompt payment legislation, but I am keeping the issue under close review. Though I understand the frustrations felt by small businesses because of delayed payments, I remain to be convinced that legislation would be effective. The majority of organisations representing small firms share the Government's view that the effect of a legislative approach would be, at best, minimal and could even be damaging to the small firms sector. I have made it known, however, that I would be interested to receive views on how an effective legislative framework might operate.

  This Department will continue to address late payment through a strategy of persuasion and education and, in addition to a number of measures already in place, I am considering what further initiatives may be appropriate.

  Remploy
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in establishing a new financial arrangement with Remploy.

  Mr. Howard
  Discussions have been taking place between my Department and Remploy to establish arrangements which would enable the company to operate a more flexible financial regime within an agreed planning framework which would include quantified annual performance targets. Tomorrow, I will join the chairman of Remploy, Sir Ivor Cohen, to sign documents setting out the financial arrangements under which Remploy will operate from 1 April 1992.

  These new arrangements, which will be operated on my behalf by the chief executive of the Employment Service, will enable the company to improve its efficiency, competitiveness and value for money. The greater commercial freedom which will be enjoyed by Remploy should benefit the workforce of severely disabled employees for whom the company was established.

  I will arrange for copies of the documents describing the new arrangements, and in due course the annual performance agreement that I will have with Remploy, to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be made available by the Employment Service on request individuals or organisations with a genuine interest in the arrangements.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the area boundaries laid down for the purposes of the budgets of training and enterprise councils in general, and East Anglia in particular.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The boundaries of all training and enterprise councils—TECs —were established in discussion with the groups of employers who joined together in local areas to respond to the government's invitation to establish TECs. Those discussions took account of such factors as travel to work patterns, local demography and the structure of industry and commerce.

  The budgets for individual TECs are negotiated between the TEC and this Department's regional directors and are not related to the geographical area covered.

HEALTH

  Cost Rent Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ring-fence funding for the cost rent scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Cash-limited allocations made by regional health authorities to family health services authorities (FHSAs) cover spending on general practitioner premises, practice staff and practice computers. How allocations are spent between these three headings is a matter for FHSAs in the light of local needs and priorities. There are no plans to ring-fence funds for cost rent schemes within these allocations.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on cost rent schemes to improve general practitioners' surgeries in each of the last five years in(a) Waltham Forest, (b) London and (c) nationally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is shown in the table for the last two years. Records of individual cost rent expenditure prior to 1989–90 are unavailable.

  Cost-rent expenditure

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  Waltham Forest (including Redbridge)

  0·534

  0·785

  London

  15·341

  28·487

  Nationally

  56·766

  79·593

  Drug Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost to the NHS resulting from the prescription of branded drugs rather than their chemically identical generic version in each of the past four years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not possible to estimate such a cost.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the arrangements concerning charging for NHS nebulisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No charge can be made for nebulisers supplied by district health authorities as part of NHS treatment.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he will ensure that adequate resources are made available for providing treatment for and giving advice on myalgic encephalomyelitis to general practitioners;

  (2) if he will give details of the current funding of research into the treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and what guidance is given by his Department to general practitioners in regard to treatment of this condition.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no question of patients not receiving the treatment they need when they visit their 152
  general practitioner, including referral to a specialist if that is necessary. It is not the practice of the Department to issue clinical guidance to doctors, but we are encourged by the increasing number of informed articles on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) appearing in professional journals and by the number of regional health authorities approving courses for GPs in ME; the various ME groups do valuable work in this area too. With regard to research into causes of and treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis, I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 21 November 1991 at column 313.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund research into the physical causes of myalgic encephalomyelitis and possible treatments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 21 November 1991 at column 313.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reconsider the definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis as given in the DSS disability living handbook.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fazakerley Hospital
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received from the Mental Health Commission a report on staffing levels at Fazakerley hospital, Liverpool.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. I understand that the commission has visited this hospital and are discussing its findings with the health authority. This reflects normal practice in handling the commission's reports.

  Nurse Regradings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to pay arrears to nurses regraded after appeals against a grade awarded in 1988 when the hospital concerned has become a trust in the intervening period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance issued to the national health service makes it clear that trusts assume all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities for the contracts of employment of people formerly employed by health authorities. Trusts are therefore responsible for any arrears of pay which may become due if a nurse is regraded following an appeal.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by individual health authority in England the provision made in the final accounts for 1990–91 for payments due to nurses who awaited settlement of the grading claims; if he will estimate the total sum due to be paid on 31 March 1991 for grading arrears to such nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision made in the final accounts of health authorities for 1990–91 for payments due to nurses who awaited settlements of
  153
  grading claims is not separately identifiable. No estimate of the total sum of arrears due to be paid as a result of grading appeals can be made.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Radiotherapy Exposure Action Group; and what was his response.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No representations have been received.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require all radiotherapy departments to routinely provide all patients with written information about radiotherapy they are to receive, with the information indicating any likely side effects; and if he will ensure that written consent is requested if the treatment is in any way experimental.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All patients have a right to reject or consent to treatment. They are entitled to as much information as they need, on an individual basis, to enable them to make a proper decision. Written consent should be obtained where a proposed procedure, including an experimental one, carries a substantial risk or substantial side effect. Most radiotherapy departments routinely provide patients with information on side effects of their treatment.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health approximately how many people develop cancer annually and are treated with radiotherapy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, there were approximately 193,000 registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasms in England. Information on whether radiotherapy forms part of a patient's treatment is not routinely collected.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the staff size of the inspectorate set within his Department to enforce the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1988; when it was established; and what changes there have been in the level of radiation doses since 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of Health inspectorate to enforce the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 was established in 1989 and currently warrants are held by four officials. The inspectorate is supported by the Department of Health (DH) administrative division concerned with ionising radiation.

  Currently, the DH inspectorate is concentrating on investigating incidents that have been reported, but since 1988 we have asked health authorities to introduce dose reduction strategies.

  DH has endorsed the joint report of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the Royal College of Radiologists entitled "Patient Dose Reduction in Diagnostic Radiology" and is currently funding, at NRPB, a national survey of diagnostic radiology doses which will be published in 1993.

  All these initiatives are directed towards reducing doses in the diagnostic radiology field.
  154
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which professional bodies advise him on radiotherapy exposure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department holds regular meetings with the Royal College of Radiologists and is offered advice on an informal basis by the British Nuclear Medicine Society. Both these professional bodies advise the Department on radiotherapy exposure among other issues.

  The Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee (ARSAC) advises Ministers on the administration of radioactive medicinal products and related scientific and radiological safety matters. The members appointed to this committee are proposed by the relevant professional bodies.

  The chief medical officer at the Department is advised by his radiotherapy adviser, Professor Bleehan, on radiotherapy matters relating to the NHS.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what sources he is provided with information about the extent and nature of damage from exposure to radiotherapy; and if he will establish a research programme to provide comprehensive information and to look at ways of preventing damage from both excess and inadequate exposure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the extent and nature of damage from exposure to radiotherapy is available in the clinical literature, as a result of research carried out by doctors, radiobiologists and related medical scientists.

  The Department circulated a document "Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy" to all radiography departments in May 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library. This document was produced by a working party established by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. A research project to establish the applicability of this approach is being funded at two centres by the Department. The results of the research will be promulgated widely.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require his radiation inspectorate regularly to inspect radiotherapy equipment and its use in all NHS hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Employers in the NHS and private health sector are required by the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 to ensure that radiotherapy equipment is designed, constructed, installed and maintained so as to be capable of providing the required treatment with the minimum of exposure. These regulations are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of patients damaged by(a) excess radiotherapy and (b) inadequate amounts of radiotherapy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information on which such an estimate could be based is not available centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require all district health authorities(a) regularly to monitor exposure to radiotherapy, (b) to record every incident of excess or inadequate exposure and (c) to prepare an annual report for him, to include details on the nature, quality and age of its radiotherapy equipment.
  155
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All district health authorities are required by the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 (IR(POPUMET) Regs 1988) to ensure their staff are adequately trained and that those who physically direct medical exposures"ensure a dose of ionising radiation to the patient is as low as reasonably practicable in order to achieve the required diagnostic or therapeutic purpose".

  Every radiotherapy treatment is calculated for a specific patient and involves the regular monitoring of exposures from radiotherapy machines, as well as the regular review and clinical audit of the results of such treatment. All radiotherapy departments are required by the IR(POPUMET) Regs 1988) to keep an inventory of radiotherapy equipment which would include details of the nature, quality and age of that equipment.

  We would expect provider units to report any untoward incidents to the Department of Health inspectorate.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified radiotherapists are in post within his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not employ any radiotherapists.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a central fund to provide immediate no fault payments for those damaged by excess or inadequate radiotherapy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No-fault compensation was proposed as part of the National Health Service (Compensation) Bill which was defeated on a free vote by a substantial majority at Second Reading. The Government's position remains that the basis for seeking compensation should be through proof of negligence actions through the courts.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his estimates of the numbers of tinnitus sufferers in the United Kingdom; how many trained specialists are employed in the NHS to help alleviate this condition; what funding is currently provided to charities and research institutions working on tinnitus problems; and what are his plans for future funding and assistance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that between 0·5 per cent. and 1 per cent. of the population are seriously affected by tinnitus. There are 375 consultants in otolaryngology and 13 consultant audiological physicians employed by the NHS in England. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. In 1991 the MRC spent £112,000 on research into tinnitus.

  The Meniere's Society, many of whose members suffer from tinnitus, received a grant of £7,500 in 1991–92 and have applied for a further grant in 1992–93. Decisions on funding for 1992–93 onwards will be announced shortly. There are no plans for funding of any other voluntary organisations at present but any future applications will be carefully considered.

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the research publications on the absence of the side effect of peripheral neuropathy in United Kingdom leprosy patients taking thalidomide;

  (2) what, apart from producing teratogenic effects on the foetus, are the other major adverse effects of thalidomide; if he will ensure that every patient being given thalidomide on a named patient basis is warned that the drug can cause a severe and permanent loss of sensation; and if he will require manufacturers to give this information in a leaflet included in the packaging of the drug;

  (3) if he will list the basis for the findings reported in the letter of 19 December from the Minister of Health to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that none of the experts on leprosy has seen thalidomide neuropathy in their patients; and what evidence he has of the frequency of this adverse effect in patients with other diseases taking thalidomide.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A literature survey undertaken by the Department has failed to reveal any research publications on the absence of peripheral neuropathy in United Kingdom leprosy patients taking thalidomide.

  Apart from the teratogenic effects of thalidomide on the foetus the other major adverse event is peripheral neuropathy. Thalidomide is used to treat a very few patients with rare diseases unresponsive to other treatments on a "named-patient" basis by an experienced group of physicians. They will be alert to the possibility of nerve damage and should be able to recognise it at an early stage.

  The provision of warnings about the use of drugs prescribed on a "named-patient" basis lies with the doctor writing the prescription, not with the supplier. In the case of thalidomide, a practitioner should arrange for appropriate warnings about the possible side effects to be provided when it is dispensed to the patient.

  My letter of 19 December 1991 to the right hon. Member was based on the clinical findings of the panel of leprosy opinion. This experienced group of physicians who treat a condition that affects peripheral nerves have not detected signs of peripheral neuropathy associated with the use of thalidomide. Their findings are in agreement with the absence of any report in the literature that thalidomide causes peripheral neuropathy in patients treated for leprosy. Peripheral neuropathy is a well known side effect in patients with other diseases being treated with thalidomide. There are no accurate figures for the frequency of this side effect.

  Abortions
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the total number of abortions under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 in the Sheffield health authority area in 1991(a) by the ground on which they were performed and (b) how many were repeat abortions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  Dentists' Fees
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will discuss with the British Dental Association the need to avoid cuts in fees paid by his Department; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the payment of the arrears of fees for dentists following the recommendations by the pay review body.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The proposed increase in target net income of 8·5 per cent. which was recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body (DDRB) was accepted by the Government. To ensure that the level at which fees are pitched in the coming year will deliver this proposed increase in dentists' net income the health departments consulted the British Dental Association (BDA). Following discussions between the British Dental Association and the health departments, agreement was reached to hold a joint inquiry to review the level of payments to dentists in 1991–92, the results of which will be considered by the Health departments and the British Dental Association in May when they reconsider the appropriate fee scale for 1992–93; simultaneously, they will begin a more fundamental review of the structure of dentists' remuneration.

  Southern Derbyshire Health Authority
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for the number of patients in the Southern Derbyshire health authority area who have been waiting for more than two years for an operation; and if he will give equivalent figures for a year ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest provisional figures show that at December 1991 there were 29 patients waiting over two years for treatment in the Southern Derbyshire health authority area. The equivalent figure in December 1990 was 108. The authority expects to have no patient waiting over two years by 31 March.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for the number of health care staff working for Southern Derbyshire health authority in 1982 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The whole-time equivalent number of health care staff working for Southern 158
  Derbyshire health authority in 1982 and 1990 were 4,740 and 4,960 respectively. These are direct care staff, which includes nursing and midwifery (including agency), medical and dental (including permanent paid, honorary and locum staff, but excluding consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the region) and professional and technical staff. The sources of the data are the Department of Health's annual censuses of national health service medical and non-medical manpower.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial information, including sets of accounts, will be made available at the annual meetings of NHS trusts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At each annual public meeting NHS trusts are required to make available their audited annual accounts and any report made on those accounts by the auditor.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the numbers of people waiting over two years for treatment who were removed from the lists between 1 October and 31 December because of(a) being treated and (b) for a reason other than being treated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not yet available centrally.

  Illegitimate Births
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of illegitimate births to teenage girls in England in each year since 1980 in each registry area, giving the age in years of the teenage mothers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information for registry areas could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. Information for the mother's usual local authority of residence has been placed in the Library. Annual tables are available for 1980 and for 1982 to 1990 (inclusive). Industrial action by registrars means that such a detailed analysis is impractical for 1981.

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

Broadcasting Act 1990
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, no.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that monosyllable. Is he aware that there is widespread fear that Mr. David Plowright's unfortunate disappearance from Granada TV is a symptom that profits will come before programmes under the Act, especially as in 1993 an estimated £350 million will go to the Treasury as a result of the auction? Further, if, as the Minister has just said, the Government are not prepared to amend the legislation, will they consider asking the ITC to vary percentages on revenue paid annually by the licensees so that quality will come before profit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that the departure of Mr. Plowright would have the effect which the noble Baroness believes. The Independent Television Commission awards its licences to companies and not to individuals. Granada's programme proposals are incorporated in its licence conditions. With regard to the point about percentages, that is a matter for the ITC.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not the Government decide to amend the 1990 Act, note should be taken of the absolute lack of impartiality on news and views relating to party political matters?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, special provisions are made for party political broadcasts at the time of a general election. My noble friend seems to think that we might be amending the Act, but we do not intend to do so.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in the light of the experience of the Act, will the Government look at the possibility of putting a reserve price on the franchise? Is the noble Earl aware that some companies bought for a few thousand pounds assets which were worth £7 million because no reserve price was put on the franchises at auction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware of that. However, even if I were aware of it, that does not come strictly under the Broadcasting Act.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there seems to be no purpose in amending the Act since it is not obeyed in any way either by
746
independent television or by the BBC? Did my noble friend see "Panorama" yesterday? That programme was heavily slanted in favour of coal. At the end of the programme it recommended that only the rejection of government policy would enable coal to retain its present place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what I may perhaps describe as an unhelpful supplementary question. I did not watch the programme because I was in your Lordships' House preventing the Government from being what I can only describe as ambushed.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is widespread anxiety throughout the country about the future of broadcasting? When people see the difficulties which radio and television are in after the passing of the Act, they are wondering what fate the Government are cooking up for the BBC.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government are not cooking up anything for the BBC. That is dealt with completely differently. There will be plenty of opportunity for consideration and thought about what should happen when the current licence comes to an end. To turn to the Broadcasting Act and its effects, I can understand that there is anxiety about that. There is always anxiety when there is change. Change had to take place because of new and different technologies. We made arrangements so that provided a programme passed a quality threshold and the service could be maintained, then the highest bidder obtained the licence.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the only television company which observes the impartiality code is Sky? That is why the Opposition do not like it. Is he aware further that in a recent "Question Time" programme on the BBC, the only person who was nominally a Conservative was Mr. Heath, who explained that Saddam Hussein was quite justified in his actions and that we should have been totally wrong in provoking him into a war? Further, is he aware that "Panorama" is choosing a new editor and on the short list is a Mr. Aaronovitch who is an ex-communist, an extreme Left-winger and may actually get the job? Other than Sky, no television company has any intention of observing the impartiality code. No matter how many laws are passed, they will not be obeyed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a pretty good tour d'horizon, if I may say so. However, I do not agree with the conclusions of the noble Lord.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I feel some sympathy with the Minister on this occasion. He has had so much trouble from his noble friends in the passage of the Bill, and with their ridiculous arguments on impartiality. However, in his response to my supplementary question in relation to varying percentages in revenue, he said that it was a matter for the ITC. Will the Minister agree that the Act is a piece of Government legislation, and that if something is to be done to improve it—as many of us feel and have felt

747
all the way through —it is for the Government to take action? To keep saying that it is a matter for the ITC is not good enough.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was trying to repeat that the Government have no intention of amending the Act. I know that it is difficult for the noble Baroness to accept that. But it has been in operation for only about 18 months. We must let the hare run a little before we change it.

Scientific Research: Funding
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the procedures under which grants are made for scientific research in order to ensure continuity.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Department of Education and Science has a rolling programme for the review of the management systems of the research councils, including their procedures for making project grants. The Government have recently announced changes in the dual support system under which research in higher education institutions is supported through block grants from the Universities Funding Council and project grants from the research councils.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, will the Minister undertake, or do her best, to procure some extension to the Treasury mind in order to accommodate the notion that research projects, once embarked upon, should be given a reasonable assurance of continuity of funding? Without that, the projects will be crippled, the money will be wasted, and those involved will become demoralised and go elsewhere.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall always take back to my right honourable colleagues messages from this House that occur during Question Time. However, 78 per cent. of the Science and Engineering Research Council's funds are devoted to projects — mostly European—other than pre-empted funds for subscriptive projects. The amount is therefore substantial. But at the end of the day it comes down to determining priorities.
Lord Peston: My Lords, one can exaggerate the benefits of continuity. Sometimes, drastic change is required in all our affairs. In the case of scientific research, does the department of the noble Baroness have assessors on the relevant councils? Do they convey to those councils, in assessing priorities, the kind of thoughts suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton? I refer specifically to staff for whom continuity is of the essence because, apart from their careers, work really does go on.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am all for continuity in the context of the first use of that word by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. In relation to his second point, the work done by assessors is important and will be materially important when pressing the case for continuity of funding.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm my own experience of some years ago? There were only two wise criteria for funding research. One was a hopeful lead and the other a first class researcher. The less that government interfere with a specific project the better.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what my noble and learned friend says. But the new system that has been set up and the framework within which the funding is now made mean that the Government are not interfering with funds.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, do the Government recognise the splendid and valuable work being done by some private companies? As one who is interested in Alzheimer's disease, can I ask whether the Minister is aware of the thousands of pounds and the manpower which Parke-Davis, for example, is investing in research in that area? Is that not something which the Government should recognise and assist in any way they can?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I recognise absolutely the specific need for research pointed out by the noble Lord. However, I am not certain what his question is. In terms of recognising the valuable contribution made by private companies, that goes without saying. The Government do regard it as valuable. I hope that the noble Lord is not saying that the Government should recognise it in such a way that it has an influence on the amount of money that the Government make available to research.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend undertake to read some of the recent reports from the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Medical Research Council? On the pages of those reports she will find, albeit expressed in restrained terms, a deep disappointment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I shall be guided in my bedtime reading by the request of my noble friend. However, I believe that the chairman welcomed the new rising profile of funding and the new system of determining pre-empted funds for subscription projects. In that respect I believe that at least for the moment the situation in 1992–93 is rather happier than it was in 1991.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Baroness expecting to do any bedtime reading? I do not think that she has any bedtime, so far as I can see.

IAEA: Strengthening of Powers
2.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the German proposal to give the International Atomic Energy Authority stronger powers to intervene and inspect nuclear facilities in countries suspected of using them to develop atomic bombs.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government are not aware of any specific German proposal. However, we fully support the proposals made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Community member states at the meeting last September of the Board of Governors of the agency.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the present staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency is only 200? I believe that foreign Minister Genscher has given his weight to the view that unless it is increased to 2,000 it will be impossible for the agency to carry out the task of making sure that nuclear non-proliferation works. Is the Minister not aware that if one wills a specific aim one must will the means towards it or it will not be achieved?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government are working with partners to strengthen the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure that the shortcomings revealed by the Iraqi evasions are remedied. There is much work to be done. I am aware of the suggestion that the manpower of the agency be increased. We do not believe that an increase of this magnitude is necessary. The needs of the safeguards system will naturally occupy a central part of the discussions in the agency's forthcoming budget.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord a little further on this point? It is not only a question of an increase in manpower, but also of having the necessary authority. I am doubtful—and perhaps the noble Lord will confirm what is the Government's view—whether under its present constitution the authority has the power to carry out the investigations which it needs to execute to make sure that atomic energy is not being converted into atomic bombs.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, makes a very interesting point. The authority of the agency is being inspected. I can tell the noble Lord that at the moment the belief is that it has the necessary authority, alongside the United Nations, to do the job that it is meant to do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, how can the agency do the job properly when it had a 13 per cent. cut in its budget last year? Will the Government answer that question? Will the Minister also be kind enough to answer the question concerning the mandatory reporting of imports and exports of nuclear materials which I understand was a proposal before the meeting of the agency which has been
750
deferred until June? What is the Government's view of that proposal? Do the Government support it and will they also support it at the June meeting?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, as regards the second question, I do not believe that I am in a position to know at what stage those negotiations are or what view we take at the moment. Much work is going on. In relation to funding, the needs of the agency are being closely discussed and watched at the moment. We have to establish those needs before we can properly understand the necessary budget.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the questions asked by the two noble Lords are extremely valid? It is very important that powers are strengthened in order to make sure that people are not using atomic energy for military purposes. Does the Minister also agree that the powers of the agency derive from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and not from the charter of the agency itself? Does the Minister further agree that it is the non-proliferation treaty that requires strengthening? Will the Government undertake to try to bring that about at the next review of the treaty?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I accept the importance of these matters. Our view is that the treaty is working rather well and that more and more people are coming into it. It is the source of the strength of the agency. A great number of proposals are being worked on. We have made a number of proposals, including special inspections which allow locations in addition to declared sites to be visited. They are a key feature. The agency has the right to conduct special inspections on sites with comprehensive safeguard agreements. That was confirmed at the meeting of the board of governors last week. There are other proposals including the requirement for the notification of new nuclear facilities before construction, a declaration of the domestic production of uranium ore concentrate, and the reporting to the agency of exports of other nuclear equipment. I understand that the requirement for notification of new facilities was accepted and that other proposals are subject to further discussion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether all our atomic facilities are available for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Authority?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the safeguards do not apply to the military cycle. All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to the EURATOM safeguards and to the terms of the UK/IAEA/EURATOM safeguards agreement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that include weapons-grade plutonium held at power stations?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, yes, I believe that it does.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord hear in mind that the inspectorate might be a very good place to use the skills of the former Soviet nuclear

751
scientists, bearing in mind that America is said to be finding money to employ these people simply to stop them disappearing into the third world?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about the brain drain, that is clearly a potential cause for serious concern. We are looking at a number of ways to prevent the proliferation of expertise. We fully support the initiative to establish a scientific centre in CIS to provide peaceful employment for former Soviet scientists. The initiative accords with ideas of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put to Mr. Yeltsin in January. The United Kingdom contribution is still under consideration. We shall be playing a full part in the discussions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the Government are satisfied with the way in which the non-proliferation treaty is working and with the powers behind the authority, have they looked at the history of this matter? For example, can the noble Lord tell us how many and which countries have a nuclear facility and to what extent that is being used to make nuclear weapons? Does the answer that the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Williams that apparently the Government are quite happy that the budget should be reduced by 13 per cent. not rather smack of complacency?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, misheard me if he believes that I said that I was happy with the situation. I said that we would examine the needs of the agency. As regards the other questions which the noble Lord asked about the non-proliferation treaty, I believe that we are getting rather a long way from the German proposal which is referred to on the Order Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, having regard to the unusual degree of unanimity that there is on this matter, in referring it to his right honourable friend, will the noble Lord emphasise the need for some degree of energy and emergency because the matter is not one which can be left unattended?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I wish to emphasise the enormous importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to this area.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in case there should be any misunderstanding of a very important matter, will the noble Lord make two things clear? The first is this: will the noble Lord confirm that the IAEA safeguards are only applicable to those non-nuclear powers which have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Secondly, will the noble Lord also make it clear that no safeguards under the non-proliferation treaty are required to be placed in nuclear powers?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct on both those points.

