Sitting of 3 March 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALLIANCE & LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Primary School Buildings
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital spend on primary school building works in Scotland in 1992; and what was the figure in 1979, adjusted to 1992 prices.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Information on capital expenditure on primary schools is not available separately.
    Mr. Kynoch: I welcome the recent additional funding given to Grampian regional council, which has enabled it to prevent the closure of—and to rebuild—a rural primary school at Logie Coldstone in my constituency. The doubling of many primary school rolls in my constituency in recent years has placed a significant strain on buildings, which require rebuild and extension. Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of primary schools, particularly to rural communities, in which they play a key part? Does he further recognise that Grampian regional council has paid insufficient attention to the growing population of Kincardine and Deeside? Will he urge it to put that matter right at the earliest opportunity?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Rising pupil numbers is an issue which should be properly taken into account by the regional council as it comes under the council's jurisdiction. I am glad that progress has been made at Logie Coldstone primary school. My hon. Friend's constituency is suffering from the benefits associated with success, which brings in its wake problems which should be borne in mind by the regional council.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the vigorous campaign in Ayr to keep Castlehill primary school open? The campaign has the support of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and me, so it must be right. If the campaign is successful, the temporary buildings will be inadequate. Will the Minister therefore given an assurance that
    284
    Strathclyde regional council will be allowed capital building consent to ensure that a new purpose-built school is provided for the pupils of Castlehill?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In distributing allocations to the regions, account is taken, as far as possible, of the needs throughout Scotland. Councils can supplement their education building programme by the use of capital receipts from the disposal of assets, by the use of revenue expenditure on capital works and by transferring resources from other capital programmes. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, which also apply to many other parts of Scotland, will be borne in mind.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss rural housing.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of Scottish Homes in January to discuss a number of issues, including rural housing.
    Mr. Wallace: It is now two and a half years since, with a great fanfare, Scottish Homes launched its rural housing strategy. Does the Minister regard the more than 7,000 homelessness applications in rural and remote areas of Scotland in the past complete year as a sign of a strategy that is working? While Scottish Homes may have made a laudable effort to concentrate on 10 demonstration projects, they will not be of much use unless the lessons learnt can be applied to other rural regions of Scotland. When will Scottish Homes do that, and will the Government provide it with the resources to do so?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to report that Scottish Homes' programme for rural areas of Scotland will include more than £55 million—an increase of almost 22 per cent. over the planned expenditure for last year. That represents about one fifth of the total development programme. Scottish Homes is giving priority to the issue of homelessness in a number of ways. It has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting-list applicants and the statutorily homeless, and is developing a series of initiatives which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, including one for £2 million to be made available for three years for furniture grants to housing associations.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Scottish Homes is a major beneficiary of the autumn statement? Will he also confirm that a local authority should sell as many council houses as possible because it can reinvest all the proceeds during the current financial year?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that Scottish Homes benefited considerably from the autumn statement when a £250 million debt was written off. Processing council house sales can be a substantial advantage and Scottish Homes does that to the benefit of its programmes.
    Mrs. Fyfe: When, on 17 February, the Minister cut next year's housing support grants to three quarters of the current year's, was he aware of the shocking findings of the Scottish Homes survey into the condition of Scottish housing which was posted to Members of Parliament on 22 February? Was he aware on 17 February that some

    285
    94,000 dwellings failed to meet the tolerable standard, 32,000 of them in rural areas and 62,000 in urban areas? Did he also know that one fifth of Scotland's housing stock has damp, condensation or mould? Whether or not he knew then, he knows now. What does he intend to do about it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes is facilitating repairs or replacements of 1,000 below tolerable standard houses per year through the housing associations and other suppliers in Scotland. Since 1979, more than £1 billion has been spent on improvement grants and local authorities can target their resources on below tolerable standard housing. The house condition survey made it clear that 2 per cent. of Scotland's houses are suffering from severe damp and condensation and we shall give top priority to eradicating that as soon as possible.

    Constitutional Change
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what speeches he has made in his ministerial capacity in 1993 on the subject of constitutional change in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): None.
    Mr. Salmond: It sounds as though the Secretary of State has been in constitutional purdah. Is there anything in the "taking stock" proposals which has not already been leaked to the press? If not, they seem to be mainly about increasing the Secretary of State's job description. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is a world of difference between increasing the democratic power of the Scottish nation and increasing the Secretary of State for Scotland's personal power of patronage? Will he undertake to put his proposals against independence in Europe and against devolution to the Scottish people in a constitutional referendum? If not, why not?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will need to contain his impatience for a little longer; he will then discover precisely what our proposals include. But let me reassure him nothing in our proposals will do anything to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom or Scotland's place in it.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arrogance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in this matter defies belief'? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that at every general election without exception the Scottish Conservative party has returned more Members of Parliament to the House than has the Scottish National party, and that with our history, our record of commitment and our geographic spread of representation it is the Conservative party which is Scotland's national party?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish National party talks readily about democracy, but I invite it to accept the verdict of the electorate who at the general election reduced its parliamentary representation by 40 per cent.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State begin to comprehend that constitutional change is not an end in
    286
    itself but a means to an end? Does he not understand that 75 per cent. of Scottish voters want their own Parliament not for its own sake but because it frees them to make their own decisions about the future of Scottish water, Scottish local government and Scotland's railway system? Will he at least try to understand that whatever he announces next week about the stock-taking process, unless it frees Scottish democracy from the chains of the Westminster Parliament it will be decisively and deservedly rejected by the mass of the Scottish people?
    Mr. Lang: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of that small band, Scotland United, and a great evangeliser for his cause. I am indebted to The Scotsman, which points out:
    "Scotland United has a new friend in the redoubtable form of none other than Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba."
    On their return from a visit to Cuba, the doughty trio concluded:
    "We had two hours with him and he was really interested in what Scotland United was about."
    They added:
    "Which is more than we've had from John Smith."
    Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend explain the Scottish National party's continual obsession with breaking up the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that a united Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland comprises one of the most influential and powerful nations in the world? Would not a fragmented Scotland become like a big county council? That is not what Scotland or Great Britain wants—we want the Union.
    Mr. Lang: I absolutely endorse every word said by my hon. Friend. We on this side of the House are proud not only of what Scotland has derived from the Union but of the benefits that Scotland has brought to the Union.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that any company which took as long to stock take as he has done would be in compulsory liquidation by now? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the extent of his tinkering with our business arrangements over the next week or two will be no substitute for allowing the people of Scotland to determine their constitutional future?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the time that we have taken. We have been thorough and careful in our deliberations. I note that Labour has not even begun to take stock.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that of the 72 Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, three support independence, 11 support the Conservative party, and 49—a very clear majority—represent the Labour party and support a Parliament within the United Kingdom? Does the Secretary of State intend to consult the people of Scotland? If not, will he accept the Bill that we shall present in the coming weeks and submit these matters to a referendum so that the people of Scotland can decide their future?
    Mr. Lang: No, we will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard to cobble together some kind of unity among his divided Back Benchers, but to suggest that the secretary-general of the Scottish Trades Union Congress can somehow act as an honest broker over the future of the Scottish Constitutional Convention is to clutch at straws. I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) supports that approach,

    287
    but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) described it as a non-starter and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described it as a red herring. I do not have much hope for the prospects of unity in those discussions.

    Local Government
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his timetable and what are the proposals he expects to implement in connection with legislation concerning local government in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My Department is currently analysing the responses to our consultation paper on local government reform, and the Government will take account of those responses when we make our decision on the new structure of unitary authorities in Scotland. We intend to publish a White Paper this summer setting out our proposals.
    Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strange and undemocratic practices of Monklands district council under Labour. Can he give an assurance that the legislative changes that he proposes will deal with them? In view of the Labour party's own admission that those practices are wrong, can my right hon. Friend further assure me that the £75 million of taxpayers' money spent annually by Monklands district council is properly spent? What does he think of the letter written to me the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about the £200,000 of Monklands and taxpayers' money that has gone astray in the last few years?
    Mr. Lang: I will want to consider the points that my hon. Friend put to me. Certainly the Labour party is in my hon. Friend's debt, because it was as a result of his interest in the matter that Labour established its own inquiry—the future of which we look forward to learning tomorrow. I hope that at that stage Members of Parliament who represent Monklands constituencies will finally take a close interest in the matter. After all, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in a recent speech on standards in government:
    "Having the same party in power for fourteen years, and the abuses of that power which we now witness, have served to expose serious systemic weaknesses."

    Unemployment
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of the local enterprise companies in Scotland to discuss unemployment in their areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet chairmen of local enterprise companies to discuss a range of economic development and training issues.
    Mr. Ross: How can LEC chairmen make plans for training, or deal with unemployment, when companies behave like Timex in Dundee, which sacked all its workers in the middle of a dispute? What have the Minister and the Secretary of State been able to do about the abuse of employment legislation that that company has visited on 343 workers since I raised the matter last Thursday?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has indeed raised the matter with my right hon. Friend and me. As I believe, he knows, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service stands ready to assist if both parties to the dispute agree. That has not happened so far, but I know that the local enterprise company in his area is widely supported by the private sector and by local authorities.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all Ayrshire Members for the tremendous achievement of Scottish Enterprise in retaining Digital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which is adjacent to mine, thus saving some 1,000 jobs? Scottish Enterprise deserves our compliments.
    Mr. Stewart: I find myself in an unusual position: not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, which is fairly usual, but I endorse the public tribute paid by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to Locate in Scotland, which worked extremely hard to ensure the continuation of that highly successful operation in Ayrshire. I am sure that it will go from success to success.
    Ms. Rachel Squire: Is the Minister aware that Fife Enterprise is struggling to deal with the second highest unemployment rate in Scotland? In south and east Rosyth, for instance, it has already reached 12–1 and 12.5 per cent. respectively, and unless the submarine refitting order is awarded to Rosyth dockyard it will soon be 30 per cent. or even higher. When does the Minister intend to meet representatives of Fife Enterprise—and, indeed, Fife regional council—to discuss the creation of jobs for the Fife area? When does he feel confident that he will be able to celebrate the award of the refitting order to Rosyth, thus saving 18,000 jobs related directly and indirectly to the dockyard and ensuring that they have a future in the Fife area?
    Mr. Stewart: The whole House will understand the hon. Lady's concern about what is an important matter for her constituency. As she knows, I am a Fifer myself. She will also know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is carefully considering the position of the dockyards. I assure her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in constant touch with Fife Enterprise, and we have every confidence in that body. It is widely supported, by the private sector, the regional council and the district councils.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members, as well as myself, attended a meeting of Nomura International, the well-known Japanese merchant bank? Is he aware that Nomura identified the social chapter as the single factor which would increase unemployment throughout the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend not find it amazing that Labour supports the social chapter?
    Mr. Stewart: I note from the cheers of Labour Members how strongly they agree with the sensible point made by my hon. Friend. Having been in Japan for a time last September—
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Not in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: Let me tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) that Japanese companies in Lothian provide an enormous number of jobs and are constantly expanding and investing. I hoped that Opposition Members would join me in welcoming that.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Has the Minister had an opportunity to meet the chairman of Argyll and the Islands local enterprise company to discuss the effect on unemployment in Argyll and Bute of the announcement that it was to be excluded from objective 1 status?
    Mrs. Ewing: And Moray.
    Mrs. Michie: And the effect on Moray, Arran and various other places. What has happened? Why has there been such confusion? Whose fault was it? Can the Minister assure us that Argyll and Bute will be included in objective 1 status when the matter goes before the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. As I think she will know, the territorial definitions are made by the European Commission itself. She will also know that the Government have consistently made the case for the whole highlands and islands enterprise area.
    Mr. Harris: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), does my hon. Friend accept that those of us who have the honour and privilege to represent the south-west of England look at the question of the dockyards from a very different point of view and that we maintain firmly that, on any objective assessment, the submarine refitting order should go to Devonport?
    Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Connarty: Returning to the question of the enterprise boards in Scotland, has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Forth Valley Enterprise and other enterprise schemes around Grangemouth port the deep concern that they feel about the dirty tricks which appear to have been played against the Forth ports, including Grangemouth, by Scottish Enterprise? Is he aware that the report compiled by PEIDA did not include a substantial number of facilities at the ports? It would appear that Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise are attempting to sell the idea of a port at Rosyth, which might be welcome, by doing down and hiding from people facilities at the port of Grangemouth and elsewhere which have already received substantial investment. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about this. Has the issue been raised with him by the enterprise board chairman?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend. Scottish Enterprise has been involved in a study of a possible port development at Rosyth; I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is apparently opposed to Scottish Enterprise considering developments which might involve net additional jobs for Scotland.

    Local Services
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of local services.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 18 January. Further meetings, as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters, will be held later this year.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware that while he spends his time trying to save Tory Eastwood district council from the effects of his own reforms, the people of Scotland spend their time worrying about the bread and butter issues that they face daily, such as damp, decaying housing, the upsurge in violent crime, the lack of proper community policing, the threat of water privatisation and the Government's failure to prepare properly for the community care of our elderly and disabled people? As they are all vital local services which are in the hands of local government, why does the Minister waste so much time trying to dismantle and destroy local government instead of strengthening and supporting it?
    Mr. Stewart: Aggregate 'external finance for local government in Scotland for the forthcoming year is £1,013 per head, compared with £690 per head in England and £812 per head in Wales. That is not destruction; that is a massive investment by the British taxpayer in local authority expenditure in Scotland, which is far higher than anywhere else in the country.
    The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. He will know that Scottish Homes is taking action in Foxbar. With regard to his concern about the policing of his constituency, why does not he take up with Labour Strathclyde regional council the fact that consistently, over a long period, it has been the only police authority in Scotland to keep its police manpower below the Scottish Office authorised level?
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of COSLA will he draw attention to the article in the Glasgow Herald which said that the Monklands mafia were to be taken to an industrial tribunal by those great friends of the Conservative party, the Transport and General Workers Union? Is not it about time that something was done about what is going on in that district council?
    Mr. Stewart: I know my hon. Friend's concern about those matters. His concern is shared by the Labour party —with the notable exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We all hope that the inquiry will come to sensible conclusions. We have received many letters of complaint about what is going on in Monklands. I hope for the support of Opposition Members in wishing the Transport and General Workers Union well in its complaint to the industrial tribunal.
    Mr. Wray: I notice that the Minister carefully did not refer to water privatisation when he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). The Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture and environment was more forthcoming when he replied to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He suggested that the Government intend there to be meter options in April

    291
    1993, but the Minister has not mentioned that. May I give him a message from the people of Scotland? We do not want meters; we do not want water privatisation. If the Government franchise or privatise water the 49 Scottish Members of Parliament intend to take it back into public ownership.
    Mr. Stewart: I always listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, because he lives in a part of my constituency in which I cannot afford to live. I assure him that I completely support what my hon. Friend said in his letter. My hon. Friend will be answering a question on the subject shortly.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister recall that he failed to answer the serious question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South about community care? Does he agree that the concerns are widely shared throughout Scotland—concerns about elderly people and the care gap in residential and nursing homes, concerns about people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into the community, and concerns about the multiply handicapped? Local authorities must address those issues, because of the changes that will happen on I April. In view of the absence of proper funding, how do the Government intend to deal with those matters—or do they intend to leave elderly, disabled and handicapped people and their carers with the impression that the Government simply have no strategy whatever and have even ignored the report from Sir Roy Griffiths, who warned them that if they did not act, chaos would prevail in community care?
    Mr. Stewart: The House expected the hon. Gentleman to defend Monklands district council and its employment policies and religious discrimination. Does the hon. Gentleman not defend every action of Monklands district council? 1 see that he sits silent and I am not surprised. In answer to his specific question, the Government have increased the resources for community care by more than the Department of Social Security would have spent in Scotland. The commitment to community care is absolutely clear and has been backed by massive extra resources.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people received legal aid in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Lang: In 1987–88, there were 305,148 grants of legal aid and advice and assistance. This rose to 366,580 in 1991–92—an increase of just over 20 per cent. in five years. I will, with permission, Madam Speaker, arrange for the detailed numbers for the last five years to be printed in the Official Report and sent to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Can he say why the Government, having gone some of the way towards reinstating the eligibility criteria for legal advice and assistance, are not prepared to go the whole way and raise the £44 threshold for eligibility for free civil legal aid? Why are the Government determined to deny easy access to justice for people on low incomes such as the disabled, pensioners and others with low basic incomes? Do not they care about justice in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: Indeed we do, and those on income support levels will continue to receive free civil legal aid and advice and assistance. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, in the light of consultation, the Government have decided to retain the contributory band in the case of advice and assistance. However, the hon. Gentleman should not seek to imply—I do not think that he meant to do so—that we are somehow cutting legal aid in Scotland. Expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase between now and 1995–96.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that statistics provided by his own Government actually deny the figures that he has just given and that there has been very little increase in gross civil legal aid payments? The major jump has been in administrative costs. Is not the reality that changes in civil legal aid in Scotland are being tacked on to the changes in the English legal system, where there have been substantial increases? When shall we see the regulations which he is prepared to debate?
    Mr. Lang: The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is shortly. In regard to comparisons with England, we would expect such issues to proceed broadly in line, taking account of the different circumstances north and south of the border. Let me assure the hon. Lady that, over the next two years, we expect that more people than ever before will receive legal aid and advice and assistance.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a mark of a civilised society that all persons, irrespective of means, may have access to the legal system? It is perfectly clear from the proposals that he is about to bring forward that a substantial group of people who previously had access to the system through legal aid are to be denied that. Why is the Scottish Office following like a lapdog the experience in England? If the right hon. Gentleman were as independent as he claims to be, he would tell the Lord Advocate that we do not need to do in Scotland what the Lord Chancellor feels compelled to do in England and Wales.
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have responsibilities north of the border, just as my right hon. and hon. Friends do south of the border, for ensuring that public resources are sensibly spent with proper care and attention to the interests of the taxpayers. However, as I have said already, we expect that more than ever before, not fewer, will be able to receive legal aid and advice and assistance over the next couple of years—something like half the households in the country.
    Following is the information:

    Number

    1987–88

    304,148

    1988–89

    288,904

    1989–90

    298,824

    1990–91

    328,688

    1991–92

    366,580

    Access to Justice
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on equality of access to justice.
    Mr. Lang: The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all citizens have, so far as possible, ready access to a high standard of justice.
    Mr. Worthington: Why have not the Government published the figures on which their claims for an increase in civil legal aid are based? The figures for 1987–1992 show that there is a tiny increase and the claim for changes in the regulations is based on the figures for this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish those figures when he releases them to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)? Why are we having a cut when the citizens advice bureaux report that in significant areas of Scotland there is no civil legal aid because lawyers cannot afford to do it?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman cares to table some specific questions, I will ensure that they are answered, giving such figures as are available. As I have said, expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years from £49 million in 1987–88 to an estimated £100 million in the current year. That is a substantial increase and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase by 1995–96.
    Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister aware that, over the past 20 years, many thousands of women have used legal aid to raise actions aimed at protecting themselves and their children from violence? Will the Government therefore support the campaign against domestic violence launched by Edinburgh district council's women's committee and the Edinburgh Evening News by ensuring that the cruel legal aid proposals are scrapped and by giving a more generous donation to Scottish Women's Aid? Its grant is not keeping up with its funding requirements and is falling behind all the time as a proportion of its total expenditure.
    Mr. Lang: Our proposals will have no effect on the eligibility of that category.

    Homelessness
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to alleviate homelessness in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness. Their capital allocations this year total over £456 million and the Government have consistently emphasised the need to give due priority to homelessness. We have backed this up with extra capital allocations of over £22 million earmarked for homelessness projects over the period 1991 to 1993.
    Sir Russell Johnston: These are empty words when one considers the fact that there were 7,000 applications last year in rural Scotland under the homelessness legislation. Over the past eight years, the total figure has increased by 180 per cent., which is a shame on the Government. Do not the Government recognise that the simple way in which to deal with the problem is not to talk about more hostels and more bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but
    294
    to give the local authorities money to build houses for reasonable rent? There is no other way in which to deal with the problem effectively.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this afternoon we are making a £2.5 million supplementary allocation. Inverness district council will benefit by £100,000 owing to a shortfall of receipts. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that over the past 10 years £10 million has been allocated through urban aid for homelessness projects. More than 1,200 housing association units have been grant aided over the past three years and some 450 homeless persons and families were provided with permanent accommodation by housing associations in 1991–92. Local authorities are expected to give priority to homelessness within their mainstream allocation.
    Mr. Sykes: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) used the phrase "empty words". Will my hon. Friend comment on the vast number of empty council houses in Labour-controlled councils throughout Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We want to bring empty houses back into use wherever they exist. Several study groups are looking into the matter and are considering not only local authority housing, but housing in the charge of Government Departments. We will take every possible measure to ensure that empty property is brought back into use.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that the extra money that was allocated to the homeless in Renfrew district will give us three houses? Is he aware that Scottish Homes has thousands of houses in Renfrew district and in Scotland generally? It is not playing a meaningful role in helping the district council to alleviate homelessness because it continues to sell houses that should be allocated to people who live in the local area.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes has taken action with local authorities on nomination agreements, which many local authorities have, and it has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting list applicants. I shall check on the position in Renfrew district. However, it has a good record overall and the many strategic agreements formed with local authorities take that factor into account.

    Bank Charges
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has held with banks in Scotland about bank charges and the effect of changes in the charges on the viability of Scottish businesses, jobs and individuals with low fixed incomes.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish banks which enable matters of this kind to be discussed as necessary. The levels of charges that the banks apply for particular services are, however, a matter for their commercial judgment.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that thousands of people are suffering from high bank charges? I give him one example, that of Mrs. Margaret Reid who lives at Easthouses in my constituency. A miner's widow, she is being charged £3 by the Royal Bank of Scotland for every

    295
    transaction, for which she must pay out of her small pension. When she told the bank that she wanted to withdraw her account, she was told that she would be charged £10 to do that. Does he believe that people on such low incomes should be fleeced by the greedy banks?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot comment on the case which the hon. Gentleman raises. I am surprised that, as the lady's constituency hon. Member, he has not taken the opportunity to raise the matter with the Royal Bank. In general terms, I refer him to a recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, which concluded:
    "In almost every aspect, the Scottish banks were perceived in a superior light to the English banks, including bank charges, interest rates, collateral, indices of quality and banking relationships."
    I should have thought that, in the light of that, hon. Members might praise the Scottish financial community.