School Meals
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the provision and take-up of school meals.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that local education authorities have the freedom to decide what type of school meals service to provide and the content of any meals provided. It is for parents and pupils to decide the level of take-up.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering my Question. Does she not agree that a serious situation is arising in the school meals service in that only four children out of 10 now take school meals? Is she aware that under the Social Security Act 400,000 children from poorer families lost their free entitlement to school meals? In contrast, is the Minister aware that a recent survey shows that as many as 80 per cent. of mothers questioned thought that the provision of school meals was of great importance? Will the Minister undertake to monitor the uptake of school meals in the face of the fear that it will decline even further? Will she also undertake to draw up a set of national nutritional guidelines for school meals in order to ensure that there is a similar standard in different areas?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the statistics, the take-up is lower than it was in the 1970s. That is not surprising because the eating habits of children have changed quite dramatically since that time. It is interesting to note that 42 per cent. of all pupils took a school meal in January 1991. That compares with 49 per cent. —which is only a 7 per cent. difference—at the beginning of the decade. It would be helpful if the 80 per cent. of parents who responded to a questionnaire in the way that the noble Baroness has set out would follow that up with action and take up the offer of school meals. The truth is that school meals are not as popular in some parts of the country as in others.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, has any research been carried out through health visitors into the health of children whose parents are on income support and those children whose parents neither give them sandwiches nor pay for their school meals? The latter have a pizza from a van at the school gate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may make two points in response to my noble friend's important question. First, school children are out of school for 175 days of the year. Therefore we cannot simply leave it to schools to be the sole nutritional provider for our young children. Secondly, and on a more helpful point to my noble friend, the Government are in the process of preparing a health of the nation paper which follows up a very useful Green Paper to which there was a considerably healthy response. As part of that, school meals and their impact on young people will be

753
addressed. It is always possible that if it is felt necessary, a task force could be set up to review the very area that my noble friend has pointed out.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government know why there has been this reduction in take up? Is it because of the rising prices of school meals which therefore put them beyond the bounds of poor families?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the poorest families are helped by having free school meals provided. All local education authorities are bound to provide school meals for poor children. In other cases, local education authorities have to make a very real choice about whether they subsidise school meals to a greater level or whether that money is spent on education. Those are not easy choices for education authorities.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in forming the Government's advice to local education authorities on this important matter, will my noble friend enhance the prospects for the humble, but delicious and nutritious herring? Many herring are being caught in the North Sea and are, sadly, being processed into fish meal. Herring are extremely good fish. Will she try and encourage more use to be made of them in school meals?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with what has been said about herring. However, I think that providing herrings for small children might produce some practical difficulties. The important point my noble friend makes is that one of the issues that is to be considered regarding the health of the nation document is the possibility of issuing nutrition guidelines to schools so that when our children are fed, they are fed in the most healthy way possible.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is considering issuing guidelines on the nutrition of school meals, will she consider consulting Caroline Waldegrave? The meals that she has organised for Guy's hospital are apparently so delicious that no one can resist them. The take up might then be greater.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Baroness is making. I also link with that a tribute to the many schools now which are not just simply providing nutritional food for young people but build it in as a core part of the educational system. Schools are linking-in education about nutrition with what they find available to them in the dining room.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, on the subject of nutrition, will the Government consider taking up the idea of re-introducing compulsory milk at schools? The "pinta-a-day" might go some way towards assisting the dairy industry; but I am certain it would go a long way towards encouraging the health of children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is confession time for me. I have to say that I was one of those people who was subjected to one-third of a pint of milk a day at school. It was kept on the radiators to be warmed. The memories of it are still as painful now as they were
754
then. However, I believe that the medical advice was that many of our children were suffering from obesity, and that feeding them another pint of milk a day would not be a resolution to their nutritional problems.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the recommendation about milk indicates the end of Thatcherism?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with that. The system is flexible. Where schools believe that young people would benefit nutritionally from milk it is still possible to make that provision.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the Minister's earlier reply when she said that local authorities had to make a difficult choice between providing free or cheap school meals, and the education of the children, will the Government give some consideration to relieving local authorities of that horrible task by providing sufficient funds where both needs can be met?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord uses an artificial distinction. The money that is spent locally and the money that is spent nationally is taxpayers' money at the end of the day; so one simply switches the burden from local to national taxation. It is all money, and it all has to be paid for.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister happy that the DES does not have responsibility for this any more? Does she agree that there was a social benefit to be gained in children sitting down for a meal, and having a quiet time in the middle of the day, particularly the small children—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that that raises such a laugh; but I think there was a benefit and that it was a good thing for children to sit down and have a quiet time for a short while, instead of dashing around and probably not digesting their food very well. I hope that a little more information will be collected about the social effects of what has been going on, with the DES responsibility going altogether.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not say that the responsibility has gone altogether. For practical purposes, LEAs and schools themselves have the responsibility. But there are two points to be made about that. Of course it is very good for children to have a quiet time in the day. But we live in a free country, and if parents on behalf of their children do not take up the offer of meals, that is one thing; but it is worth noting that schools have a responsibility to make a place available at the table for any child in the school, whether or not they take school meals. That may be simply to have a quiet time or to eat the sandwiches or provisions that they have brought themselves.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the Answer that the Minister gave that she agrees that there are varying standards of meals throughout the

755
country, will she be more specific in her answer about the Government setting up national nutritional standards, and also monitoring whether the uptake of school meals goes on decreasing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a continual monitoring of the take up of school meals. I have already mentioned the statistics over the past decade; that will continue. There are annual returns about the take up. I also mentioned the health of the nation paper; I mentioned, too, the possibility that if it is deemed necessary, as a result a task force could be set up to investigate the particular anxieties of the noble Baronesses and of the other noble Lords.

Business
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill may be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour, and in that event during the adjournment the Committee stage of the Prison Security Bill and the Third Reading of the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill will be taken.

Access to Neighbouring Land Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Murton of Lindisfarne.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is a useful Bill and one that one hopes may go through the whole of the parliamentary machinery before the general election. I should like immediately to pay a tribute on behalf of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, who has piloted this measure through with great skill and with his usual courtesy.
This Bill which was nodded through in another place without one word, except the moving of Motions. There was no question of criticism of the Bill, and no wish to amend it. Your Lordships' House has fulfilled its usual function of revising legislation, and it has done so with consummate skill.
It was only last night that your Lordships' House also found a useful way of exercising its authority. One rejoices that in regard to this measure—and this can be unanimous, whereas my former remark may not be—one can be unanimous about the part that the House has played in this Bill.
I shall be brief, but I should like to refer to the useful revisions that were made in this House at the previous procedural steps in the Bill. We managed to insert into the Bill a provision that the court should not make an order for access where there was such hardship as would seem to the court to be unreasonable for an order to be made. We also put in a very useful provision that registration under the Land Registration Act could take place in regard to
756
applications and access orders. We made provision in this House that compensation should be paid to a householder against whom an access order was made where the place was used for residential purposes and where there was a substantial interference with privacy or indeed with convenience. It was my privilege to be associated, together with other colleagues in your Lordships' House, with those amendments, in regard to which, with his usual kindness, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor added his assistance when it came to advising the House on the type of amendments that ought to be made.
I have only one other comment to make. In the course of the progress of the Bill many of us expressed the hope that it would not lead automatically to litigation between neighbours. That is not the best way of providing a suitable neighbourly relationship. I remember the noble and learned Lord advising the House that that was not something that one could put into the measure but that one could put it into the procedural rules that would govern court procedures. It may be of use if I echo the hope now that those procedural rules will see to it that, before litigation is started, civilised notices are given by one party to another with an equally civilised opportunity to respond.
It is with pleasure that I associate my colleagues on these Benches with support for the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope, as I said, that it has a speedy passage through Parliament.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to support the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, and thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the work that he did on it. But I should like to stress, perhaps more than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the original purpose will now be fulfilled. Every Member of Parliament has had in his postbag some appalling case of obstruction which has caused misery—lifelong misery in many cases—to people who could not even mend their roof because of the situation. That, I hope, will be put right. Certainly, I hope and trust that the Commons will act exactly as they did before and pass the Bill now without discussion since it has been through the mill of your Lordships' House.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who mentioned me. I too wish the Bill very well and hope that, with goodwill at the other end of the corridor, it may reach the statute book very quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, it deals with an extremely important problem. The fact that this procedure is available may well produce a degree of neighbourliness that was not always present before and the absence of which gave rise to the problems.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, before I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his very gracious remarks. He is more than modest because he produced some of the most telling and important amendments. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Coleraine for his support and to my

757
noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for what he did to encourage me. Going back to the very beginning, I also hope that the Law Commission itself may be encouraged in the hope that the Bill will go through. The measure originated from that august body.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Murton of Lindisfarne.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duty of Secretary of State to secure provision of further education]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) In discharging his duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall ensure that no student under the age of 25 who has learning difficulties shall be required to pay a fee for further education.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this amendment, we discuss also Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 7, 13, 14 and 15. The purpose of the amendment is to make provision for students with learning difficulties who require longer to complete their course because of their disability. The Government have given a commitment that students between the ages of 16 and 18 will not be required to pay fees for further education. That welcome reassurance requires to be extended for some students with disability.
Students with learning disabilities are often willing and able to learn but they do so rather more slowly. As the Minister will be aware, research funded by the Scottish Office education department on the transition from school to adulthood of young people with recorded special educational needs has shown that the transition is more complex and lengthy than for people without learning disabilities. There may also be a need for students with physical disabilities to take
758
longer. Sometimes it is because their disability means that they have to use special aids or techniques to carry out their work. Computer aids can be excellent tools for the disabled but they are often laborious to operate. People with visual handicaps do not have the easy access to written material that sighted people have. Many people with disabilities often have associated health problems which may require them to take time off from a course of further education.
I hope that the Minister, who suggested the grouping of the amendments, will feel that this is a good enough introduction for him to be able to accept the amendments or at least to accept the spirit of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in all these amendments, including Amendment No. 2 to which I have not put my name. That was an omission on my part, but I support him on the amendment. The matters arising here were discussed on the English Bill. On the first amendment the Government gave a concession that people up to the age of 25 with special educational needs would not have to pay their fees. I would be very surprised if the Government were not prepared to give a similar commitment in Scotland as I have not heard of any cases of people north of the Border having a different learning curve despite the difference in accent.
One of the most important amendments in the group is Amendment No. 14 which deals with assessment. If we have accurate assessment of our special educational needs and can find out exactly what the special needs are and the type of help that is needed, we can more accurately, more quickly and more cheaply provide that assistance. Surely the Government must concede that point. If they cannot accept the amendment they must come up with something very similar to it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support this group of amendments. I shall not add much because the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already put the case very clearly. As we said during proceedings on the Further and Higher Education Bill for England and Wales, the Government were extremely generous in their concessions to people with learning difficulties. I hope that they will be as generous to Scotland.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the amount of work that he has put into the Bill and into preparing his amendments and also for agreeing so readily to the groupings that we have before us. I know that Members opposite have spoken briefly. I understand the intention of their amendments. If Members of the Committee will permit me, I shall answer them at some length.
The other place, rightly, gave considerable attention to the needs of students with learning difficulties. Our policy is clear: we wish to ensure that access to further education is more widely available, and that includes provision for those with learning difficulties. The Bill includes an important new statutory safeguard for such students. Clause 1 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard

759
to the requirements of persons over school age who have learning difficulties in exercising his duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of further education in Scotland.
A significant number of amendments have been made to the Bill by the Government to strengthen its provisions as regards students with learning difficulties. In other areas a commitment has been given to issue guidance to boards of management on how they exercise their duties and powers in relation to students with learning difficulties. I think that there is an important point of principle here that we should consider. Legislation can at times effect improvement in people's lives, but it is not always the best approach to be prescriptive. One of the best ways of improving the position of students with learning difficulties in further education is for boards of management to have clear guidance on best practice, to be adequately funded by the Secretary of State to provide for such students, but, ultimately, to have the freedom to adopt imaginative ways of developing provision. I am very confident that boards will do so.
As regards Amendment No. 1, part of the present difficulty in this area is the lack of basic information and of a coherent national approach. To rectify that, a lecturer with experience in this area, Mr. Paul Dumbleton of the Scottish School of Further Education, has been seconded to work with the Scottish Office Education Department on the matter. His remit is wide and his recommendations will inform crucial decisions on funding and on guidance to boards. Part of his work will involve looking at the financial support arrangements for students with learning difficulties. I suggest that it is too simplistic to include all students with learning difficulties in the same category or as having the same financial needs, be they aged 20, 25 or 26 as is the case with Amendment No. I. The bursary arrangements give discretion to authorities to support students. Full-time students have their fees paid. Those arrangements are currently being reviewed by the Scottish Office. We have confirmed that the present arrangements for not charging fees for those under 18 will continue.
I turn now to Amendment No. 7. I want also to draw the Committee's attention to the provision in Clause 12(2) (c) for boards to provide students of the colleges with such assistance of a financial or other nature as they may consider appropriate, including waiving or granting remission of fees. I acknowledge that the provision of transport for students with disabilities can be important in ensuring that they can benefit from further education. Education authorities make provision for transport for further education students, including those with disabilities. Boards of management will assume that responsibility from 1st April 1993, and Clause 12(2) (c) of the Bill gives them sufficient scope to do so. Clause 12(2) (c) and (3) already achieve the intention of Amendment No. 7 —that is, requiring boards to address their minds to the needs of those with learning difficulties in exercising their functions, which include the power to give financial or other assistance to students. I can restate an assurance given in another place by my
760
honourable friend the Minister of State that we shall expect boards to provide as good a level of transport as education authorities currently do, and we will monitor the provision to ensure that that is the case.
As regards Amendment No. 2, I would emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is the transfer of the management and funding of further education colleges from local authorities and the establishment of boards of management. It is not about extending the powers or duties of local authorities. It is for authorities to judge how they exercise their power and to provide further education. I am sure that they will consider the needs of students with learning difficulties. Moreover, I gather that the amendment is flawed. It is difficult to reconcile with the duty that the Bill places on boards of management the requirement to have regard to the needs of such persons; for example, where the authority uses the board's college.
As regards the proposal that boards should establish a special needs advisory committee as set out in Amendment No. 13, I think that we are at one in agreeing that one means by which a college board can deal with their duties and powers for students with learning difficulties is to establish such a committee, with, if necessary, outside expertise represented on it. However, each college board and its staff must decide how best to tackle the matter. A knowledgeable committee where there are significant numbers of students with learning difficulties could be very useful. However, where, say, a college has relatively low numbers of students with learning difficulties, then it may not be sensible for the college to establish such a committee.
I turn now to Amendment No. 14, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), spoke. I am sure that boards will carry out assessments of the needs of students with learning difficulties and judge how best to meet those needs, including any special facilities that are required. Clause 27 ensures that boards can be required to publish information as to the availability of special facilities.
The proposed new clause, as drafted, is unworkable. Any student with a learning difficulty could request assessment at any time, even a student still undergoing school education and on placement at the college by the education authority. That clashes with the assessment provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It also introduces the concept of need for "special education provision" but gives it no meaning. It would be unfortunate to introduce such a narrow concept into the Bill which concentrates generally on the needs of those with learning difficulties in the context of further education, and is not restricted solely to needs calling for a special type of provision. However, I accept that, perhaps, in the drafting of the amendments, Members opposite will sometimes experience some difficulty in getting the wording right. I fully understand that.
As regards Amendment No. 15, I acknowledge that it will be desirable for boards of management and local authorities to work more closely together in the provision of further education for persons who have learning difficulties. We amended the Bill in the other

761
place to place boards under a duty—in Clause 23—to respond to requests from authorities for information or advice in order to facilitate the carrying out by the authority of their duty under Section 65B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to consider in relation to any recorded child what provision would benefit him after he ceases to be of school age.
Another area in which it will be important for boards and authorities to collaborate will be when authorities are carrying out community care assessments, and boards will be given guidance in that area. As I said earlier, the best way to cement and develop relations between boards and authorities is not to try to do so by legislation. That can be counterproductive and no more successful than a more flexible approach. The proposed new clause (Amendment No. 14) implies that co-operation is not desirable for other students. Much depends on the attitudes of individuals on both sides and their willingness and commitment to develop a relationship. We will ensure that the good work of the colleges in working with social work departments in day centres, adult training centres and residential establishments is supported and encouraged.
Perhaps I may now return to Amendment No. 3. I understand that this amendment has been suggested by the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, and others, to clarify the responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate with regard to disabled students in further education colleges. I should explain that Section 66 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 gives the Secretary of State power to cause inspections to be made of any educational establishment, and such inspections are made by HMI. HMI fulfils its responsibility by monitoring colleges' activity by regular contact with college staff and by whole-college inspections. The provision of further education for students with learning difficulties is dealt with by HM Inspectorate in the same way that it considers other aspects of further education. In addition, work is in hand for the issue of a report on "effective provision for special education needs", which will have a section on further education.
The effect of the proposed new clause would be to place a specific duty on the Secretary of State to ensure inspections of provision for students with learning difficulties, but no mention is made of the many other students in further education. While I would not wish to underestimate the importance of further education for students with learning difficulties, it needs to be placed in the perspective of the needs of all students. There are many aspects of provision which are applicable to all students; for example, the quality of guidance, accommodation and, indeed, the overall quality of teaching and learning in the college. I can give an assurance that HM Inpectorate will continue to play an important role in monitoring the provisions of further education in Scotland.
Finally, let me emphasise that the Secretary of State is under a duty to report to each House of Parliament on the discharge of his duties for further education. I am sure that Parliament will be assiduous in
762
monitoring the provision being made for students with learning difficulties, which will form a part of that report.
I understand the goodwill with which noble Lords have tabled these amendments. The essential point that I am trying to make is that such amendments —and legislative proposals to deal with the problem —are not necessarily the best way to proceed. We need a certain amount of goodwill in this relationship. I believe that assurances from the Government will provide that goodwill. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister gave a long reply, and I do not criticise him for that. Indeed, I am grateful for its length. He will appreciate that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter, although some of it may be rather enthusiastic and misguided, even to the point of thinking that more can possibly be done than is being done. We all believe that we should continually push the frontiers back to allow many people with disabilities to benefit as much as possible from education and from further education. One can continue to learn until a very great age. Indeed, some of the best pupils in further education are frequently those who have done a lot of other things in life and who, at the age of 30, suddenly realise that they have more potential than they had ever dreamt. The fact that they happen to be disabled in some way is no reason why they should not be able to benefit from the Bill.
I am grateful for the time that the Minister has taken to reply to the amendment. We may be able to find some common ground here, but as I believe that other noble Lords who are interested in the amendment are entitled to have their say, I reserve my rights until they have spoken.
Lord Addington: I do not think that I picked up the Minister's answer on Amendment No. 1. Is a requirement to provide further free education up to the age of 25 to be provided for in the Bill? That is an important point and should be in the Bill. Such provisions have already been agreed to in the English Bill. Many people with special educational needs need extra time to gain the requisite number of qualifications. That is often very difficult for them, especially if their problem has been spotted late and if correct assistance was not given to them in school. Such people will need extra time, and that is probably best available to them in further education. They should have a guarantee of that because, if they do not, there is no way in which they will be able to meet their full educational potential. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. I understand that I may have missed it in his long, complicated answer, but I repeat that such a provision should be in the Bill. It has already been agreed to in principle in the legislation for England.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that I am not entirely clear to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is referring. I know that he has a great