    Knives
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding Operation Blade carried out by Strathclyde police; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce proposals to amend the law relating to sentences available to sheriffs for those convicted of carrying knives or other such instruments.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no representations concerning Operation Blade, but we strongly welcome the steps that have been taken by Strathclyde police to deal with the serious and growing problem of the carrying of knives. Operation Blade is an innovative strategy by the force and the first of its kind in Scotland. More than 4,500 weapons have already been surrendered. The Government will be supporting the Bill introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to strengthen the law on the carrying of knives in public.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that I have been raising with him the issue of crimes of violence For the past five years? Will he further confirm that last year I asked him to declare an amnesty and that he refused, on the basis that to do so, so soon after 1988, would debase its value? Is not it a fact that as Operation Blade has resulted in nearly 5,000 weapons being removed from the streets of Strathclyde, it is the Government who are debased? Why has it taken campaigns by the Glasgow Evening Times and the Scottish Daily Record to get the Government to act?
    Is the Minister aware that horrific weapons of war are widely available in shops in our towns and cities? Will he now introduce legislation to ban the importation and sale of weapons such as the one I hold in my hand—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed further, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to bring such an implement into the Chamber, or indeed into the House.
    Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has been here long enough to be aware of such matters. [Interruption.] I am sure that, at my request, he will remove it from the Chamber. I should be most grateful if he would.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree to do as I say.
    Mr. Marshall: Yes, Madam Speaker. I will do that immediately.
    Madam Speaker: Will he do it quickly, so that he can then hear the Minister's reply to his supplementary question?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the fact that Opposition Members are coming round to the Government's way of thinking on the need for a really strong law and order policy in this country. Only a short time ago they opposed the police having powers of search. The importance of the Bill is that it alters the onus of proof, which will make prosecutions easier. The existing provisions under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 relate to the carrying of weapons and require the Crown to prove intent to injure. Under the Bill, it will not be necessary to prove that intent and that will take the policy much further forward. If the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, however, will he please make representations to Strathclyde regional council's Labour group and ask it to strengthen the police force, which is some 200 under strength at present?
    Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for the time given by Scottish Office officials in preparing the Bill that will make the carrying of knives in public an offence? Will he welcome the support given by Opposition Members and does he agree that this is only one small step to redress an unacceptable position?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I can confirm that there is no stronger supporter of law and order in the House than my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I have no doubt that, with a general consensus of support for tightening the measures in relation to knives, we will strengthen law and order.
    In 1992 there were 201 attempted murders in Strathclyde in which knives were used, compared with 126 the year before. The number of knife assaults has increased considerably. We have to take further measures and my hon. Friend's Bill will assist in that process.
    Mr. McFall: In January we had the planted question; now we have the planted Bill. Despite enormous public concern in Scotland at the ever-increasing incidence of violence involving knives, the Minister of State only last week stated that the Government were unwilling to make parliamentary time available to fulfil the Conservative party's election manifesto commitment on knives. Eight days after that statement and one day after I presented my Bill to ban the carrying of knives, the hon. Member for Ayr was furnished by the Government with a Bill to do just that.
    We accept, however, that the main issue is the carrying of knives in public places. Given the serious nature of the issue to the Scottish people, will the Minister agree to meet

    297
    me and a small number of my hon. Friends to discuss aspects of the Bill, thereby ensuring the swiftest progress in its passage through Parliament?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, of course I will meet him. May I add that maximum penalties are now available. For example, if someone were to use a knife, he could be sentenced to life imprisonment on indictment. The Bill ensures that those who carry knives where no intent is proved can be proceeded against. That strengthens the powers of the police and also makes it easier to prosecute. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the measure.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend jumps on the bandwagon of Mr. Boutros Boutros's Bill, may I remind the House what the law is? It is more than adequate. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment—more than is sought in the Bill—to carry any offensive weapon in any public or private place, the proof of the carrier's intention, being neutral, being upon him. Furthermore, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 provides for the prevention of sale of offensive weapons. If the Government do not know what the law is, it is time that they did.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. and learned Friend is a brilliant man, but he is not always right. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr changes the burden of proof by requiring the accused to demonstrate lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying the implement. That undoubtedly takes us further forward.

    Economy and Employment
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the economy and employment.
    Mr. Lang: I have frequent meetings with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of economic, employment and training issues in Scotland.
    Dr. Godman: Leaving aside for the moment the intense local speculation concerning Mimtec and Faulds Farm, Gourock, may I remind the Secretary of State that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), told me just 13 days ago that more than 48,000 people in Strathclyde, 2,000 of whom live in Inverclyde, have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Will the Secretary of State ensure that Scottish Enterprise involves itself in the sale of Scott Lithgow so that more employment may be provided in the area? Does he agree that if Scott Lithgow were brought into the enterprise zone it would be very attractive to a potential inward investor in shipbuilding or shiprepairing?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman must know that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to change the boundaries of the enterprise zone. However, the very existence of the enterprise zone, together with the other benefits, schemes and initiatives that the Government and Scottish Enterprise bring to Inverclyde and other parts of Scotland, has helped to sustain the area's economy quite effectively during the period of recession. The hon.
    298
    Gentleman mentioned unemployment. He should not overlook the brighter signs. Unemployment in his constituency, far from rising in the past year, has fallen. Although the level is still too high, it is more than 4,000 lower than it was six years ago.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the rules governing assisted area status and enterprise zones and the European Commission's rules, only 15 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom may have assisted area status? In view of the great success of Scottish Enterprise in bringing jobs to Scotland, is not it now time for the assisted area status of some Scottish areas to be given up to other parts of the United Kingdom? It is clear that those parts of Scotland no longer need assistance.
    Mr. Lang: As my hon. Friend knows, the assisted areas map is drawn on an even-handed basis across the United Kingdom, taking account of objective criteria that have been agreed. In this respect, Scotland is no different from Northern Ireland, Wales or England. However, the assisted areas map is under review. The issue is being carefully considered to ensure that we get the right structure and the right map for the future.
    Mr. Donohoe: What progress has the Secretary of State made in pursuing companies that came to Irvine, were given massive grants and have now left without repaying any money to Scottish Enterprise? What progress has been made towards recovering this money?
    Mr. Lang: Regional assistance is carefully controlled. Resources have to be repaid if the investment to which they relate is not undertaken within a certain time limit. That happens on rare occasions. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases in his constituency, I shall certainly follow them up and give him a detailed and specific reply.

    Scottish Charities(Eastern Europe)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations and while the Scottish Office has no responsibility for the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe, he associates himself with the widespread appreciation of their efforts.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Scottish European Aid—formerly Romania Project UK —on the excellence of its work at lonaseni orphanage and Podriga hospital? Will he support Scottish European Aid's appeal for a mobile medical camp for Bosnia's stricken refugees?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will consider my hon. Friend's request for assistance for the Edinburgh headquarters and I will write to him as soon as possible with regard to ways forward. On the question of training schemes, we should need detailed information, but we will consider the situation sympathetically. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work, not only in founding the all-party campaign for inter-country adoption but for the orphanage in Ionaseni, Romania, and the psychiatric hospital at Podriga. I understand that rehabilitation of

    299
    buildings at Tuzla, too, is proceeding. We warmly welcome the work of Scottish European Aid and wish it every success.

    Stobhill Hospital
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the health board's recommendations regarding the future of Stobhill hospital.
    Mr. Stewart: The Greater Glasgow health board has yet to conclude its review of acute and maternity services. Stobhill hospital features as part of that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.
    Mr. Martin: Will the Minister tell the health board and its new chairman that Stobhill is an excellent facility at the north end of the city? It serves not only my constituency but many other constituencies in Glagow—and, indeed, Strathkelvin and further afield as far as Kilsyth and Torrance. To lose the facility will mean a lot of harm to the health of many thousands of people. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that we have a first-class team in Stobhill from the doctors down to the domestics. I hope that the hospital has a good future.
    Mr. Stewart: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. The review to which I referred is about putting patients first and providing patients with important services. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, once the recommendations of the board are with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, they will be happy to meet him to discuss the matter in detail.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking your ruling on the procedure used by Health Ministers yesterday to announce a record increase in prescription charges without an oral statement on which they could be questioned. The written details purported to be "pursuant to" a written answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 16 February, although the original question did not mention prescription charge rates or prescription charge increases, and it was answered in full.
That practice was condemned by the Select Committee on Procedure in its third report, Session 1990–91, paragraph 129, in which it said:
"It is hard to see how a matter can be of such urgency that an announcement must be made without prior notice on a particular day, and yet not be of sufficient importance to justify an oral statement to the House."
Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that such practice is
"inherently undesirable and an abuse of the procedures of this House"?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am a Member of the Procedure Committee, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has taken the opportunity to emphasise from the Front Bench the points which the Committee made.
You, like your predecessors, have rightly deprecated the custom whereby journalists—indeed, the world at large—are given information by the Government before the House. This is an important announcement, which undoubtedly penalises the sick in our society. It is controversial. What possible justification can there be to give the announcement to the Lobby and the rest of the country and not make an oral statement in the House on which the Secretary of State for Health can be questioned while you are presiding?
If it is too late now, would you make it clear that such statements should be made to the House in future? We should be given the first opportunity; otherwise, the remarks which you and your predecessors made are simply made a mockery of by Ministers—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with the point of order.
The written answer given yesterday, which is in columns 95 and 96 of Hansard, is concerned almost entirely with the proposed level of prescription charges for the year 1993–94, and is described as "pursuant to" an answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), which is at column 162.
I have noted that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its third report of Session 1990–91, stated its belief that
"the use by Ministers of 'pursuant' answers is inherently undesirable".
The report goes on to say:
"The offence is compounded when…an answer is given which claims to be 'pursuant' to an earlier reply but which in fact has only the most tenuous link with it."
As we well know, the House has not yet had the opportunity to debate the Procedure Committee's recommendations on how the practice should be dealt with. But I wish to make it clear that I deprecate the use
302
of the "pursuant" device by Ministers to make written statements such as this without giving proper notice to the House. I hope that that clears up the points of order, and that we can now get on with our business.
Mrs. Ewing, on a separate point of order.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a separate point of order arising out of Scottish questions, Madam Speaker. You will know that considerable interest in civil legal aid was expressed during questions. On at least two occasions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he believed that the cost of civil legal aid in Scotland had doubled in the past five years. That is in direct contradiction of written answers which were provided to me on 12 February.
It is important that such inaccuracies should not be written into our records. Is there something that you can do to ensure that, within the Scottish Office, answers communicated by junior Ministers are relayed to the Secretary of State so that information is accurately recorded in all our records?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady is wily enough and has sufficient imagination to put her point across. It is a matter of policy, not one for me.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter. I have dealt with it.
Mr. Griffiths: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a separate point of order? Mr. Griffiths: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I will hear it, provided that it is a separate point of order.
Mr. Griffiths: On the procedures of the House, I fully accept your ruling on the previous point of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that. There can be no further point of order on that matter. I have dealt with it adequately. We must now move on.
Mr. Griffiths rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging that ruling? He told me that it was a separate point of order before he got to his feet. I accepted his word as an hon. Gentleman. Is it a separate point of order now?
Mr. Griffiths: The Procedure Committee two years ago made a recommendation which the House has not yet had chance to debate. Is it not an indictment of the Government's handling of business that it takes two years for such matters to come before the House? Is that not a way for Ministers to gag the House of Commons on embarrassing statements such as the one on prescription charges?
Madam Speaker: I have no doubt that what I said earlier will have been noted. Now perhaps we can—
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. It seems that Members in the last moment or two have ideas in their mind which they

303
can raise as a point of order. Some of them are bogus points of order. I have no intention of letting the House be delayed by bogus points of order. I shall now proceed.
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Well, I must hear a bit of it to start with.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. May I remind you that, on 26 January, I raised with you in a point of order the advisability of documents which are the basis of ministerial statements being placed in the Vote Office for Members some 30 minutes before the statement is due to be made? You advised me to raise it with the Leader of the House, which I did on 27 January. I have heard no more. Has the Leader of the House been in touch with you on this legitimate point of order?
Madam Speaker: It is within my recollection, but it has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Philip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for the Opposition to use an Opposition day debate to discuss prescription charges so that Conservative Members can point out that a Labour Government first proposed prescription charges—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must get on with the 10-minute rule motion.

Coal Industry (Abolition of Statutory Manpower Limits)
3.39 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946; and for connected purposes.
The present furore in the coal industry and in the country, following British Coal's and the Government's October announcement of their intention to close 31 pits, has brought into focus many aspects of the coal and energy market, which are the subject of on-going reports and debate.
The future of those 31 pits remains in the balance, with 21 working and 10 closed but subject to a review procedure. My view of the way in which the announcement was made in October is well known, and I do not intend to go over that ground again today. All I shall say is that I look to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to produce a balanced energy programme which will allow a substantial number of those pits to remain open under British Coal management.
I continue to press that view, on the basis that we must save not only the jobs of the majority of the 30,000 miners involved, but also the livelihoods of the estimated 50,000 additional people employed in associated industries or small local businesses, and those involved in this country's wider manufacturing base.
For some mines, there is an alternative to remaining under British Coal management: they could be leased or sold for private licensed operation. I have positive information that a consortium could be interested in operating Markham Main colliery in Yorkshire, and that the well-known mining company, Ryan, would be interested in operating Betws colliery in Wales; and I am sure that there could well be others.
The chairman of British Coal has publicly said that he would not be opposed to pits within the 10 under review being transferred to licensed status and operated privately. I and others intend to keep him to that offer, to maximise the number of mining jobs retained and to enable the removal of the so-called easily mined coal from these pits. That is where the problem arises—hence the need for my Bill.
Present legislation limits to 150 the number of workers employed underground in licensed mines at any one time. For many mines to operate efficiently and safely—I stress the word safely—that number is inadequate. Without becoming involved in a discussion about the number of men needed to run a privately operated mine compared with the existing number, a limit of 150 underground workers at any time in a licensed mine is too restrictive.
There is a stronger case than ever for removing the restriction. If it remains in place, the pits that British Coal plans to close will have no future, because virtually all of them employ many more miners than the licensing limit. Some of the pits that British Coal may not want to work remain viable, with good short-term coal reserves and good industrial relations. They could operate profitably. I cite as an example Grimethorpe colliery in South Yorkshire, which the international mining consultants Boyd have recently shown to be viable.

305
If the restriction is removed, there is a chance that at least some of the pits, and therefore some of the miners, could find a future in the private sector. I am sure that the House is well aware that the Coal Act 1938 and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 provide the basic legal framework for the coal industry. The 1938 Act removed the freehold ownership of coal from the private sector and vested it in the Coal Commission. The 1946 Act created the National Coal Board, which acquired all the interests of the Coal Commission and was given the exclusive duty of working and searching for coal.
Section 36(2) of the 1946 Act, however, empowered the NCB to license coal mining or, as an ancillary, the mining of other materials. Until 1990, the size of licensed deep mines was severely curtailed by the statutory manpower limit of 30 men employed to work underground. The Government went some way towards liberalising the regime for the licensed sector by section 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1990, which increased the limit to 150 men.
The scope of my Bill is totally to remove the restriction, by amending section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. I hope that the House will support me in my endeavour. I am convinced that there is no shortage of individuals and companies interested in creating a future for some of the pits. There is certainly no shortage of energy and commitment among the people at the pits, who believe that there is potential there. Some of them may prove to be over-optimistic.
There should be no pretence that the amending legislation would save as many jobs as some of us would like. However, the new operators would want to run the pits as efficiently as possible—as I am sure British Coal do —which might mean fewer jobs. There should be no illusions that the measure would be a cure-all for the coal industry. At least the operators would provide the opportunity—a second chance—for the operations to succeed and for some jobs to be saved. It would be wrong to allow an anomalous restriction to prevent that second chance.
On behalf of miners, their families and the wider energy needs of the country I ask the House for leave to bring in the amendment to the outdated and unnecessary legislation.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish to oppose.
3.46 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was first.
I wish to oppose the Bill, as I want to place on record the fact that the Opposition do not want to go back to the era of privatisation in the coal mines. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) wants to increase the numbers that are allowed to work in a private mine. Just before the last election, legislation was passed which increased the numbers from 30 to 150, and every Labour Member voted against that proposal. I hope that they will do the same again today. If we as a Labour party were against increasing the number of people working in a pit from 30 to 150 it should follow that we are against any further increase.
The reason that we are against the privatisation of mines is fairly simple. The Mines and Quarries Acts, which form the backbone of the legislation on the supervision
306
and extraction of coal, have been etched in blood—miners' blood. Over the years—in fact, decades—several disasters have taken place. Following each disaster, well-meaning people have told the House of Commons that we needed another regulation to ensure that such a disaster never happened again.
That is how many of the Mines and Quarries Acts have been built up over the years. They have grown up as a result of 80 miners losing their lives in one place and another 200 losing their lives somewhere else. The Opposition are not prepared to cast away provisions that exist to ensure the limited safety of miners when they are engaged underground and at the pit top.
None of us would claim for one minute that it is totally safe in a pit—of course it is not. But we must preserve the Mines and Quarries Acts, and the present health and safety provisions. We all know that the main reason for the coal industry being nationalised was that, at the end of, and during, the war, privatisation was seen to be failing the nation, as it would again.
We cannot provide the necessary energy through coal on the basis of private enterprise. During the run-up to the second world war and beyond, the Government had to intervene. Many of the Tories who were then involved were private coal owners, and they collaborated over the idea of public ownership.
The Opposition would be the first to admit that public ownership has not been the bees' knees in the mining industry. But why? Not because of the philosophy of public ownership, but because of the Tory people running it. There is one running it now who is called Neil Clarke. His salary increased from £98,000 to more than £200,000 when he took the job. Why did this rotten Government increase his salary? Because they knew that he would be a patsy for privatisation and running down the pits.
It is interesting that both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Neil Clarke went on television on 13 October and said the same things. They talked about having a tiny industry. Why, one might ask, would British Coal want a small coal mining industry? Simple—because Neil Clarke and his acolytes at Hobart house wanted to run the privatised industry, and they did not want competition. They did not want 30, 40 or 50 pits; they wanted a small number of the most productive pits so that they could make a big fat profit running the industry. That is why we are opposed to this Bill.
If the hon. Lady or any other Tory Members who have spouted about supporting the miners in the past want to support the Opposition—they have been good talkers, but they have been no good in the ring, with the exception of the hon. Lady and, I think, two others on the day in question—to save the 31 pits, they will not do it by back-door privatisation. They must have the guts to tell the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that they support the millions of people out there in the country who believe that the mines should stay open.
If the Government really believe in cutting unemployment, they have an opportunity to save 100,000 jobs in the course of the next few weeks—the 30,000 miners' jobs that would be lost and the 70,000 others. If they do not do that, those Ministers, including the Minister for Energy, who are smirking away on the Front Bench, will be adding to that enormous unemployment total in Britain which is now more than 4 million in real terms.
What will that unemployment cost? It is already costing £30 billion to finance that pile of human misery known as

307
the dole queue. It is economic madness. We should not be adding to it, and nor should the Government. Anyone who wants to help the coal industry should be calling for a cut in imports—20 million tonnes this year coming from slave labour economies, some of it much dearer than the coal that is mined in Britain.
Bolsover pit in my constituency was producing coal the other week at 67p per gigajoule, yet the Government talk about pits not being competitive. Now that the pound has been devalued by between 15 and 20 per cent., we should not be importing coal but exporting it to every country in the world.
If the Government want to save some more pits, they can cut down on opencast mining, which produced 18·5 million tonnes last year. We can do without it. Let us reduce it to the level it was when the Labour Government left office. Let us reduce the imports to the 5 million tonnes when the Labour Government left office. If we did that, we would save another 12 or 13 pits. Let us close the Magnox nuclear stations and save six more pits. Let us cut the French nuclear link and save another half a dozen pits.
If the Government or any Tory Member had the will or the guts to save the pits, it would be relatively easy to do so. The result would be that, instead of spending £900 million to finance 100,000 people out of work, with a subsidy only half that which Nuclear Power gets for 22 per cent. of the energy market, we would be saving the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds. It would not be a subsidy; it would be a saving. Those who want to help us to save the pits have plenty of opportunities to do so.
I finish on this note. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) knows a little bit about private mines, because the north-east has one or two. He told me about one incident fairly recently when the haulage rope in a private mine snapped. Because the mine was trying to save money, a knot was tied in the rope. That would not be allowed under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
How will private mines cope with pumping out water from the adjoining collieries that have been closed? Have the Government ever stopped to think about that? If Silverhill colliery were sold to a group of entrepreneurs, they would have to pay £250,000 for every pump to pump the water out of another pit five miles up the road. Would they do it? Of course they would not. They would go running to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking for a subsidy to pump out the water from somebody else's pit. How will they pump out the methane from an adjoining colliery? That would have to be done. It sounds all right to have a little private mine, but mines are not little and they are not private, if you want to compete in the energy market. The environmental problems of the water and methane would have to be dealt with. The whole thing is a load of nonsense. That is why those who took part in a private mine in Scotland are, despite their sterling efforts, realising that they are having to carry the costs that belong to somebody else. So do not let us talk nonsense.
The mines have always been a case of battling against mother nature. It is not like working in a factory. The strong mines help the weak, and sometimes the strong mines become weak and the weak mines become strong as they find a better coal seam. Let us have some common sense.
People think that they can come up with tinpot answers and solve the problem. The problem is staring the
308
Government in the face. Save the 31 pits, and if we start exporting coal, the balance of payments problem will be solved—
Madam Speaker: Order. Time's up.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 180.

Division No. 167]

[3.55 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Harris, David

Ashby, David

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Hunter, Andrew

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Jenkin, Bernard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Jessel, Toby

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Lidington, David

Butler, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Pawsey, James

Carttiss, Michael

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Cash, William

Porter, David (Waveney)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Congdon, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Couchman, James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Day, Stephen

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Tracey, Richard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Viggers, Peter

Dunn, Bob

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Dykes, Hugh

Waterson, Nigel

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Whittingdale, John

Fabricant, Michael

Willetts, David

Fry, Peter

Gallie, Phil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Gorst, John

Mr. James Cran and

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Mrs. Angela Knight.

Griffiths. Peter (Portsmouth, N)

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Darling, Alistair

Ainger, Nick

Davidson, Ian

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Armstrong, Hilary

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ashton, Joe

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

Austin-Walker, John

Denham, John

Barnes, Harry

Dewar, Donald

Battle, John

Dixon, Don

Bayley, Hugh

Dobson, Frank

Bell, Stuart

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bennett, Andrew F.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Berry, Dr. Roger

Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth

Betts, Clive

Eagle, Ms Angela

Blunkett, David

Enright, Derek

Boyce, Jimmy

Etherington, Bill

Boyes, Roland

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bradley. Keith

Fatchett, Derek

Burden, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foster, Don (Bath)

Cann, Jamie

Foulkes, George

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fyfe, Maria

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Garrett, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clelland, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cohen, Harry

Graham, Thomas

Connarty, Michael

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cousins, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Grocott, Bruce

Dafis, Cynog

Gunnell, John

309

Hain, Peter

Mudie, George

Hall, Mike

Mullin, Chris

Harvey, Nick

Murphy, Paul

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

O'Hara, Edward

Hood, Jimmy

Olner, William

Hoon, Geoffrey

Parry, Robert

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Pickthall, Colin

Hoyle, Doug

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hutton, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Purchase, Ken

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jamieson, David

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Redmond, Martin

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jowell, Tessa

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Salmond, Alex

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Sheerman, Barry

Khabra, Piara S.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kilfoyle, Peter

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Simpson, Alan

Leighton, Ron

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Litherland, Robert

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Livingstone, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Snape, Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Spellar, John

McAllion, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Macdonald, Calum

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McFall, John

Stott, Roger

McKelvey, William

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Straw, Jack

McMaster, Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Madden, Max

Tipping, Paddy

Mahon, Alice

Turner, Dennis

Mallon, Seamus

Tyler, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Wallace, James

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Walley, Joan

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wicks, Malcolm

Martlew, Eric

Wigley, Dafydd

Maxton, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Meale, Alan

Wilson, Brian

Michael, Alun

Winnick, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wise, Audrey

Milburn, Alan

Wray, Jimmy

Morgan, Rhodri

Wright, Dr Tony

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mr Michael Clapham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Education Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Madam Speaker: We shall now proceed to consider amendments up to the end of schedule 12, and the Government motion relating to clause 214.

  Education Bill
    Clause 197

      APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL GOVERNORS
      4.6 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 119, line 17 leave out 'controlled' and insert 'voluntary'.
      Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to take also the following amendments: No. 17, in page 119, line 18 after 'may', insert—
      '(a) forthwith and without any obligation to consider representations made by or on behalf of any person affected, remove from office any person who is a governor appointed by them or a co-opted governor, and
      (b)'.
      No. 18, in page 119, line 19 at end insert
      'whether by way of replacement of persons removed from office under paragraph (a) above or as additional governors'.
      No. 19, in page 119, line 20 after 'appointment', insert 'of additional governors'.
      No. 20, in page 119, line 32 at end insert—

      '(3) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to section 8(5) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (general power of removal of governors by those who appoint them).

      (4) The local education authority shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (1)(a) in relation to a voluntary school unless they have consulted the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.

      (5) In this section "co-opted governor" has the same meaning as in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.'.

      Mr. Griffiths: This group of five amendments to clause 197, which deals with the appointment of additional governors, aims to increase the local education authority's powers over schools which are considered to be at risk or over any voluntary school considered to be in the same position. The amendments provide an alternative—perhaps one could even argue that they complement what the Secretary of State is choosing to do in transferring a school considered to be at risk to an education association.
      It is the Government's intention in clauses 197 and 198 to provide the LEA with a set of additional powers to try to turn around a failing school. However, the powers contained in those two clauses are insufficient, and our amendments would reinforce the powers already provided to local education authorities in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. They also propose a new power intended to be more closely equivalent to the powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself in clause 58 over the governing body of an at-risk grant-maintained school. We seek parity of power and esteem for a local education authority to act in

      311
      respect of a maintained school or a voluntary school in the same way as the Secretary of State would act in respect of an at-risk grant-maintained school.
      Let us look at some of the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 17, the first of the main elements of the group, provides for an unrestricted power summarily to remove any local authority appointed governor or co-opted governor, which would effectively enable a majority of the governing body to be replaced. As I have said, that is equivalent to the Secretary of State's power under clause 58 to replace the first governors in a grant-maintained school which is a former county school.
      The amendment would provide a power to remove co-opted governors, which is an innovation, proposed mainly in order to provide a power to remove and replace a majority of the governing body of a county school without affecting parent governors or teacher governors. In the case of voluntary schools, local education authority appointees and co-opted governors do not constitute a majority, but the person who appoints foundation governors already has a power, albeit a restricted power, to remove them.
      Thus, the powers in clause 197, even with the amendments, would require the person with that power over the foundation governors to be involved in order to replace a majority of the governing body. The local education authority's existing power to remove LEA appointed governors, and the equivalent powers held by others to remove foundation governors, come from section 8(5) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. There have been legal challenges to that power, as in the case of Brunyate v. ILEA in 1989. Thus, the intention of amendment 17 is to make local education authorities' powers in the case of an at-risk school entirely unambiguous, and to extend them to cover co-opted governors under the same terms.
      Amendment No. 16 may be contentious in that it proposes to widen the scope of clause 197 to include voluntary-aided schools as well as voluntary-controlled schools. Nevertheless, that is not intended to shift the main weight of responsibility for removing governors, which lies with the person who appoints the foundation governors. In the exceptional circumstances—I repeat and emphasise the phrase "exceptional circumstances"—in which a voluntary-aided school may find itself at risk, and for as long as it remains at risk, the amended clause would permit the local authority to appoint extra governors so that the foundation governors would not comprise a majority.
      The new subsection (4) of clause 197, suggested in amendment No. 20, would require that the local education authority's powers over the governing body of a voluntary school be used only after consultation with the person who appointed the foundation governors. In other words, unlike the clause as currently drafted, the clause as amended would provide for such consultation in the case of voluntary-controlled schools. As the clause stands the Government seem to have no intention of allowing such consultation.
      The second element in the group of amendments is to be found in amendment No. 18, which would completely change the thrust of clause 197 from being concerned exclusively with additional governors to a balanced approach of replacement or additional governors. The thrust of our amendments is to give local education authorities exactly the same opportunities and powers in respect of maintained and voluntary schools as the
      312
      Secretary of State has or will have over grant-maintained schools which are former county schools and which may become at risk. We hope that the Government will accept that it is preferable to give the local education authority extra power similar to that of the Secretary of State to turn round a school which is at risk.
      Even under existing powers, local education authorities occasionally intervene effectively to turn around failing schools. I can cite one school, which I shall not name, to show how a local education authority can work effectively. A couple of years ago, the school was between one third and half full. The local education authority determined that it would have to take action, and within two years that same school is now over-subscribed. Local education authorities can do that job.
      Mr. James Pawsey: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I very much applaud what he had to say about the LEA that turned the school around, but I expect that he would be the first to agree that, sadly, not all LEAs can do that. Failing schools exist despite the best endeavours of local education authorities. That is where my right hon. Friend's admirable initiative comes in. The education association is a long stop, but it sorts out that problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming my right hon. Friend's views on the matter.
      Mr. Griffiths: I shall turn to that in a moment. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who I know has a long-standing interest in education—although it is sometimes misguided—that our amendments seek to strengthen the powers of a local education authority to deal with an at-risk school and to place those powers on a par with the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of grant-maintained schools which might become at risk. We know that that has happened, and that there were tremendous difficulties in dealing with that problem.
      One reason why LEAs often encounter difficulties, whether or not they are entirely justified, is the question whether they have untrammelled powers to take action against a school that is at risk. Our amendments, by giving LEAs the same powers as the Secretary of State, will make it abundantly clear that they should take action. If they fail to act, the Secretary of State's own powers to create an education authority will come into play.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I applaud the heart of the hon. Gentleman, but is his head working too? He said that the school was one third to half full. Does he accept that there are 900,000 surplus school places in Britain, including 19,000 surplus secondary school places in Lancashire? The money that is spent on those surplus places should be funding other schools, and in Lancashire providing more places at the overcrowded Lancashire primary schools. The hon. Gentleman is moving the pieces round the chess board. We want to get rid of surplus places.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although it is at a tangent to my argument. Surplus places cannot be discussed under the issue of failing schools, unless the hon. Lady is suggesting that, as soon as a school is seen to be failing, it should be closed completely rather than being given a second chance.
      The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is only one chance for any child in his or her school career; there is no second chance. Does he agree that, in the case of a school such as the one to which he has referred—which he properly has not named—if the local education authority does not move swiftly and effectively, the next thing to happen, once the Bill is enacted, will be for the education association to become effective? If the education association does not move in, the school will wither on the vine, and with that withering process may come the ruin of the careers of the declining number of children in the school.
      Mr. Griffiths: The whole point of the amendment is to give the local education authority the power to move in unambiguously, as the Secretary of State hopes that the education association will do.
      Our hope is that, if the Government give a favourable wind to our amendments, the powers of the LEA to act to stop schools failing will be on a par with the Secretary of State's powers. At present, LEAs do not have the same powers. I do not pretend to be an expert on how local education authorities work vis-a-vis all schools that are at risk. There was a fear that LEAs might not have sufficient powers to carry out a full-scale exercise if the head of a school at risk put up a fight. One can hardly imagine that a head would do that, but it seems that they have in the past.
      I do not seek to give an LEA any powers that the Secretary of State will not exercise. I hope that, by giving new powers to the LEA, which are on a par with his own, we will help it to move into schools at risk at the earliest stage, instead of wondering how effectively it can act. The amendment would obviate the need for the education association to move in in such cases.
      There is no guarantee that the education association will be successful. By definition, it could involve men and women who have been retired from education for some time and who may not be fully conversant with all the problems in a local authority area. For all the good will that the Secretary of State sees behind the concept, the education association may not be the best body to act. Local education authorities, equipped with the powers proposed in the amendment, will be able to move effectively against falling schools.
      Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal virtues of the education association is that it will be new, independent and unbiased? It will not be touched by association with the LEA. There may be a dispute, an argument or a background problem, but the education association will come into the school absolutely impartially. The LEA may not be seen as impartial, and that may hold it back.
      Mr. Griffiths: We are moving on to new ground with the education associations, so there is nothing against which we can test the hon. Gentleman's argument. It must be supposition and hope at this stage, as there is no evidence on which he can base a valid argument. We do not know how the Secretary of State will act in appointing education associations. An association might turn out to be a good friend of the head of a school at risk and might, because of that, feel a constraint. We can only speculate about what an association might do.
      314
      On the other hand, a local education authority with a determination to deal with a failing school, particularly with the powers that we propose it should have—powers which are no greater than those possessed by the Secretary of State in respect of a grant-maintained school at risk —would be able to act effectively. If for some reason, in a minority of cases, it turned out not to be effective, that would become apparent quickly and the education association might then have a chance to act.
      Many people perceive the education associations as a rather confrontational group of educational SAS people parachuted into a situation about which they might know little, and the result could be much heartache and no success. On the other hand, if the LEA were given the powers that we propose, it would be able to act effectively. The backstop position of the education association would remain in the unlikely event of the LEA not having done its job properly.
      On the basis that we would not be giving the LEA more power to deal with maintained or voluntary schools than the Secretary of State has to deal with grant-maintained schools, we trust that the Government will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Don Foster: This group of Opposition amendments raises important issues about educational standards in schools and in particular about who carries responsibility for improving standards and how those responsibilities shall be implemented. We are concerned with part V of the Bill, which sits uncomfortably on the Education Act 1988 and the Education Act 1992 because it fails to establish a clear framework of what should be done, who should be doing it and how it should be carried out.
      The 1988 Act delegated more responsibility to school governors and the 1992 Act provided for schools to be regularly inspected using nationally defined criteria, with the governing body carrying the responsibility to act on the findings of those inspections. Sadly, the clause that we are discussing concentrates on only that small proportion of schools which, when inspected, are found to be at risk.
      Such schools undoubtedly need help, but I suspect that it may be too late for many of them. In a recent intervention, the Secretary of State referred to the way in which education associations might be able to provide assistance to schools. But schools which have been defined as being at risk may be beyond hope of redemption. So we should also be examining what support can be offered to the governing bodies of schools at an earlier stage, rather than concentrating on the crude interventionist procedures in the Bill. More work should be done with governing bodies in a constructive way long before schools are defined as failing schools.
      4.30 pm
      It is a great pity, therefore, that in our debate yesterday constraints of time prevented us from discussing some of the new clauses and amendments that had been tabled. For example, my new clause 15 and amendment No. 29, which Madam Speaker had been kind enough to select, would have extended the requirements for governors' annual reports to give clearer information to parents and other interested observers about what the school had achieved each year within the framework of the national inspection criteria. New clause 17 and amendment No. 32 would have ensured that the annual appraisal of the performance of

      315
      the school's headteacher was properly independent and objective. My amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would have placed much greater emphasis on a governing body's financial planning. A much broader approach to quality assurance is needed in our schools, reinforcing the leading decision-making role played by school governors.
      Clause 197 and the amendments rightly address the question of governing bodies—even though, as I suggested, the remedy would come rather late in the day and only in extreme circumstances. In such circumstances, the question must be whether the local education authority has sufficient powers to turn round the school governing body's problems. Without amendments No. 16 to 20, the answer must undoubtedly be no.
      The Government themselves have shown that to be the case. Their proposed remedy in clause 58 for grant-maintained schools in similarly extreme circumstances gives much greater power—the power to replace the majority of the governing body. Yet clause 197, dealing with local education authority schools, only offers the local education authority the power to acquire a majority by adding more and more governors to the governing body, increasing the size of the governing body almost without limit. Clearly, that is not a sensible approach. The amendments provide a sensible approach and I hope that they will be accepted.
      Mr. David Jamieson: The amendments would give more power to local education authorities to deal with failing schools. I shall concentrate on the only alternative provided by the Government—that of establishing education associations—which manifestly fails to solve the problem in hand. The amendments would obviate the need for education associations by giving local education authorities more powers to act.
      No reasonable hon. Member would impede any measure that addressed the problem of schools that are failing their pupils—whether LEA-maintained, grant-maintained, independent or private schools or city technology colleges. I am led to wonder why the provisions for the establishment of education associations—which we seek to remove from the Bill—deal only with LEA-maintained schools. If the Government were genuine in their alleged concern for pupils in failing schools, they would have introduced measures which dealt with problems in all schools.
      We have not tackled the question of how big the problem is, and it needs to be quantified. On Second Reading and since, the Secretary of State has referred to his "little list", which we are led to believe consists of just over 100 schools.
      Mr. Patten: On a matter of information, the list to which I referred is not in my hands but in the hands of the inspector, who is entirely independent. I have seen no such list. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is Her Majesty's chief inspector who will make representations to me about schools that he regards as failing, and I repeat that he is totally independent.
      Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's clarification. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in his evidence to the Select Committee he referred to the report of the chief inspector which indicates that about 200 schools are at risk. The Secretary of State has referred several times to the existence of a little list. On 28 October he admitted to the Select Committee that the proportion of
      316
      the 23,000 to 24,000 schools was not large. I am glad to say that, for once, I agree with him. In fact, the figure is between 0·5 and 1 per cent. May I assume, therefore, that the Secretary of State will congratulate the LEAs on their conduct of the 99 per cent. of schools that are clearly being run well? If a similar survey throughout Brtitish industry could reveal a success rate of 99 per cent. and a failure rate of only 1 per cent. the official receivers would be far less overworked.
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the majority of schools are functioning well. However, a very small number are not functioning so well as he and I would like. Surely the object of the education association is to come in as a long-stop and sort out those that are failing.
      Mr. Jamieson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman's assertion were correct. My point is that LEAs have been very successful in dealing with schools that have problems. That was indicated in the Secretary of State's evidence to the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that 99 per cent. of schools were functioning extremely well. The amendments with which we are dealing would give local education authorities more power to deal with the remaining 0·5 to 1 per cent. Our assertion is that the LEAs are best placed to do for those schools what they have done for the other 99 per cent., and we want the authorities to have the necessary power.
      Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that there is very little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I acknowledge the point that he makes, and he is right to make it. All I am saying is that the LEA will already have had a good crack at turning a failing school round. In such circumstances, authorities try very hard. Unfortunately, in a very small number of cases they are not successful. It is in respect of the 0·5 to 1 per cent. of schools that the education association will come in. This will happen right at the end of the line—after everything else has been tried. As I have said, there is little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
      Mr. Jamieson: If there is so little difference between us, why does the hon. Gentleman keep bobbing up and down? If he will stay in his place and contain his excitement for a few moments, I will say why I believe that the Government's alternative is utterly disastrous and why our amendment would be far more efficacious. There is one matter in respect of which there may be less agreement between the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and myself: I wonder whether the creation of education associations has more to do with the establishment of grant-maintained schools by the back door than with genuine concern about schools that are failing.
      Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
      Mr. Jamieson: As an act of supreme generosity, I will give way to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Unlike the Secretary of State, I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
      Mr. Pawsey: I have achieved a hat trick of interventions in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
      There is no need to talk about the introduction of grant-maintained schools by the back door. Grant-maintained schools will be established because parents want them. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that literally

      317
      hundreds of grant-maintained schools have so far emerged. By 1996, or thereabouts, there will be thousands of such schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am obliged to my hon. Friends for their support. There is no need for us to try the back-door approach because, frankly, schools will be flooding in through the front door that we have opened.
      Mr. Jameison: We have not been surprised by any avalanche of schools going grant-maintained recently. The Bill is before us because of the Government's supreme disappointment that more schools have not gone grant-maintained in the past four years. I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in a moment.
      We need to contrast the power which the local education authority could have under our amendments and what the Government are proposing. The proposed education associations would be a sort of flying squad of four or five members going into a school to sort it out. The powers given to the education associations deserve some examination.
      During the Committee on the Bill, it became clear that a third sort of school will be created when an education association is sent in. This may help the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth because I shall contrast my point to that which he made. If an education association is sent in to a school, the school will no longer be a local education authority school, nor will it be grant-maintained. The school will lie somewhere between the two.
      During the Committee, the Minister—unlike the Secretary of State who was unable to attend any of the sessions of the Committee—said that the school will be in a state of limbo. The Minister was clear about this in Committee and I quote:
      "If an education association has been established for a school, ipso facto that school ceases to be maintained by the LEA … Schools under an education association are not grant-maintained schools"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 2 February 1993, c. 1247–48.]
      At a stroke, a new school had been created which was neither local education authority nor grant maintained. The Minister also told the Committee that the education association would employ the people in schools.
      As the debate went on, it became clear that funding for the education association for a school would come through the funding agency. Once the education association has done its work, what are the alternatives? The alternatives in the Bill are clear: first, the school should cease to exist—it should close. Secondly, it should become grant-maintained. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the school then goes back to the local education authority and that it should be controlled by the authority.
      The Bill does not tell us whether there will be a ballot of parents to send the school grant-maintained after the education association has done its work. Will parents have a role in deciding that their children's school will become grant-maintained after an education association has been in? There is no provision in the Bill to do that.
      In the White Paper, the Government said that the only significant extra funding provided in the Bill would be additional expenditure for the establishment and operation of the funding agency. We were disappointed
      318
      because we felt that there were many areas of concern in the education system which could have done with extra funding.
      In Committee, it was revealed that funding will be required for the operation of education associations. In the first instance, the charge for administering the education associations will fall on school budgets. A failing school which may already be underfunded therefore will have a further burden of cloying bureaucracy in the shape of the education association put on it. We were told that the education association could call in specialised advice and set up committees.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not necessarily criticise this, but he seems to be straying widely from the original amendment.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: It is the other side of the argument.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Thompson: I said that I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks interesting. There are considerable powers for local education authorities to find ways in which to improve schools which are likely to come into the category of failing schools. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that? Bearing in mind that he is talking at some length about the whole concept of education associations, I fail to understand why Opposition Members have continually sought to wreck the Bill by removing the whole idea of a new initiative to improve and help children in failing schools. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that to the House?
      Mr. Jamieson: I am sure that hon. Members have noted the bid by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) to take over the job of the Chair by keeping this debate in order. If he does so again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will put him right.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I will correct any hon. Member who veers outside the provinces of the debate, but so far no one has done that.
      Mr. Jamieson: It was certainly not my intention to suggest that you had not kept any hon. Member in order. I was simply a little surprised that the hon. Member for Norwich, North appeared to be trying to do the job on your behalf.
      My point is that our amendments suggest methods by which local education authorities could be more successful in tackling failing schools. I am contrasting that with the proposal in the Bill for education associations to tackle failing schools. I think that the proposal in the Bill will manifestly fail because it sets in place a further level of bureaucracy to be imposed on schools. The costs of that bureaucracy will also be placed on schools.
      We were told that education associations could call in specialist advice and set up committees. What will be the cost of that new bureaucracy? Who will pay for that additional paper-shuffling? Will education associations pay fat fees to advisers? I should like an answer.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Jamieson: A number of hon. Members seem to want to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Croydon North-East (Mr. Congdon).
      Mr. David Congdon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is going on about the cost. I thought that the cost would be a small price to pay in those extreme cases where a school is failing and the education of the children is suffering thereby. We are talking about those extreme cases in which the local education authority has tried various measures and failed. I thought that the price was a small one to pay to improve the education for those children. They do not get a second opportunity.
      Mr. Jamieson: Certainly, children do not get a second opportunity. I should add that such schools are those to which a majority of Labour Members send their children.
      In the White Paper, the Government said that the only significant funding would be for the funding agency. What I am saying today is that the Government are also proposing that moneys will be spent on the education associations. The question of who the members of the education associations will be also bears examination.
      I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the Financial Times is well known for its accurate reporting. On 29 July, the Secretary of State is reported to have said:
      "The education associations will be composed of retired teachers and people 'good at running things'."
      Later we heard that retired head teachers and business men were likely to be enlisted. I know several retired head teachers and teachers and the last thing that they would want to do is to undertake work on a voluntary basis running failing schools. Will the appointees be vetted? Yesterday we heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) ring alarm bells about retired head teachers. He was worried that they might not be politically correct.
      I am afraid that the education association would be yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy packed with Tory placemen on fat expense accounts paid for by children's books. They will not begin to resemble the excellent teams of advisers and inspectors which LEAs were previously able to maintain. Instead, we shall have a rather elderly Dad's Army of Tory appointees, accountable to no one except the Secretary of State.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): In the limited time left to me, I shall attempt to summarise the main points that have come out of the debate. Two points seem clear to me, although the Opposition have hardly told us about them. First, the Opposition have strangely failed to mention the concomitant powers in clause 198. We are offering huge powers for the first time to LEAs to withdraw delegated budgets. That is a powerful sanction, about which we heard nothing whatever from Opposition Members.
      Secondly, the clear difference has been revealed between the acceptable face of the Opposition put up front by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who was only too anxious to reactivate class war and made most of his remarks around that theme. The hon. Member for Bridgend admitted, although his admission was heavily qualified, that there might be a case for an education association going into a school in certain circumstances, or where the alternative might otherwise be limbo or the abolition of the school.
      Perhaps I could deal with the hon. Member for Devonport by assuring him—even if he is unable to pay
      320
      attention to my remarks, having taken up the greater part of the debate—that no effective cost will fall to the LEA from any arrangement to transfer a school to an education association. It is an entirely administrative matter.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) eloquently said, anticipating the intervention that I would have made, the internal costs would be entirely reasonable given that the alternative would be a failed school which had ceased to exist.
      Mr. Derek Enright: Does the Minister agree that we have a strange and fearful precedent in hospital trusts? We have spent more money for more quangos and we are having to close more beds.
      Mr. Boswell: I am sorry. Much as I like the hon. Gentleman, he is going rather wide of the mark. If I am to answer in eight minutes, I cannot go into hospital trusts. I should enjoy debating it on another occasion with the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has an entirely proper interest in the standard of management in schools and the accountability of governors. All that I would say to him is that some of his remarks, as he acknowledged, related to an earlier stage in a school's decline than imminent fall. His remarks did not entirely relate to the amendments, but I noted what he said. It is within the spirit of some of the things that we would like to happen.
      The amendments tabled by the official Opposition make no reference to the huge new power which is being given to LEAs to withdraw delegated budgets. Opposition Members made inadequate reference to the other significant power that we are providing. Where a school has received an at-risk report and the school and the LEA have considered an action plan, the LEA will have a power to appoint additional governors to county and controlled schools. I shall explain why the power is defined in that way.
      The power has never existed under a Labour Government. We are now making it available. The hon. Member for Bridgend would do well not to look a gift horse in the mouth. We are giving local authorities sufficient powers, if they are capable of using them and if the people whom they select are appropriate, to turn schools round. They did not previously have those powers. We do not require the additional power which the Opposition propose in the amendments. That is why I shall advise my hon. Friends to resist the amendments in due course.
      The reason why we do not want the further powers is that in the debate and the remarks made by Opposition Members there was a certain confusion—possibly it was a misunderstanding—between the power to appoint additional governors, which is enshrined in our proposals, and the powers of replacement of governors, to which Opposition Members referred.
      I shall deal with the replacement matter first. We believe that it is proper for the local authority to be able to replace its own governors. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to a particular case and cast doubt on whether that was possible. He referred to the relevant legislation in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. In the case to which he referred, the LEA sought to remove LEA-appointed governors precisely because those governors planned to