763
interest in people who have learning difficulties in relation to literacy, numeracy and basic skills learning. However, perhaps I may advise him that, if he was talking about such people, what he was saying does not apply in Scotland because adult basic education is part of further education and is being left with the local authorities on, as I understand it, exactly the same basis as at present. It is part of community education, and the Community Education Council is happy with that. Nobody pays for adult education courses. Therefore, I should have thought that such people are not within the bounds to which the noble Lord is referring. He knows Scotland well, having studied there, and probably understands what I am saying. The situation in Scotland is not the same. This Bill differs in many aspects from that relating to England and Wales and to my knowledge—unless my noble friend the Minister wants to put me right on this —I believe that it certainly differs in this respect.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may clarify this important point, on which I understand the strength of feeling. My noble friend Lady Carnegy made a useful intervention, and she is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to an amendment made to Clause 4(3) of the England and Wales Bill, to place a duty on the further education funding council in certain circumstances to secure provision for a person who has a learning difficulty up to the age of 25 outside the further education sector. That Bill of course does not guarantee exemption from fees—rather, assistance with fees may be given. Clause 4(3) instead deals with the provision of further education.
It is not necessary to have such a provision in the Scottish Bill. The two Bills start from different premises. The Scottish Bill, as drafted, achieves broadly the same effect as the England and Wales Bill. In the Scottish Bill, there is no new further education "sector" as such. As at present, the duty to secure the provision of further education does not depend on the extent to which colleges themselves can provide further education. The fundamental duty will lie with the Secretary of State, and it extends to Scotland as a whole.
The crucial question, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would like an answer, is what would be the position of two individuals—one in Scotland, one in England both between school age and 25 who have identical learning difficulties and who believe that their needs are not provided for? In England, such a person would apply to the appropriate funding council. This is, however, no absolute guarantee that the person in England would obtain the provision they desire, as considerable discretion is involved and there are express cost restrictions and limitations.
In Scotland, the individual would first approach a further education college to ascertain if it has a course falling within Clause 6(1) (c) which covers special instruction for persons with learning difficulties. If it does not have such a course, a board of management would be obliged to consider if it was meeting its duty to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties—that is provided for in Clause 12(3). If in
764
its view it was, the individual could then approach the Secretary of State. If he thought that the needs of the individual were not being met, he could direct a board of management to make provision or alternatively he could pay some other persons for the provision using his power under Clause 4(1) (b). To satisfy his duty under Clause 1(2), he would need to demonstrate that he had considered those matters. There are no express cost restrictions or limitations as there are for England and Wales, but again there is no guarantee that the individual would get the provision he desired. I hope that that explains the differences between Scotland and England and Wales, and shows some of the similarities in the end result.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps the Minister can help those who are not entirely familiar with Scottish law, which I suspect is the majority of us. I believe that in his very extensive replies, for which we are all extremely grateful, he said that he could not accept any of the amendments. That is right, is it not? He has now given us an explanation of why he cannot accept Amendment No. 1, which we had all hoped would become part of the Bill. Does the text, as currently drafted, substantially reflect the concessions that were made by the Government both in response to questions and proposals in another place and in this Chamber on the England and Wales Bill? If the Minister can give us that assurance, it would help us greatly.
Lord Strathclyde: I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble friend the Minister used the letters "HMI". Does that mean Her Majesty's Inspectors? Is it correct to say that the chief inspector carries some kind of royal enhancement of his position?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not entirely certain whether he does or not, but perhaps I can return to that question of detail later.
Lord Addington: Perhaps I may thank the Minister for clearing up that point. I was simply seeking to clarify whether that very important point was covered. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, perhaps I may advise her that I was not thinking of basic literacy courses but of further education and further qualifications that might be gained following a delay in acquiring the initial basic literacy points. I think that is what the amendments are aiming at. That is why we are worried about the extension of fees to a person who may be late entering further education. That is what we are worried about in these amendments, not the preparation for further education. I should like to make that point clear because if we have to return to this, I think that it is important that that point is noted by the Committee.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We are grateful to the Minister for that further clarification. I almost understood his explanation. However, although there is no reflection on him, I must point out that some people outside the Chamber are particularly anxious about the issue and they have spent a great deal of

765
time briefing us. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I cannot promise that I shall not return with it in some form after those who are more knowledgeable than I have read the Minister's reply. I hope that the Government are satisfied because we want to achieve results. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Function of education authorities]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Scottish Further Education Funding Council]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. All three amendments relate to the establishment of the funding council. I am afraid that I have lost my papers—
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may be of assistance to the noble Lord. The amendments which we shall address are Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and appear in the grouping which we agreed earlier. They relate to Clause 7 dealing with the funding council. The aspect that we are looking at in particular is whether the council should be introduced at an earlier date. I hope that we shall be able to have a useful discussion on the matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister not only for what he said but for the time that he took to say it. He gave me a chance to find my papers. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that a future Secretary of State shall establish a further education funding council. Amendment No. 5 elaborates the proposal by inserting the words:
"with effect from the first transfer date (within the meaning of section 11 of this Act)".
It relates to the setting of a date for the establishment of the funding council. Amendment No. 6 is tabled in order to clarify the Government's intention with regard to duties in respect of further education.
The provisions in the Bill relating to the further and higher education funding councils were introduced at the Report stage in another place. They followed a commitment given in Committee that such an amendment would be tabled to keep open the option to establish a funding council for further education. The Opposition in another place proposed the creation of a funding council to provide a buffer between the Government and the colleges. The Opposition also supported the amendment in principle as did the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and many other bodies in Scotland.
There is to be a funding council for England and for Wales. The parallel legislation has already been through this Chamber. There has been no opportunity for proper scrutiny of the Government's proposals for
766
a funding council for Scotland and several reservations should be made at this stage. The amendment seeks to insert a provision which commits a future Secretary of State to establish a funding council. As it stands, the provisions of the Bill do not do that; they simply allow a Secretary of State in the future to establish a funding council if he so wishes.
On Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, took the view that:
"If the Bill becomes law as it stands there is no way that any Secretary of State for Scotland could fail to set up a council in due course".—[Official Report, 21/2/92; col. 1464.]
We always have great faith in what governments will do. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness would prefer to see an absolute obligation on the Secretary of State to set up the funding council.
On Second Reading in another place the Minister of State for Education and Health in the Scottish Office stated:
"I remain of the view that it would be a mistake to establish such a council".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/92; col. 306.]
As a result of what occurred in Committee he had to change his mind, or appear to change his mind. We believe that the funding council is important. The Government should make a decision on the matter and that should appear on the Bill. The Government's position should be clarified and we believe that the proposed amendments, perhaps with the Minister's preferred wording, will ensure that the Government will establish such a council. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to what I said on Second Reading but he did not complete the sentence. I said that there was no way that the Secretary of State could fail to set up a council because the pressure on him from all sides to do so would be too great. I took the view that he would not get away with not setting up a council, even if he wanted to.
The setting up of the funding council is almost certainly the right idea. It may be that originally the Minister did not want to do so believing that it could be introduced in later legislation if necessary. However, he listened to what was said in another place, as he did on so many issues. He responded by including an enabling clause to allow a Secretary of State in the future to set up a further education funding council if it is required.
I understood that the Association of Principals of Colleges, which before Second Reading had indicated to me its liking for the way in which the Bill was drafted, probably wanted a further education funding council. It liked the drafting because it thought that it would be some time before the further education system in Scotland was ready to work with a funding council. I understand that the association has now written to the Minister and that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has that information. The association has stated that the funding council should not be set up immediately but that there should be a pause until such time as the costs of running the colleges are ascertained by the Scottish Office. It likes the idea of working closely with the Scottish Office for a year or

767
two until those costs are ascertained and until the various procedures are clarified. The funding council should then follow.
That appears to me to make good sense. I do not believe that the suggestion should be interpreted as leaving a questionmark over the likelihood of such a system of funding being set up in the future. The Association of Principals of Colleges suggests that the funding council should not be set up until 1997, quite a long way off. Enabling legislation is sensible. It means that the year in which it may happen is not specified. There is the possibility of it happening sooner or later if necessary.
Given the circumstances of the much smaller further education system that we have in Scotland than south of the Border, it is sensible. If the principals and the Scottish Office feel that it will work, then it probably will. It seems a good approach and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments, although I appreciate that it is sensible to air the subject.
Lord Strathclyde: Our intention has been perfectly clear from the time that the Secretary of State announced our policy for the further education colleges. They should become self-governing at 1st April 1993. That is the date we are working towards. The Scottish branch of the Association of Principals of Colleges recently wrote to my honourable friend the Minister of State and indicated:
"We believe that an implementation in 1993 is achievable given the excellent co-operation between SOED and principals to date".
Our approach is to provide for flexibility. The first step is for the colleges smoothly to achieve self-governance under boards of management. That process will be facilitated by direct funding from the Scottish Office education department. My noble friend Lady Carnegy explained that extremely well. It has built up expertise over the years in funding the central institutions and colleges of education. That is different from the position in England and Wales where the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council has been funding higher education colleges and higher education in further education colleges. Much of the expertise of the further education funding councils in England and Wales will be drawn from the PCFC experience. There is therefore an important difference in the starting position both sides of the Border.
Once the colleges' boards of management are well established they will no doubt have a view on the merits of the establishment of a further education funding council. It would be wrong, I contend, to try to do too much at once and without taking account of the views of boards. The wisdom of that approach is acknowledged by the Scottish branch of the Association of Principals of Colleges, as explained by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In the letter to which I referred earlier it says:
"We are convinced that a funding council could not operate effectively until considerable trial work had been done in developing and implementing a funding formula and it is likely that this will take three to four years".
768
I hope therefore that the noble Lord opposite would acknowledge the colleges' position, realise the merit of waiting to see the views of boards of management and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 6 is unacceptable both legally and constitutionally. It seeks to ensure that the funding council would exercise all the Secretary of State's duties as regards further education without exception. It takes no account of the structure and context of the Bill. The Secretary of State will have clear statutory duties. He will be accountable in law and to Parliament for the discharge of those duties. He will be the person liable for any breach of those duties, whether in practice the breach arises from his own or the funding council's action or inaction. The amendment seeks to take away protection which is essential to the Secretary of State. It is inappropriate, in the context of the Bill—the Secretary of State having the basic duties and accountability—for the excluded functions listed in Clause 7(3) to be exercised by the funding council. Many of the activities there carry a high risk of legal challenge.
I hope that that is a useful explanation. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: After the remarks of the Minister, I accept without hesitation that Amendment No. 6 probably goes too far and I shall not move it. In view of what was said on Amendment No. 5 and in the light of the letter from the principals of colleges, it would also not be appropriate to press that amendment at the moment. However, Amendment No. 4 ensures that a future Secretary of State will establish a further education council. I am less inclined to accommodate the Minister on it for a number of reasons. First, "may" in an Act of Parliament is—as it was so well put—"always a wobbly word". We are never sure what will happen with it.
I do not believe that the Government will have much power to do anything about the conditions after the summer, but we received a clear statement from Mr. Michael Forsyth in another place. He stated:
"I remain of the view that it would be a mistake to establish such a council". [Official Report, Commons, 5/2/92; col. 306.]
It would not come later on; he does not want it at all. Suppose a great misfortune befell the party opposite and ultimately Mr. Forsyth became Secretary of State for Scotland. He would not establish a council.
I shall bring the amendment back at the next stage, and I hope that the Minister will give it thought. We could insert "shall" without a timetable. That is a little firmer than what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested, which was that we should leave matters as they are. In most cases, where it is possible, I prefer an Act to use "shall" rather than "may". Meantime, for the reasons I have given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Boards of management]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Constitution and proceedings of boards of management]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 43, line 42, leave out ("ten nor more than sixteen") and insert ("sixteen nor more than twenty").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 to 12. The purpose of the amendment is to increase the minimum size of the board to allow greater flexibility and to include wider interests, including local authority interests.
The current arrangements for college boards provide for a maximum of 20 persons and no case has been made for a reduction in the number. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggests that there should be no fewer than 16 members of the board. That would allow for, at the minimum, two representatives of the education authority and two other places which would be available for other interest groups; for example, a person with an interest in special educational needs.
It is important that the board of management should have flexibility to appoint members who, in the opinion of the board, reflect important local interests outwith those of the employers. This issue, along with the matter of education authority representation on boards of management, was discussed fully at the fourth sitting of the Committee in another place.
In previous briefings, the convention suggested 16 as a necessary minimum size for a board of management if any scope was to exist for involvement of board members for which provision is not made specifically in the Bill. In the course of wide-ranging discussions in Committee and on Report in the other place, insufficient emphasis was placed on the minimum size of a board. We believe that the main concern is that if the board agrees to restrict its membership to a minimum of 10 places, at least five would be taken by representatives of the business and professional community. There is no objection to their being on the board, but it is a high proportion. I want them on the board, but not in such a high proportion.
A further four places are reserved under the Bill for staff and students of a college, leaving only one place for any other member. Clearly, this would allow for only one member of an education authority or of another interest group and no scope for, perhaps, a local councillor and a representative of the voluntary sector. Raising the minimum to 16 would allow for up to four places for board members not otherwise provided for under the terms of the Bill. I do not like big boards any more than the Minister does. However, I do not believe the number suggested in the Bill is sufficient. My amendment suggests a good compromise. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Addington: I support the amendments. The size of the board is at present somewhat small. I do not believe it would hurt to have a larger maximum number of persons on the board as well as a larger
770
minimum number. Such larger numbers of board members could cover the great variety of interests with which the boards will deal.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. In a good deal of government legislation that affects Scotland I detect a diminution of the responsibilities of local authority representatives. We ought to state now, and again on discussions not only on this Bill but on a number of other matters, that there appears to be a move away from local authority representation. After all, local authority representatives are the elected representatives of the people in the community. One may not like their politics and one may not like the representatives themselves but they are part of the democratic structure.
I believe that there has been a move towards emphasising the importance of the local business community. We have seen this occur in relation to the setting up of the local enterprise boards. Those boards have substantial responsibilities. I wonder sometimes where we shall find these busy men who run local industries and who are willing to discharge the responsibilities of the local enterprise boards and to sit on the councils that are mentioned in the Bill. I suggest that the Bill is slightly overweighted in the direction of the business community. I very much support the idea that there should be representation from the local business community. However, I believe we should also accept that local authorities have responsibilities in these matters too.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand what the noble Lord is saying. However, he must realise that one of the main problems that colleges are meeting at the moment is that distinguished, able local business people who are at present on the governing bodies of colleges are finding it extremely tedious to have to plough through a lot of local politics in the discussions of the governing bodies. One cannot expect councillors who are sent from their council to be members of the new boards not to fight their corner, whether that corner is their political corner or their council's corner. These boards are a different kind of animal from what has existed before. I believe they will work much better than what we had previously from the point of view of training for local industry and commerce. I have been on three such governing bodies in the past, although that was some time ago now. Those of us on the governing bodies found that the less discussion we had on local authority politics and the more we discussed the needs of the customers, the better satisfied were the employers of those customers. I believe that union members who had the interests of employees at heart also found that to be the case.
I understand that local authorities may be sorry to lose the automatic statutory link, but that provision is essential to the working of the Bill. There will be much contact between local authorities and the new boards because the provision of the local authority and of the boards will be interlinked. The director of education will constantly move backwards and forwards

771
between the colleges and the boards, and vice versa. I do not think that the amendment is the right way to tackle this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has been on a great number of boards and has been involved in the management of important organisations. However, I must ask him whether he does not think that 20 is a large number of people to have on a board in the modern world. I suggest to him that 16 is a better maximum number from the point of view of getting business done. The boards will always be able to have sub-committees to deal with different subjects and they will be able to consult people on different matters. I believe it is important to keep the boards small and if possible to keep the local political scene separate so that colleges may be run in the most efficient and effective way for the students. After all, that is the objective of the whole exercise.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wish to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has just said. I am sure that years ago every one of your Lordships studied Parkinson's law. I seem to remember that Professor Parkinson thought the optimum number of members for any committee or board was seven. I am not suggesting that we should reduce the minimum number of members on the board from 10 to seven. But if one has a large board or a large committee, the members will all want to talk and it takes far longer to get through the business. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was quite right to say that. That process has happened in this House. We now have far too many Members and that is why we have to sit so late and why the business takes so long.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, as regards the number of members on a board. I believe 20 is a fairly large number. However, I am making a plea for a different balance in the construction of the board of 16, if 16 were to be the appropriate figure. I am concerned that it may occasionally be tedious for some people to sit through the democratic processes of discussion. However, that is part of our democratic process of arriving at decisions. It is easy for people to say, "Let us have six or seven members and get through the business". That has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is about allowing elected representatives of the people to have a voice in their local affairs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has suggested local authority representatives might introduce a political element into the discussions. However, they would not necessarily all be drawn from one political persuasion, although that is more likely in Scotland. Nevertheless, the people who will wish to sit on the boards will have a sense of responsibility for discharging good educational practices. They will not necessarily want to advocate a particular political doctrine. The suggestion of the noble Baroness is ill-founded. I have seen local councillors sitting on boards of various charitable, educational and cultural organisations. Those councillors are not weighed down by ideology. They attend the boards with a view
772
to discharging their responsibilities. I do not like the idea that, because people are local authority representatives, they should not represent local opinion on important matters such as education.
I suggest to the Minister that I am not necessarily in favour of the figure 20, although that is what the amendment suggests. However, I am strongly of the opinion that there should be some reasonable balance. I do not regard the present arrangements as achieving that reasonable balance.
The Earl of Selkirk: I was on an education committee in Edinburgh for two or three years. A great many Edinburgh citizens were singularly ignorant of educational matters. Few of the members of the committee had a constructive part to play on it. The committee was set up to look after the interests of the city. When I was on the committee far more was achieved than is the case today. Many of the committee's achievements have already been discarded by the local authority for a number of reasons.
Education is an awfully complex subject for the ordinary citizen. Those who have not trained themselves in it—I do not pretend that I have trained myself in it—cannot make much of it. We on the committee depended almost entirely on the director of education. He was fortunately a first class man and for that reason we did little damage. This is not strictly a matter for local people. There is not a great deal of what I would refer to as democracy in this matter. It is a case of a board member learning various facts about, for example, chemistry or reading and all kinds of subjects that have little to do with democracy. If there is a good man then certainly he should serve on the board, but in general there should not be much control by local government.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I was fascinated by the observations of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on the exercise of democracy, particularly as they came from a Member of a non-democratic Chamber. Was she suggesting that a time limit should be imposed on democratic discussion within local authorities and institutions established on democratic principles? That is a most interesting proposition. I was even more fascinated to hear her observe that there is a plague in your Lordships' House of too many noble Lords speaking for too long. I wonder whether in due course she would circulate a list of those Members of your Lordships' House whom she considers to be dispensable to the process of democracy.
Lord Strathclyde: Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 inclusive. Given that we have had a rather interesting debate, we should be clear on certain principles when considering this group of amendments.
We aim unashamedly for boards to have a strong employer interest because vocational education and training are among the most important aspects of the work of further education colleges. Likewise, links with local enterprise companies will be important because of the vital role those bodies play in vocational education and training. We acknowledge, however, that that is not the sole activity of colleges.

773
Accordingly, Schedule 2 provides for others to be appointed who have an interest in the work of the college. Those can include local authority members or officials if it is felt that they will make a valuable personal contribution to the work of the boards. That was the point which my noble friend Lord Selkirk made. If they are good enough, people will want them on the boards. That is the most important aspect of the matter.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Who will want them on the boards and who can express that wish? Who can recognise suitable local people? Surely the elected representatives are recognised?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made a number of points and I shall come to the aspect which he no doubt regards as a democratic deficit in this instance.
In practice, initially the members of the boards will be the same as those of reconstituted college councils. They will be appointed by the Secretary of State to ensure a smooth transition. After that initial round of appointments, boards will themselves fill vacancies as they occur. That is the current practice in Scottish central institutions and it works well. Education authority members or officials are not precluded from membership and I am sure that in some instances boards will wish to appoint such people because of their personal qualities and expertise.
As regards the size of boards, we judge that boards with an upper size limit of 16 will be more effective than larger boards. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made that point. Sixteen people may not always have the expertise or experience to cover the multitude of activities of some colleges. That is why we have provided for non-board members to be appointed as non-voting members of committees.
Finally, we have to be clear that the boards will be running education establishments for the benefit of their students. It is our belief that that is best done without political influence. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, we may not like their politics. In many instances I do not like the politics of Scottish local authorities. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, does not like their politics either. However, that is not the point. The issue is less the type of politics than whether or not politics should be involved in the management of further education on a day-to-day basis. My noble friend Lady Carnegy was absolutely correct on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, does not need to get too excited about the democratic deficit. We are dealing with the Houses of Parliament; it is Parliament which will decide what the structure should be and, if Parliament decides that local authorities should have a lesser voice than business, then democracy has been well protected.
I am not sure what point the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, tried to make about this Chamber. I regard this Chamber as part of Parliament and supremely democratic in the way in which it deals with its work.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My point was how the Minister could justify that position when none of us is here as a result of a democratic vote of the people.
Lord Strathclyde: I stand here as a member of the Government by virtue of the people of this country having voted for my party and not for the party of the noble Lord. That is the way we should like things to continue. We have built up a very successful relationship on that basis.
If experience shows that our concern proves to be ill founded and boards themselves feel that a change needs to be made, that will be possible in the future under the Secretary of State's order-making power in Clause 3 to amend certain provisions contained in Schedule 2, which include those on membership and chairmanship of boards.
I hope that the Committee will acknowledge those principles and note that the heart of the policy is to remove further education colleges from the direct management of education authorities. The provisions of Schedule 2 are consistent with that policy. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to agree with everything I have said, but I hope that he understands the basis on which we have put forward our proposal.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister expected that I would disagree with his proposal. He is quite right. I am always amused by the fact that the party opposite seems to believe that local authorities are run by horrible political people while businessmen are non-political. That is a great joke. For many years there were business people serving on Glasgow Corporation. They served as the Lord Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convenor, who were supposed to be totally neutral. However, every time a casting vote was required on the occasions when the Labour Party had an overwhelming majority of the confidence of the people of Glasgow, (which happened twice), those non-political people always voted one way. The only thing to do was to take the vote away from them. They were allowed to sit there but they were not allowed to vote.
I do not think that we shall get anywhere. The Minister and the party opposite are convinced that local education authorities have little to contribute to those bodies while business people have. There is a later amendment which reflects my anxiety that some business people could be compromised in terms of the direction in which they would try to drive the colleges. I do not think that that is a matter of politics either.
I shall consider the matter and take advice and possibly bring it back at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Transfer of property etc. to boards of management]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, leave out lines 4 to 12.
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment which concerns a matter which worries local authorities. In fairness I believe that the Minister explained the matter at Second Reading, although that was rather hurried. However, certain education authorities are worried because the Bill proposes that all land or other property in respect of a college will be transferred from the education authority to the board of management of the college on the first transfer date but any debt charges relating to such property will remain with the local education authority. We take the view that that is wholly unreasonable, although, as I said, I believe that the Minister tried to explain the matter in his Second Reading speech.
We are raising the matter in order to have it set out in clear terms that there will be no long-term liability on education authorities as a result of the transfer of land and assets. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I acknowledge what the noble Lord said. It is an important amendment. Perhaps I can explain more fully than I did at Second Reading. Local authorities' loan charges are met on virtually a pound for pound basis in the distribution of the aggregate external financial settlement and FE historic debt will continue to be taken into account in the calculation in the normal way. Loans taken out by local authorities are made up in a complex way. Although we acknowledge that it is possible to identify the overall total outstanding of some £86 million, it needs to be borne in mind that local authorities repackage particular loans so that it is not straightforward over a period of years to disentangle debt for a particular building.
Local authorities entered into those loan arrangements. They are experienced in administering them, including repaying debt. The most sensible and straightforward arrangement is to leave the authorities to administer debt. That presents no additional burden to them. Nor can there be justification for rewarding education authorities for taking out loans without consent as required by statute. Yet the amendment would do that and would therefore render useless the provisions of the Bill protecting college property in the run-up to the transfer of colleges.
Moreover, if historic FE debt charges were to transfer, because of the size of the total outstanding debt and the Treasury policy that it would have to be redeemed, that sum would have to be found out of the Secretary of State's block. That could only be done to the disadvantage of further education and other services. The proposed arrangements would have no such disadvantage; neither would they place any additional burden on the taxpayer, as they continue the present arrangements.
I hope that that is a more full explanation of what I recognise is an important and complicated issue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may add—for the comfort of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—that during the passage of previous legislation relating to England and Wales, the same arrangement was
776
included in the Bill. My noble friend Lady Young and I were very concerned that local authorities should have in their accounts a debt for borrowing to build or to add to a college which was no longer in their hands. We thought that very strange.
At more than one stage of the Bill we went into the matter at considerable length by means of an amendment rather like the one moved by the noble Lord. Finally, we came to the conclusion that this is the neatest and simplest way to deal with the matter. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, it is simply not possible to identify precisely the debt of a given college. Therefore, it will appear in the local authority's accounts. The loan charges will be paid and, as I understand it, the local authority will be refunded for those loan charges. There will be no loss by anybody except the taxpayer who continues to pay the debt on the loan charges. In a sense that is a book-keeping arrangement rather than anything else.
That having been established and understood by the local authorities, I believe that they will accept it, as, I seem to remember, did the local authorities in England and Wales in respect of schools. I am not sure whether it applies to schools in Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister realised that the point was worrying. Perhaps it still is. The local authority will never be repaid for anything expended on the colleges. I assumed that the Secretary of State would be the ultimate owner of the colleges and not the new boards. If the new boards were the owners in law, the colleges might pay off the interest in, say, 10 years' time and sell the colleges at a very high capital gain. However, I am sure that the Minister will have considered the matter.
I am trying to find out as much as possible in order to reassure those local authorities which are very concerned. Some people have spent many years and have gone to a great deal of trouble fighting to get a college. It is rather sad to find that they may lose it. It would be even sadder if they were to lose it and find that it was a burden on the local authority of which they were members. I shall be only too glad to hear the Minister if he has any more reassuring words.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord asked a question. Ownership will not be in the hands of the Secretary of State but in the hands of the boards. There is a more general point. I recognise that some local authorities wanted colleges. They argued for them and got them. But now those colleges are moving into a different era of further education. That is the way local authorities should view the situation. As to the amendment, it will not cost local authorities one penny more or less than they were paying before. The position is neutral and they are refunded pound for pound for the amount of money they expend in terms of debt repayment. That is the most important aspect.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am afraid that that is slightly more worrying. It means that the buildings and grounds are in the hands of the new body, which is not answerable to the Secretary of State for the disposal of the land and buildings. There are a number of examples from various parts of Scotland