      321
      vote against the wishes of the LEA on the closure of the school to become a city technology college. That was a specific, not a general case.
      In general, the LEA has the power to remove its own governors. The Opposition's proposal would enable the LEA to intervene and, if I may put it this way, "dis-appoint" governors whom it had not appointed. Co-opted governors whould be those appointed by the governing body as a whole, not by the LEA—although, undoubtedly, by LEA nominees. Foundation governors would have been appointed by the foundation. The House will wish to know that the foundation may in turn replace its governors of aided or special agreement schools. We are in discussion with the churches on a parallel power which does not exist now to enable the foundation to appoint additional governors. Such a power would be analogous with the power that we propose in clause 197.
      So we do not believe that it is right to enable the local education authority to go beyond the power of appointment of additional governors to replace existing governors. The main reason why we feel that that would be inappropriate is that the LEA did not appoint the governors in the first place. In aided schools the foundation has the primary responsibility for appointing the majority of the governors. As he will know, the foundation contributes to the capital, maintenance and repair costs of the school and has a close and central role in preserving and enhancing the special ethos, often religious, of the school. So we believe that the position should be protected.
      Our proposals provide full and sufficient powers to LEAs to appoint additional governors. I should say in parentheses that it would be a good idea if LEAs made sure that governors whom they had appointed functioned properly, unlike the gentleman who used to turn up for the first 10 minutes of meetings so that he was not recorded as an absentee and then left, about whom we have received a recent complaint.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Like the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Boswell: It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State, except that he received the letter. I am pleased that he is here to hear the debate.
      Opposition Members do not seem fully to have appreciated that the number of additional members which LEAs can appoint is not constrained. One would normally expect it to be one or two. If it were necessary in order to seize control of a majority, the LEA could appoint up to the number which represents the majority of the committee so that it could turn matters round. That is fairly closely analogous to the Secretary of State's powers in grant-maintained schools to appoint additional members up to the number which would outnumber the first governors.
      Amendment No. 17 is outrageous even by the standards that we have learnt to expect from the Labour party. It would enable the LEA to replace LEA or co-opted governors
      "forthwith and without any obligation to consider representations made by or on behalf of any person affected".
      That is summary justice with a vengeance.
      I remind the House that we do not want the powers because we wish to use them regularly, or for some hidden agenda that the hon. Member for Devonport has
      322
      contrived. We want them because we recognise the essential importance of saving failing schools if that is at all possible. We want local education authorities to have a reasonable chance to do so, but as a last resort we need to stand behind them with fall-back provisions so that we can take over with an education association. I am sure that my hon. Friends support the concept because we believe in putting parents first.
      I advise the Opposition to consider the powers that we are offering to local education authorities to enhance their part in the process. I hope that they will understand that if local education authorities cannot come up with the goods, which might occasionally happen, it may be necessary to go to the next stage. We do not welcome or canvass that, but believe that it is absolutely necessary, in the interests of parents and their children.
      It being Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution [2 March], put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 274.

      Division No. 168]

      [15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dafis, Cynog

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ainger, Nick

      Darling, Alistair

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davidson, Ian

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Alton, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Denham, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Dewar, Donald

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Barron, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      Battle, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bell, Stuart

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Enright, Derek

      Benton, Joe

      Etherington, Bill

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Fatchett, Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blair, Tony

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blunkett, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Flynn, Paul

      Boyes, Roland

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradley, Keith

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burden, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Fraser, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garrett, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cann, Jamie

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Coffey, Ann

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cohen, Harry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Connarty, Michael

      Gunnell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hain, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hall, Mike

      Cousins, Jim

      Hanson, David

      Cryer, Bob

      Harvey, Nick

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Henderson, Doug

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Heppell, John

      323

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Olner, William

      Hood, Jimmy

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Parry, Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prescott, John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jamieson, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Janner, Greville

      Randall, Stuart

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Redmond, Martin

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jowell, Tessa

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Keen, Alan

      Rogers, Allan

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rooney, Terry

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leighton, Ron

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lewis, Terry

      Sheerman, Barry

      Litherland, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Livingstone, Ken

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Short, Clare

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Simpson, Alan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McCartney, Ian

      Snape, Peter

      Macdonald, Calum

      Soley, Clive

      McFall, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McKelvey, William

      Spellar, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Stott, Roger

      Madden, Max

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Mahon, Alice

      Straw, Jack

      Mallon, Seamus

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Maxton. John

      Walley, Joan

      Meacher, Michael

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meale, Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Milburn, Alan

      Wilson, Brian

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Winnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wise, Audrey

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Worthington, Tony

      Morley. Elliot

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mudie, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

      Murphy, Paul

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Ancram, Michael

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bates, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bendall, Vivian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      324

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Body, Sir Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Booth, Hartley

      Gorst, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowis, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hague, William

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom,)

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butler, Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash, William

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Horam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Congdon, David

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Key, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan, Alan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Leigh, Edward

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lidington, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Elletson, Harold

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfleld)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Luff, Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Maclean, David

      Faber, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Malone, Gerald

      Forman, Nigel

      Mans, Keith

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Marlow, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fox. Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      French, Douglas

      Merchant, Piers

      Fry, Peter

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gale, Roger

      Mills, Iain

      Gallie, Phil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      325

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Spring, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sproat, Iain

      Needham, Richard

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stephen, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Streeter, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Sumberg, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Sweeney, Walter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Sykes, John

      Page, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thomason, Roy

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tracey, Richard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Riddick, Graham

      Walden, George

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waller, Gary

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Ward, John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Whitney, Ray

      Sackville, Tom

      Whittingdale, John

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Willetts, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

      Shersby, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Wood, Timothy

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Yeo, Tim

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 12 on the motion relating to clause 214.
      Question agreed to.

    Clause 202

      SUPERVISION OF EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendment made: No. 199, in page 121, line 16, at end insert—
      `( ) Before giving a direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the education association or (as the case may be) each education association to which the direction applies unless, for reasons of urgency, it is not in his opinion reasonably practicable for him to do so.'—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 212

      PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. OF SCHOOLS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY
      Amendments made: No. 161, in page 126, line 2, leave out `(1)' and insert `(1A)'.
      No. 162, in page 126, line 11, leave out 'in' and insert 'to'.—[ Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 213
      PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BY PROMOTERS, ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 163, in page 126, line 39, leave out 'in' and insert `to'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Clause 214

      DIRECTIONS TO BRING FORWARD PROPOSALS
      Ordered,
      That Clause No. 214 be divided into three Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4), the second of subsections (5) to (8) and (11) [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision, in maintained schools] and the third of the remaining subsections [supplementary provisions] and the third Clause be transferred to the end of line 38 on page 131.
      Amendments made: No. 164, in page 127, line 16, leave out 'in' and insert 'to'.
      No. 165, in page 128, line 9, leave out 'this section' and insert
      `section No. or No. of this Act'.
      No. 166, in page 128, line 12, leave out 'this section' and insert
      `section [in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] or [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in maintained schools] of this Act'.
      No. 167, in page 128, line 20, at end insert—
      `( ) Proposals made in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act may not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State and such consent may be given on such conditions (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
      ( ) Notwithstanding anything in section 17 of this Act, a county or voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status—

      (a) if the local education authority have made any proposals in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to approve or implement the proposals has been made under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 or section 217 of this Act, or

      (b) if the Secretary of State has made any proposals under section 215 of this Act for the local education authority to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to adopt the proposals has been made under section 217 of this Act.

      ( ) Section 242(4) and (5) of this Act does not apply in relation to any proposals under section 12(1)(d) or 13(1)(b) of the Education Act 1980 made in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act'.
      No. 168, in page 128, line 23, leave out
      `or section 169 of this Act'.
      No. 169, in page 128, line 25 leave out
      `this section and sections 215'
      and insert
      'sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ]'.
      No. 170, in page 128, line 29 leave out 'this section and sections 215'
      and insert

      327
      'sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision]'.—[Mr. Boswell]

    Clause 215
      PUBLICATION OF PROPOSALS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendment made: No. 171, in page 129, line 45 leave out 'in' and insert `to'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Clause 216

      PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS
      Amendments made: No. 172, in page 130, line 11 at end insert
      'which he has not withdrawn'.
      No. 173, in page 130, line 12 leave out
      'subsection (5) of that section'
      and insert
      'section 215(5) of this Act'.
      No. 174, in page 130, line 23 after 'authority', insert '(and not withdrawn)'.
      No. 175, in page 130, line 28 after 'school', insert '(and not withdrawn)'.
      No. 176, in page 130, line 29 after 'area', insert `(and not withdrawn)'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 217

      ADOPTION OF PROPOSALS AND APPROVAL OF RELATED PROPOSALS
      Amendments made: No. 177, in page 131, line (9 after 'adopt', insert
      'with or without modifications, or determine not to adopt'.
      No. 178, in page 131, line 23 leave out second 'the' and insert 'their'. —[Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 220

      NATIONAL CURRICULUM
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 133, line 2, after 'Curriculum)', insert—

      (a) in subsection (1)(b) (basic curriculum), after "which" there is added—

      "—(i)",

      (b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted—

      "and

      (ii) where the school provides secondary education, includes such arrangements for vocational education or training as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages.",

      (c) in subsection (2) for "subsection (1)(b)" there is substituted "subsection (1)(b)(i)", and

      (d)'.

      The amendment looks complicated on paper, but it is simple in practice. It seeks to insert vocational education or training into the basic curriculum for secondary schools. It aims to reform the national curriculum so that it comes closer to fulfilling the description of a national curriculum that is balanced and broadly based.
      During the debate in Standing Committee, hon. Members agreed with the need to give equality of esteem and parity to both academic and vocational provision, which the amendment would allow. In skeleton form, it says:
      "such arrangements …as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages."
      328
      In the form presented, it would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the arrangements. In a fully developed form, I hope that it would seek to extend the role of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority to advise on such arrangements for vocational educational and qualifications. Our debate in Committee covered some aspects of how the role of the SCAA could be extended to do that. The amendment is intended to address the principle of a balanced curriculum for secondary schools.
      5.15 pm
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      "We want it"—
      the national curriculum—
      "in place to ensure that pupils no longer lose out on the fundamental skills, knowledge and understanding needed for all aspects of their adult life. It looks forward to what they will be doing in a few years' time and provides them with the necessary equipment for that task."
      I am sure that the Minister had in mind not only academic work, but the world of work for pupils in secondary schools.
      The Minister was particularly encouraging when he continued:
      "We do not have closed minds and are prepared to keep the national curriculum under review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 2 February 1993; c. 1314.]
      The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that he does not have a closed mind and is willing to continue the review of the national curriculum. I hope that in doing so he will give thought to the way in which he and his Conservative 'colleagues have sometimes talked about the importance of vocational education, but have rarely provided an opportunity for it fully to flower in our schools, not least because of their continued insistence on what they tend to call the gold standard of A-levels in our sixth forms. Only by breaking down the belief in the gold standard of A-levels will we be likely to move towards the parity of esteem that is frequently proposed and espoused by Conservative Members.
      Amendment No. 104 will change parts of clause 2 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It will establish the context in which we should remember that clause 1 of that Act requires there to be a
      "balanced and broadly based curriculum which—

      (a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and"—

      significantly—
      "prepares such pupils for the opportunities, reponsibilities and experiences of adult life."
      Clause 2 of the 1988 Act describes the national curriculum, but it is an incomplete description as it fails to lake account of the parts in clause 1 referring to the preparation of pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
      I accept that amendment No. 104 would radically change the nature of the national curriculum for secondary schools. It would comprise two parts: the existing structure of subjects covered by statutory requirements relating to programmes of study, attainment targets and assessment arrangements; and, separately, vocational education or training. Although the amendment is silent on the point, both parts of the restructured national curriculum should be governed by advice from one organisation—the new SCAA.
      I think that the desirability of vocational education is accepted by all hon. Members. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of our secondary schools—90 per cent.

      329
      —and more than half our primary schools have some sort of link with local industry. That has been partly promoted by actions taken by the present Government, through the introduction of the technical and vocational education initiative, and their support for compacts. We must accept that in 1983 the Government set up the Business and Technician Education Council to promote vocational education and, more recently, with cross-support from all parties, they set up the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.
      Such support from the Government and other parties has led to a major development of vocational education in many schools. That has also been supported by bodies outside the House. In 1989 the CBI report "Towards a Skills Revolution" recommended that national targets should be set for the overall achievement of qualifications in vocational education and training. The Government's White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century" warmly welcomed that CBI initiative. Even the headmasters' conference got in on the act, saying that it would welcome opportunities to be involved in the planning of vocational courses which could be appropriately taught in our schools.
      In the most recent general election, the Conservative party manifesto said:
      "We will also continue to develop new high-quality national vocational qualifications, and introduce a new post-16 diploma which recognises achievements in both vocational and academic courses."
      Therefore, it is beyond doubt that there is support on both sides of the House and outside the House for vocational education to become an important element in what goes on in our secondary schools. As I have already suggested, there is growing evidence that vocational education is taking place within our secondary schools.
      The question, therefore, is: why am I so anxious to ensure that we have a major change in the national curriculum? It is simply that, without ensuring that vocational education is contained within the statutory framework of the national curriculum, there is no guarantee that the work will continue or develop and there is certainly no guarantee that it will have the parity of esteem that all of us have so often said that we seek.
      In introducing such a requirement, I am aware that it will mean a major cut in what is contained within the national curriculum. Many hon. Members in previous debates have talked about the overloaded national curriculum and many others, teachers, parents and governors, have echoed that concern. I for one and my party are keen to see a major slimming down of the national curriculum so that we have a minimum curriculum entitlement and much greater opportunity for individuals to develop areas of expertise that are appropriate for the children in their schools.
      A major revision of the national curriculum is necessary and I hope that it will take place with detailed consultation with all involved in the partnership that makes up our education service so that in due course we shall see a revised, slimmer national curriculum which includes within the statutory structure reference to vocational education.
      The issue is one of principle about parity between academic and vocational qualifications. The thrust of the amendment is that all schools should fulfil the aims set out in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. The amendment introduces an entitlement to vocational
      330
      education and training for pupils in secondary education as an element of a balanced curriculum aimed at preparing such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Therefore, I hope that it will gain the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Pawsey: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He advanced a powerful case for vocational education. But the problem is that the national curriculum has proved so successful that everyone now seems to want to get in on the act. The idea being advanced by the hon. Gentleman clearly has some virtues and sounds good, but I suspect that every hon. Member has his own idea of what subjects should be in the national curriculum and how much time should be allocated to them.
      I noted with interest what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for schools to liaise with local industry. He was right to draw attention to the importance of the links that exist with local industry. I am well aware that secondary schools in my constituency are in close touch with local industries, to the benefit of school and industry alike.
      There might, however, be a case for fewer subjects within the national curriculum. I see that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), whose knowledge in this area is considerable. There is an argument that we should concentrate on a core curriculum of, say, English, maths, the sciences, history and geography, with those subjects taking up about 60 per cent. of the school timetable and with schools then deciding what time should be allocated to other subjects.
      I appreciate that the principal reason given for the national curriculum during the passage of the 1988 Act was that some schools did not concentrate on the essential subjects and that much school time was being wasted on subjects which could only be described as peripheral. I am happy to say that that point had support from both sides of the House.
      In the current educational climate, there does not seem to be an overwhelming requirement for such a prescriptive national curriculum as currently exists or as the hon. Gentleman would have. For example, much more information about schools and what is taking place within them is available today compared with 1987–88. For example, schools now issue reports and prospectuses. We read examination results and truancy tables. Inspections now take place every four years and we have more parent governors. There are even annual general meetings. I am therefore beginning to wonder whether the national curriculum is as necessary as it once was.
      I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, although I do not go along with his comments about A-levels and the gold standard. I believe passionately that A-level is the gold standard. The three-year British degree hinges on the quality of A-levels. If that is diminished, I am apprehensive about what will take place in our universities. The British degree remains the envy of the world and I do not wish to see it diminished or diluted in any way. Therefore, I hold firmly to the view that the A-level is the gold standard.
      Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some form of baccalaureate, which some British children already take, is far preferable to the narrow rigidities of the A-level?
      Mr. Pawsey: I have heard that argument advanced before, but I am not fully persuaded. Above all, I am concerned about tinkering with our examination structure; not all the new examinations which have been introduced have proved as successful as their authors would have wished. The A-level remains the touchstone of quality and I do not wish to see it diminished in any way.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on his amendment. Nothing better exemplifies the two-tier nature of our education system than the gap between vocational and so-called academic education. The remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) reveal the gulf between those who pride themselves on their traditional view and those who consider that view to be increasingly outmoded and unhelpful to almost all, if not all, young people.
      It is nonsense to suggest that there should be a split between vocational and traditional academic education in a modern society. It should not be necessary—this is not meant as a criticism—for such an amendment to have any relevance in our education system or to have to mention the need to increase and to enhance the role of vocational training.
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman's speech reminds me of a point that I meant to make, and I will do so in this brief intervention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that city technology colleges represent a way forward and provide an opportunity to bring vocational education on the scene. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that grant-maintained schools can specialise, to use the S-word? If they choose to specialise in technology, does that not represent a major step down the route that the hon. Gentleman favours?
      Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid not. Schools are ghettoised, and then the claim is made that CTCs provide a different, better type of education. Certainly it is more expensive, but CTCs have not worked out too well. Their results show that they are not able consistently to claim that they are a means of enhancing technological education.
      It is ridiculous to suggest also that many young people should be denied access to a vocational or technological strand in their education. Some years ago, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) taught at Manchester grammar school, where it was the practice to subdivide boys at an early age into potential classicists, scientists and linguists. It is absurd to believe that young people can be segmented in that way, and destructive of their educational potential.
      Mr. Pawsey: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did much to deny opportunities to our nation's children. As he knows, there used to be a tripartite system, comprising technical, grammar and secondary modern schools.
      Mr. Jamieson: That was under Shirley Williams.
      Mr. Pawsey: Yes, Shirley Williams—and the hon. Lady whose constituency I temporarily forget.
      Mr. Jamieson: Finchley?
      Mr. Pawsey: No, not Finchley. The hon. Gentleman thinks quickly, but not quickly enough.
      332
      Shirley Williams and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) were the twin architects of the present comprehensive system. I do not believe that it has assisted education in the long term. The old tripartite system, which we successfully exported to Germany and which worked so well there, was the best in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long short intervention.
      Mr. Lloyd: I can only agree, Mr. Morris. It is fair to place on record the fact that Lady Thatcher closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Legislation is on the statute book to be used not so much as a mandate as at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It was Lady Thatcher who destroyed the system that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth holds dear.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the tremendously good school at which I had the privilege to teach between 1960 and 1965. He was critical of Manchester grammar school because at that time it operated rigorous entry selection and streaming procedures, and a division was made between those who were to specialise in the classics, mathematics, or languages.
      The hon. Gentleman rather overstated the downside. The school is now independent because the Opposition, when in government, destroyed the old grant system—more's the pity. However, in those past days the school produced some superbly and broadly educated people—some of whom, I believe, entered the ranks of the civil service: for all I know, they may be sitting nearby and listening to this debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that his criticism was a little ill judged and that Manchester grammar school produced well educated and rounded people. Nevertheless, I understand his basic point.
      Mr. Lloyd: There may not be such a huge difference between the hon. Member and myself. I was making the point that it would be unacceptable at Manchester grammar school and most private schools to go down the road that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth favours, and adopt the tripartite system—under which those whom the hon. Gentleman thinks are worthy would receive a grammar school education, those who are considered less worthy would recieve a technical education and those dismissed as educationally irrelevant would be given a secondary modern education.
      Representing as I do a constituency that will operate the selective system, and remembering as I do the old tripartite system and all the problems of ghettoisation under it, I know that there can be no returning. We must find means of producing the rounded education for all young people that the hon. Member for Norwich, North urges upon me. I hope that he will urge it upon the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench education committee.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's views of the extraordinary word "ghettoisation". I do not know whether he takes credit for it or whether it is imported from the United States—in either case, I do not like it, and it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to three strands, but each strand provided the right type of education for the particular child entering it. As the hon. Gentleman knows,