777
where the local authority has been able to take over a redundant school and make it into a very good block of flats. In the area that I represented, they were highly desirable blocks of flats. The college board could do the same and do rather well from it. It could find that it was more profitable than teaching pupils.
Lord Strathclyde: Under the Bill there is a clear responsibility for the boards to provide certain levels of education. We are not creating a system in which the boards, after five or 10 years, will say, "We have had enough of this education game. Let us get into the property development game."
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: There have been many demographic changes and schools have become redundant. It may happen to colleges, and it is quite worrying. It is true that this provision will not cost local authorities any more money but they will lose one of their assets. I should like to look very carefully at the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [College development plans]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 17, line 23, after ("college") insert:
("(d) how the college development plan relates to overall educational provision in the area in which the college is situated;").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if, with this amendment, we take Amendment No. 18. The amendment seeks to ensure that college development plans cohere with overall education provision in the area. We welcome the new provisions introduced at Report stage in the other place, compelling colleges to produce annual development plans and to consult with local authorities in their preparation. The amendment provides that colleges must take into account the wider educational provision in a local area and take steps to ensure cohesion between college plans and the education plans of the local authority.
Amendment No. 18 deals with the same point. There is no objection to the involvement of business interests in the college boards. I return to a suggestion I made earlier. I said that we would welcome business interests which have contact with local enterprise companies. But we have difficulty with the provision in the Bill for formal involvement of local enterprise companies through membership of boards and the provision for consultation on college development plans.
Local enterprise companies are commercial organisations and will seek services from a range of training agents, including colleges. There could be a strong possibility of conflict of interest between local enterprise companies and college boards. It cannot be stressed too strongly that colleges serve the entire community, not only the needs of the local employers, and certainly not only the commercial interests of the local enterprise companies. The independence of
778
college boards from local enterprise companies should be preserved by removing the formal links. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Lord. I believe that there should be the greatest possible degree of co-ordination between the new colleges and the education authorities in any area. Education should not be sub-divided at any level.
Lord Strathclyde: I am slightly puzzled that the noble Lord opposite has tabled these amendments. When Clause 22 was introduced at Report stage in another place the Opposition spokesman very much welcomed it.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Carmichael, that it is inevitable that boards must consider how their development plan relates to the overall educational provision in the area in which the college is situated. That is because Clause 12(1) places boards under an obligation to have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated. They will have therefore to consider not only education authority provision but provision made elsewhere, including in higher education institutions. The amendment would cause confusion where none would exist otherwise. Its meaning is vague and would be constantly open to question. I understand the principles that the noble Lord seeks to put forward. The provision clearly already exists.
I am also puzzled why the noble Lord should seek to exclude local enterprise companies from being involved with colleges in the preparation of development plans. LECS are key players in the planning of training and they will have vital information and views on local labour market and employment trends. Boards need to have that information if they are to be responsive. I do not consider that problems of commercially sensitive information are serious or cannot be overcome by those concerned. It may assist the Committee if I say that neither colleges nor LECS have expressed any difficulty to us on these provisions. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The difficulty relating to what the Minister states and what may happen is that time sometimes changes people's attitudes. That is why we are always anxious to have matters on the face of the Bill. One would be surprised if at this stage of the Bill any LECs were to have the slightest intention of doing anything other than for the benefit of the education of the population. However, I was concerned that as time goes on conflicts of interest may arise. I do not believe that anyone doubts that. However, I do not believe that we shall make much further progress with the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 34 agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Scottish Higher Education Funding Council]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 27, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("( ) In appointing the members of the Council, the Secretary of State shall ensure that not less than two fifths and not more than three fifths of those members shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State—

(a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education; and

(b) to be currently engaged in the provision of higher education;

and in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 is linked with the amendment. The intention of Amendment No. 19 is to ensure that a reasonable proportion of funding council members have an up-to-date working knowledge of universities while at the same time acknowledging the valuable contribution of industrialists alongside them. The proportion that we consider reasonable is that which applies in the present Universities Funding Council under Section 131(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988. The draft reflects the language of that enactment. I believe that the Minister is aware of the arguments and has had consultation with the universities. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 were debated in Committee in another place. My right honourable friend the Minister of State accepted the Liberal Democrat amendment which is now Amendment No. 20 but unfortunately it was never moved by Mr. Nicol Stephen, and we are now putting that right and accepting it in this Chamber.
Amendment No. 20 brings the Bill into line with the equivalent provisions for England and Wales and strikes the right note in requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including currently engaged academics or academic administrators in the council.
Clearly the Secretary of State will want to appoint members who are currently engaged in higher education, but for a whole series of reasons ideal candidates might not happen to be currently engaged at the time a vacancy came up. For instance, someone might have recently retired, have taken a temporary appointment in industry or have been seconded to an international organisation. It would be wrong to impose thresholds in those circumstances, as Amendment No. 19 does, which might prevent an outstanding candidate from being appointed.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained why I do not believe that Amendment No. 19 is a reasonable amendment. I hope that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 20.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister meets most of the points about which we were concerned in Amendment No. 19. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 27, line 39, after ("education") insert ("and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 30, line 26, after ("bodies") insert ("including bodies representing the views of students").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the consultation of student bodies relating to the activities of the funding council. Effectively all we ask is that those bodies which represent students' interest —they are the ultimate consumers of education—are consulted. It is not a totally unreasonable consideration especially since the Government have given so much emphasis to the power of the consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not entirely certain in the amendment that bodies representing the views of students would have any real interest in the terms and conditions which the council intended to attach to its payments to particular institutions. Those terms and conditions will relate principally to the arrangements for the proper stewardship and efficient administration of public funds. They will cover the responsibilities of the governing bodies of institutions and in particular those of the accounting officer as well as accounting and internal audit procedures. In particular they might cover the earmarking of funds for particular purposes such as access courses, or the broad divisions between teaching and research and between capital and recurrent expenditure.
All those conditions will impose a requirement on the governing body to ensure that they are complied with. It is therefore quite appropriate that, as at present with the UFC, the council should be required to consult institutions collectively and individually as appropriate. Where students are members of governing bodies, as they frequently are, they will have an opportunity to influence the response made by the governing body to the consultation process. However, at the collective level—the level addressed by the amendment—the interests of students are surely tied up with the level of student support and not with the responsibilities which councils may place on governing bodies in relation to their institutional grant.
I can understand that bodies representing students will be interested in the former but not in the latter. I do not make an anti-student response, but on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I was interested to hear the Minister refer to the student body. Perhaps if we were to substitute the singular for the plural, so that the amendment refers to a body representing the views of the students, that may be more in line with the democratic principles of the college. After all, the students are the core of the college. It is wrong to cut them off at an administrative level when dealing with funds as though that group of people are incapable of applying their minds to the administration of funds.
Perhaps the Government will consider accepting the principle of the amendment so that student representation goes right through the whole system of the administration of the college and its funds. The college does not belong to the students; the students belong to the college. They are the people most affected by what is happening within the college.
I can understand why the Minister does not accept the amendment because bodies representing the interests of students could include every society within the college—political societies, philosophical societies, debating societies and so on. However, perhaps the Minister will agree to take away the amendment and think about bringing the student body into the consultative procedure from beginning to end on the discussions on the administration of funds.
Lord Strathclyde: Students are on the governing bodies of individual institutions so they are fully consulted.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made from the Liberal Benches and made by noble friend Lord Macaulay.
It is important to get students to realise the full responsibilities of administration of a college. Sometimes in universities and higher education there is a them-and-us relationship between the governing bodies and the students, which is undesirable. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the voice of the students will he heard. I realise that this part of the Bill may not be the appropriate place to deal with that. However, that seems to me to be an extremely desirable part of the well-run institutions which are now being created. It would help students to realise the funding problems, which is extremely important. They should realise that everything that they seek is not available. If the Minister will assure us that the voice of the students will be heard, we shall be happy with that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I found it rather difficult to see the objection to the amendment. I do not believe that the Minister could envisage an occasion when it may not be better to consult the student body. I know that students can be an appalling nuisance, but the way to make them rational is to give them responsibility.
The argument was raised that the amendment may make it necessary to consult philosophical societies and so on. However, the Bill states quite clearly that:
"the Council shall consult such of the following bodies as appear to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances".
I can envisage that the expenditure of funds on student facilities, teaching facilities and accommodation may
782
affect a student body. In such a case, it would be essential and extremely helpful to consult a body representing students.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This part of the Bill is likely to be largely concerned with the funding of staff, which always comprises a large part of the provisions for a university or other higher education institution. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, with his experience of the University of Dundee, will remember that it is always necessary to discuss staff with staff. It is preferable that staff matters are not discussed in the presence of the students.
This part of the Bill deals with the funding terms and conditions of the institution in general. We are not talking about the day-to-day running of the institution in which students are fully involved in Scotland. That is a somewhat different matter.
Earl Russell: I apologise for intervening so soon after my arrival but as my name is to the amendment, I should like to say a few words in favour of it.
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness says about reserved areas. That is an accepted principle of business in any committee involving students. It is understood and does not seem to give rise to any dispute.
One reason for consulting students on occasions is that there are certain matters about which they know a good deal more than anybody else. In many areas, they know where the shoe pinches. In some areas, which are frequently forgotten about—such as the capacity of the refectory—if the students are not consulted, the issue is not discussed at all. I have also found from my experience of student representation that we hear from them a great deal of practical common sense. The 1960s are rather a long time ago.
Lord Strathclyde: I should not want this debate to get out of hand. It is not a case of whether or not there is student consultation. We are delighted to consult with student bodies. Nothing prevents a council from consulting any body. However, we believe that the student interest is best covered at institutional level.
As regards this amendment, we cannot see that students have any real interest in the terms and conditions which the council intends to attach to its payments to a particular institution. Those terms and conditions will relate principally to the arrangements for the proper stewardship and efficient administration of public funds. I may be wrong. Perhaps students throughout the country are fascinated by those subjects and would play a valuable role.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made a suggestion which I am happy to consider. I believe that the greater the consultation, the better. However, I do not wish to impose consultation where none is genuinely required.
Earl Russell: There are circumstances in which the student voice may be particularly appropriate on terms and conditions. One of the terms and conditions most often discussed at present is how many students the college will be asked to take in return for a specific

783
amount of money. On the question of the physical capacity of the college, the students can see the problems arising usually before and better than their teachers can. Also, they can weigh the force of the argument for expansion because they need only to think back to the situation which existed for them a maximum of three years ago. Therefore, their capacity to weigh one argument against another seems to deserve a particularly careful hearing. In such matters, their views should be taken as seriously as those of anybody else.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I agree with the Minister that we do not want the debate to get out of hand. However, it is important to look at what we are talking about. The Minister is rather dismissive of student bodies in regard to what is being discussed here. Clause 41(1) gives the council the right to refuse to consult because the Bill states:
"the Council shall consult such of the following bodies as appear to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances".
If an approach was made by the "student body" as a whole to the council, the council could tell it to go away. The clause refers back to Clause 40(3)(a), which reads:
"The Council may—
(a) make grants, loans or other payments to the governing body of any institution within the higher education sector in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section by virtue of subsection (2) (a) or (b) above".
Clause 40(2) (b) states:
"The activities eligible for funding under this section are …
(b) the provision of any facilities, and the carrying on of any other activities, by such institutions in Scotland as are within the higher education sector which the governing bodies of those institutions consider it necessary or desirable to provide or carry on for"—
note the words which follow—
"the purpose of or in connection with education or research".
If we take the first phrase,
"the purpose of or in connection with education",
who can be more affected by that part of the Bill than the students? I cannot see what harm can be done to the principle of the Bill and of this clause by giving representation of the students at least a mention in the bodies which should be consulted under the terms of Clause 41.
I detected an indication from the Minister that he will take the matter away and consider it. I see that he nods his head. In that case I am happy to have made the point and at this stage I leave the matter there.
Lord Addington: The debate hinges on the fact that students are ultimately those with whom the institutions are concerned. It is a question of how the students come through them and what they think. They are the consumers of the education provided and take away the final product—qualifications. It is difficult to see them not being able to give at least something to most, if not all, specific areas of what goes on inside the institutions. I agree that there are probably one or two areas in which they should not be included as there are one or two areas where staff would not be included. However, I cannot see why they are excluded.
784
The Minister said that there will be some thought given to the matter. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment but I shall certainly come back to it if nothing positive happens.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify something. I am a little unclear as to what student body would be consulted in this case.
Lord Addington: It could be the student council, the NUS, or some other federation where students happen to be included. Generally, it could be the student body in any institution.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord was more recently a student than any of us. Is there a body which would be able to represent the views of students in all these institutions? He made an inspiring speech about the need to involve them and, as he knows, I absolutely agree with him. I am keen on the subject. I am concerned, however, with the practicalities of how the funding council can consult students about issues being dealt with under this part of the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord can clarify that. I am not necessarily against the amendment, but I cannot imagine how it would be fruitful.
Earl Russell: If it is in order to intervene before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I can say that student representatives on the academic board would be appropriate people to undertake that responsibility.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That happens in individual colleges. We are talking about funding in general.
Earl Russell: They could perfectly well be consulted by any funding council.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I can offer some clarification. The point made by my noble friend is a good one. At the individual college level, students are members of governing bodies and are consulted on that basis. We are talking about the collective level by which the funding council wants to make general terms and conditions for all colleges. My noble friend was making the point about which student body it would consult.
Lord Addington: I should have thought that the NUS would be an excellent body with which to consult. The name "union" may not go down too well. But the NUS acts in a responsible way in the vast majority of cases. I see no reason why it could not be regarded as a suitable body for consultation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Grants]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 or 24.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 30, line 44, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
("(2) The terms and conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to the Council—

(a) may in particular impose requirements to be complied with in respect of every institution, or every institution falling within a class or description specified in the terms and conditions, being requirements to be complied with in the case of any institution to which the requirements apply before financial support of any amount or description so specified is provided by the Council in respect of activities carried on by the institution; but

(b) shall not otherwise relate to the provision of financial support by the Council in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution or institutions.

(3) Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) or to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students.").
The noble Lord said: we have what appears to be a series of competing amendments, all attempting to do exactly the same thing. I do not want to rehearse the history of this complex matter. Your Lordships debated it long and hard on the corresponding Bill for England and Wales. The provisions in this Bill have also been debated at length in the other place and have been the subject of extensive and detailed consultation with the higher education institutions.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, my ministerial colleagues at the Scottish Office sought to construct a Scottish solution to this problem which would satisfy all concerned. That, unfortunately, was not to be. I made clear at Second Reading that I was willing to consider your Lordships' views and the views of Scottish higher education interests before determining the best way forward.
It was clear from that debate that your Lordships wished Clauses 42 and 54 to be amended to bring them into line with the provisions in the England and Wales Bill as they left this House. That was also the view of the Scottish universities, although earlier they had seemed content with the provisions currently in the Bill. The grant-aided colleges, on the other hand, had no problem at all with the current provisions.
Taking all those views into account, I have accepted that Clauses 42 and 54 should indeed be brought into line with their England and Wales equivalents. However, I should perhaps explain that Amendment No. 32 to Clause 54, in the name of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, refers to functions of the council "under this part of this Act." Those words do not generally appear in the Scottish Bill, although they do in the England and Wales Bill because it is possible that the council might have a function conferred on it by Clause 82 of that Bill. Clause 82 extends to Scotland and deals with the joint exercise of functions by the three territorial councils. The amendments I have tabled to Clause 54 —Amendments Nos. 33 and 34—however, remove directions otherwise than from financial mismanagement without restricting the scope to functions under this part of the Bill. With regard to Clause 42, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, are identical and both achieve the desired effect. Amendment No. 24 to Clause 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would also secure the desired effect, but
786
mine and my noble friend's amendment go rather further in bringing the wording in the two Bills together, and so I think they are preferable in the circumstances.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I propose to move Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 separately. I am sure that it will be more convenient for the Committee if the noble Lord postpones his observations until that stage.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in advising me of that before I stumbled into responding to what he has not yet explained. I shall wait until we reach Amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be willing to withdraw Amendment No. 24 to Clause 42, and that my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be willing to withdraw Amendment No. 32 to Clause 54. My amendment and my noble friend's amendment to Clause 42—Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—are identical and I shall be content if the Committee accepts either. Finally, I hope that my amendments to Clause 54, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, will be accepted.
Lord Beloff: I rarely intervene on Scottish affairs but I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on adopting word for word the amendment which I drafted and which this Chamber passed at my suggestion on the English and Welsh Bill. I suggest that this might be a very useful precedent. If the Government were to accept amendments that I draft to education Bills they would spare themselves a great deal of trouble of the kind that they got into last night, for instance. Perhaps my noble friend will convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that rather than threaten this House through the radio and the media, as he has been doing today, with dire penalties if this Chamber does not reverse its majority decision of last night, he might, on reflection, think that the House of Lords is more often right than wrong, and that in the amendment moved by the Minister we have accurate and convincing proof of that fact.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that we all understand my noble friend Lord Beloff wishing to use the opportunity of a Scottish Bill to remind us of his great work last night which concerned the inspectorate in schools applying entirely to England and Wales. Last night the clause on the Scottish Bill was unchanged. I return to the amendment. We owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Beloff for the wording. I thank my noble friend for his introduction to Amendments Nos. 22, 33 and 34. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Government for their flexibility and willingness to amend this part of the Scottish Bill not once but twice.
In speaking to the amendments in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I apologise for the exact repetition of Government Amendment No.