      333
      I am the product of an elementary school and a technical school. I may not have enjoyed the privileged education experienced by the hon. Gentleman, but the tripartite system worked. I regret that it does not still operate in the United Kingdom. It was abolished and sacrificed on the altar of comprehensive education.
      Mr. Lloyd: That is where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree, and he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. The tripartite system did not work. It failed far too many of our young people, and continues to do so in some parts of the country. In the spirit of the amendment, we are seeking to abolish the silly and arbitrary divisions that were built over the years between academic education and so-called non-academic education in vital areas of vocational education.
      Mr. Pawsey rose—
      Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have hardly progressed further than my opening remarks because of interventions.
      Vocational education is important not only to individual learning but to the nation's future. If we fail our young people by neglecting to provide them with an adequate vocational education, we shall have begun to fail the nation.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the concept of the A-level as the "gold standard" of our system. Like other gold standards, it has become devalued in itself, and in itself it devalues other qualifications. As long as we have a Secretary of State who is committed to that gold standard, while paying lip service to the idea of equivalence between A-levels and other qualifications—national vocational qualifications in particular—and as long as the A-level examination continues to be paraded as the primary aim of our academic system, NVQs will be devalued. That is not acceptable in a modern society which is trying to promote the values of vocational education.
      The NVQ system is important. It is no longer merely an experiment; it should be applauded in its own right, as a valuable stepping stone. Of course, if we are to transcend both the present NVQ system and the present A-level system, we must provide a qualifications base that is excellent in itself, allowing young people to aspire to the highest standards. We must maintain what Conservative Members believe exists in the A-level system—although I doubt that it does. We must also ensure that all young people can aspire to the same high level of attainment. If we do not do that, we shall fail the majority through our pursuit of the vacuous view that the minority—the academic elite—are more important than all the rest.
      Mr. John Bowis: Surely A-levels and NVQs are not incompatible. We have encouraged students to take a couple of A-levels and some AS-levels to broaden the base of their education. There is no reason why the same should not apply to NVQs. Heads and class teachers in a number of schools are now encouraging pupils not to go for the traditional three A-levels—or even for four or five, in the case of high fliers—but to spread their education in a way that I think we would all favour. We need first to give such an educational spread the blessing
      334
      and imprimatur of Government and Parliament, and then to educate employers and higher education establishments so that they accept such qualifications.
      Mr. Lloyd: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objectives, but I am not sure that such methods would achieve the result that he wants. The AS-level system has not been a tremendous success; it has not been adopted in many areas, and is still viewed with suspicion—or, at any rate, is seen as less than relevant.
      I doubt whether it is feasible to combine the A-level system—which is a specialising and, in my opinion, very narrowing system—with the NVQ system, which is supposedly intended to create a broad educational plateau. Such a combination would be fraught with difficulties. I am not at all happy about the aim of the A-level system.
      One of my children is now faced with a choice of the subjects that she will study next year if she is able to continue in education after GCSEs. She is being forced fairly young to reject a good many options. What matters is not which subjects she chooses to take, but the subjects that she must drop. The A-level syllabus is forcing her to narrow her educational opportunities while still relatively young: in that regard, the system is fundamentally flawed.
      It is ridiculous to claim that we are trying to produce 18-year-old specialists. For instance, three language A-levels do not constitute a sufficient qualification to allow a young person to work as a linguist, although they may be an acceptable qualification for those wishing to read for a language degree. There is almost no merit in the idea of trying to achieve such a degree of specialisation at that age: indeed, it has been rejected by a good many countries, in which it is regarded as a very silly way of trying to educate young people. At present, the necessary educational breadth does not exist.
      5.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) suggested the introduction of an international baccalaureate—a broadly based and challenging qualification that could raise all young people's aspirations. I think that that suggestion is along the right lines: it would allow the blending of courses and interests recommended by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). If that is indeed the hon. Gentleman's intention, we are on common ground; but the present arrangement, in which an elitist academic A-level system exists alongside a non-elitist, devalued system for those who pursue a vocational line, is far from helpful.
      The Secretary of State introduced some semantic confusion by describing the key stage 3 English testing as a means of resolving the problems of illiteracy. Yesterday, at Question Time, he mentioned a report according to which up to a third of young people leaving school at 16 and going on to further education colleages need remedial help in understanding English—after 14 years of Conservative government. The very fact that the Secretary of State chose to highlight that finding is an indictment of both the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors; but he went on to say that the testing involved in key stage 3 would resolve the problems, which is a sign of the educational illiteracy of Ministers who are charged with looking after young people's education.
      It is clear that the whole key stage 3 debacle has been driven by an ideological approach to education. The

      335
      Secretary of State has decided that he wants to take on and beat the teaching profession for ideological reasons, rather than being prepared to listen to the arguments of those involved directly with pupils and, in his search for consensus, to establish a broader base for the education of both the under-16s and the over-16s.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster): if we are to bring about the revolution that education needs, we must begin to seek consensus in earnest. A consensual approach must be adopted not only by the Opposition parties—whose opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority in educational circles—but by the Government. We must seek to break down the artificial barriers that fail so many young people, and begin to replace them with the methods and mechanisms that will ensure access to the best possible qualifications for all our young people.
      Mr. Pawsey: Conservative Members are enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech—although I shall not comment on its content.
      The tripartite system we exported to Germany actually works. Everyone says so: people even say that the German economic miracle is a result of the country's education system. If it works so well there, why should we not import it back into the United Kingdom, and make it work here?
      Mr. Lloyd: There is a simple answer to that. The Germans do not make the mistake of devaluing certain forms of educational achievement.
      Mr. Pawsey: Why should we do so?
      Mr. Lloyd: As long as we retain a system that reifies such a devaluation—a system that is hierarchical from beginning to end—those who have failed at the various stages involved in that system will inevitably be regarded as failures, both by themselves and by society generally. We must get away from that approach. We must introduce the concept of comprehensive education not only in the institutional sense but in the broadest sense. We must provide access to education for all young people.
      The German experience is especially interesting. Of course we should begin to value technological education. We are—perhaps I should say, we were—a technological nation, but we devalue, for example, the engineer. It is a matter of record that engineers leaving our universities are not offered the same rates of pay or opportunities as others. Not many engineers make their way into the board rooms of industry—
      Mr. Jamieson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Lloyd: May I finish this point? A liberal education is a perfectly reasonable form of education and fits people for many things in life, but those who train as engineers should also be able to make their way into the boardrooms.
      Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that we should return to the tripartite system. If there is supposed to be pressure for a return to that system, with testing at 11 and the reintroduction of secondary moderns, why are parents not calling for the return of selection?
      It is a pity that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is not here, because he could recount the experience of 1984, when a Tory council tried to reintroduce the 11-plus, which caused a massive protest
      336
      from Tory voters in the borough. They strongly resisted the return of the 11-plus, because they have an excellent comprehensive system which they do not wish to destroy.
      Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When a return to selective education has been suggested, it has usually been resisted not only by parents but often by Conservative councillors, who are not persuaded of the benefit of such a change. I speak with some feeling about selective education because, as I said, the area in which I live retains that system. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has a similar experience. It is a bad system, which fails far too many people.
      During our debates, it has been constructive to note that the schools which have so far sought to opt out have not been the comprehensive schools in the other boroughs of Greater Manchester but the secondary moderns in Trafford. They are so dissatisfied with their second-rate treatment from the Conservative local education authority that they want to get out of its control. One school in particular, not in my constituency, has successfully balloted to opt out on the specific propsectus that it will seek a change of status from secondary modern to comprehensive. It believes that it is the only way it can attract young people in sufficient numbers to remain viable in competition with other schools in the area.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) said, there is no demand across the board for a tripartite system. I do not want to put words into the mouths of Conservative Members, but I did not detect a massive groundswell among them in favour of its return. It is antithetical to what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was saying. He may wish to say that institutions are prepared to accept that system, but it was not in keeping with the spirit of his remarks. Having mentioned him, I shall give way.
      Mr. Bowis: We are seeking common ground, but uniformity is not necessarily the best way forward. If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) would give a little on the uniformity of the structure of the school system, he would do much more for education. We seek a great variety of schools—city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools, magnet schools, single-sex schools, co-educational schools, Church schools, nondenominational schools and others. His party tends to want one type of school for all children; he could give way on that uniformity.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech, suggesting that it is perhaps time to examine the national curriculum to ascertain where we should be clawing it in to allow a greater range of teaching over and above the core. That would lead to the measures on which this debate is centred.
      Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that that is paramount nonsense. We do not want to institutionalise the divisions between schools to prevent access to those who are perfectly capable and should be allowed to benefit from the opportunities available. Of course there should be variety in our education system, but variety driven by a coalition of parents, the young people themselves, teachers, the professionals to whom we entrust the future of our young people and even, dare I say it, institutions such as local education authorities. Those authorities can structure

      337
      careers services, which can give the quality advice, which youngsters are clearly not getting at the moment. We should be tackling the failure rates in, for example, further education, as set out in a recent Audit Commission report.
      Of course there should be variety within our system. Individual children have different aptitudes and orientations and we should welcome that fact and glory in that diversity. However, the way in which we respond to that diversity should not, as so often happens now, exclude children from poor backgrounds or those from the inner cities and ethnic minorities. They do not have access to the opportunities to which they are entitled.
      Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he chided the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the desire to institutionalise divisions. Is not the debate about trying to break down those divisions? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a belief that only academic work is important? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Conservative Members are saying no. I accept that some have been involved in the development of vocational education, but it is still not given parity of esteem, which is the crucial issue. It is extremely important that even children who are following highly academic courses have an opportunity to be involved in vocational education, which is why the amendment is vital. We want parity of esteem between academic and vocational work, instead of the current division in attitude among Conservative Members between vocational and academic qualifications.
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right. Such parity of esteem would apply in our better public schools, because the idea that expensive public schools would fail their pupils by denying them access to vocational education is ridiculous. Parents would not tolerate that or be prepared to fork out money for such schooling.
      We are prepared to seek consensus with those who genuinely want to break down the divisions and who want the parity of esteem which exists in Germany, which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned. However, we cannot seek consensus with those whose actions, if not their motivation, merely institutionalise the divisions and deny some young people access to vocational and non-vocational education in our publicly funded system. That is the reality of education today, which is why it is so important that the amendment is accepted—and why the Labour party will vote for it.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a brief word about the amendment. I have been interested to listen to the debate so far, and occasionally I have almost experienced a meeting of minds with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). At the beginning of his speech he talked about the importance of emphasising vocational education. There I totally agree with him, and with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who also stressed the importance of vocational education when he moved the amendment. I suspect that my hon. Friends accept those remarks.
      Despite the Manchester connection, however, the meeting of minds does not usually last long. The hon. Member for Stretford suffers from a failure of imagination. Like so many Opposition Members, he seems
      338
      unable to visualise any kind of education other than comprehensive education supervised by local education authorities. As I have said before, there are many good comprehensive schools and local education authorities—but the Opposition suffer from a failure of imagination, in that they are always coming back to defend the status quo. They refuse to accept the excellent points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others. It is that failure of imagination that causes the Opposition problems.
      6 pm
      I hope that at least we agree on the funadamental importance of vocational education, as emphasised by the hon. Members for Stretford and for Bath. I, too, want to emphasise its importance, but I differ with the hon. Member for Bath and feel that his amendment is wrong. He gave the game away himself when he argued at some length that, in spite of recent Government moves to simplify and compress the national curriculum, it still covered too wide a range of subjects and activities. Indeed it does—so I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in his desire to move further in the opposite direction from that suggested by the hon. Member for Bath. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's idea—I shall give way to him in a moment if I am misunderstanding it—is an ever-expanding national curriculum designed to achieve some kind of hypothetical parity of esteem.
      I am highly suspicious when people start talking about parity of esteem in education. Such phrases are traps into which politicians fall. They are totally meaningless.
      Mr. Foster rose—
      Mr. Thompson: If I am misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman, I will give way to him and then respond to what he says.
      Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman has difficulty understanding phrases such as "parity of esteem" he should talk to many of his hon. Friends who have used that phrase in speeches. It has also been used in many documents issued by the Conservative party. The concept of parity of esteem is well accepted by the vast majority of people in the education world. It makes us sad that the hon. Gentleman sees vocational education as merely another little subject by itself to be squeezed into the already jam-packed national curriculum. The simple point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman and to his right hon. and hon. Friends is that the national curriculum is already massively overloaded and allows none of that diversity in individual schools that Conservative Members want to see. It is perfectly possible significantly to diminish—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.
      Mr. Thompson: I think that I have picked up the general drift of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, without his pursuing it further. He has—possibly deliberately—misunderstood what I said about parity of esteem. Whenever my hon. Friends refer to parity of esteem I always agree with them, because they are using the phrase correctly.

      339
      However, the hon. Gentleman has again said something with which I agree—that the national curriculum is overloaded. Some problems have arisen, and the debate between the Government, the local authorities and the schools is valid. We should move further towards slimming down the national curriculum—the Government have already made moves in that direction, and some of my hon. Friends have referred to it. Speaking for myself, and from my experience as a teacher—
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Thompson: May I finish my point first? I hope that we shall have a meeting of minds in a moment.
      We should be moving in the direction of basic standards, not only those required for further progress in academic education but also as they are required for movement into vocational education. The hon. Member for Bath, with the best of intentions, has introduced a red herring into the debate, and his amendment is ill advised.
      Mr. Lloyd rose—
      Mr. Thompson: Despite the pressure of time, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stretford, because I referred to his speech.
      Mr. Lloyd: The debate may be more important than people imagine, because there is clearly much more of a meeting of minds than might have been expected. Of course we agree with the concept of basic standards, especially when the hon. Gentleman explains that basic standards are not seen in terms of academic subjects alone —that is most important. May I put him on the spot and ask him a question? He is right to talk about the need to slim down the national curriculum. Can he tell us what movement the Government have made in that direction? We have yet to detect any. That is not a flippant question; it is serious. If we genuinely thought that the Government were moving, that would be a matter for rejoicing.
      Mr. Thompson: I have detected certain signs of movement from the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to elaborate on that when he responds to the debate. [Interruption.] There is a meeting of minds here, because I would press my hon. Friend to go even further in slimming down the national curriculum—so let us not have a disagreement across the Floor of the House about that. I suspect that if he did so we could move away from some of the stresses and strains in schools of which hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware.
      Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
      Mr. Thompson: No, pressure of time prevents me from giving way now.
      The amendment of the hon. Member for Bath, although moved with the best of intentions, is ill advised. If there is basic education in elementary mathematics, that will lead pupils on not only to academic progress in mathematics but to technical and vocational education. If there is basic education in English, spelling and grammar —I use those terms proudly—that will help pupils to move on into clerical activity, secretarial work and more advanced forms of management training. Basic language skills, too, will be of tremendous value when pupils move on to vocational training of one sort or another.
      340
      There is a meeting of minds in the House and elsewhere on the desperate importance to the nation of encouraging more and better vocational education—I know that the Government seek to do that in all sorts of ways which are not the subject of the debate. Nevertheless, I shall finish now—I wanted to be brief—by saying that the amendment is ill advised and that I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government and reject it.
      Mr. Stephen Byers: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but so many important points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that I decided to make a brief contribution to a useful discussion on an important issue.
      One of the reasons why our education system has been seen as a failure compared with those of other countries is the division between vocational and academic education. All hon. Members want that division to be removed, and in the past few years steps have been taken in an effort to remove it. It was initiatives by local education authorities which began the process. The Government seized upon the idea and introduced a technical and vocational education initiative in the mid-1980s, making funds available for local authorities to bid for to provide vocational courses in secondary schools. Many authorities had already begun that process, but they welcomed the prospect of Government financial support to carry it forward.
      It is interesting to compare our approach with that of Germany, for example, where the academic/vocational divide is not seen in terms of academic education being reserved for the most able pupils while vocational education is for the less able. That does not happen in Germany, where the most able children feel free to embark on vocational courses. There is often a real mix between the academic and the vocational, and one side is not seen as having greater priority than the other. That is one reason why Opposition Members would like to look closely at the German system so that we can perhaps develop in that direction.
      Mr. George Walden: I was a little puzzled when the hon. Gentleman began to elaborate on the division in education in Britain and then praised Germany. In Germany there are separate schools for academic and technological education. I was interested in the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument because one of the major problems in Britain which is almost unique in Europe is our adhesion—in my view, misguided—to comprehensive education. I suspect that, to achieve the best technological and academic education opportunities, we shall have to follow the German model and abandon comprehensive education.
      Mr. Byers: That is an important subject which I should like to discuss, but I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to the debate. I am mindful that the Minister wishes to speak for a particular length of time.
      I was seeking to point out that, although in Britain the academic is seen to be the preserve of the most able while the less able follow vocational training, in Germany that division does not exist. The most able students often follow vocational training. Comprehensive education can include academic and vocational training and the most able and the less able students can choose either of those options.
      We have to take a radical approach to A-levels, which totally dominate our education system and all too often

      341
      are the dead hand on curriculum development. One reason for our failure has been the gold standard of the A-level. The Government alone stand by the A-level. Everyone else is saying that it has to be changed.
      We also need to address the structure of Government. It is not appropriate to have a Department for Education but for training to be the responsibility of the Department of Employment. The time has come to have one Department responsible for education and training. That would be a positive lead at the highest level to demonstrate that there is no division between education and training and that they should be treated as of equal value. I welcome the recent appointment of a permanent secretary at the Department for Education whose background is mostly in the Department of Employment; that may herald a drift towards bringing training into the remit and responsibilities of the Department for Education.
      I wanted to make a short speech and I am sure that we shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Boswell: There are occasions when despite all the sound and fury there is an element of consensus in the House, and I have listened with interest to the debate. That is not to say that we agree on every point, but it has been possible to pick up certain strands of agreement.
      To summarise, we heard characteristically trenchant and well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). We also heard a characteristically magisterial intervention of the kind that we have become used to expecting from my hon Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). We had a new entrant, a former old lag of our Department, if I may put it that way, in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who also made a powerful intervention. They will forgive me if I do not speak at great length on their speeches and direct my remarks—though not confine them—to those made by the Opposition.
      Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who moved the amendment that I shall invite my colleagues to resist, it occurred to me that he speaks with a measure of dogged reasonableness and is always anxious to include and please. One might say, in the motto of a well-known Sunday newspaper, that in his prescription all human life is there. Not only is he conscious of the heavy load already in the national curriculum; he wants to add to it and, indeed, strip away from it in order to add to it. I cannot help feeling that in Committee and on Report he has functioned as the agony aunt of the Committee—what one might term at the least charitable, which I am not often, as "Banal of Bath".
      6.15 pm
      We listened to a long and characteristically passionate oration from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). For one awful moment I thought that, in view of the number of propositions he was setting up, I would have to encapsulate him as, "Aunt Sally from Stretford" because he was talking about "ghettoisation" and ideological agendas. He dragged in the entirely spurious suggestion that the controversy about key stage 3 testing was regarded as ideological on our side, which I emphatically deny. That did not add to his argument; nevertheless, I listened to the substance of what he said.
      342
      I turn to a point that was rehearsed across both sides of the House and fairly extensively in Committee. I noted the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the heavy load in the existing national curriculum and their inference that it might need to be lightened. The hon. Member for Stretford should acknowledge that we have already taken steps to introduce more flexibility at key stage 4 and to reduce some of the requirements to accommodate particular circumstances.
      We are debating the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its role, which we consider most important. If there are any doubts, the national curriculum is not set in stone. That is not immediately to be interpreted as suggesting that it is to be totally and radically changed every so often at whim, but the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will be charged with the duty of analysing it, reviewing the subject heads and seeing whether it can be improved. That will be a continuing process of rolling review which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome.
      I now turn to an issue where there is particular difference between the hon. Member for Stretford and myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth struck back strongly on the attitude to A-levels. If it is necessary for people to come out, as it were, I was obliged to specialise at the age of 14; I regretted it at the time and continued to regret it, and to some extent have found ways of rowing back. That was not the normal structure of A-levels and people would not be driven to that course until the age of 16, but I regard it as over-narrow and we are addressing it within the national curriculum.
      The hon. Gentleman was rather uncharitable about AS-levels. There were more than 50,000 entries for AS-levels last year. Indeed, one of them was one of my daughters, who received a very acceptable grade. One fifth of all A-level entrants take an AS-level as part of their entry. It is mistaken to set up an Aunt Sally suggesting that we are not interested in qualifications outside A-levels. It is important to have a standard to which others can be related. I do not accept that it devalues the system of vocational qualifications. The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. "Devalued from what?" as though we had set a vocational standard and then succeeded in rubbishing it.
      Mr. Walden: It seems to me that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy, not in my hon. Friend the Minister's position, but in that of others regarding A-levels. My view is that there is a wide intellectual consensus, which I share, on the need to broaden A-levels, perhaps on the French model. I am strongly against broadening A-levels at this juncture because I have no confidence in the ability of the education industry to do that without taking the opportunity of lowering expectations, yet again, across the board. I have no confidence in its ability to produce the high, broad expectations which exist in the baccalaureat in France.
      Mr. Boswell: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks carefully. I shall now explain to the House how we see ourselves being able to set up alternative measures and alternative routes.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: The intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is important because it encapsulates some of the attitudes shown in this debate.