787
22 in my amendment which is Amendment No. 23. When I originally tabled the amendment, I was advised that it was flawed. I adjusted the drafting, but the weekend intervened. It was only this morning that I realised that the only two differences on the Marshalled List between my amendment and that of the Government are a misprint in the middle of paragraph (a) where the letter "n" is floating in space instead of having an "i" before it to make the word "in". In the last line of paragraph (a) of the Government amendment there is a semi-colon, and in my amendment there is a comma. That may seem insignificant; but punctuation does matter. I was informed only today of something which I should have known already; namely, that in this century someone was hanged because of the lack of a comma in the Treason Act 1351 which I understand is still on the statute book and without any commas. Apparently not much punctuation was put into legislation at that time.
In this case I do not believe that my amendment or that of the Government say anything different. The sense is exactly the same. Perhaps we can ignore that matter. In fact, it is my amendment which contains punctuation from the English Bill and not the Government amendment.
My Amendment No. 32 and the Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are differently worded, but they have almost identical effect. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has said, he has omitted one phrase which was unnecessary, but otherwise the effect is the same. I gladly accept Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 as I am sure do other Members of the Committee whose names are attached to Amendment No. 32. I shall not move that amendment.
It seems to me that the outcome is now satisfactory to all concerned. As originally drafted, the Bill allowed for too much Scottish Office interference in the affairs of higher education institutions. That perhaps reflected the Scottish Office experience of close control of what used to be called central institutions. The Government listened very carefully to the arguments in another place on this matter. When their amendments were put forward and agreed, the Government had the impression, and so I believe did all Members of Parliament present, that the universities in Scotland were satisfied. However, once the Scottish university principals reflected on the matter, they were not satisfied. The Secretary of State for Scotland would still have more power than the Secretaries of State for England and Wales to intervene in university affairs in certain circumstances.
Scottish universities wanted the same degree of autonomy and freedom for Scottish institutions as is allowed for in the England and Wales Bill. The Government have now provided that. There is a long and much-cherished devotion in Scotland to the concept of academic freedom in universities. But more than that—and this is important—despite separate funding councils now being set up, it is of vital importance to Scotland that our higher education institutions do not become isolated. Quality and the funding of research must continue to be handled on a
788
UK basis. Academic freedom and institutional relationships with the government of the day may affect both quality and research funding. That is particularly why Scottish higher education institutions have reason to be grateful to the Government for their willingness to listen and to respond not only once but twice to their requests. I hope that the Committee will accept the Government Amendments Nos. 22, 33 and 34. In turn, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 23 and 32.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: These amendments concern the important matter of academic freedom. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister why the Scottish Bill, which is now before the Committee, did not include the safeguards which had been written into the English Bill, if I may call it that. If I may say so, the noble Lord, showing a precocious mastery of the technique of the Dispatch Box, omitted to answer that question. As the concession has been made, it would be ungracious for me to repeat it. In this matter, I eat out of the hand of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am entirely content to follow her line and to thank the noble Lord for the concession that he has brought forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Further functions]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 31, line 19, after ("Scotland") insert ("including performance measures which describe as fully as possible the education received by students including measures such as staff-student ratios, funding per student, student library book ratios, drop out rates, spending or student support facilities and other measures as appropriate").
The noble Lord said: This amendment merely states that there should be made available information as regards,
"staff-student ratios, funding per student, student library book ratios, drop out rates, spending or student support facilities and other measures as appropriate".
For each institution these facilities will be comparatively easy to provide. They will assist with the choice of institution. I cannot see how this amendment can be objected to because under the Citizen's Charter we have heard more about consumer choice and so forth. Surely we can bring these facilities into the Bill. It should not be very expensive to state how many students and staff there are in an institution. It cannot be difficult to do that or to include the number of books and the drop out rate. That would be very simple. It would not greatly inconvenience anybody as the information must be readily available if the institution is functioning in a reasonable and efficient manner. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I think that this is a reasonable proposal for exactly the same reason as before a horse race it is reasonable to specify the weights; otherwise a good many of us guess wrong.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked how could anyone object to this amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the amendment is reasonable. The point is, I do

789
not object and it is reasonable. But it is an amendment that is unnecessary because it seeks to require the funding council to give the Secretary of State the kinds of information that the Secretary of State would wish to receive and that the council would wish to provide. It therefore adds nothing of substance either to the Secretary of State's powers or to the council's ability to address the important area of performance indicators.
Clause 43 requires the council to provide the Secretary of State with information about higher education in Scotland which he may require, and enables the council to provide him with such information as it thinks fit.
The Government's belief in the importance of performance indicators is well known. The department formed a joint working group with the grant-aided colleges two years ago to examine the issue. In addition, the launch letters of guidance to the present funding councils in 1988 made clear that the Government looked to the UFC and PCFC,
"to develop further indicators of both the quality and quantity of institutions' teaching."
In the universities sector, joint work by the UFC and Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the development of such indicators is also continuing.
The higher education White Paper repeated that expectation in relation to the new council, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to reinforce that in his guidance to it. It would in any case be remarkable if performance indicators relating to the output and quality of higher education as well as its funding, did not become an increasingly important part of the information collected and provided by the council.
I hope that what I have done is to describe the tremendous advances that the Government believe need to be made in this area, but why the amendment is not necessary. I hope that having explored the amendment fully, the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Certainly it appears that he has met most of my points. However, I should like to go away and read his answer and check it out to make sure that everything is there. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 31, line 25, at end insert ("and shall be published by him.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, it may he appropriate if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
The purpose of these amendments is that we feel very strongly that the advice of the funding councils to the Secretary of State should be published in order to establish greater openness in the framework of government within which the institutions have to work. It is especially important that the issue of funding and quality should be seen to be separate. That was the view taken by a number of noble Lords during speeches on the Bill for England and Wales. All those involved in higher education should have good
790
data on the sector at their disposal. That is particularly relevant to the determination of student numbers, for example, as well as to other aspects which have a substantial impact on the work of the university institutions.
If we are moving into a new era where there are to be citizen's charters and a greater spread of the knowledge and the reasons for decisions being taken, surely this is a place where there are enough responsible people able to handle the publication of advice to the Secretary of State from organisations such as the Universities Funding Council. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I too shall reply to the same amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken.
There was an extensive debate during Committee in the other place on the question whether and to what extent the information and advice provided to the Secretary of State by the council should be made public. In answering the debate, my right honourable friend the Minister of State made clear that he expected that a good many of the exchanges between the Secretary of State and the council would be made public as a matter of course, and the council would have a public role in influencing the climate of opinion on issues affecting the higher education sector in Scotland.
However there were occasions where it would be undesirable, or indeed damaging, for the council's communications with the Secretary of State automatically to be made public. For instance, exchanges could well concern the confidential financial resources of a particular institution, or the level of resources which the council considered the sector required. It has been the long-standing practice of successive governments to conduct the discussions leading up to public expenditure decisions in private. The reason being that this provides the most conducive environment for an objective and rational appraisal of competing bids for the available resources to be carried out.
The difficulty with Amendment No. 26 is that it requires publication in all circumstances which in effect would mean that the Government could not benefit from the advice and assistance of the council in the most difficult and sensitive cases. The Government have no wish to gag the council. The intention is simply to preserve the existing arrangements under Sections 131(8) (b) and 132(10) (b), of the Education Reform Act 1988 which rest discretion over publication with the Secretary of State. That will allow the council to function effectively both on matters which are appropriate for the public domain and those which must remain at least for a period in the private domain.
An identical amendment to Amendment No. 27 was also debated in another place. What I feel about this amendment is that student numbers are such a basic statistic that the council could not fail to be aware of them. Therefore it is unnecessary to require them to keep these numbers under review. In general, the collection of statistics and other data and details of

791
funding methodologies are best left to the three funding councils to work out in consultation with the institutions.
With regard to Amendment No. 28, the council already has sufficient powers under the Bill to conduct all the research and engage in all the statistical activity that will be appropriate. The necessary statutory cover stems largely from subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 43. The council could therefore already commission its own independent research and no doubt will wish to do so. I believe that Amendment No. 26 is undesirable, and that Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Minister has made an interesting reply. I wonder whether there might possibly be some scope for further discussion. I take the Minister's point about confidential information concerning the financial circumstances of an individual institution. If the Minister would prefer an amendment tabled in the form of a requirement for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to provide an annual report, that might be something that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, might wish to consider.
The other part of the Minister's argument is essentially about the public expenditure round. The Minister argued that governments prefer to have this conducted with as much confidentiality as possible. I can see perfectly well that they do. It is much more convenient for them. But the Government's convenience is not always the only criterion to be taken into account. There is a considerable number of parties whose confidence, ideally, should be gained if possible. While it is a great deal easier for the Government to conduct everything in private, it does not necessarily follow that that results in arriving at a better decision.
The policy of restraint from giving advice in public is not a longstanding government policy; it is something that was brought in in the Education Reform Act 1988. It has given rise to a good deal of comment since. It has been reflected on, somewhat unfavourably, by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer when he was censured by the Public Accounts Committee in another place for not revealing in public advice which the Education Reform Act 1988 did not allow him to reveal. He felt that that was a little unfair. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him.
Therefore, is the Minister prepared to consider that there may be some scope for discussion about how far people should know the advice which is coming in from the funding council? After all, because it is a public body it ought to be able to contemplate informing Parliament on occasion, as well as the Secretary of State. I understand that the Secretary of State needs to be able to make an informed decision, but so on occasion do we. If we knew what the funding council was advising, very often we could do it rather better.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may briefly respond to that point. With regard to general consultation, I am
792
always delighted to have more discussions with the noble Earl or anyone else on these subjects. But there is a general point of principle here. If there is a requirement to publish all advice, which under this amendment is the case, in all circumstances, what will happen is that the advice will not be sought in the first place. I cannot believe that that is what the noble Lord opposite or the noble Earl would like to see. Privacy is not just convenient. It allows better decisions to be reached between the competing claims on the limited resources available. The 1988 Act probably strikes the right balance.
I hope that I have replied to the noble Earl in such a way that he can accept the force of argument. There is always a problem that governments of whatever colour seek to have these kinds of discussions in privacy. If the position were ever reversed between the noble Lord Carmichael and myself, he would want exactly the same provisions. These are the provisions that work best in terms of government, and from the accountability point of view it is Parliament's right to cross-examine the Secretary of State or other Ministers to find out what decisions have been made and what advice has been received.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It has been an interesting debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that a report of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council should be laid before Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will take that suggestion away. We all accept that every organisation must have some confidentiality about its discussions and dealings with other bodies. However, in Britain we seem to ask, "How little do we have to tell them?"; and never, "How much can we tell them without doing damage to our point of view?" The Minister was quite right. I was in much the same position as he now is. I had to withhold some so-called secrets. However, I shall not go into details—that the figures that we were trying to protect for various reasons were produced in America via the Freedom of Information Act. There was an agreement between Britain and America that all data on certain subjects should be given to the Americans. They published them but even then we were not allowed to discuss them in the British House of Commons.
Rational appraisal is more difficult if everyone knows the facts or everyone knows a lot of the facts. However, I believe that a start should be made at some point. A modus vivendi should be found through the facts given by the SHEFC to the Secretary of State. Perhaps we can gradually build up until we know the minimum that the Secretary of State and the Government need before damage is done to the argument. I believe that the more discussion one has on most things, the better. With all their faults and all the contradictions in terms of what the Government have been saying about confidentiality, that even applies to the league table published on Friday of last week concerning not only the standard of education in some of our schools, or what the Government crudely thought was the standard of education, but the cost per pupil. That should have been better dealt with than it was. Secrecy serves the Government

793
sometimes; perhaps, sadly, all governments. At other times, when it suits them, they want to dispense with secrecy.
However, I take the Minister's point and I hope that he will take on board the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and give thought to the idea of a report being laid before Parliament periodically on the advice of the SHEFC to the Secretary of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Designation of institutions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 32, line 25, at end insert ("which is not a university and").
The noble Lord said: This may seem to be an unnecessary amendment. Its purpose is to prevent confusion between the status of a university as currently instituted and a designated institution under this clause. In particular, Clauses 38(2) and 50(1) and (2) do not make absolutely clear that the Secretary of State may not choose to designate an existing university and thereby obtain extra powers. This amendment would make absolutely clear what in any case appears to be the Government's intention. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I think I can help the noble Lord. The Secretary of State cannot designate one of the existing universities under Clause 44. There is a very clear distinction in the Bill between designated institutions and the existing universities. Therefore the provisions of Clauses 45, 47 and 49 cannot apply to the existing universities. Accordingly, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Power of Privy Council in relation to designated institutions]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 32, line 39, after ("body") insert ("which shall include at least two students nominees elected from the student body").
The noble Lord said: We find ourselves returning to the matter of student representation. The amendment states that the governing body shall include at least two student nominees from the student body. The amendment effectively states that there should be elected student representatives and that there should be at least two.
I regard it as something of an opening position to say that there should be at least two, but I think that two is the minimum functioning number for student representation on any one of these bodies for the simple reason that they will need support, one from the other. One will also have a better cross-section of the student body if it is represented by two persons rather than one. It is quite conceivable that one person
794
may be able to do a particularly good job under certain circumstances but two covers the fact that there may be disagreements in the student body and that it may be divided. It also covers the fact that a person may be incapacitated through illness or for reasons of academic study.
I shall not speak at any great length about the value of student representation. When discussing the Bill relating to England we found dozens of situations where Ministers had said how wonderful, or at least how useful, student representation was. I do not think it has ever been disputed that student representation is useful. On those grounds I would suggest that the amendment is certainly one that should be considered very seriously as it seems to express the consensus of all the opinions on this issue in their various guises. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The composition of the governing bodies of the Scottish grant-aided colleges has traditionally been dealt with by regulations rather than in primary legislation. At present, the relevant provisions are contained in Part II of the Central Institutions (Scotland) Regulations 1988 and in Schedule 1 of the Colleges of Education (Scotland) Regulations 1987. Clause 45 as it stands simply repeats the provisions of Section 77(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and transfers the powers concerned from the Secretary of State to the Privy Council. It would therefore be out of keeping with our established practice in these matters to specify one element of the composition of governing bodies on the face of the Bill.
Members of the Committee will no doubt he aware that the Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading in the other place that, before the Privy Council began making governing orders for institutions, it was right that a number of changes should be made to relax the present restrictions on the composition of the grant-aided colleges' governing bodies. However, the grant-aided colleges argued in favour of retaining the existing arrangements under the 1987 and 1988 regulations, and accordingly the Government listened to their views and have now decided to make no changes to those arrangements. That means that the requirement for staff and student representation and for local authority experience will remain. I accordingly invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
I believe that Amendment No. 31 is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because the academic appeals procedure is already covered under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) which allows the Privy Council order to prescribe the administrative and other arrangements to be adopted by the governing body for the purpose of discharging its functions. The amendment is inappropriate because—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: I was under the impression that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 had not been grouped together and that they would be dealt with separately.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is quite right; I apologise.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord for his response. It seems to cover most of the points which I raised. I shall want to have one or two consultations, but I suspect that the matter has been dealt with sufficiently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 33, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) prescribe the procedure to be followed in case of an academic appeal by students in attendance at any such institution, following consultation with relevant bodies, including those representing students,").
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief in my remarks as the Committee has already heard half of the answer. The amendment prescribes a universal process for academic appeal throughout the institutions covered by the Bill. It also requires that the relevant bodies, including those representing students, are consulted when the process is brought into being.
The consultation with student representative bodies —presumably the NUS—means that the student view, which is the one that probably should be taken into account when one considers what is going on, will be heard—for example, why a certain given mark has been arrived at. It may be due to some sort of doctrinal difference within a discipline. For instance, inside politics, if you have a student with views "A" and an academic with views "B", you can end up in the position where everyone is very unhappy and the final interpretation of the mark could be brought into question. I therefore suggest that the amendment should at least be given some serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise to the noble Lord for pre-empting his remarks, which of course were very helpful in clarifying my mind. Perhaps I may again make the point that the academic appeals procedure is already covered under Clause 45(3) (a). It allows the Privy Council order to prescribe the administrative and other arrangements to be adopted by the governing body for the purpose of discharging its functions. I believe that that point makes the amendment as drafted unnecessary. Further, the academic appeals procedure is a detailed matter which is best dealt with by each institution individually under its delegated powers to make rules relating to the discharge of its functions. That is the way the matter is dealt with at present. Moreover, it seems to be the way that works best. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: This is one case where we are not so much defending the status quo as asking for some form of improvement. A form of unified structure would make the procedure easier to understand. For example, it would make it easier for governing bodies of students to give assistance when talking about appeals. However, I have taken note of the noble Lord's remarks. Although this is one issue to which I
796
feel that it may be necessary to return in a somewhat different form, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Directions]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 37, line 35, leave out from ("mismanaged") to end of line 38.
Page 37, line 42, leave out from ("mismanagement") to end of line 43.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 37, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment concerns the parliamentary control over the regulation-making power of the Minister. Members of the Committee will see from Clause 54 that there are two sorts of power in question. Under subsection (2) of the clause, the Secretary of State, "may give general directions" to the funding council. Under subsection (3) he may in certain extreme situations give institution-specific directions. Those extreme situations are, roughly speaking, financial mismanagement or a financial crisis. As it was put during the discussion on the English Bill by the Paymaster General, it is a power of last resort when the funding councils and the specific institutions appear to have gone, as it was put, "completely off the rails".
The question is whether one or other of those types of directions—that is, the general direction or the institution-specific regulation—should be subject to the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure. As Members of the Committee know, so far as concerns parliamentary control, the negative resolution procedure is far from satisfactory. For one thing, in the other place the resolutions very rarely come on for discussion because time has flown before they have come into force. When they are dealt with in the other place, they are dealt with at an extremely inconvenient hour. The big difference in both Chambers is that the Government find time for the affirmative resolution procedure. Moreover, the Government explain at the outset why they need the regulations: whereas, under the negative resolution procedure, the Minister replies at the end and there is no answer to what he says. Therefore, the affirmative resolution procedure is really the only effective parliamentary control. If one is to delegate important powers to the Secretary of State, the least that Parliament can do is to ensure that there is some effective control.
That fact was recognised by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. I shall read the longer passage from its report because that was summarised later in the document at

797
paragraph 77. However, as regards what should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, paragraph 46(1) entitled,
"Powers substantially affecting the provisions of Acts of Parliament",
reads:
"Everything turns upon the word 'substantially'. The view of Your Committee is that when important issues are involved, whether because of the nature of the enactments … it is likely to he obvious that the affirmative procedure should be used—if indeed it is appropriate for the amendment to he made by order at all, and not by the Bill. Conversely, there will be cases [for the negative resolution procedure] where the amendment is of a trivial or tidying-up character, or is consequential"
on previous provisions.
The relevant word is "trivial" in contradistinction to "important".
I previously exonerated the Minister from answering a question that he had omitted to answer on Second Reading for reasons that I think all of your Lordships understood and sympathised with. However, on this occasion I venture to ask him to answer specific questions because they can be answered in one word. First, on subsection (2) and the general directions to a funding council, are those directions trivial or important? One word will do. Secondly, turning to the institution-specific regulations, which are matters of last resort when everybody has gone off the rails, are they important or can they be dismissed as trivial? Again, one word will do. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right to move this amendment. When we agreed in the course of our deliberations on the English Bill not to oppose the Government's powers to deal with financial mismanagement, we made a significant concession. We were right to make that concession because it contributed to an honourable settlement. However, "mismanagement" is a potentially subjective word. On occasion, mismanagement may be in the eye of the beholder. It is possible that there could be occasions when this Chamber might want to be able to satisfy itself that what it is dealing with is mismanagement.
I very much take the noble and learned Lord's point about terms and conditions and the directive. Is that trivial or substantial? The character of higher education in this country is being affected by terms and conditions and is capable of being further affected by terms and conditions. This Chamber does not always have the opportunity to debate the most important points. I do not think that that is trivial. The noble and learned Lord was right that it is substantial.
Turning to the use of the directive, where there is a case of serious financial difficulties it may be necessary to change the whole character of an institution. Let us imagine, for example, a directive that the University of Cambridge should have no scientists. I imagine that a great many of your Lordships might think it important that that should be considered by the House. Therefore, I think that the noble and learned Lord is right and I am glad that he has moved his amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Only one point strikes me about this and it is the old argument about negative and positive resolutions. I believe that the negative resolution is often the best way to achieve good, effective government. It goes through quickly without setting in process a time-consuming machine that operates in a sometimes misleading way. It is a question of whether this point comes in a category for which the certainty of the positive resolution can be justified. I do not know enough about the details of this to have a worthwhile opinion on it; but my feeling is that in this case the negative resolution would meet the need. I do not, however, want to argue with our experts on further and higher education in Scotland on this point. By and large, rather than debase the coinage of the positive resolution procedure, which we must have for the really important matters, I should have thought that, on this occasion, the negative procedure would meet the bill.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, says. It has force. As it happens, I was in the Printed Paper Office last night reading some affirmative instruments that are about to come before this Chamber, some of which were made affirmative partly at my request. When I was trying to follow the language of those instruments, I said to myself that I was doing my penance. I understand therefore what the noble Lord is saying, and I have weighed that point in my mind before speaking. However, I believe that we are witnessing what is capable of becoming a total change in the character of higher education in this country, and I think that that is more important than the point about efficiency, which was made by the noble Lord. Both points have force and can be weighed against each other.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has argued forcefully in favour of the wider use of the affirmative resolution procedure. He has brought tremendous experience and knowledge to bear and has quoted from various documents. I recognise that this is a subject that has exercised the noble Lord both during the passage of the equivalent England and Wales Bill and during the passage of the Local Government Bill. I hope that I can justify the practicalities of what we are trying to do in this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls did a few moments ago.
The order containing any directions from the Secretary of State to the council, whether general or specific, will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is the case at present under the Education Reform Act 1988. During the passage of this Bill and the corresponding England and Wales Bill, the Government have agreed to a very significant restriction in the power of direction which effects both its scope and the circumstances under which it may be used. The savage beast feared by some of your Lordships has been tamed, and the docile creature we have before us hardly merits the full rigours of the affirmative resolution procedure.

799
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me what sounded like a simple question requiring a "yes" or "no" or "trivial" or "substantial" answer. I feel that the restrictions that we have already imposed on this power would confirm that the nature of the order is nearer the trivial than the substantial under the terms of the definition that was quoted by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the Minister mean that that applies also to the general directions?
Lord Strathclyde: No, it applies simply to the terms that were defined by the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may continue to justify my position. There is another point to do with the nature of the power itself. As the Government have made clear, it is intended to be for use in emergencies. Emergencies, by their very nature, tend to move rapidly, demanding urgency and haste in those who would deal with them. They are not noted for their propensity to wait upon the completion of sometimes lengthy parliamentary processes. That is one problem with the affirmative resolution procedure. In general, it takes longer to complete than the negative resolution procedure. In theory it can be completed quickly, but in practice it is not.
Finally, it is wrong to dismiss the negative resolution procedure as being of little significance, because, like the affirmative resolution procedure, it gives Members of the Committee and Members of another place an opportunity to make known their views on the Government's intentions and if necessary to reject them.
For all those reasons it is right that the orders containing directions under Clause 54 should be subject to the negative resolution procedure, as indeed are their equivalents in the England and Wales Bill. I do not suppose for one moment that I have convinced the noble and learned Lord but I hope that he recognises the validity of our arguments. I hope too that he will not press his amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am particularly sorry, for reasons that I gave previously, that I cannot accept the validity of the Minister's argument. Three arguments have been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, spoke of the devaluation of the affirmative resolution procedure. Let us not forget that the normal parliamentary method of regulating behaviour is by the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Immediately we are vouching safe that ancient and valuable power to a Minister. Therefore, there can be no question of devaluation of the affirmative resolution procedure. If any devaluation has occurred it has been by giving power to do by regulation what is normally done by Acts of Parliament. That applies in particular to the general regulations.
The second argument was based on the 1988 Act. It was said that the equivalent provisions were subject only to the negative resolution procedure. So they were, but under peculiar circumstances. When as a Bill that Act passed through the other place there was
800
constant agitation on two fronts; first, that academic freedom was threatened and, secondly, that in any event the regulations ought to have been by the affirmative resolution procedure. In the end the Government gave way on the first and safeguards for academic freedom were written into the Bill. As a quid pro quo the critics dropped their demands for the affirmative resolution procedure.
The third argument was that the regulations would be needed in an emergency. That might conceivably apply to the regulations under subsections (3) but it cannot possibly apply to the regulations under subsection (2). They are the general regulations to the funding councils.
In the end the noble Lord valiantly took the question: are the regulations trivial or are they important? He said that so far as he could guess they verged on the trivial. Does any Member of the Committee, having considered the matter, believe that general regulations to the funding council are other than important and that specific regulations as a last resort are other than important?
In withdrawing my amendment I come back to my opening remarks. I withdraw it not because I consider the Minister's reply to be satisfactory but because this is not an occasion on which to divide the Committee. I must add that in persistently devaluing parliamentary control in this and in other ways the Government will have made a harsh rod for their own backs should a government of another complexion come to power. Such a government will not hesitate to govern by regulation, and it will be regulation with the least parliamentary control possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 63 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Prison Security Bill
5.56 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence of prison mutiny]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("two") and insert ("six").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is simple. Under the Bill the offence of prison mutiny can be committed by just two people. During the debate on Second Reading I argued that

801
that number was too low and I said that I would return to the matter in Committee. I now propose that six would be more appropriate.
The reasoning behind the amendment is twofold. First, the notion that two people can commit the kind of incident in a prison that we are all concerned to tackle seems to be far fetched. Surely, we are concerned to deal with the kind of event that we witnessed on our television screens happening at Strangeways and other prisons up and down the country; namely, violence and destruction on a large scale causing mayhem.
That is what the Bill was originally designed to prevent. However, it would appear that along the way the original purpose has been changed because the Bill is now about mutiny. That concept is derived from military legislation and deals with the refusal of subordinates to obey commands. On Second Reading the Minister said that two was the number required in the Army Act definition of mutiny. However, he added that no doubt it would be a rare occurrence for the conduct of two prisoners only to get out of control.
I believe that it would be right to say that two people may be sufficient for a mutiny situation but that it would be absurd to think of two people committing the kind of rioting that we saw at Strangeways. For example, it would be difficult to imagine only two people going on the rampage and causing the widespread damage that we watched to our dismay.
The second reason behind the amendment is that we believe that the number of people who can commit mutiny must be higher than the number of people who can live in one cell. It would be quite wrong for behaviour that takes place in a cell to be caught by this legislation and therefore carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. After all, in cramped conditions with three men sharing a cell, all kinds of difficulties may arise. We believe that those prisoners should not fall foul of the legislation.
The issue was extensively debated at both Committee and Report stages of the Bill in another place. The Minister there appeared at one point to be persuaded that a higher figure would be advisable. However, nothing was forthcoming from the Government and that is why we now put forward this amendment. We have a great deal of hope that the Government have now had time to reconsider and that they will acknowledge that the arguments that have been used both here and in another place are forceful and that they will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We feel that the whole idea of mutiny in prison is confusing. Mutiny, after all, is an organised revolt against authority by men or women who are recruited and paid to do a certain job under the equivalent of a contract and who owe loyalty to authority.
Prisoners, on the other hand, are forcibly deprived of liberty and one cannot expect them to feel loyalty to authority. Our view and that of the noble Baroness is that the right way to deal with general revolt is
802
under the Public Order Act 1986. But if the Government insist on this, then when two or three are gathered together, that seems to me to be as good a number as six or 12. Therefore, I do not feel passionately in support of the amendment, although if it were carried I believe it would do no harm.
Earl Ferrers: I wish to show the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that if the amendment were passed it might do harm. I shall try to explain why. The amendment would make the offence of prison mutiny harder to prove, which is unfortunate to start with. It would therefore reduce the value of the offence of prison mutiny. An amendment with the same effect was tabled in another place and the reasons that we gave then are the same now.
Amendment No. 1 raises from two to six the minimum number of inmates who have to be involved in an incident before it may be charged as mutiny. My right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place gave thought at an earlier stage to whether this type of amendment was the best way to tackle the anxiety that had been expressed about the effect of the Bill. She concluded that it was not, and we have considered it and still feel that the view is correct.
The difficulty that many honourable Members saw with the Bill was that the range of behaviour that might constitute mutiny was too wide. It seemed to encompass everything from a passive protest about the food to the destruction we saw in our prisons in April 1990. The Government tabled an amendment at Report stage in another place to narrow the definition so that it applied only to the most serious types of incident. Honourable Members on both sides welcomed this. Raising the minimum number of inmates involved, on the other hand, would have been wide of the mark. Whether the minimum is two or six does not affect the nature of the conduct we seek to penalise.
The noble Baroness's amendment is open to serious objections. The first is that six—indeed, any number above two—is an arbitrary choice. I can see that a governor may have a greater problem containing an outburst by six inmates than one by two or three. He may need to deploy control and restraint staff from elsewhere in the prison, disrupting the regime with the risk of trouble over a wider area. But I think he would have the same problem in quelling a disturbance involving five rather than six inmates. It is a matter of degree. It would not be possible to say that six constitutes a mutiny whereas five does not.
A second and more fundamental objection is that, in a prison context, it may only take two prisoners hell-bent on overthrowing order to set off a full-scale riot involving many more prisoners. Raising the minimum to six would make it much harder to prove a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority. It is difficult enough to prove that two people had a common purpose. I can quite easily envisage a disturbance involving 30 prisoners who run riot in a wing of a prison and cause widespread damage. The defence may argue successfully that no six prisoners shared a common purpose, but the same defence would fail if the offence required a minimum of only two.

803
I very much doubt whether an incident involving only two inmates would in itself be sufficient to be regarded as conduct intended to overthrow lawful authority. I suspect that we are more concerned with large-scale incidents involving many inmates. But the point is that two prisoners can precipitate a large-scale incident and it is right that the Bill should provide that only two need have that common purpose.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is best to leave the figure of two in the Bill.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his reasons so clearly. However, he did not touch at all on the second reason I gave for putting forward a higher number than two. It seems to us that it would be wrong for behaviour that takes place in a cell which can and often is inhabited by three prisoners to be caught by the legislation and therefore be subject to a large sentence—a maximum of 10 years. That was one of our serious anxieties which brought us to wish to increase the figure above the number who can inhabit a cell. I can imagine only too well the kind of behaviour that can erupt from cramped living quarters, in a cell inhabited by three men and which may be construed as mutiny or riot. I am disappointed that the noble Earl did not touch on that.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I apologise; she is quite right, I omitted to reply to that. We believe that it is unlikely that two or three people who are involved in a cell could be construed as overthrowing authority, for the simple reason that they are in a cell. The chances are that it would require them to be outside the cell for the process of overthrowing authority to become recognised and therefore for them to participate in the act of mutiny.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to both the points I made. They have been argued and discussed at great length. Therefore, in the light of the thought that has been given to the matter on both sides, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("prison") to end of line 16 and insert ("together use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison.").
The noble Baroness said: I know that Amendment No. 2 was grouped with the first amendment, but I wish to say a few words on it now. It is separate from Amendment No. 1. In it we try to ensure that the offence of prison mutiny consists of actual violence or the threat of violence to overthrow lawful authority in a prison. I believe it is important to recollect that the Bill was first conceived as a response to the appalling scenes at Strangeways and other prisons. As I have said, those scenes were characterised by violent behaviour and enormous destruction. But, as has been said before, the intention to deal with such behaviour was lost in the drafting of the Bill. In Committee in another place the Minister argued that the Bill did not
804
deal with riot, which is what we are all so concerned about. He said that it dealt with mutiny, which we are less concerned about at the present time.
As originally drafted, the Bill would have encompassed a wide range of non-violent protest. The Minister remarked on that just now. Fortunately, in another place the Government accepted an amendment to remove the most objectionable clause. That change was welcome but we feel that it did not go quite far enough. The offence of prison mutiny can still be committed where no violence or even threatened violence has taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, gave examples of behaviour in prisons on Second Reading. He stated on 14th February:
"'Taking part' in a mutiny will include both active and passive participation. Prisoners may be drawn towards the scene of a disturbance: to offer moral support, out of curiosity or simply to watch. Their presence adds to the problems of control".—[Official Report, 14/2/92; col. 966.]
Those are the kind of incidents that occur frequently in prisons at present. Officers are, after all, trained to handle such incidents. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, such incidents are currently dealt with under Rule 47 (19) of the prison rules which makes it a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to disobey any lawful order. Surely that kind of behaviour does not warrant a 10-year sentence.
I do not believe we should allow the kind of offences that are dealt with under Rule 47(19) to be included in the Bill. We must draw a clear line between the two kinds of offences so that serious cases such as those we have witnessed in the past 12 months are dealt with under the Bill. It is our view that legislation must be precisely phrased. We believe Clause 1 is still open to abuse. After all it could be applied to behaviour which is non-violent and simply does not warrant an offence that carries such a draconian sentence. Our amendment would ensure that the new offence was focused on the kind of behaviour that we are all greatly concerned about. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I fully support what the noble Baroness said. I have little to add to her remarks. I take the view that if we must have this concept of prison mutiny, it must at least consist of the presence of violence or the threat of violence. Anything else seems to me entirely unreasonable in the conditions of a prison. Almost any normal conversation between prisoners as often as not is one of bitter complaint. That conversation could be interpreted by a hostile companion, or anyone else, as subversive talk. It usually is subversive talk, but unless there is at least a threat of violence it is just a matter that every prison officer knows he has to put up with. No one worries about it. It is absolutely wrong to have left out that provision from a Bill of this importance. I believe the element of at least a threat of violence is a necessary component in this legislation. I hope very much the Government will think again.
Earl Nelson: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he can enlighten me on a matter. Let us suppose that two prisoners decide to take the whole prison out on strike. They refuse to work and refuse to leave their cells, or indeed take part in a dirty protest. Does the noble Lord not agree that that in itself could lead to

805
mutiny within the prison? In other words, violence does not necessarily have to occur to start off a situation that could lead to prison mutiny.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not think I should answer that as I think it is a matter of common sense. A prisoner may be bitterly humiliated and furious at being imprisoned. Many prisoners feel humiliated. In my opinion some of them are in the wrong to feel that way and some of them are in the right. That is a normal attitude of prisoners. Such prisoners will make plans all day long to work out how they can do down the authorities and that kind of thing. That is absolutely normal procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Nelson, suggests that any behaviour of that kind could be regarded as the beginning of a mutiny. It is entirely unreasonable to suggest that. Clearly, any mutiny will begin with that kind of behaviour. The first step will be people talking and complaining and the final step will occur when someone says, "Can we not do something about this? Let us talk to old Joe round the corner." That is the way mutinies start. However, one cannot stop that process by saying that the conversation is mutinous.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that we need to make sure that the criteria for mutiny are carefully phrased. Her amendment narrows the definition of mutiny in Clause 1(2) by requiring the use or threat of violence before a charge of mutiny may be brought. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that there would always be a threat of violence before a mutiny occurs. I am sure an element of violence will be present in most of the serious disturbances at which the Bill is aimed. I do not think there is anything between us on that.
However, we need to recognise that it can be very difficult to prove particular acts of violence against particular inmates who are in a prison and behind locked doors. An incident may occur within a building and out of the sight of any onlookers, particularly where a large number of inmates have barricaded themselves in. If, despite the evidence of widespread damage, it is not possible to prove the use or threat of violence against a particular inmate, the amendment would prevent any of those involved being successfully prosecuted for mutiny. That would completely weaken the whole purpose of this part of the Bill.
Furthermore, the ringleaders in a disturbance—those who instigate or orchestrate it, often from the sidelines—may not themselves participate in acts of violence. In our view, they are as culpable as those who do. However, this amendment would let them off the hook.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should have thought that they would at least have participated in a threat of violence.
Earl Ferrers: Again, one has to prove they have been part of the threat of violence. They may have orchestrated it from the sidelines, but it is difficult to prove they have created a threat.
806
Amendment No. 2 would also remove Clause 1(3) from the Bill. The first part of Clause 1(3) provides that the intentions and common purpose of prisoners may be inferred from their conduct. That is similar to a provision in the Public Order Act in relation to the offence of riot. It is not clear how prisoners' common purpose is to be proved if not by inferring it from their conduct. In the absence of an admission by the prisoners concerned, there may be no evidence of the formation of a plan to overthrow lawful authority other than the conduct of the prisoners being consistent with such a plan.
The second part of Clause 1(3) provides that the conduct of different prisoners may take a different form. Of course, if a number of prisoners act together to overpower an officer and take over and wreck part of a prison, it might be quite easy to prove that they had a common purpose. We want to cater for the situation where the same prisoners do not act in unison but do different things in different parts of a prison with the same purpose of overthrowing lawful authority. For example, one prisoner may smash the furniture; another may erect a barricade; a third may overpower an officer and take his keys; a fourth may break through to the roof and start shouting slogans. Clause 1(3) as it stands means that, provided that the prisoners share a common purpose, it does not matter that they further that purpose in different ways.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to Rule 47(19). That makes it a disciplinary offence to disobey an order and carries with it a maximum penalty of 28 days loss of remission. I do not think that that is relevant to the amendment, which concerns whether or not violence needs to be proved against particular people who set out to create mutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, referred to conversation and complaints being subversive. It is not mutiny within the definition of the Bill to make plans and to make subversive complaints. One has to engage in conduct which is intended to overthrow lawful authority.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will see that if the amendment were passed, it would considerably weaken the purpose of the Bill. That would be quite wrong.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The purpose of the amendment is not exactly as the noble Earl said. It is to make it quite clear that a prisoner has to act with violence in order to fall under the legislation.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl of the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 under which powers exist in relation to many offences which now take place in prison. The Act provides, first, for a statutory offence of riot, defined as involving 12 people or more; secondly, for an offence of violent disorder involving three people or more; thirdly, for an offence of affray; and, fourthly, for a summary offence of threatening abuse or insulting behaviour. All of those offences can be committed in prison. Certain powers exist. In addition, there are powers under the prison rules, which I have already mentioned.

807
We are trying to confine the Bill to offences which are not covered elsewhere. That was made clear at Second Reading and was a point made by all speakers. However, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained the Government's point of view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove Clause 1(4) from the Bill. That subsection reads:
"Where there is a prison mutiny, a prisoner who has or is given a reasonable opportunity of submitting to lawful authority and fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as taking part in the mutiny".
We believe that that harks back to the old riot Act which rendered individuals liable to prosecution as a severe penalty simply for being present at the scene of a riot and failing to disperse when told to do so even though they took no active part in the violence or disorderly behaviour. At Second Reading the example was given of a food protest, which occurs a great deal in prisons. If people were standing by because they did not have much to do, they would be caught under that subsection although they were not actively involved in the disorderly behaviour.
The riot Act was abandoned as an unnecessary and unjust blunt instrument in a modern system of criminal justice, but the Bill effectively reintroduces such a provision for people in prison. We believe that the subsection is unnecessary and should therefore be dropped. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Once again I support the noble Baroness. Such definitions are very difficult to get right, but it seems to me that any submissive type of prisoner, of which there are great numbers in prisons, is liable to be beaten up if he does not cheer anybody who is carrying out any act of violence anywhere. It is very difficult to stand by without getting into trouble oneself. The existing provision appears to suggest that people could be given a 10 year sentence if the judge thought that necessary, although I do not think that he would, for simply looking on while somebody else committed a crime. That is not the kind of legislation we ought to support.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I think that it is the kind of legislation that we ought to support and I hope to be able to persuade him to change his mind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the riot Act, which covered a wide range of disturbances. However, mutiny in prison is a very specific offence and we have seen the effects in prisons. That is why we have introduced the Bill.
The purpose of Clause 1(4) is to deal with the real problem which arises in a serious situation when large numbers of onlookers congregate and refuse to disperse. Protests about food or other conditions would not fall within the definition of mutiny.
808
A prison disturbance becomes more dangerous as the numbers involved grow. The disruption caused is greater, and it becomes more difficult to quell the disturbance and to restore order. Clause 1(4) is designed to stop the numbers growing. It provides a clear incentive for prisoners who may not be actively involved to leave the scene and get out of the light when a mutiny begins. Their departure—whether or not it is in response to an order from the prison officers —makes it much easier to resolve an incident peacefully and to restore order. If they will not disperse and their presence adds fuel to the mutiny, then it seems to me to be only fair to regard them as taking part and to make them liable to the same penalty.
Secondly, it may not be obvious in a disturbance which takes place out of the sight of prison officers exactly who is taking an active part, who is lending encouragement and who is merely a bystander. Acts of violence and criminal damage may be committed; it may not be possible to identify the perpetrators, but those present will not be able to hide behind that. Under Clause 1(4), once it has been established that there is a mutiny and that there was a reasonable opportunity to leave the scene in safety but that some people did not do so, all prisoners who remain would be regarded as taking part in the mutiny unless they had a reasonable excuse for not leaving.
It is also not unknown for ring-leaders to try to pass themselves off as bystanders. A prisoner who does not take a reasonable opportunity to leave the scene of a mutiny and deliberately remains there without reasonable excuse cannot in any reasonable view properly be described as an innocent bystander. In my view he is a guilty bystander.
I could understand the need for the amendment if the Bill was still perceived to penalise trivial and passive protests. Clause 1(4) might have been thought to catch the innocent bystanders in a food protest. However, the Bill now clearly does not apply to such minor acts of collective disobedience.
That does not mean that all those who are present will necessarily be found guilty of mutiny. Of course, there may well be prisoners who are unwittingly caught up in a mutiny, who wish to leave the scene but who might be attacked by their fellows if they did so. Prisoners on Rule 43 may be particularly vulnerable. If they are unable to leave in safety then the offence will not apply to them. It is a necessary safeguard to protect the innocent.
Clause 1(4) does not reverse the burden of proof. The prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a prison mutiny and that the prisoner concerned remained on the scene despite having a reasonable opportunity to surrender in safety. If the accused gives evidence that he had a reasonable excuse for his behaviour, the prosecution will also need to convince the court that he did not have such an excuse. Clause 1(4) is designed to catch the culpable bystander (and I make no excuse for that) while providing adequate safeguards for the genuinely innocent bystander.