      343
      Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said? It is important for the Minister to place on record his agreement or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman's proposition.
      Mr. Boswell: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer multiple or even dual-choice questions. However, I will give him an answer. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is that any change in A-levels, if not carefully considered and properly argued through, would not necessarily maintain standards. We have already opened up the possibility of acceptable, more narrowly focused studies through AS-levels.
      On the narrow point of the amendment, which deals with technical education in schools—
      Mr. Foster: Vocational education.
      Mr. Boswell: It was a slip of the tongue. The hon. Gentleman's intervention enables me to make the remark that I had intended to make. Despite his understandable enthusiasm for vocational education, the amendment does not mention the word "technology". I do not know whether technology is included in vocational education, as the hon. Gentleman sees it.
      Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that technology is currently included in the national curriculum.
      Mr. Boswell: I am most certainly aware of that precise point. I do not see how, if the hon. Gentleman seeks to slim down the curriculum for the sake of vocational concerns and to safeguard the existing technology commitment, he would be able to deal with, for example, modern foreign languages. If the hon. Gentleman is simply saying that the national curriculum, as delivered up to key stage 4, should require a broad education which moves towards acceptable pathways to vocation and training in the future, and if that curriculum is to include science, technology, mathematics and other subjects which may be said to have a vocational handle—just as communications skills and English have a vocational handle—I would not disagree much with him. However, we are not convinced of the need to prescribe vocational education as such as part of the national curriculum.
      I repeat to the House that the Education Reform Act 1988 already requires that the curriculum of a school should prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. The hon. Member for Bath rightly and fairly referred to the technical and vocational education initiative and to our reform of the Business and Technician Education Council, a subject with which I shall deal later.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that the curriculum is intended to cover the range of knowledge, skills and understanding commonly accepted as necessary for a broad and balanced curriculum for the individual pupil, as set out in the 10 foundation subjects. By the age of 14—there is no dissent on this point—it is entirely appropriate for young people to gain some experience of prevocational education. I do not want the House to confuse that with strictly vocational education. In most cases, one would anticipate that vocational education or the further stage of education would take place in the institutions for which I am responsible, after the compulsory school age
      344
      and in some other provision. We do not need to confine the provision to being a strictly vocational education at that stage.
      As we move into the 14 to 16-year-old group and to key stage 4, we build on the sense of anticipation of the future—the motivation to move into the world of work. That is why we introduced the element of flexibility to which I referred. I shall come back to that point because it is a strong part of our concern and of my personal commitment.
      I shall now deal with the national curriculum because hon. Members have referred to the attainments of pupils in terms of basic skills and to the failure of too many to achieve them during the period of compulsory schooling. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that many people now in further education have to have remedial education. I am not satisfied with that and I am determined that we should improve on that position, although it is by no means an easy task and it requires a variety of approaches.
      We need the national curriculum to start the process. As I said to the hon. Member for Bath, the national curriculum provides for science and technology from year one right through to year 11. That is not mirrored in the curriculum of any other European state of which 1 am aware. The big process, which we are now taking forward with the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, has been a major success. Five years ago, it was barely an aspiration. Many people said that it could not be done or that it would not be successful.
      We are now teaching some science and technology to every child between the ages of five and nine, and to every child between 11 and 14 in maintained schools. We shall carry the process through to ensure that all pupils between 15 and 16 in those schools receive a balanced education relevant to future needs and set in a clear overall framework. We want to raise teachers' and parents' expectations for children.
      I shall now deal with the question of what happens after compulsory schooling, which is an area of direct and day-to-day concern to me, and I shall deal with the issue of parity of esteem. With the greatest respect to the House, the parity of esteem that we do not seek is that to which we give lip service here. The real parity of esteem is that perceived by employers, by admissions tutors and by admissions officers in higher education. They are the people who are making judgments on the basis of what is offered to them.
      There are already encouraging signs of movement towards non-traditional entry routes and towards a more flexible approach, for example, to mature students. I give one example: already 20 per cent. of students entering higher education for engineering degrees have had non-traditional pathways into that education. There is growing interaction between higher national diplomas and people moving to degree qualifications.
      As has been said, we are establishing a structure of vocational qualifications to parallel A-levels and to provide two alternative routes. The national vocational qualifications that are mainly talked about partake of specific vocational skills. There are also general NVQs, which are being piloted and developed. I have looked at. the GNVQ curriculum for business studies and I have compared it with the typical A-level in business studies. It is an attractive alternative, although my decision is not what matters: what is important is what is taught and what is available to employers to consider. I remind the House

      345
      that GNVQ at level 3 is to be equivalent to two A-levels, which is an important point of standard. It is not the qualification but the level at which it is taken which is critical.
      That approach is to be accompanied by a far more hands-on and direct effort to give proper career advice to those who are about to leave their compulsory school years as to whether they should stay within the schools sector or move elsewhere. There is no false antithesis here. Some of the biggest deliverers of A-levels, which are rubbished by some hon. Members including the hon. Member for Stretford, are the further education colleges, so they have an interest in the delivery of, and proper use for, the A-level system.
      Alongside that, we are offering for the first time—it is a breakthrough which will contribute to the objective that we all seek of building up the effective parity of the scheme—a coherent structure of vocational qualifications. It is a comprehensive structure, if I may use that phrase, in that it covers all the major curriculum areas. It is also a comprehensible area in the sense that young people wanting to move on towards the world of work and to get acceptable vocational qualifications, with a general educational element and some core skills that they can use in their future careers, will have something to go for. It is not a question of devaluing, removing or cheapening A-level or reducing standards, but—
      It being half past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 275.

      Division No. 169]

      [6.30 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cann, Jamie

      Ainger, Nick

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Alton, David

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clelland, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ashton, Joe

      Coffey, Ann

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      Battle, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Cryer, Bob

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dafis, Cynog

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Dalyell, Tam

      Betts, Clive

      Darling, Alistair

      Blair, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Blunkett, David

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Denham, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dewar, Donald

      Burden, Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Byers, Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Caborn, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      346

      Eastham, Ken

      Madden, Max

      Enright, Derek

      Mahon, Alice

      Etherington, Bill

      Mallon, Seamus

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marek, Dr John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fisher, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Flynn, Paul

      Maxton, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Meale, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fraser, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Milburn, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Miller, Andrew

      Garrett, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      George, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morley, Elliot

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mudie, George

      Graham, Thomas

      Mullin, Chris

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Murphy, Paul

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gunnell, John

      Olner, William

      Hain, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hall, Mike

      Parry, Robert

      Hanson, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Harvey, Nick

      Pickthall, Colin

      Henderson, Doug

      Pike, Peter L.

      Heppell, John

      Pope, Greg

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hoey, Kate

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Prescott, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Purchase, Ken

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Randall, Stuart

      Hoyle, Doug

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hutton, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Illsley, Eric

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Ingram, Adam

      Rogers, Allan

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jamieson, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Janner, Greville

      Ruddock, Joan

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Short, Clare

      Jowell, Tessa

      Simpson, Alan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Keen, Alan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Snape, Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Soley, Clive

      Leighton, Ron

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lewis, Terry

      Spellar, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Stott, Roger

      McAllion, John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Straw, Jack

      McCartney, Ian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McFall, John

      Tipping, Paddy

      McKelvey, William

      Turner, Dennis

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tyler, Paul

      McMaster, Gordon

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      McWilliam, John

      Wallace, James

      347

      Walley, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilson, Brian

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      Wise, Audrey

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Dunn, Bob

      Amess, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Ancram, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arbuthnot, James

      Eggar, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Elletson, Harold

      Ashby, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Evennett, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Faber, David

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bates, Michael

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forman, Nigel

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bitten, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fry, Peter

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gallic, Phil

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Bright, Graham

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Butcher, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Butler, Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butterfill, John

      Hague, William

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Harris, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clappison, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Congdon, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Horam, John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

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

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Jack, Michael

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jesse l, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      348

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Key, Robert

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knox, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shersby, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Lidington, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maclean, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spring, Richard

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      Madel, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steen, Anthony

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stephen, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stern, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Allan

      Marlow, Tony

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Sykes, John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thomason, Roy

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tracey, Richard

      Needham, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trend, Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walden, George

      Norris, Steve

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Waller, Gary

      Ottaway, Richard

      Ward, John

      Page, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Paice, James

      Waterson, Nigel

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whitney, Ray

      Pawsey, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Willetts, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rathbone, Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Richards, Rod

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Riddick, Graham

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Robathan, Andrew

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, to the end of clause 256.

    Clause 242

      POWER TO MAKE AND DEAL WITH SUCH PROPOSALS IN THE CASE OF SCHOOLS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS
      Amendments made: No. 52, in page 145, line 38, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.
      No. 53, in page 145, line 41, leave out 'both sets of proposals' and insert
      'the proposals under section 12 or 13 of that Act or section 241 of this Act and the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status'.
      No. 54, in page 146, line 13, leave out '(3)' and insert '(5)'.—[ Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 257

      PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 153, line 12, after '(2)', insert
      'where an order relates to a local education authority in England.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 121, in page 153, line 14, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where an order relates to a local education authority in Wales, the area specified in the Order may extend to the whole of Wales.'.
      No. 120, in page 153, leave out lines 21 to 23.
      No. 198, in page 153, line 25, at end add—
      '(6) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Dafis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments in this small but significant group.
      The issues with which the clause and the amendments are concerned have been debated at length already, in Committee and last night. The fact that this is a matter of great concern was evident from Conservative Members' eloquent speeches last night about the provision of the music service, to which I shall return.
      Amendment No. 120 would remove the two-year limit after which LEAs would not be allowed to sell services to schools in other LEA areas or to grant-maintained schools. Amendments No. 122 and 121, which I drafted myself, would enable services to be sold by any LEA to the schools of any other LEA in Wales and to grant-maintained schools in any other part of Wales.
      I emphasise that, if Opposition Members' only concern were to sabotage the grant-maintained movement, we should not have tabled amendment No. 120. The non-availability to grant-maintained schools of LEA services after two years is likely to act as a strong disincentive to schools to become grant maintained. The Under-Secretary of State for Schools confirmed that last night when he said:
      "If parents decide that relying on the continuance of LEA provision of the kind to which their school is accustomed is of paramount importance to them, perhaps that school is not the right sort to become grant maintained."—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 206.]
      The hon. Gentleman actually admitted that the non-provision of services might be a disincentive to some
      350
      schools to become grant maintained. We are not being driven by ideology in this: we are not in the business of sabotaging the grant-maintained movement at this time.
      It is worth mentioning the fact that only after a period of about two years will schools in Wales be going grant maintained at all, so in effect they will be unable to benefit from the services anyway. Opposition Members are driven not by ideology but by the wish to ensure that, if the grant-maintained sector grows and develops, the mixed system that will then exist should be able to work with the minimum amount of damage being done to pupils. That is our main concern.
      6.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): It is important that the ground rules should be clear. The restrictions will not even operate if only a few schools have become grant maintained. Only when a local education authority experienced a significant number of schools becoming grant maintained and exceeded its margin of capacity would the question even arise. The two-year period would start from that point, allowing a transitional period during which the appropriate adjustments could be made. It is important to understand that.
      Mr. Dafis: I accept that and I shall come to the question of the margin of capacity in a moment.
      I emphasise that amendment No. 120 does no more than propose that there should be a level playing field between the public and private sectors. If Conservative Members are saying that it is not possible to identify the true cost of services provided by LEAs—that has been suggested—and so ensure that there is a level playing field, they are saying, in effect, that they regard local authorities as perfidious and in the business of cheating. Some Conservative Members—not all—clearly believe that. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) clearly regards LEAs and local authorities as essentially perfidious bodies. Conservative Members must take a dim view of the extent of human ingenuity if they do not believe that it is possible for human beings to devise a system whereby the true costs of providing services can be identified.
      That is not the view of the Secretary of State for Wales. The White Paper on local government reorganisation in Wales states that local authorities in Wales will be encouraged, as a matter of good practice, to introduce an internal accounting framework for corporate and other services and to expose them to competition as soon as possible. Clearly, the Secretary of State believes that it is possible to develop an accounting procedure which makes it possible to identify the true costs of services provided by local education authorities and local government generally.
      Under the Bill as drafted, LEA schools will have a choice as to where they obtain their services: they can get them from the LEA or from the private sector. Grant-maintained schools, however, will not have that choice. On the face of it, the Bill seems to discriminate against grant-maintained schools as much as it discriminates against LEA service providers. In that context, it is worth asking which principle is more important to the Government: the promotion of grant-maintained schools, or the discouragement of the public sector as providers?

      351
      Some people in the grant-maintained movement and in the semi-independent sector say that they cannot understand why the Government insist on the prohibition coming into operation after two years. I think that I understand what is behind the Government's thinking. If the LEA is prevented from supplying services to grant-maintained schools and if the grant-maintained sector grows, it will be increasingly difficult for the LEA to provide services for its own schools. The necessary economies of scale will not be available and schools will increasingly lack any reason to remain with the LEAs. That is probably the Government's strategy. Like God, the Conservatives move in a mysterious way their wonders to perform. It would be naive to imagine that they intend to leave the growth of the grant-maintained sector to parental choice and that they will not employ other measures in the background to facilitate and hasten their process. They are prepared, in pursuit of an ideological goal, to endanger services and the quality of children's education. It is difficult to imagine anything more irresponsible.
      Last night the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in an eloquent, moving and civilised speech, talked of his anxiety about the question of music provision. The hon. Gentleman was ably supported by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). In the case of those two hon. Gentlemen the term "honourable" seems appropriate. I should like to talk about music provision in my constituency and, in particular, about trading at the margins of capacity.
      In Ceredigion we have a fine school orchestra, whose conductor is the music organiser for Dyfed. The orchestra has enjoyed considerable success on great occasions at the Royal Albert Hall. If, in the new county, which will be called Sir Aberteifi, there is one grant-maintained school, its pupils will presumably be able to join the orchestra. Presumably grant-maintained schools would pay the LEA fees as it would be within the capacity of the LEA to provide for its own schools. In other words, the provision would be within the margin of capacity. However, if more schools were to become grant-maintained, such provision in Ceredigion could be made only beyond the LEA's margin of capacity. Thus, grant-maintained pupils would not be able to take part in the orchestra. I think that my understanding is correct.
      What would happen then? Would grant-maintained schools set about starting their own orchestra? It was surprising to hear the Minister talk last night about co-operative ventures. Perhaps the grant-maintained schools could organise a co-operative venture. Thus we would have two orchestras. It might be argued that competition would be created and that that would be a good thing. Competition between the two orchestras would drive down the fees charged for putting on concerts here and there. I am being facetious, of course, but I shall now be serious. Such a situation might very well mean the LEA's own orchestra becoming unviable.
      Mr. Forth: I should like to deal with this point now lest it fail to be picked up later. I shall check the situation and provide confirmation, but I am pretty certain that the problem posed by the hon. Gentleman can be resolved under the Local Government Act 1972, which enables such services to be provided across county borders and across boundaries between the LEA and grant-maintained
      352
      sectors. I made this point in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Dafis: If that is true and if it applies to orchestras specifically, it is a comfort. None the less, there remains the argument that at a certain stage grant-maintained schools will be unable to obtain services from the local education authority as that would amount to trading beyond the margin of capacity.
      I refer to other services in Wales—in particular, in my part of Wales—that will suffer similarly. I have mentioned those in Committee. The education authority has set up language centres—canolfannau iaith—where children undertake intensive courses in Welsh. After six or eight weeks they return to their own primary schools and receive part of their education through the medium of Welsh. The language centres are run by one or two specialist teachers, who have gained considerable expertise through periods of training. The centres are essential to enable schools to cope with the shifting linguistic circumstances in my part of the world.Families arrive from England and children enter school at various ages. Schools could not cope satisfactorily without such support.
      Linked to this provision is the network of area teachers which we call athrawon bro. That service is partly funded by special grants from the Welsh Office which are very much appreciated. Some of the teachers are peripatetic. They visit various primary schools and teach Welsh as a second language, provide language enrichment lessons, and so on. The specialist teachers also train other teachers and develop teaching materials. The loss of such centres and of this network of teachers would have a disastrous effect on the provision that is necessary to deal with the complexities of the bilingual situation in my part of the world and to meet the opportunities.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: It is difficult to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to believe that if something is not provided by the local education authority it should be lost. That is similar to the obsessive and purblind ideological approach of the Labour party. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many grant-maintained schools are taking part in co-operative exercises? In that way they can purchase services from bodies in the independent trust sector, often in conjunction with local education authorities in cases such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Music and language services can be obtained in that way. The Labour party has talked about how pleased it is to see the Clinton administration in power. Well, that administration has a bible called "Reinventing Government", which describes governments not as providers but as facilitators. The hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Labour party, but he may have learnt from that approach.
      Mr. Dafis: I do not question the possibility of having trusts, set up by groups of schools, which could organise alternative provision. However, alternative provision might not emerge.We have a very efficient system already. The scenario put forward by the hon. Gentleman would lead to duplication and would make it more difficult for the local education authority to continue to provide a service to its own schools, as it would have to carry the same overheads with reduced provision. It would certainly create a more difficult and complex situation.
      Mr. Rod Richards: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that the ethos of Welsh schools will disappear under the grant-maintained system? If he is, he does not seem to have a high regard for the demand for Welsh education and things Welsh in his new county of Sir Aberteifi.
      7 pm
      Mr. Dafis: That is an extraordinary intervention. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to me. I was not talking about Welsh schools: I was talking about special language centres that are set up by local education authorities to service schools which are designated Welsh medium schools and those which are not so designated.
      The provision of special language services would be destabilised and made more difficult. There might be duplication and the services might not be available at anything like the present level. I have every faith in the demand for Welsh medium education, but I am concerned about the provision of services and the ability to cope with the varying linguistic situations in west Wales. There is a great danger that the provision of services will suffer as a consequence of the Government's proposals and their refusal to allow local education authorities to continue to sell services to grant-maintained schools.
      We have heard more than once about the effect of the Bill on outdoor pursuit centres. I will not pursue that matter in detail—perhaps other hon. Members would like to mention it—but it is a significant element. I should mention in passing that outdoor pursuit centres in Wales that are owned by local education authorities in England provide a not insignificant element of employment in Wales. That is a side issue, but it is worth mentioning. I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.
      We are talking about the difference between ideology and pragmatism. The Opposition parties—Labour, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru—have proposed a pragmatic approach and a pragmatic response. To insist on competition between the public and private sectors to maximise efficiency is perfectly reasonable and shows a confidence in market forces which is rational. To prevent the public sector from competing with the private sector in the provision of services to the public sector and to assume that the private sector will deliver the goods in all circumstances seems to betray a faith in market forces which borders on the mystical. We should not be legislating on the basis of mysticism.
      May I examine amendments Nos. 121 and 122 in the context of local government reorganisation in Wales. The amendments would enable local education authorities to sell their services in any part of Wales. They are meaningful only if amendment No. 120 is passed so that we get rid of the prohibition beyond the margin of capacity after two years.
      In connection with that, I shall quote from paragraph 46 of the White Paper on local government reorganisation in Wales:
      "Authorities must be directly accountable to local people for the services which they secure (by purchase or otherwise). The new unitary authorities will therefore normally be responsible in law for securing the provision of services. But statutory responsibility does not mean that each authority should itself seek to provide every aspect of service, so authorities will need to have a flexible legal framework allowing them both to work much more closely with one
      354
      another and to purchase services and expertise from each other and from outside agencies—including the private and voluntary sectors."
      That is clear enough. It keeps with the purchaser-provider relationship which the Government advocate and there is something to be said for it. If it makes sense for local authorities to be allowed to sell any services to each other, surely it makes sense in education. There is no justification for differentiating between education and other services.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Would the hon. Gentleman contemplate the concept of the local education authority as a monopoly provider and that what he recommends remains a monopoly? We are trying to break down the monopoly and create competition. Such competition will provide a much greater opportunity for many more people to provide good quality services in exactly the same way as the purchaser-provider relationship in the health service has been broken down from a monopoly into a much broader competitive field.
      Mr. Dafis: I am not quarrelling with the concept of the purchaser-provider split. I am saying that, in the White Paper, it is envisaged that one local authority shall be the provider and another local authority shall be the purchaser. It would not be a monopoly situation but one in which the private sector could also offer services so that there was competition between the public and private sectors. There would be a varied pattern of purchasers and providers.
      We should not allow an ideology-driven English Government—which is what we have—to mess up the provision and delivery of education services in Wales. Obviously, the smaller size of the new local authorities in Wales will make it more difficult for all of them to deliver the whole range of services. The White Paper opens up the possibility for what are called lead authorities to specialise in various fields and supply services to each other, alongside contributions from the private sector.
      The scope for specialisation within the education service is considerable—for example, specialised courses and residential courses, including courses for the learning of Welsh. The demand for such courses will certainly increase, partly as a result of the Government's Welsh Language Bill. One local education authority could make such specialised courses available for purchasing by people working in the education service in other parts of Wales.
      Teams of inspectors specialising in specific parts of the curriculum could be working for one local education authority with their services being for sale to schools in other local education authorities and grant-maintained schools. It has been suggested to me that, unless we have a market for those teams of inspectors throughout Wales, it will be difficult to recruit sufficient people to them, especially to carry out inspections through the Welsh medium.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that we have created the office of an independent inspectorate for Wales which operates on a Wales-wide basis, not on a local education basis.
      Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for that intervention. I was talking about the possibility of teams of inspectors being employed by a local education authority and then selling their services to schools in other local education authority

      355
      areas. Is that not a possibility? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the matter, but that is what has been suggested by people in the education service in Wales.
      Advisory services in specific subjects have been developed by local education authorities in Wales. Those services exist among employees and can be provided to other areas in Wales. It would be tragic if local authorities were prevented from supplying services to schools in other areas. To allow them to do so would be within the spirit of the Secretary of State's White Paper.
      Clause 257 would allow a local education authority for two years to sell services only to areas contiguous to it. That would be particularly disadvantageous in Wales, where the Government propose that there will be 21 authorities, because many fewer of them will be contiguous with each other. An English authority on the Welsh border could sell services to schools in Powys, Monmouthshire, Wrexham or Flintshire, but many Welsh authorities could not sell services to those counties even though the syllabus in Wales is significantly different in many subjects from the syllabus in England.
      If one looks at the map one can see, for example, that Anglesey could not sell services to Denbighshire, Cardiganshire, could not sell services to West Glamorgan, West Glamorgan could not sell services to Heads of the Valleys and Bridgend could not sell services to Caerphilly because those counties are not contiguous. If they were contiguous they could do so at least for two years. That is nonsense. It frustrates the intentions of the local government White Paper, which would enable general selling of services throughout Wales. We should not allow a Bill intoduced by a Government dominated by English interests and values—I do not think that the Bill would ever have emerged from the Welsh Office—to undermine the Welsh education system. It is possible that it could.
      I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the position that I have described. I beg the Government to show flexibility and no more on the matter.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has mistaken the intention of the clause. We are dealing not with some prohibition but with relaxation. The reference notes which are available to all of us in the Members' Library clarify the point.
      At present, local education authorities with grant-maintained schools in their area can sell services to those schools, provided that they are trading at the margin of capacity. The clause allows that procedure to operate more widely under certain circumstances. There is a period of two years in which local education authorities can employ additional staff or incur additional expenditure, if it is necessary because there are no private sector suppliers in those areas. That is the point. The existing procedure is being relaxed. The hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that the clause represented a prohibition.
      Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady used the phrase "margin of capacity", which has also been used by the Minister. It is not used in the relevant legislation on local authority goods and services. Will she tell the House where the phrase comes from?
      Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend the Minister answered that question in Committee, and dealt with the point earlier today. Undoubtedly, he will deal with it in more
      356
      detail in his reply. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Audit Commission has interpreted the legislation as operating in the way that I have described. There is no contradiction on that point.
      We must examine what a local authority is there to do. It is not there to provide everything for people in its area. It is there to enable certain necessary services to be delivered. Within that framework, competitive tendering has been widely successful in local authorities across the country for services such as cleaning, rubbish collection and direct labour organisation operations. It is now cascading through into the professional services. That is correct, because competitive tendering has ensured not only that the quality of services has increased for the benefit of local people but that the cost of services has declined.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North implied that grant-maintained schools were desperate to receive services from local authorities and the local authorities were desperate to supply services to grant-maintained schools. I take issue with that. In my area, Derbyshire county council refused to have anything whatever to do with grant-maintained schools So it is relevant to the debate to examine what grant-maintained schools do when they seek the services that they require.
      7.15 pm
      I refer all hon. Members to the recent report and survey on what grant-maintained schools are doing. They are turning to private firms or employing their own staff to run ancillary services. Local authorities are failing to win contracts especially for cleaning and school meals. The survey was carried out just before Christmas, and covered 229 schools which had either opted out or were in the process of doing so and had made decisions on contracts.
      The survey was not carried out by the Department for Education, by the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre or by some Conservative party think tank; it was undertaken on behalf of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National and Local Government Officers Association, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers Union.
      Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Why does the hon. Lady think that contracts which were put out to competitive tender were won by the private sector? Might it not have something to do with the fact that private companies paid half the wages that direct labour organisations paid?
      Mrs. Knight: Contracts were won by the private sector because private companies put in better, more competitive bids to provide a good-quality service for the area. If the hon. Gentleman looked at what his constituents wanted rather that what he personally would prefer, he would conclude that any area, any resident and any constituent requires a good quality service at a good quality price.
      I return to the telling report. It is noticeable that Opposition Members do not like it. It concludes that only four schools which had opted out asked councils to provide the full range of services. Most had a pick-and-mix approach, but the trend was towards schools running their own services. The trend is for grant-maintained schools to look to others to provide services, not back to the LEA from which they have fled.
      Mr. Jamieson: Will the hon. Lady confirm that some grant-maintained schools might be happy to buy into consortium arrangements with local education authorities to buy fuel? She may have seen last week announcements in the press that grant-maintained schools were no longer in local authority arrangements. They have to pay £2,000 more a year for their gas than hitherto. Perhaps she would comment on that.
      Mrs. Knight: I have no trouble with consortia. I have no worry about trusts. That is the way in which we should proceed. We should move not from one monopolistic supplier to another but to variety and choice. I would say to schools which have joined together in consortia that they have some clout, and they should use it to obtain the best deal from whichever petrol, oil or gas supplier the hon. Gentleman refers to. That is the way forward, and the way in which we want the service to go.
      Local government reorganisation is coming to us all—not merely to Wales—and it will ensure that schools start to think clearly about the services that they require and the way in which they wish to proceed. Rather than merely deciding whether to stay within the local education authority or go grant maintained, they will be able to decide how to ensure that the services that they need can be best provided.
      Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady missed the point of my intervention. Grant-maintained schools are on their own because they have left the consortia provided by the local education authorities. They have to buy fuel from monopoly private organisations, such as British Gas, which charge them substantially more. The Bill will stop them from being in the consortia provided by the LEAs.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I said that grant-maintained schools should join together into consortia so that they can use their clout as a group of schools to ensure that they get the best price for whatever commodity they need. I undoubtedly urge schools to continue in that direction.
      Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) mentioned consortia, but he was really talking about over-manned, over-staffed, overpaid bureaucracy.
      Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend, who argues clearly, coherently and very well indeed.
      Conservative Members want a flourishing grant-maintained sector, with flourishing private-sector suppliers, which will result in the money going into education being spent on pupils, rather than going into the pockets of an over-manned local education authority. That is the way forward.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North misread and misinterpreted the clause. That also happened in Committee, and it is about time that Opposition Members recognised the intention of the clause—better education for children.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I do not believe for one minute that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North misinterpreted anything, and he has hit the nail on the head when it comes to this clause.
      In Committee, we were allowed inadequate time to discuss the clause. This morning I re-read the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs.
      358
      Campbell) made in Committee on the day that we discussed it, and I pay tribute to her. She highlighted the method in Cambridgeshire, where services have been successfully devolved to grant-maintained schools and to those belonging to the local education authority.
      I want to concentrate on the situation in Wales because I understand that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is going to reply to the debate.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: If he has time.
      Mr. Murphy: I am sure he will. I have only been speaking for the last two and a half minutes, and I shall not continue for too long, as I do not want to miss this important opportunity.
      Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the Welsh language, he did not mention the Urdd Gobaith Cymru—the Welsh youth movement—which has written to all Members of Parliament representing Wales to express its concern about the clause and the difficulties that will result from its enactment. Its letter states:
      "the threat posed by the Education Act"—
      and the clause in particular—
      "could inflict permanent damage to the organisation and that without the Urdd being directly involved."
      The Urdd says that it operates
      "a unique service for the children and young people of Wales",
      which could well be jeopardised by the provisions that we are discussing.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also mentioned the provision of music services in the Principality. The revenue support grant settlement was announced only a few weeks ago. As a result, county after county in Wales has had to reduce music support services for young people. The county music service in South Glamorgan has been operating since 1936-2,500 children in the county are in bands and orchestras and 4,000 receive peripatetic music lessons in schools. The county council has been virtually forced to end the free provision of orchestras, bands and music because of the cuts that the Government have imposed. I believe that the clause will also threaten music services.
      Wales is rich in outdoor pursuit centres, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also referred to those. To a large extent, Wales subsidises English local education authorities through such centres. It may be of interest to the House to learn that it is estimated that each of the outdoor pursuit centres in Wales brings in £250,000 per year to the local economy, which adds up to about £10 million and the employment of about 1,000 people in Wales.
      Such centres recently asked the Welsh Office about their future, if services provided by the local education authorities are likely to be jeopardised. A Welsh Office spokesman said that the Government would expect such services to be provided by the private sector if they were in demand from schools, and that the relevant clause in the Bill was simply a proposal: it was not yet law, and was subject to change. I sincerely hope that the spokesman was talking sense, and that there will be a change in the measures.
      I have received a great wad of letters from schools in Oxfordshire which use the Woodlands centre for outdoor education in Powys. I do not have time to read them all,

      359
      but they include letters from parents, head teachers and pupils who have made great use of the services provided by our local education authorities.
      For Wales, the most important factor is that the Secretary of State for Wales announced on Monday his plans for local government reorganisation in the Principality. He said:
      "I am today publishing a … White Paper … This follows a consultative process lasting more than two years, and I take this opportunity once again to express my gratitude to the Welsh local authority associations for their wholehearted and constructive participation in that process."—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c.19.]
      Of course he was right, but that does not square with the reported words of the Minister of State when he addressed the Secondary Heads Association in Llandrindod Wells about two weeks ago and made a stinging attack on Welsh local education authorities for a variety of reasons.
      Also it does not square with the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who referred a few minutes ago to overweening bureaucracy in Wales. Who are we to believe—the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West? Are local authorities providing good services in Wales or not? The Secretary of State seems to believe that they are not doing a bad job.
      In the White Paper, the Secretary of State also said that he wants tremendous flexibility in the provision of services when the new authorities are set up. He said that local authorities are enablers as well as providers, and that they will co-operate with one another, selling one another their services. Where do grant-maintained schools stand in all that? Can they not benefit from the new regime which the Secretary of State proposes for Wales? If there is to be flexibility, and local authorities are to provide services for all 21 unitary authorities in Wales, why can that not be extended to grant-maintained schools?
      The Secretary of State also referred to
      "specialist residential centres, education/business partnerships and artistic opportunities such as youth orchestras and theatre in schools".
      All those will be in jeopardy unless the Government think again about the clause.
      Wales will be a poorer place without our orchestras, centres, drama groups and libraries and, most important of all, the services provided by our local education authorities.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Congdon: In its original incarnation as clause 244, clause 257 generated much heat and not much light. Fortunately, in many ways the debate in Committee managed to clarify many of the misunderstandings about the clause.
      What has intrigued me about the debates, both in Committee and today, is why Opposition Members are so concerned about the clause. I think that all of them, on each occasion that we have discussed the Bill, have said that grant-maintained schools will not flourish and that there will not be an avalanche of them. If they do not flourish and there is no avalanche, the impact of the restrictions on local authorities trading with grant-maintained schools will not bite. In that sense, one could argue that the clause was irrelevant and local authorities could continue to be the monopoly provider. I would not support dropping the clause because, unlike Opposition Members, I believe that grant-maintained schools will
      360
      flourish and there will be an avalanche of applications from schools wishing to go grant-maintained. We are seeing that already.
      The key reason why it is essential to have such a clause is to enable a private sector to flourish—we made no secret of that in Committee. Opposition Members made great play of the fact that there should be a level playing field to allow local authorities to compete. They seemed to suggest that, by some miraculous method, the private sector would win through. So long as there is a monopoly provider, the private sector will not flourish. We saw that clearly when early attempts were made to introduce competition into the provision of other local authority services. It was difficult for firms to set up even to provide refuse collections and cleaning, because we have now seen those services flourish, providing benefits to community charge payers up and down the country.
      The clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Earwash—
      Mrs. Angela Knight: Erewash.
      Mr. Congdon: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight)—it was a Freudian slip. As she said, the clause clearly gives local authorities the opportunity, by order of the Secretary of State, to be allowed to trade with grant-maintained schools for a period of two years if that is so designated. That is an important and sensible concession. We want grant-maintained schools to have the opportunity to buy services in a range of sectors, including financial, personnel, training, libraries and music.
      Mr. Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a school library service contains literally hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of stock? Is he really expecting the private sector to build up another stock of exactly the same amount of resources? Does he not understand the absolute waste of money and resources in having two providers when one can amply provide for everyone?
      Mr. Congdon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a limited imagination as to what could happen if the market for the provision of library services is opened up. Schools will have devolved spending responsibility in a variety of sectors. Grant-maintained schools will have that responsibility in all functions and can choose where they purchase books for their library. There is no problem about that.
      Earlier, great play was made of the issue of choice. It was said that grant-maintained schools would, not have the choice of using an LEA service. But they would, provided that the LEA is trading at the margin. In many areas, they will continue to trade at the margin until there is a sizeable number of grant-maintained schools.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Define the margin.
      Mr. Congdon: It is difficult to define "at the margin". That is not a weakness of the proposals, but a strength. They rightly and properly leave individual local authorities and, crucially, the auditor to judge whether they are operating in accordance with the law of the land. The provisions are not over-prescriptive, which is important.
      In reality, if local authorities were allowed to continue to trade indefinitely with grant-maintained schools, the only choice available for grant-maintained schools would

      361
      be to use the local education authority service. In that scenario, the private sector would not enter the market as there would not be a market for it to use. That is why it is important that such provisions are available.
      As my hon. Friend—perhaps I should not try to pronounce the name of her constituency again—the Member for Erewash said, it is important that local authorities are enablers, rather than direct providers of services. If they become enablers, they are given the crucial role of monitoring more carefully and closely the quality of services provided.
      There is an irony about the fact that arguments have been voiced about local authorities trading with grant-maintained schools. I believe that it was Derbyshire county council—as we were told in Committee—that refused to provide services or to trade with the grant-maintained schools in its area. Are we witnessing a conversion in the Labour party in that it now recognises that it should trade with grant-maintained schools? It certainly did not in Derbyshire.
      It is important that we resist the amendments as they would only perpetuate the position in which there is one monopoly provider. If we value the provision of services to grant-maintained schools and enable them to have real choice and value for money, we must ensure that a free, flourishing and successful market has the opportunity to grow. That is why I oppose the amendments.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: The position is unclear. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) described that as a strength. I do not see it as a strength and I believe that clarification of what is meant by trading at the margin will eventually lead to some local authorities being involved in expensive court cases. I cannot believe that that is the Minister's intention. Surely it is better to sort the matter out so that we all know where we stand and people do not have to take local authorities to court to obtain a decision as to whether those authorities are trading at the margin.
      Mr. Forth: It is much simpler than that. The main responsibility for the determination of trading at the margin will lie jointly with the district auditor and the financial accounting officer of the local authority. I see no need for court cases if local authorities conduct their business responsibly. It should be perfectly straightforward to determine the margin, case by case.
      Mrs. Campbell: I am aware that district auditors interpret trading at the margin in different ways in different areas. There is a high degree of confusion, not to say chaos, about the clause.
      The Conservative philosophy has been made clear from what Conservative Members have said. As in so many other matters, the philosophy is not about co-operation or working together to create communities—which is what the Labour party believes in—but about creating conflict and competition. That is not the best way to educate our children in the next few years and into the next century.
      I want local education authorities, schools, teachers, governors and parents to put their efforts into educating and getting the best out of our children, helping them to flourish and giving them the best possible education. I do not want schools and teachers to spend their time worrying
      362
      about where their next contract will come from, who is competing with whom and who is producing what—and giving an inferior service at the end of the day.
      I am also concerned that a number of schools which have opted out of local authority control were simply not aware that that was the Government's intention. Yesterday I waved at the Minister a booklet entitled "Education for the Next Century". Unfortunately I have left it in my office today. That clearly says that local education authorities will be able to trade with grant-maintained schools for some school services. Many parents will have been misled by that booklet which is available to all parents in libraries throughout the country.
      Mr. Steinberg: In a letter to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "It is simply wrong to claim that schools will be deprived of access to local authority support services."
      That is not accurate. The Minister is giving wrong information to his hon. Friends and the grant-maintained sector.
      Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There has also been a great deal of confusion in my local authority. There have been different interpretations in the local media. People find it difficult to understand that that could possibly be the Government's intention. There is a sense of disbelief about the clause.
      There is also confusion among Conservative Members about what library services involve. For the education of Conservative Members, I will clarify what library services in schools are all about. They can be either part of the local education authority or, in some parts of the country, part of the public library service contracted to work for the local education authority. They provide not only book loans but packs to support topic work in the national curriculum; they offer advice and help to schools in the creation and maintenance of their own library and resources centres; they provide in-service training opportunities for teachers and other staff; they also create links between the children's public library service and school libraries.
      It is not a question of the library service providing a stock of books that any private organisation can supply—provided, of course, that it has the capital. It is a great deal more than that. It is about experience built up over 50 years in some cases. It is a wonderful example of a shared resource and the way in which the maximum benefit can be obtained from public expenditure.
      The school library service offers all schools, but particularly small primary schools, a resource that they could not possibly provide themselves, and it gives them access to a much wider range of resources. There are no external competitors for most elements of that provision. Many reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate have criticised libraries in schools, sometimes because they have too little stock, but that is a reflection of the school's inadequate budget for library acquisitions and not a criticism of the school library service itself. School library services are often praised in HMI reports; on occasion, they are highlighted as the only good thing about a school library. The reports are not praising the stock of books but the services that go with the library service. From comments made yesterday, Conservative Members do not seem to understand what the school library service is all about.
      The point that I am making is that school library services are not like cleaning, catering or ground

      363
      maintenance services. They offer a great deal more—something that I find impossible to believe could be provided by a private agency coming in from outside.
      We have heard a lot today about the support that local education authorities can offer schools in their areas. When we were talking earlier about education associations a great deal was said about the role that a local education authority can play in supporting not only a failing school but a highly successful school as well.
      I want to illustrate that with an example. In December 1991 an arson attack on St. No school in St. Ives destroyed the science block with six teaching laboratories and a unique collection of animals built up over many years. Teaching materials, text books, teachers' personal scientific notes, pupils' project work for A—levels, pupils' GCSE work, work books, mark books, assessments, equipment, computers, visual aids, furnishings and fittings were also lost.
      7.45 pm
      The local education authority was able to mobilise a wide range of practical and specialist help within hours, clearing the ruins, making the area safe, bringing in mobile classrooms, co—ordinating help from other schools, advancing money for replacements required immediately, advising about the loss of pupils' GCSE and A—level work, supporting staff, dealing with insurance claims, and so on. The school was able to keep going and by the beginning of the next term science teaching was back on course.
      That was a large school with experienced staff and I have to ask how any grant—maintained school would have coped in similar circumstances without the local education authority's expertise to hand. Make no mistake about it, we are talking about the destruction of the local education authority's support service for something which will be tenuous and difficult to replace. It is just not enough to be insured.
      That school is in the Prime Minister's constituency. It has just held a parental ballot and the prospect of leaving the local education authority was overwhelmingly rejected by the parents. I am not at all surprised.
      Conservative Members are being naive about the clause. They assume that the private sector will step in and provide a service. It will not be a better service and in many cases there will be no service at all.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Such an example could be echoed and repeated throughout the country and through a range of services. That surely reveals that the Government's prime purpose is clearly to destroy local education authorities. The Government are not concerned with the implications of that for the quality of service that the education authorities provide. We have just heard it said that the purpose of this legislation is to let the private sector flourish—nothing to do with education or the quality of the service. Is that not exactly the divide that we are talking about?
      Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point—on which I wanted to conclude, so it comes at an opportune moment. The restriction placed on local education authorities to prevent them from trading with grant—maintained schools has nothing to do with raising education standards. It is about encouraging the private sector and perhaps encouraging Conservative party supporters to set up businesses in competition with
      364
      the local education authority, thus making themselves a great deal of money. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sorry to complain yet again that the Government have been left little time to respond to the debate. I intended to confine my remarks only to the Welsh amendments, which were moved over a period of 25 minutes by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), in the hope that the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), would deal with the amendment concerning England with his customary verve and dexterity.
      Clause 257 will allow the Secretary of State to make an order enabling a local education authority to sell services beyond the margins of capacity to grant—maintained schools in its own area, or in the area of a neighbouring LEA, for up to two years.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North explained the reasoning behind his amendment, which was prompted by his concern that some LEAs in Wales would not be in a position to provide such services. Government policy is clear—that local authorities should not be trading organisations. I do not think that community charge or council tax payers would approve either. There can be no justification for a different approach in Wales.
      Clause 257 recognises the special circumstances which exist in the case of the developing grant—maintained sector. That is why the clause provides temporary relaxation.
      In the context of local government reorganisation, we made it perfectly clear that we expect the new, smaller unitary authorities in Wales to adopt a variety of ways of discharging their statutory responsibility to deliver services, including education. Those methods could include joint working and co—operation or, through an authority, arranging for another authority to discharge functions on its behalf.
      The Local Government Act 1972 already allows an authority to arrange for another to discharge many of its functions. Clause 258 provides that local authorities will no longer be required to establish education committees. One consequence of that will be to bring education into line with other services and to allow that function, or certain elements of it, to be discharged by another authority—which may employ staff specifically for that purpose—rather than having, as the law currently stands, to go through the process of establishing joint education committees.
      In terms of the delivery of service by the new unitary authorities, I do not envisage difficulties. Let us not forget that many of the day—to—day operational responsibilities of managing the education system have already been delegated to schools.
      To return to the provision of services to grant—maintained schools by the new unitary authorities, and the relevance of clause 257, at present each LEA in Wales is bounded by at least two other education authorities. In some cases the other authorities may be in England. Under the Local Government (Goods and Services) Act 1970, any LEA can provide services to any grant—maintained school anywhere in Wales and England so long as it does not exceed the margins of capacity.
      Clause 257 would allow LEAs to operate for up to two years in their own and in a neighbouring LEA's area

      365
      beyond the margins of capacity. If any orders were made under clause 257 before local government reorganisation, they would effectively expire with the abolition of the existing LEAs on 31 March 1995.
      After reorganisation, each proposed unitary authority in Wales would be bounded by two or more education authorities—except Anglesey. This next point is important. As now, under the 1970 Act, any unitary authority in Wales or LEA in England could provide services to any grant—maintained school anywhere in Wales and England so long as it did so within the margins of capacity. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Schools pointed out in an early intervention, clause 257 will come into play only if an authority wants to provide services to grant—maintained schools in its own or a neighbouring authority's area beyond the margins of capacity. Because the unitary authorities in Wales would be entirely new, the fact that there might have been an order under clause 257 relating to the education authority for the same area prior to reorganisation would not be relevant. The unitary authority's power conferred by an order under clause 257 could run for two years from the making of the order.
      Even in the case of grant—maintained schools in Anglesey—which, as everybody knows, is very much an island—the picture is not so bleak as some would paint. It would be open to the unitary authorities for the island and for neighbouring Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire to provide services to them beyond the margins of capacity by way of an order under clause 257, but it would also be open to those schools in Anglesey to purchase the services from any education authority in Wales and England if they could be provided by that authority within the margins of capacity.
      We are confident that the move to unitary authorities will not adversely affect the provision of services to LEA or grant—maintained schools. The amendments are well meaning, but the special treatment that they seek to give Wales is not necessary and cannot be justified.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North made mention of facilities that are special to Wales, such as language centres and peripatetic teachers of Welsh. I am sure that existing LEAs will be anxious to sell the services of such centres and teachers to grant—maintained schools which need them and that grant—maintained schools, which are obliged to follow the national curriculum—there is no difference between them and LEA—maintained schools in that respect—will be anxious to purchase.
      I am sure also that as the grant—maintained sector grows it will want to develop independent sources. That has been the history of development in Wales. A parallel can be found in broadcasting. At one time, there were no independent producers of programmes in Wales, but we provided in legislation for their existence; as a result, they came into being and today they represent a flourishing sector.
      Grant—maintained schools will have special purpose grants which cover the development of the national curriculum and associated developments—school management and appraisal, and staff training and development.
      366
      My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the use of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of choirs, orchestras and bands. They can be organised by LEAs under section 145 of that legislation without falling within the ambit of clause 257. I remind the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that many youth establishments of the kind to which he referred are privately funded.
      We do not see any special circumstances in Wales which warrant treatment different from that given in England. In regard to England, we reaffirm our current position: we are certainly not in the business of enabling local authorities to trade in competition with the private sector which we are certain will develop in the supply of services to the grant—maintained sector.
      I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Torfaen and, indeed, say it to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. They represent—
      It being Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 274.