809
I hope that that explanation serves to reassure the noble Baroness that this provision meets a real need and that it will not have the unwelcome effects she ascribes to it.
Lord Auckland: I intervene on a point of clarification. I presume that any decision on this matter would have to be made by the prison governor personally and not by the chief prison officer following any prosecution. I believe that the Bill is basically right, but it is very widely drawn. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm that it will be a matter for the very top authority in the prison to give a decision.
Earl Ferrers: Quite clearly if there is a mutiny, that is the responsibility of the prison governor. The prison governor will accept responsibility for whoever is charged.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The noble Earl sees matters very differently from those of us on this side of the Chamber. However, I was glad to hear him say that he does not intend the Bill to catch prisoners who indulge in minor acts of civil disobedience. But I believe that there is a very fine distinction between those who do something wrong and those who stand by and watch it. There is a great fear that the draconian sentence included in the Bill may catch a completely innocent bystander who has been dragged into the central events.
At this point it is important to remind the Government that the prison governors did not want this Bill. They were asked whether they wished to have the Bill but they did not respond, or so I understand from the information we had at Second Reading. They must feel able to deal with the kind of disturbances that we are discussing now. I remind the noble Earl that neither the Prison Reform Trust nor the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders wanted the Bill. The POA seemed very doubtful about the usefulness of this Bill to them.
With that in view, I return to the remark made by my noble friend Lord Richard, which I quoted at Second Reading. He said:
"It is difficult to think of an example of a mutiny for which the offence is needed".—[Official Report, 14/2/92; col. 969.]
That thought runs right through the amendments that we have tabled which are meant to mitigate the possible harm that the Bill could do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("who shall not give his consent unless he is of the opinion that a prosecution is necessary in the public interest.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to withhold his consent to a prosecution or a prison mutiny unless he is of the opinion that a prosecution is necessary in the public interest. As I argued in relation to earlier amendments, the Bill would allow prisoners to be convicted of prison mutiny for involvement in non-violent protests, such as sit-down protests and protests about various prison matters.
We believe that it is quite wrong to charge prisoners with a serious criminal offence for such behaviour. In deciding whether a prosecution should take place, the Director of Public Prosecutions should therefore have regard not just to the strength of the evidence and the probability of conviction but also to whether the behaviour was such that a prosecution for prison mutiny should be brought in the public interest.
It may be argued that the DPP would adopt such a course whether or not such a requirement is included on the face of the Bill—that is perhaps what the Minister will tell us in a moment—but we believe that an explicit statutory recognition of the need for such an approach would strengthen his hand in so doing. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that it would be unprecedented to seek to fetter the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the way in which her amendment proposes. I am glad to say that I do not think it is necessary to do so. As I told my noble friend Lord Auckland, governors are responsible for their prisoners. The decision whether to charge is not made by the governor but by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The noble Baroness may not be aware of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, issued under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Section 10 requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue a code giving guidance to prosecutors on the general principles which are to be applied in determining, among other things, whether proceedings for an offence should be instituted. The code's provisions are set out in the annual report made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney-General and published by him.
According to the code, the first question to be determined is the sufficiency of the evidence. After that, paragraph 7 of the code states:
"Having satisfied himself that the evidence itself can justify proceedings, the Crown Prosecutor must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution".
The code goes on to list a number of factors that may properly lead to a decision not to prosecute. They include cases where the circumstances of an offence are not particularly serious and a court would be likely to impose a purely nominal penalty.
I hope it is clear from this that a Crown prosecutor would certainly have to consider whether the public interest required some prisoners' acts of disobedience to be prosecuted as prison mutiny. A prosecution would by no means be automatic. He could well decide that the conduct in question did not justify a prosecution and that the matter should be left to the governor to deal with under the prison disciplinary system. The penalties which are available to the governor range from the mild to the quite severe. They should be quite adequate for the majority of incidents in our prisons.
I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that not only would it be inappropriate for her amendment to appear on the face of the Bill and so in statute fetter the Director of Public Prosecutions, but the action which she seeks is in fact covered by the code of practice.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offences relating to escape]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("ten") and insert ("seven").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. I should say immediately that these amendments are designed to draw an explanation from the Government for their reasoning on two points. First, I ask the Minister to explain why it is thought necessary that such large increases in maximum penalties are required: from five to 10 years for assisting an escape; and, even more dramatically, from two to 10 years for harbouring or assisting an escaped prisoner. That is either twice as much or five times the original sentence.
Secondly, can the Minister tell the Committee why there should be no differential between the maximum penalty for assisting a prisoner to escape and that for harbouring or assisting an escaped prisoner? Currently there is a clear differential, the maximum for the former offence being five years and for the latter two years. However, the Bill provides a maximum 10-year penalty for both offences, putting them at the same level.
At Second Reading the Minister said that increasing to 10 years the maximum penalty for harbouring an escaped prisoner would remove an anomaly because 10 years is the maximum sentence for the offence of impeding the apprehension of a person known or believed to be guilty of an arrestable offence under the Criminal Law Act 1967. But it seems to us that in removing one anomaly the Bill has created another. The usual principle when setting maximum penalties is that they should reflect the relative seriousness of different offences. While both offences are serious matters—we certainly do not disagree with that—most people nevertheless would regard helping a prisoner to escape as more serious than harbouring or assisting one who has previously escaped. I should be grateful to the Minister for comments on Clause 2 of the Bill, and for some explanation as to why those sentences have been decided upon. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, quite reasonably wants to know why we fixed on the penalties that we did for assisting a prisoner to escape and for harbouring an escaped prisoner or assisting him to avoid arrest. She thought that we had increased the maximum too greatly.
There are two reasons why we settled on a 10 year maximum. The first is simply that assisting an escape, and harbouring an escaped prisoner, are grave offences. The first—assisting an escape—covers a wide range of situations from smuggling a hacksaw blade into an establishment to an attempt by an organised gang to break in, possibly using explosives. The second covers the situation where someone on the outside prepares a safe house for an inmate to go to. If he is a particularly dangerous prisoner, harbouring
812
him could well lead to the death or injury of others. In our view, those are very serious offences. The noble Baroness and I agree that they are serious offences.
The second reason for settling on a 10 year maximum is to correct an anomaly in the law. The maximum penalty under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 for assisting a person who has committed an arrestable offence to avoid arrest is in some cases 10 years' imprisonment. I do not see why there should be a different and lower penalty for the related offences under the Prison Act 1952 and the Criminal Justice Act 1961 of assisting a prisoner to escape, and assisting an escaped prisoner to avoid arrest. It is anomalous to have different penalties for those offences. We think they should be brought into line and, in view of their serious nature, that they should be brought into line at 10 years.
Perhaps I should add that 10 years is a maximum and not a mandatory penalty. The courts will be able to impose a lower penalty within the maximum for the less serious type of offence. I hope that serves to reassure the noble Baroness of the reasons why we decided on the 10 years maximum.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the clear explanation that he gave to the probing amendments. I am not entirely convinced by his argument that he has removed one anomaly because I still believe that most people would regard helping a prisoner to escape as more serious than harbouring a prisoner. Nevertheless, he has put forward his arguments for making those penalties on the same level. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill
6.45 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I have four amendments set down. If it please the House, I shall move the first amendment and speak to the other two together because the words proposed to be inserted in the Bill are the same in all three amendments.
The amendments arise because I simply do not understand the meaning of the words—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I believe that we are slightly out of order. I do not believe that the Question was put that the Bill be now read a third time, or indeed that Amendment No. 1 was called. If the Lord Chairman were able to do that it might help.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [New offence of aggravated vehicle-taking]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, after ("vehicle") insert ("recklessly or carelessly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been thrown completely off my stride. I was saying that I had put down the first three amendments—and I hope that the bargain still stands that we can take the first three together—because I could not understand the meaning of the words,
"owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred".
Those words appear in subsection (2) (b) and (c) of Clause 1 of the Bill.
At Report, I asked what those words meant. I do not consider that I received a satisfactory reply; I do not believe that I received a reply. It may be rather strange that we reach the Third Reading of a Bill in the second House and people still ask what the words mean. Perhaps I am obtuse. It may be that it does not matter very much whether or not I understand what the words mean. What is important—indeed vital—is that the courts understand what the words mean. The courts are responsible for administering criminal justice under the Act—as I suppose it will become.
Let me give two examples. A person commits the basic offence of taking a vehicle and driving it without the owner's consent. He is not a hooligan. He is probably by himself. He merely seeks to get from A to B, and he drives perfectly sensibly. Some drunken idiot drives along in the other direction on the opposite side of the road and crashes into him. A bystander witnesses the offence. The bystander is asked, "Did the accident happen owing to the driving of Mr. Smith's vehicle?" (Let us call him Mr. Smith.) The answer is, "No, it was owing to the driving of the lunatic who was drunk, and driving in the opposite direction". The courts presumably will agree with what the witness said. The courts will say that the accident was not owing to the driving of Mr. Smith's vehicle, and they will not convict the person of the aggravated offence under the Bill. The Bill is directed not against ordinary people (if I may call them that) who take vehicles, but against hooligans who go about in gangs taking vehicles and driving them dangerously.
I give another illustration. Mr. Brown is driving along perfectly sensibly, having wickedly committed the basic offence of taking somebody else's vehicle for which he deserves to be punished. A dog rushes out almost under his wheels. He swerves to avoid it and an accident occurs. A bystander witnesses the incident. He is asked whether the accident was owing to the driving of the vehicle. He says that it was not. He says that it was owing to the dog rushing out almost under the driver's wheels. Presumably the court will accept that evidence and will decide that the accident was not owing to the driving of the vehicle and the person will not be convicted of the aggravated offence.
I have moved amendments to insert words which indicate bad driving and not merely the driving of the vehicle. That would make the matter perfectly clear. If the court realised that in those two instances bad driving had to be proved, there would be no possibility of the prosecution proving that. Therefore, the matter would be made even more clear to the court.
I want the courts to be able to understand what this Bill is about. That is why I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I support every cogent and persuasive word uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
At earlier stages of the Bill, on these Benches we have attempted to point out that the phrase:
"owing to the driving of the vehicle"
must mean either owing to the fact that the vehicle was being driven or owing to the fact that the vehicle was being driven dangerously, recklessly, carelessly, badly or in some other way. We have attempted to persuade the noble Earl that an adverb of one kind or another would add a pleasing touch of clarity to the clause. Consequently, we support this final attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was surprised when I saw the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because, first, they were tabled so late that I thought that some of your Lordships may not have had the benefit of seeing them as they appeared on the Marshalled List only this morning.
Secondly, I was surprised because the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is usually so punctilious on points of style and grammar and yet the first two amendments are clearly ungrammatical. Thirdly, I was surprised because the noble Lord has reverted to the concept of reckless driving which has been found unsatisfactory and was replaced by the idea of dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Act. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wants to slip us back into reckless driving.
The noble Lord explained what concerns him. He gave the astonishing example of Mr. Smith. He had taken somebody else's car and was driving along quite sedately, just like any old gentleman aged 60 or so. The fact that it was somebody else's car was irrelevant. Suddenly, hooligans smashed into him. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, says that it is unfair that Mr. Smith should be prosecuted because, although the accident was "owing to the driving of the vehicle", hooligans have smashed into him. The reason that the words "owing to the driving of the vehicle" are important is because if Mr. Smith had not stolen and driven the car in the first place, the accident would never have occurred.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, goes on to give a second example in which the gentleman is ingeniously called Mr. Brown. He took a car. He was absolutely tight in somebody else's car. He was driving along when a stupid dog walked across the road which caused an accident. The noble Lord asks why that person should then be prosecuted when the accident was the dog's fault and not the driver's fault. If Mr. Brown had not taken the vehicle in the first place, there would have been no accident.
I find it hard to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I believe that I said in Committee that I think that his morals are most peculiar. In this respect —and in this respect only—I believe that they are most peculiar. I do not know how he can feel sorry for a person who has stolen somebody else's vehicle and then happens to become involved in an accident which may not have been his fault. I ask the noble Lord to think about the person to whom the vehicle belonged. Not only had he been deprived of his vehicle but when it is returned, it is smashed to pieces. The noble Lord

815
seeks to point out that it was not the poor driver's fault. However, the whole philosophy of the Bill is that it is the fault of the person who took the vehicle.
I have tried to explain before that the Bill is needed because gangs of youths habitually take cars and it is usually not possible to prove who was driving at a particular time, who did what damage or what they may have thought about it. The law as it stands has simply been inadequate to cope with that particular crime. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would have the effect of requiring the prosecution to prove what they cannot prove at the moment. Therefore, that would not improve the present position.
The third of the noble Lord's amendments adds insult to injury by providing that the deliberate infliction of damage is not an aggravating event. That would be aggravating only if the damage were inflicted recklessly or carelessly. I do not believe that the noble Lord intends that result. I hope he will agree that that is not his intention. The amendment would have the bizarre result that a defendant, who admitted that he had smashed up another person's car which he had stolen, would not be guilty of the aggravated offence because the act was not done recklessly or carelessly but merely deliberately. That would be a funny old how-do-you-do. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that his amendments are quite unsuitable.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, perhaps I may take what the noble Earl said in the order in which he said it. He began by saying that my amendments are ungrammatical. However, he did not specify in what way they are ungrammatical. They do not appear to be ungrammatical to me. Nobody else has suggested that they are. However, that is a minor point.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, is it not the case that in the first two amendments an adverb is used when it should be an adjective qualifying the word "driving"?
Lord Airedale: My Lords, perhaps we should move on to the substance of the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord said that I did not specify why the amendments are ungrammatical. I did not do so because I did not wish to embarrass him. However, as he has asked to be embarrassed, I shall do so.
As amended, the Bill would read:
"that, owing to the driving of the vehicle recklessly or carelessly, an accident occurred by which injury was caused to any person".
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not know what is ungrammatical about that. However, we must move on otherwise we shall be here all night.
The noble Earl then complained that I was late in tabling the amendments. First, almost the minimum time was allowed between Report stage last Tuesday and Third Reading. Furthermore, the noble Earl will remember that I met him yesterday evening and told him that I was tabling these amendments. I offered to let him have a copy of them in advance yesterday evening. However, he declined that invitation on the ground that those who were advising him were not
816
present at that time to advise him. Therefore, I have done my best not to rush this matter. I am sorry about that. We heard again the old refrain that has been running through this Bill, "He should not have been there in the first place".
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord Airedale: I agree; hear, hear! He should not have been there and he committed the basic offence. We then had—I hesitate to call it a "paraphrase"—a "parody" from the noble Earl of what I was saying. If I may say so, that is an old parliamentary trick. If one does not have a good answer, one tries to make one's opponent's argument grotesque because that is all the ammunition one has.
I am hammering at a closed door. For reasons that I hope to give when we come to the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I do not believe that the Bill will do nearly as much harm as it might. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) A passenger in a vehicle is not guilty of an offence under this section if he neither aids, abets, counsels nor procures the offence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may give an illustration to explain the intention of Amendment No. 4. It is the case of two acquaintances, who are not close friends, on their way to a football match. One says to the other, "Let's take that car and drive in style to the football match." The second person, who becomes the passenger, agrees. They get into the car and are immediately guilty of the basic offence.
The passenger is certainly not a car hooligan. He has no interest other than to be driven sensibly to the football match. But the driver starts driving much too fast. The passenger says, "Stop that. We do not want to land in the next world. We want to get to the football match. Slow down." But the driver continues driving much too fast. The passenger continues to urge him to drive sensibly.
What else can the passenger do? If he seizes the steering wheel or grabs the handbrake he is almost sure to make matters worse. The driver pays no heed and continues driving dangerously and an accident occurs. The police investigate. They take statements. The passenger says, "I did not want him to drive like that. All I wanted to do was to get to the football match." The driver, in his statement, says, "That is perfectly true. He was trying to restrain me and I foolishly went on driving too fast and an accident occurred. It was entirely my fault and not his."
That is all the evidence available. Under the Bill as drawn, upon that evidence the passenger is guilty not only of the basic offence of taking the vehicle and driving it without the owner's consent, but guilty also of the aggravated offence. It is a novel piece of criminal law that if one is present at the scene of a crime and does one's utmost to prevent it, nevertheless one is guilty of that crime. It is quite extraordinary.
Perhaps I can take from the noble Earl his example of a case of that kind. In his illustration the driver of the vehicle is accompanied by a group of robbers. The noble Earl said:
"If a group of robbers agree to take a gun with them, and to use it if need be, then all of them are jointly liable for any consequences which may arise from the use of that gun".
We all agree about that. The noble Earl continued:
"Only if the robber who used the gun can be shown to have departed from the agreed plan can the others escape liability". —[Official Report, 25/2/92; col. 244.]
If we substitute the driver for the robber and the passenger for the group we arrive at this: "Only if the driver who drove the vehicle can be shown to have departed from the agreed plan can the passenger escape liability." The noble Earl puts my case precisely. The passenger had no part in the aggravated driving. By being present at the scene of the crime, though doing his utmost to prevent it, he becomes liable to be convicted under the Bill of the aggravated offence. That is a complete nonsense. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have such admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on almost every occasion other than on this Bill. All I can say is that words defy me to comprehend the logic of the noble Lord. He says that one finds two people walking along and they find a car—it may be the noble Lord's car sitting outside his flat. They say, "We want to go to a football match. Let us take that car." One says, "All right. I will drive it." The other says, "Yes, and I will sit in the passenger seat." When the person driving it drives too fast, according to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, the second person says, "For goodness sake, do not drive so quickly, we might land up in the next world too soon. For goodness sake stop." But the driver, in his anxiety to reach the football match quickly, does not slow down and there is a smash.
Along comes the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and says, "This poor fellow, the passenger, has done all he could to stop the man driving so fast. He did not want to have a smash."
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, actually says that this poor man is now going to be guilty of an offence. What about the car of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which had been taken? The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, may have woken up and found his car gone; the next time he sees it it is smashed up. But according to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, the passenger must get away scot-free.
It may be that the passenger in the first place said, "Come on, Bert, let us take a car. Let us take this one. You drive it. I don't want to drive it." He may have instigated the taking of that car. The point is that one cannot argue about who said, "Let's take it" and who was driving. If they were party to the knowledge that it was a stolen car they were both party to the offence of taking without consent. Having taken the car without consent, if an aggravated offence occurs, they are both party to that aggravated offence.
I should be delighted to try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, of the inability of his case to stand up to any kind of reasonable argument. I should be happy to continue the debate for a long while. But I fancy that that would not meet with your Lordships'
818
approval. I can only say that I find the noble Lord's arguments astonishing and suggest to the House that it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, we have heard another grotesque parody of what I was saying.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was almost word-for-word. I did not like to rehearse exactly the same words, but they were not far from what the noble Lord said.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, let us take a single instance. In the course of the noble Earl's speech he raised the question of who was driving. In the example I sought to give the police took statements from the driver and the passenger. The driver said, "I was driving and did not take any notice of the passenger's encouragement to me not to drive dangerously." That is a single example of a gross parody of what has been tabled in the amendment.
I do not believe that in 1,000 years a court will convict somebody of an aggravated offence when that person, though present at the scene, was seen doing his utmost to prevent the commission of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Obligatory disqualification]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) In section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which requires a court to notify the Secretary of State for Transport that an accused may be suffering from a disability, there shall be added the following subsection—
"(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking) of the Theft Act 1968 a relevant or prospective disability (within the meaning of section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) shall be deemed to include a propensity to misuse or abuse alcohol or controlled drugs.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, unlike all other amendments which have hitherto been moved, with the exception of the attempts to improve the rather inelegant Title of the Bill, my amendment seeks to add strength to it. I recognise that this Bill is designed to deal with a dangerous situation in regard to which the public are entitled to as much protection as the law can reasonably provide.
The majority of the offenders who are likely to commit this offence will be in their teens. At the time they commit the offence they are likely to have drunk too much or to be to some extent on drugs. Detention or imprisonment will safeguard the public only for the limited period that they lose their liberty. What is required is to ensure that they are kept off the road until they have achieved a proper measure of responsibility. Hitherto that has been obtainable only by virtue of disqualification, actual or prospective.
What this amendment tries to achieve is quite simply this: when such a young man or young woman is convicted and disqualified, actual or prospective, they do not regain their licence until they have appeared before the Medical Advisory Committee of the Department of Transport and satisfied that committee that they have mended their ways. Your Lordships may ask why that cannot be done at

819
present. The answer is quite simple. Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which is referred to specifically in my amendment, requires a court to notify the Secretary of State for Transport where,
"in any proceedings for an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle it appears to the court that the accused may be suffering from any relevant disability or prospective disability (within the meaning of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988)".
Quite simply the trouble is that the definition of the word "disability" in Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act is far too narrow. The section is concerned with physical fitness to drive. That is apparent from the heading of the section and the sidenote. Section 92(2) provides that,
"'disability' includes disease, 'relevant disability' means any prescribed disability"
that is prescribed by regulations made by the Minister",
and,
"(b) any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public".
As regards this type of offence the probation officer's report frequently says "this young man (less likely, "this young woman") has a drink problem", in the sense that from time to time he takes too much drink or too much of a drug. He then takes somebody else's car and drives in a dangerous manner and causes damage either to persons or to property. He has not drunk or taken drugs in circumstances that have resulted in his becoming an alcoholic and as a result incapable of resisting the urge to drink and probably suffering some liver damage in consequence. This offence is an act of irresponsibility that occurs from time to time.
As I informed your Lordships during the passage of this Bill, the former judge, His Honour Judge Alfred Blennerhassett QC, who has been chairman of the Home Office committee on drink and driving and who is an expert on this subject, has sought without any success to persuade the Minister for Roads and Traffic to widen the definition of disability. I have previously quoted to your Lordships a letter from the Minister to Judge Blennerhassett dated 31st July 1991, which states inter alia:
"It remains the Department's view, and one which is supported by the Medical Advisory Panel on Driving, Alcohol and Drugs, that alcohol misuse represents a relevant or prospective disability".
With the greatest respect to the Minister that just cannot be right. Alcohol misuse is an activity, not a disability. That it can lead to a disability when it results in alcoholism—that is a dependency on alcohol and usually physical damage—is not to be doubted. Let me make it perfectly clear. I am not seeking to criticise the Minister personally. He is the son of a former circuit judge with whom I practised when at the Bar and whom I used to visit in Cornwall when I was the presiding judge on the Western Circuit. What I am criticising is the advice that he has received on this subject.
Because I consider the point made by Mr. Blennerhassett a sound one, I decided to raise it in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with whom I consulted prior to raising it, most
820
helpfully advised me that I should be going outside the scope of the Bill if I sought to make the appropriate amendment to Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That is why my amendment is focused solely on a person who is convicted of an offence under Section 12A of the Theft Act, which is the very offence which this Bill is creating.
When marshalling my thoughts prior to Second Reading, almost as a conditioned reflex from one's days at the Bar, I thought that I would take a look at the leading textbook on Road Traffic Act offences. As a result I came across a reference to a decision in February 1981 of the Divisional Court presided over by Lord Justice Waller. The case was the Queen and the Chichester Justices ex parte Crouch reported only briefly in the journal, Justice of the Peace. However, I managed to get faxed from the Crown Office a photocopy of the transcript of the judgment. It was concerned with an application for judicial review of a decision made by those justices to refer to the Secretary of State, under Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, which is in similar terms to Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, to which I have already referred.
Quite briefly what happened was this. Mr. Crouch had drunk far too much. He pleaded guilty to the usual drink-driving offence. He was suspended for some 21 months and heavily fined. The solicitor who was seeking to make a plea in mitigation thought that he was making a satisfactory point in favour of his client and said, "my client had a drink problem" whereupon the clerk to the justices, who knew his law, or some of it, said "very well, we will refer you to the Minister". It is apparent from the report that the chairman of the magistrates took the view that, because the applicant appeared to have a drink problem in the past and because he admitted driving a vehicle with a high concentration of alcohol in his blood, that suggested a significant tolerance to alcohol with the result that he might be suffering from alcoholism.
The Secretary of State's letter to the court also expressed the view that he thought that it had been disclosed that the defendant was an alcoholic. It was also clear from the report that the clerk had advised the Bench:
"Although it is not a physical disability, alcoholism can fall into the definition of "disease" because it is known to cause irreversible brain damage".
In this situation it is not surprising that Lord Justice Waller, giving the judgment of the court, said:
"In this case all that was said by the solicitor acting for the Applicant was that the Applicant had a drink problem and this was a first conviction for an offence of this nature. In my judgment, that does not suggest at that stage either that he was suffering from a relevant disability or prospective disability. It may be it could be said that it was a prospective disability but that is not sufficient in my judgment for the court to draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State … a statement that he had had a drink problem does not go far enough to suggest that the Applicant is in fact an alcoholic and, in my judgment, there was not sufficient material in this case on which the magistrates could properly refer the matter to the Secretary of State".
In Committee, that decision was described (perhaps understandably in view of the advice that had been consistently given to the department) by the noble

821
Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, as "an inconvenience". That was at col. 710 of Hansard for 11th February. It clearly supports the view which Mr. Blennerhasset had taken for a very long time that the definition of Section 92 is far too narrow. The department appears to have been totally unaware of this decision, since guidelines were issued to magistrates seeking to encourage them to refer more cases. They were referring very few. The guidelines stated:
"A driver who has an alcohol or a drug misuse problem may properly be regarded as suffering from a relevant or prospective disability within the meaning of Section 92".
As your Lordships are fully aware, guidelines from however important a source, cannot extend the meaning of the words used in an Act of Parliament.
For completeness sake and finally, I should inform your Lordships that "prospective disability" upon which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will rely, means:
"… any other disability which—

(a) … is not of such a kind that it is a relevant disability, but

(b) by virtue of the intermittent or progressive nature of the disability or otherwise, may become a relevant disability in the course of time.

It can have no application to what we are considering. Dr. John Kemm, senior lecturer at the Department of Public Health and Epidemiology at the University of Birmingham, in a letter which he wrote to me on the 21st February last, said:
"Considering non-dependent alcohol or drug misuse to be 'prospective disability' would be justified if it could be shown that people showing these behaviours inevitably progressed to become dependent. However there is ample evidence that this is not so and therefore classing alcohol or drug misuse as a 'prospective disability' cannot be defended".
It would indeed be very depressing if an opportunity was lost to make a significant contribution to the public's protection from this very dangerous crime with which we are dealing, because those advising the Minister have apparently an invincible repugnance to admitting that they have been in error in failing to recognise the narrowness of the definition of "disability" in Section 92 of the Act. That appears to be the real motivation for resisting this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not suffering from an alcoholic problem—at least, I do not think I am. I may be very stupid but perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, or my noble friend on the Front Bench, when he comes to answer, whether there is any great punishment in taking away driving licences. The young people who commit these crimes tend not to have driving licences. The last thing that they are worried about is whether they have a driving licence.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I take that as being a question to me. This Bill is designed to protect the public. There are doubts which have been aired as to whether it will achieve that. The Bill will only achieve it by the deterrent of the punishment, be it in a detention centre or in prison, or community service, and by the deprivation of a licence. So if the young man goes on driving and is caught, he will lose his
822
liberty yet again. There does not appear to be available any other method of dealing with this type of offence.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, when we started out at Second Reading, there was general agreement that this Bill, as it was then written, had a limited effect. However, we agreed that it was a useful piece of armament in the business of the taking away of motor cars and the resultant accidents in which these people became involved.
It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with the best will in the world, is now trying to attach to this Bill some element which has to do with drink and driving. That may be very commendable because all your Lordships are concerned at the number of cases of motoring offences where drink is involved. I understand that there are about 120,000 cases a year. I suggest here that this is the wrong Bill in which to give further support to drink and drive legislation.
The noble and learned Lord quoted His Honour Judge Blennerhassett's splendid report where he discusses this matter. As a result, in June 1990 further regulations were laid under the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 to deal with some further elements of drink and drive; that is known commonly, as I understand it, as the high risk offender.
From a purely practical standpoint, it seems to me that we have a piece of legislation in place that deals with drivers who are convicted of a drink-drive offence with two-and-a-half times the legal limit of alcohol in their blood—the legal limit being 80 milligrams in 100 milligrams of blood. Some may say that two-and-a-half times is not very much because a large number of cases involve people with five times the limit. It also provides for people so convicted, that where there is a conviction a second time within 10 years, further penalties accrue. So I should have thought that in a way we have a piece of legislation already in place that deals with the problem which the noble and learned Lord seeks to resolve in this Bill.
If there is a gap in the current legislation, I suggest that this is not the Bill in which that loophole can be put right. We would have to go back and make an amendment to the 1989 Act—certainly not the 1988 Act.
At Committee stage, and again this evening, the noble and learned Lord discussed the Crouch case. I know he will forgive me if I do not use the legal terminology. He understands quite well what I mean. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that what occurred was perhaps a little unfortunate. It occurred in 1981. Since 1981 we have had a fair raft of traffic and driver legislation and, most notably, drink-drive legislation. I think my noble friend the Minister would agree that such legislation has met with some success alongside the changing attitudes of society to drink-drive offences. We should leave that matter where it is. We should deal with this Bill, which deals with a different type of offence that may lead to the aggravated offence and with a different type of offender, as it stands and get it on the statute book. We shall then have that other piece of weaponry in the

823
armoury. If we still have doubts about drink-drive issues, we must come back to them in a more appropriate piece of legislation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to join in the debate, having rushed round from the Throne because of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said. It is our duty in this House to try to improve legislation, however late the stage may be. As a member of a board of visitors of a young offenders' institution I know very well that the offences of these young people are aggravated by drink and drugs. I come from the North. On Teesside and in Newcastle the problem is very serious and a great worry to the local population. Before bringing the Bill to Parliament, the Home Office must have done some research. Can the Minister say how many of the young people who have taken cars without permission were under the influence of drink or drugs? I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He has spoken with his customary force and eloquence in moving the amendment. We have also exchanged letters on the subject since we discussed the amendment at Committee stage. I fear, however, that we are still somewhat apart on the interpretation of Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and on the need for the amendment before us.
The noble and learned Lord has taken great care to make his amendment relevant to this Bill. He explained as much in moving the amendment today. However, the problem with which he is really concerned is much wider, and fundamentally quite different. It concerns the fact, which I do not dispute, that the courts learn of a number of cases of persons who may for medical reasons be a risk to other road users, yet very few of these cases ever get reported to the Secretary of State, despite the very clear duty to do so in Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
The fact that I am not enthusiastic about this amendment must not be taken to mean that I am complacent about the problem of lack of notifications. Far from it. But I very much doubt whether this amendment would help matters, well-intentioned though it undoubtedly is. Indeed, I fear it could do harm to the procedures we use to deal with those drink-drivers—the vast majority—who are not involved in aggravated vehicle-taking. That will perhaps explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, my anxiety about the amendment.
Let us consider what the effect of the amendment would be. For reasons of scope, which I fully understand, and which the noble and learned Lord has explained, it applies only to persons convicted of one particular offence—aggravated vehicle-taking. Moreover, it applies only to the duty of the courts under Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, and not, for example, to the duties of drivers or the Secretary of State under Part III of the Road Traffic
824
Act. Only in a very limited context, then, would alcohol or drug misuse be "deemed" a relevant disability.
As I explained at some length in Committee, the Government take the view that the existing term "relevant disability" does cover a situation where fitness to drive is impaired through misuse of alcohol or drugs. Indeed, applicants for driving licences are required to declare that they do not suffer from relevant or prospective disabilities, including "alcohol or drug misuse or dependency". I should remind your Lordships that, when the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Act 1991 come into force, new and tougher penalties will be introduced for those who knowingly drive while physically unfit or after making a false declaration of physical fitness. We should certainly not want to weaken the definition that would apply for that purpose.
The noble and learned Lord has mentioned the opinion of Dr. John Kemm, senior lecturer in social medicine at Birmingham University, who has said that in his view alcohol misuse is not a disability. Dr. Kemm's opinion was discussed by the Secretary of State's honorary medical advisory panel on alcohol and drug misuse. The panel comprises national experts in this field and is chaired by Dr. Philip Connell, CBE, who is adviser to the General Medical Council in these matters. The Secretary of State's panel unequivocally advised that alcohol misuse may constitute a relative or prospective disability in the terms of the Act.
Equally important for road safety is the high risk offenders scheme. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for reminding us of this and for providing some facts and figures about it. The scheme is prescribed under the current powers relating to disabilities, and it forms an important element in our road safety policy. Many of the people dealt with by the scheme would be correctly described in the terms used in this amendment; that is to say, they have,
"a propensity to misuse or abuse alcohol".
They would not necessarily be "alcoholics" and at the very least there would often be insufficient evidence available to the court to describe them as such. Indeed, Mr. Crouch, who has often been mentioned in our proceedings, would himself have been caught by the scheme if he had committed the offence today.
Let us imagine that such a person is convicted of a serious drink-drive offence in which he was driving while three times over the legal blood-alcohol level. He is disqualified and, under the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations, the circumstances therefore obtain under which the Secretary of State may make medical inquiries as to his fitness to drive so as to ascertain whether or not he is suffering from a disability. Now let us suppose that the person in question wishes to challenge the right of the Secretary of State to make any inquiries. He may say that what gót him into trouble was not alcoholism, but rather "a propensity to misuse or abuse alcohol". At present I trust this argument would get him nowhere. But if this amendment were carried, could he not then argue that, as that propensity is deemed to be a relevant

825
disability in the case of aggravated vehicle-takers only, it cannot possibly be a relevant disability in his case, as he was driving his own car and not a stolen one?
If there is any danger of such a challenge succeeding, and putting the whole of our policy on high risk offenders in jeopardy, I must say that it is not a gamble which the Government are prepared to take. So while I have considerable sympathy with the aims of this amendment, I fear I cannot commend it to the House.
Having said that, however, let me assure the noble and learned Lord that I am not in any way rejecting his plea for the Government to get tough, or should I say even tougher, with drink-drive offenders, whether they offend in a stolen car or their own. Indeed, from the victim's point of view the distinction is irrelevant.
I hope therefore that I can end my part in tonight's debate on a more positive note. The noble and learned Lord may not have persuaded us to accept his interpretation of the Crouch judgment, or of the meaning of "disability" in the Road Traffic Act 1988, but we do agree that the system of relevant driving disabilities and the notification procedure needs looking at.
The fact is that, across the whole range of relevant and prospective disabilities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency gets not much more than 200 referrals per year from the courts, whereas from all sources it gets around 1,000 notifications every working day of persons medically unfit to drive. So it certainly appears that a number of potential referrals by the courts are not being made. This seems to be a general problem, and not one confined to alcohol or drug misusers.
I have already assured the noble and learned Lord in correspondence that the Government are monitoring the situation carefully and that we are keeping an open mind on the possibility of primary legislation in a future Session to deal with it. In fact, the Government have already set up an official group to review the working of the whole system of notifying disabilities. We have asked the group specifically to consider notifications concerning unfitness to drive through misuse of alcohol or drugs. It will look very carefully at possible changes to the framework of legislation including Sections 92 to 94 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act. The group will report, on this aspect at least, by the end of the year and a consultation document will be issued on any proposed changes. Any legislation arising from the review will be able to avoid the pitfalls that beset any amendment limited by the scope of the Bill.
I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I do not in fact have the figures for which she asked. But my point is that we want the provision to cover the whole ambit of drink driving rather than just aggravated vehicle-taking. With that explanation, and the assurance that I have given about our concern in the matter and what we are doing to address it, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may first answer what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said. The high risk scheme, commendable though it is, does not touch what I am dealing with. I am not dealing with alcoholic youngsters who have doubled or trebled the limit; I am dealing with those who have drunk too much but who may well be within the limit or below it. Therefore, the high risk scheme has no relevance. As regards the noble Lord's observation that much has happened since 1981, I must say that nothing has happened since 1981 or 1988 with regard to dealing with a definition which is too narrow. That is the point at issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is saying that irresponsibility equals disability. But, with great respect, that just is not so. Disability in this legislation is hedged around with physical disability. I need to quote only one portion of what the noble Lord said in Committee:
"In medical circles alcohol misuse implies the taking of alcohol to the extent that it causes harm to oneself or others, or is illegal". [Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 708.]
"Harm to oneself" means affecting one's liver or one's heart —producing a physical prejudice; it does not mean losing one's inhibitions to the extent of driving like a lunatic. That is what we are concerned with. Here lies the whole misunderstanding, and the inability of those advising the Minister to realise that he has a problem with the definition.
If I had been given an assurance that the definition would be looked at and dealt with within the foreseeable future in a new road traffic Act, I would have been persuaded by the rhetoric. But, instead, it is said that, "We propose to do nothing about the definition. Your attempt to do something about it is, by necessity, circumscribed by the scope of the Act. It does so little that we should ignore it".
I must remain consistent. I have said throughout that I am trying to strengthen the Bill. I have been told that, if I press the amendment to a Division and succeed, it will wreck the Bill because there will not be sufficient time to deal with an accepted or passed amendment. I do not wish to do that. But at least I have put firmly on record on the occasions that I have addressed the Chamber the fact that I think the resistance to widening the definition borders on —and I must be moderate—pigheadedness to a degree.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I must remind him, with the greatest respect, that I have promised an urgent and thorough-going review of the matter. I have promised that it will be completed by the end of the year. Indeed, I referred to that in my speech. Moreover, it will cover the points about which the noble and learned Lord is concerned.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord said that the trouble was that we do not agree that the definition requires widening. That being so, I cannot see how the review will achieve that which I have set out when we are in complete disagreement on the vital point. Hence my lack of optimism and hence my high degree of pessimism. I have already indicated why I shall withdraw the amendment. I do so not because I

827
am convinced but because I do not wish to wreck the Bill. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
We have had considerable discussion of the merits of the Bill as it as passed through your Lordships' House. For that we are chiefly indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Airedale, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose amendments have directed our attention to some of the major issues in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised the problem which was originally identified by His Honour Judge Blennerhassett.
The noble and learned Lord is, of course, always a devastating advocate, most especially I find when he is on the other side of the argument to myself, as was shown this evening. I was, therefore, particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for intervening so formidably on my behalf—I might almost say in my defence—in Committee when, as a mere layman, I presumed to contend with such a distinguished lawyer as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. My gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, and I am sure that of my noble friend Lord Brabazon, went sliding down the Richter scale of appreciation when he returned to His Honour Judge Blennerhassett's views for the third time today. However, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that our sense of gratitude shot up again when his sense of parliamentary prudence restrained him from dividing the House on the matter.
Perhaps I may summarise the doubt which some have had about the Bill. I think that it is that, in our eagerness to protect the public and in order to ensure that those who take cars should pay for the full consequences of their crime, we have lost sight of some of the principles of good law. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, entertained some considerable difficulties in understanding the concept of the Bill or the anxieties of those whose cars are taken and ruined. I do not think that the Bill will result in the conviction of the innocent. I hope that it will ensure quite the reverse; namely, the conviction of the guilty.
The real injustice lies in a situation where gangs of youths can take vehicles illegally, where they can race them, crash them and cause all manner of injury, damage, mayhem and devastation, and then walk away with an inadequate punishment simply because the law has been unable to pin responsibility for what has occurred on any particular one of them—even though it is quite evident that they were all involved in one way or another. That situation is one which can rightly be called unjust, and it is a situation with which we are too familiar.
The Bill aims to right that wrong, not by punishing the innocent but by saying to gangs of thugs that if they were all involved in taking the vehicle they will all suffer the penalty for the consequences of that crime. That seems to me to be a common-sense approach
828
and, more important than that, a just approach—one which will commend itself to the sense of justice of the British people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who is not present in the Chamber this evening, described my argument on Report as the,
"jurisprudence of the saloon bar".
I thought that that was quite witty, but somewhat unfair. Quite how the noble Baroness knows about saloon bars is a matter which, I am bound to say, has dilated my imagination —but one which I judged it better not to pursue but to keep in the realms of fantasy. In this case, though, the punishing of gangs of thugs collectively for the damage that they cause I consider to be the jurisprudence of common sense.
I believe that we are all agreed that the law as it stands is not satisfactory, and that all too often the punishment which is meted out to so-called, "joy riders", is totally inadequate and does not begin to reflect the gravity of their offences. The aggravated offence, which is provided by the Bill, should help to remedy that. It should provide a further and valuable weapon in our armoury against car crime. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it will come as no epiphanic surprise to anyone to learn that we on these Benches are all a little disappointed at the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House, since neither we, nor any noble Lord on any other Bench has succeeded in convincing the Government that anything in it could possibly be improved. In the sporting phrase, "We haven't laid a glove on it."
We do not oppose the Bill because, clearly, something must he done about the alarming increase in car crime over the past few years, with 494,000 recorded offences of theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles in 1990—a 25 per cent. increase on the previous year. Only today, one newspaper has reported the case of a police constable in Cleveland who has been forced to retire at the age of 24 after a neck injury that was received when his patrol car was rammed by a stolen vehicle. We on these Benches do not in any way underestimate the seriousness of this virtual epidemic of lawlessness.
What disappoints us is that we have been completely unable to refine what we see as the heavy handedness of the Bill. We cannot believe that it is in the best interests of law and justice when we refuse to discriminate between different degrees of culpability. I refer to the law which makes passengers and drivers equally guilty of the aggravated offence on the very dubious moral grounds that they should not have been there in the first place. That lack of discrimination in Clause 1 between the dangerous driver and the passive passenger seems to us to be regrettable.
Similarly, we are saddened that we have been unable to convince the Government that to reverse the onus of proof in Clause 1(3) (a) and (b) is unnecessarily strong. Although precedents for it have been quoted, we are not convinced that it is necessary, for this offence, to overturn the basic assumption of English law that a person is innocent until he is proved to be guilty.

829
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me a brief personal reminiscence. I was an officer cadet at Eaton Hall Officer Cadet School in 1951 when, on Monday morning, the commanding officer paraded the entire school and berated us for our lack of community spirit in that only 20 people had turned out to watch the rugby team on the previous Saturday when they were beaten by a cricket score. The commanding officer announced that there would be extra parades for the entire week. After dismissal, B Company sent a deputation to the commanding officer to clarify that it would not be involved in the extra parades since the entire company had been on leave for the whole of the previous week and could not have supported the team. The commanding officer rejected that submission in words that I still recall, saying, "The fact that B Company was on leave is irrelevant. I can only assume that, had they been present they would similarly have failed in their duty". The analogy is imperfect and the circumstances are not parallel, but I venture to think that the passive passenger who is unable to prove his innocence may well feel the same sense of outrage and injustice—a passion which will do little to bring about either repentance or reformation.
As the Home Secretary said, "The Bill is not the whole answer to car crime, and nor does it pretend to be." We would urge upon the Government the vital necessity of continuing discussions with the car manufacturers to impress upon them the need to make cars harder to take away unlawfully. Similarly, we hope that they will encourage the insurance companies to recognise and reward those car owners who take every possible precaution against the law-breaker. Above all, we hope that the Government will do everything in their power to multiply the motor schemes for young people, such as the one in south London, where only 9 per cent. of those attending have reoffended, while in the immediately surrounding area, the figure has been 80 per cent.
Finally, we hope that the Government will take up the constructive suggestions that were made when this Bill was given its Third Reading in another place, that the Home Office should publish a pamphlet on this change to the law which can be widely distributed to schools, workplaces and to all other places where it may come to the attention of those likely to commit the offence so that young people may be brought to understand how serious and dangerous it is to take and drive away a vehicle.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates on this Bill, especially perhaps my noble friends Lady Mallalieu and Lady Hilton of Eggardon, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I should also like to pay tribute to the virtually impeccable patience and courtesy of the Minister, whose task it has been to steer this aggravating measure through your Lordships' House.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, this is the traditional occasion when we hope to be able to congratulate one another and ourselves on having made a wonderful job of improving the Bill that we are considering and when we can depart with smiles all round. We cannot claim to have improved this Bill because we have not
830
done anything at all to it. However, before proceeding with the rest of my speech, perhaps I may say that, under considerable pressure throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has shown unfailing courtesy and patience despite—I am sorry to say—a most unfortunate tendency, in the absence of a solid argument to present against seriously produced amendments, to attempt to parody, ridicule or lampoon the arguments that have been advanced by his opponents. We are not taken much further unless solid arguments can be presented against solid arguments.
The Bill was cobbled together in great haste to deal with what is not exactly a new phenomenon, but with the multiplication of a new phenomenon—the taking of vehicles by hooligans in gangs and the driving away of those vehicles through the streets at 70 miles per hour. It has been unfortunate that there has been no time for the Bill to distinguish and identify the hooligans against whom it was aimed from what I may call the ordinary person who, down the years, has taken people's vehicles, probably by himself and not in a gang, and has driven that vehicle away, thus committing the basic offence but no more. The result of that haste and of that failure to identify the people against whom the Bill is aimed has been that every person who has taken a vehicle unlawfully, whether a hooligan or not, has been scooped into the net, just like the trawl net that trawls in the mature fish, the immature fish, the eggs and the plant life upon which the fish depend. That is no way to proceed.
Indeed, it was quite unnecessary because the existing law was perfectly adequate to deal with the ordinary case of taking a vehicle without the owner's consent. As the Minister said:
"In the case of vehicle-taking the law has long recognised that the offender should be liable to pay the price for an accident however and by whomsoever it is caused."—[Official Report, 25/2/92; col. 244.]
The Minister also mentioned the compensation that is payable. Referring to the relevant section of the 1973 Act, he said:
"That section says that a person convicted of the basic offence … is liable to pay compensation for any damage to the vehicle occurring while it was out of the owner's possession, and that such damage is to be treated as resulting from the offence "however and by whomsoever" it was caused."— [Official Report, 25/2/92; col. 247.]
The noble Earl cannot possibly say that the Bill was necessary in order to deal with cases of ordinary vehicle-taking.
The Bill was rushed through the House of Commons in a single day. It came to this House. I am sorry to refer to the matter again but I believe that it is important. At the end of the Committee stage a Motion was moved from the Government Front Bench to dispense with the Report stage. By great good fortune the Opposition Chief Whip, who cannot be expected to be in his place the whole time, was present. He protested and by a narrow piece of good fortune the Report stage was permitted to take place. I am advised that there is no known precedent for a Report stage of a Bill to be restored once a Motion has been agreed to by the House that the Report stage be dispensed with.

831
So last Tuesday we came to our Report stage, and what happened? At 20 minutes past three o'clock the noble Earl took his place on the Government Front Bench in charge of the Third Reading and passing of the Charities Bill. At two minutes to seven o'clock the noble Earl made his final speech on that Bill. It occupied nearly four columns of Hansard. At 7.42 p.m. the noble Earl, without refreshment or time to rethink, was pitchforked into the Report stage of this Bill. I do not believe that the government business arranged for that day was in the least defensible. It was unfair to the noble Earl. It was also unfair to noble Lords who wished to move amendments on Report and who were entitled to be answered by a Minister coming reasonably fresh to his task. I am sorry to say that I regard that Report stage as having been largely a disaster.
The Bill has been rushed through Parliament under the nose of the Royal Commission. That was established by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about a year ago in order to inquire into the whole of the administration of criminal justice in this country. The noble and learned Lord asked that the report be produced within two years and therefore we hope to have it in one year's time from now. I hope that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, having listened to the strong reservations about the Bill expressed by distinguished lawyers in another place, will see fit to put those reservations before the Royal Commission. I hope that likewise the noble Earl will inform his right honourable friend of the strong reservations that were expressed in this House in order that they too may be considered by the Royal Commission.
Today the noble Earl said that he did not believe that there would be any conviction of the innocent under the Bill. That was contrary to the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I believe that the Bill will not do a great deal of harm. By the time that the Royal Commission has considered the Bill and expressed its opinion upon it, it will cease to exist in its present form. It will be either a dead letter, or more appropriate legislation will be put in its place.
I do not wish to end on a sour note. I compliment the noble Earl on his patience and good humour, and I think that I had better sit down.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a happy note on which to sit down and I appreciate the noble Lord's comment greatly. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his description of what happened to poor old B Company. The story was not particularly relevant but it was very good.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not like the Bill; he has made that perfectly plain. He said that I parodied, ridiculed and lampooned all his arguments and that I did not produce solid arguments against solid arguments. Although I believe that I did
832
produce solid arguments, I am prepared to accept that I did not persuade the noble Lord that they were either solid or good. However, I did not wish to upset him unduly if I ridiculed some of the things that he said, as he suggests I did.
The noble Lord said that the Bill has been rushed through Parliament. That is a slight exaggeration. It went through another place fairly quickly. In this House it has had a Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. Apart from Second Reading, amendments were tabled at each stage. The noble Lord referred again to the fact that, as he put it, only by a narrow piece of good fortune was there a Report stage because I moved that the Report be now received after no amendments had been agreed in Committee. That is a perfectly normal procedure. In no way did I seek to bounce your Lordships or to truncate the proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was in his place this afternoon when your Lordships dealt with the Prison Security Bill. Again, no amendments were passed in Committee. The noble Lord might have noticed that I moved that the Report be now received and he did not complain—
Lord Airedale: My Lords, surely the case this afternoon was totally different. No noble Lord connected with the Prison Security Bill said that they wished to reserve their position until Report, having consulted their advisers outside Parliament. That is what happened during the Committee stage of this Bill. Noble Lords were not told by the noble Earl that the Report stage would be abandoned and that therefore there would be no opportunity to move amendments. The two situations are totally different.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have now explained to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on three occasions how that came about. It was not my intention to bounce your Lordships but the noble Lord seems convinced that that was the case. I can say only that I am sorry that he feels that. I appreciated his expression of care for me in saying that he was sorry that I had to deal with the Charities Bill and then the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill. He said that my speech occupied four columns of Hansard. I believe he will find that the speech he made this evening occupies five columns. When I made a mild bleep that possibly to deal with the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill after the Charities Bill might be excessive, I asked someone what would happen about the poor Minister who had to deal with both Bills. There was a silence and I was told that it was the ministerial diet day.
I am grateful for the spirit in which your Lordships have dealt with the Bill. I realise that at times noble Lords did not find it an easy measure to contend with. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.

  MORTGAGE ARREARS AND REPOSSESSIONS: ASSISTANCE
  MORTGAGE ARREARS AND REPOSSESSIONS: ASSISTANCE
  SEALS: MANAGEMENT
  SEALS: MANAGEMENT
  COMMUNITY IDENTITY: RESEARCH REPORTS
  COMMUNITY IDENTITY: RESEARCH REPORTS
  BIRMINGHAM NORTHERN RELIEF ROAD
  BIRMINGHAM NORTHERN RELIEF ROAD