      Division No. 170]

      [8 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cryer, Bob

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Allen, Graham

      Dafis, Cynog

      Alton, David

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Darling, Alistair

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Davidson, Ian

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ashton, Joe

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

      Barnes, Harry

      Denham, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      Battle, John

      Dixon, Don

      Bayley, Hugh

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bell, Stuart

      Dowd, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joe

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eastham, Ken

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Enright, Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Etherington, Bill

      Blair, Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Blunkett, David

      Fatchett, Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Keith

      Flynn, Paul

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Byers, Stephen

      Fraser, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Garrett, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      George, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clelland, David

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Coffey, Ann

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cohen, Harry

      Gunnell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Corbett, Robin

      Hall, Mike

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hanson, David

      367

      Harvey, Nick

      Mullin, Chris

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Murphy, Paul

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, William (Normantcn)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, William

      Hoey, Kate

      Parry, Robert

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pendry, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hutton, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Illsley, Eric

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ingram, Adam

      Redmond, Martin

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jamieson, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Janner, Greville

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jowell, Tessa

      Salmond, Alex

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Keen, Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Short, Clare

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Simpson, Alan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Leighton, Ron

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lewis, Terry

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Litherland, Robert

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Snape, Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soley, Clive

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spellar, John

      McAllion, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McCartney, Ian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Stott, Roger

      McFall, John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McKelvey, William

      Straw, Jack

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Madden, Max

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mahon, Alice

      Tyler, Paul

      Mandelson, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marek, Dr John

      Wallace, James

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wai ley, Joan

      Martlew, Eric

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Maxton, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Meacher, Michael

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Meale, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Wilson, Brian

      Milburn, Alan

      Winnick, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Wise, Audrey

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Worthington, Tony

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Mudie, George

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Amess, David

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Ancram, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      368

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forman, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forth, Eric

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Baldry, Tony

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bates, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fry, Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gale, Roger

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gallie, Phil

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Body, Sir Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Booth, Hartley

      Gorst, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowis, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hague, William

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bright, Graham

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butcher, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butler, Peter

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butterfill, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hendry, Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence IL.

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Horam, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clappison, James

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

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jack, Michael

      Congdon, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Conway, Derek

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Couchman, James

      Key, Robert

      Cran, James

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Knapman, Roger

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewasb)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knox, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Leigh, Edward

      Dover, Den

      Lidington, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lightbown, David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lord, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luff, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Elletson, Harold

      MacKay, Andrew

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Maclean, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Madel, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Evennett, David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Faber, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Marlow, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      369

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Merchant, Piers

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mills, Iain

      Spring, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Steen, Anthony

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stephen, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stern, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Stewart, Allan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sykes, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thomason, Roy

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Paice, James

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Pawsey, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tredinnick, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Trend, Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Redwood, John

      Walden, George

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Richards, Rod

      Waller, Gary

      Riddick, Graham

      Ward, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wells, Bowen

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Whittingdale, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wilkinson, John

      Sackville, Tom

      Willetts, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shersby, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Irvine Patrick and

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on all amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 265.

    Clause 265

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 147, in clause 265, page 155, line 27, at end insert—
      ' "alterations", in relation to any school premises, includes improvements, extensions and additions and "alter" shall be read accordingly'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Schedule 16

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 81, in page 204, line 6, at end insert—
      '. Section 1(1) (general duty of Secretary of State) is omitted'.
      370
      No. 148, in page 204, line 9, at end insert—
      `. In section 15 (voluntary schools) for "the maintenance contribution payable by the Minister under this Act", in subsections (2) and (5), there is substituted "grants under section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993" '.
      No. 149, in page 205, line 2 at end insert—
      `. Sections 102 and 103 (contributions and grants by Secretary of State to aided and special agreement schools) are omitted'.
      No. 150, in page 205, line 3 leave out '(3)'.
      No. 151, in page 205, line 4 after 'expenditure', insert—

      '(a) in subsection (2)—

      (i) in paragraph (c)(i) for "a maintenance contribution" there is substituted "grants under section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993",

      (ii) in paragraph (c)(iii) for the words from "which" to the end there is substituted "being expenses in respect of which grants under section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993 may be paid",

      (iii) paragraph (d) is omitted, and

      (iv) in the words following that paragraph, "maintenance contribution" is omitted and for "either of the last two foregoing sections" there is substituted "section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993", and

      (b) in subsection (3)'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 205, line 27, after 'education)' insert—
      `( ) in paragraph 2(a) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions",
      ( ) in the proviso to paragraph 2 for "to represent other religious denominations" there is substituted "under sub-paragraph (a) above",
      ( ) in paragraph 3 before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,", and'.
      Madam: Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this is will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 127, in page 205, line 27, after `education', insert—
      '( ) in paragraph 2(a) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions",
      ( ) in the proviso to paragraph 2 for "to represent other religious denominations" there is substituted "under sub-paragraph (a) above",
      ( ) in paragraph 3 before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion, and".'.
      No. 180, in page 205, line 27, after 'education', insert—
      '( ) In paragraph 2(a) for "appropriately" is substituted "in reasonable proportion".'.
      No. 123, in page 213, line 10, at end insert in section 1 1 (4)(a) (Standing Advisory Councils on religious education) for "appropriately" is substituted "in reasonable proportion.".'.
      Government amendment No. 136.
      No. 36, in page 213, line 10 at end insert—
      '. In section 9(7) (parent of boarder at maintained school requesting access to particular worship or religious education) after "particular" there is inserted "religion or".
      In section 11(4)(a) (standing advisory councils on religious education) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions" and for "appropriately" there is substituted "proportionately".

      371
      In section 13 (advisory councils: supplementary provisions) in subsections (1), (2) and (7)(b) before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,".'.
      No. 125, in page 213, line 10 at end insert—
      `. In section 9(7) (parent of boarder at maintained school requesting access to particular worship or religious education) after "particular", there is inserted "religion or".
      In section 11 (4)(a) (standing advisory councils on religious education) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions"
      In section 13 (advisory councils: supplementary provisions) in subsections (1), (2) and (7)(b) before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,".'.
      No. 124, in page 217, line 10 at end add—
      `132A. In section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (Inspection of certain schools), in subsection (6), "education" there is inserted ", except that it may report on the school's compliance with section 6(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988.".
      132B. In section 13 of that Act, (Religious education) in subsection (2), after "means", is inserted ", collective worship or".'.
      Mr. Boswell: I wish to speak to Government amendments No. 134 and 136. I shall be brief because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak on this important topic. I am glad that we at last have the opportunity to debate the Bill's provisions for religious education. It is an essential element of the curriculum, and it is vital that we support the provision of good quality religious education for all children.
      The Bill's provisions build on the arrangements set out in the Education Act 1944, which were strengthened in the Education Reform Act 1988. They are designed to bring the law into line with the new world of grant-maintained schools, heralded in last year's White Paper, and with the main thrust of the Bill itself.
      The requirements for religious education have three main purposes. First, clauses 10 and 11 provide for appropriate representation on local bodies for grant-maintained schools following the 75 per cent. trigger being reached in a local area. Secondly, clauses 127 to 137 provide for religious education to be provided in different types of grant-maintained school. Thirdly, clause 232 provides for the review of agreed syllabuses where they have not yet been brought into line with the requirements of the 1988 Act, and for a regular review of syllabuses every five years.
      Those provisions are sensible. They will provide better religious education for all pupils by ensuring that grant-maintained schools are fully committed to local arrangements and by stimulating curriculum development.
      The Bill already incorporates a number of references which expand the various references to "denominations" in education law to include "religions". Specifically, Government amendments Nos. 134 and 136 have a simple purpose—to bring the law into line with practice. Sharp-eyed hon. Members will have noticed an identity between Government amendment No. 134 and my hon. Friend's amendment No. 127 and between Government amendment No. 136 and my hon. Friends' amendment No. 125—a case of great minds thinking alike.
      In making these changes, we are responding to representations made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is here for this important debate, in particular by the Methodist church, as well as by other respondents to our consultation on the proposals for religious education and collective worship in the White Paper.
      372
      8.15 pm
      As the amendments are technical I shall explain them briefly. Education law has always referred to religious denominations—I stress the word "denominations"— in describing three matters. The first is the particular character of religious schools and the religious education offered by them. The second is the wishes of parents regarding the education of their children. The third is the membership of religious faith committees on local bodies concerned with religious education. For some time, however, there have been anomalies which do not quite fit the law. For example, there have long been Jewish voluntary schools; references to denominations within that religion have had to be stretched to include religions in order to fit reality. There are also ecumenical Christian schools, which are supported by more than one denomination. Parents may have requested that children be given religious education in accordance with the tenets of a religion which would not recognise the term "denomination", and representatives of such religions have properly been represented on local advisory bodies.
      In practice, therefore, the law has been applied as though the word "denomination" included the term "religion". The amendments ensure that there is no confusion and will make it clear that "religion" and "denomination" are both encompassed. It is right that this small change should be made.
      Before I allow other hon. Members to speak to their amendments, I wish to make two brief comments. The change is consistent with the sections of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which deal with similar issues in further and higher education and where the terms that we are proposing are already used. I do not expect any difficulty with the established Church, other faiths or, I hope, hon. Members.
      I advise the House that the amendments were originally tabled in slightly different form in Committee. They were not moved, however, because we received representations expressing concern that the position of Christian denominations on standing advisory councils on religious denominations and agreed syllabus conferences might be weakened. I can assure the House that that was never the intention, but the amendments have been redrafted to ensure that there is no possibility of such a misunderstanding. I accordingly commend Government amendments Nos. 134 and 136 to the House.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the Government amendments which, as the Minister said, are identical to those tabled by my hon. Friends and I. I also welcome the opportunity to debate the important subject of religious education.
      We very much welcome what the Government have done for religious education as a whole in the Bill and hope that more progress will be made here or in another place along the lines of amendments Nos. 180 and 123. They seek to determine more precisely the composition of committee A of the standing advisory councils on religious education and agreed syllabuses conferences. Amendment No. 124 refers to the inspection of religious education and the spiritual, moral and cultural development of pupils in schools. I also want to speak briefly about religious education in schools at present.
      Although in 1944 religious education was made a statutory obligation for all schools and all local

      373
      authorities, sadly, in the intervening period—possibly due to the rise of secularism, and social and moral education —it has fallen into a parlous state in our schools.
      In 1987 it was estimated that 62 per cent. of year 8 children and 58 per cent. of year 9 children had no religious education whatever. Recently David Pascal!, the chairman of the National Curriculum Council, estimated in writing that two thirds of children in our schools receive no religious education whatever. Small wonder that the Association of Christian Teachers said that religious education was safe on the statute book but not safe in schools.
      I believe that religious education is crucial for the spiritual and moral development of our children. I refer back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said when he was Secretary of State for Education in 1988:
      "What the vast majority of children have been ultimately starved of are the riches of the spirit. Their ignorance of the historic faith of this country, a faith which has inspired and guided so many of its greatest men and women, is a national disgrace."
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to know that Lancashire has the highest proportion of church schools anywhere in the country. In my constituency—I do not know about other places—we have outstandingly good assemblies. Whenever I go to a school I always attend assembly. Assemblies are sometimes conducted by the children and sometimes by the headmistress or other members of staff —and they are outstandingly good.
      Mr. Coombs: I am delighted to hear that in some parts of the country the same somewhat dismal picture is not apparent—as it is in too many other areas.
      The Education Reform Act 1988 had an effect, first, by making SACREs compulsory and, secondly, by leaving control of syllabuses local. Possibly most important of all was the fact that section 8(3) said that agreed syllabuses after September 1989 must
      "reflect the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of" other religious traditions.
      That advice was subsequently enlarged upon in a letter of advice dated 18 March from the Department of Education to local education authorities, which said:
      "The fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian would in most cases be properly reflected by devoting most attention to Christianity".
      Section 8(3) was passed by the House on an unwhipped vote by a majority of 274.
      If agreed syllabuses are to be appropriate and in line with the law, it seems to me that the way in which they are drawn up must also be in line with the law. I welcome what the Government have done through their amendments to the Bill, but I would like to ensure that, when we talk about Christianity and other denominations and religions, committee A takes cognisance of the appropriate proportion of the religious make-up of the area. That would allow minority religions to be represented, yet appropriate status and appropriate numbers would be afforded to Christian traditions in the area. Too often those committees do not reflect the Christian traditions of an area.
      374
      In South Tyneside committee A contained two Muslims and one Roman Catholic, despite the fact that in South Tyneside Roman Catholics outnumbered all other Christian religions put together. In Hounslow there were nine non-Christians on the committee and only four Christians. In Newham there were nine non-Christians and only three Christians. In Oxford and Coventry Christians were outnumbered, despite the fact that in those areas it is plain and obvious that Christianity is the predominant religion of most people.
      The same is true for the SACREs. Our amendment would ensure that the representation on committee A of SACREs would reflect the Christian and non-Christian make-up of an area. The National Curriculum Council tells us that one third of local education authorities have more non-Christians than Christians on their SACREs. That does not reflect the religious make-up of those areas.
      No fewer than half the committees involved in drawing up the 36 new syllabuses that have been produced since 1989 contained more non-Christians than Christians. Small wonder that the Free Church Federal Council says that the membership of many local education authorities' committees do not represent the make-up of the religious affiliations of the area.
      That is why our amendments refer to "reasonable proportion". That is not so specific as to be always sending cases on the exact numbers through the courts, nor to exclude minority religions, but it would at least give Christian religions the kind of predominance which in most, although not all, cases would be required by the religious make-up of the area.
      Agreed syllabuses are important and it is important to monitor them and to ensure that they are rigorous. Teachers in individual schools are required by law—under the Education Acts 1944 and 1988—to teach according to the agreed syllabuses. It is therefore very disappointing to hear of a report from the National Curriculum Council described in The Sunday Times, but not yet published, although I have asked the chairman of the National Curriculum Council to publish it because it is a matter of great legitimate public interest. The report shows that the law is effectively being broken on the requirements of the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the agreed syllabuses by every new syllabus that has been drawn up by agreed syllabus conferences since 1989.
      Indeed, The Sunday Times quoted Margaret Morrissey of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations as saying of the 1988 Act:
      "There's always the danger that"
      the fact that religious traditions in Britain are in the main Christian and that that should be reflected in the agreed syllabus is
      "interpreted so broadly that it's hardly religious education any more".
      That is one reason why in too many of our schools religious education has effectively disappeared.
      I find it disturbing that the leaked report of which I have had sight says:
      "no syllabus could be said to be meeting the full legal requirements for RE as interpreted by Counsel in 1991"—
      subsequent to the 1980 Act
      "The absence of specified content makes it impossible in most cases to discover whether teaching based on the syllabus would give most attention to Christian traditions … None specify what proportion of teaching should be based on Christianity".

      375
      Too often we find that religious education is not being taught in practice in the classroom, but that is small wonder as the vast majority even of the revised agreed syllabuses, let alone the probably unsatisfactory agreed syllabuses that have not been revised by the other 90 or 100 local education authorities, are illegal because they do not ensure that Christianity is predominant in most areas, as it is the religion of most people in this country.
      I should like the Government to do three things to rectify the problem. I hope that they will take my suggestions on board when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. First, it is crucial to have a national monitoring body to ensure that agreed syllabuses are within the law and to insist that the Government take action under their powers in the Education Act 1944 if syllabuses are outside the scope of the law. That could be done quite easily and I urge the Government to do it.
      Secondly, although we need locally determined agreed syllabuses, I see no reason why there should not be a national advisory agreed syllabus. At the moment, grant-maintained schools will be able to take an agreed syllabus from any in existence throughout the country. I see no reason why we should not introduce a degree of uniformity on a voluntary basis which would mean that a local education authority, or possibly even an individual school—whether or not it is a grant-maintained school —would be able to adopt instead of its own locally agreed syllabus a national agreed syllabus if that were most appropriate for its needs.
      8.30 pm
      Finally, I understand that the National Curriculum Council will be issuing guidelines in the near future. We need a limit laid down by law on the number of religions that can be taught within an agreed syllabus to stop the plethora of religions in certain agreed syllabuses producing an exercise in comparative religion rather than religious education.
      Mr. David Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is not the crux of the matter that the issue is not taken seriously enough and far too often it is left to a disconsolate art teacher to lead yet another chorus of "Lord of the Dance" to a group of despondent students who know that he does not believe? There is no interest in what he is saying and no communication of the values that he does not espouse anyway. Therefore, there must be a more professional approach and real belief should be at the heart of faith-oriented teaching.
      Mr. Coombs: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Some 51 per cent. of people who teach religious education have no qualifications, whether primary or secondary, to do so. That could be part of the problem and more resources may be needed.
      I was going to mention new clause 13, but I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak. If the Government take up the measure that I have suggested and, most important, take seriously the appalling findings of the National Curriculum Council in that every single authority seems to be flouting the law as laid down in the Education Act 1988, there will be great advantages to religious education to the benefit of the spiritual and moral development of our children.
      Mr. Michael Alison: May I preface what I hope will be a short speech by once again thanking my right
      376
      hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the enormously flexible, sensitive and constructive way in which they have listened to representations from those of us with a particular interest in religious education? They have shown sympathy for it and have done everything possible, without any preconceived notions or bureaucratic pressure, to help us forward. We are very much in their debt, as are a large number of people outside the Chamber.
      I shall briefly address a fairly narrow point arising on amendment No. 124, which relates to inspections in denominational schools delivering denominational education. I put down a brief marker, because it is possible that my right hon. Friend will see fit to pursue the matter further in another place. It is not entirely satisfactory that schools which supply denominational education, for example, Roman Catholic or Church of England schools, will have two separate obligatory school inspections. One is carried out by the inspector appointed by the denominational schools' own governors directed narrowly and exclusively at the religious education curriculum and its teaching in the classroom under that narrow head. The second inspection is by an outside inspector appointed by Ofsted directed at the school's spiritual and moral development and the provision of the schools' collective worship.
      It is bizarre, prima facie, that two separate inspections in more or less watertight compartments should be conducted in the same school. Its rather like having two ticket inspectors travelling on my train to York every week, one to examine whether I have a valid ticket and the other to decide whether I really need to go to York at all. It is unsatisfactory to have two separate inspectors conducting disconnected inspections.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate how unnatural and artificial it is to separate religious education—the narrow technical teaching of the curriculum subject—under one inspectorate appointed by the governors, from the inspection of the spiritual and moral development of the children and the provision of collective worship under Ofsted inspectors.
      I shall illustrate how unnatural it is, because religious education in a denominational school goes far wider than the instruction of the elements of a particular faith. Spiritual and moral development, which is to be inspected by a separate, outside, possibly secular humanist inspector, in the case of a child in a denominational school, will and should encompass a specific commitment to the Christian faith. That is what is involved by definition in a denominational school. A child's moral progress must, by definition, represent moral progress towards the attainment, recognition and approval of Christian moral standards, particularly in the realm of sexual morality.
      For example, the religious education in a denominational school, spilling over into spiritual and moral development, may explain to a child that a real Christian commitment means accepting the moral inadmissibility of homosexual acts or pre-marital or extra-marital heterosexual activity. It means subscribing to the sanctity of human life in regard to abortion and euthanasia, for example. That could be part of the teaching in a denominational school.
      The second Ofsted inspector, a secular humanist perhaps, appointed from outside the school, may say that that spiritual and moral education is bigoted, dangerously

      377
      narrow, fundamentalist, manipulative, exclusive, intolerant, rigid and biased. One can imagine such a report from a secular inspector concerned with the moral and spiritual education of children which is delivered to children put into a denominational school by their parents with a view to their being taught Christianity and led into a commitment to it. Thus the result could be an inspection that is abrasive, inimical and repudiatory to the spiritual and moral standards being taught in that denominational school.
      In conclusion, I turn to collective worship. The Ofsted inspector may be an admirable man or woman, fully in sympathy with the Christian faith, but then again, the individual concerned may not. Only the school governors' appointed inspector can by definition be sympathetic to the Christian faith.
      I draw hon. Members' attention to what Monsignor McHugh, the diocesan director of religious education in the diocese of Birmingham, had to say about collective worship:
      "The problem with using the yardstick of 'educational value' is that this is not what worship is primarily about. Therefore, using educational criteria to judge the value of worship can only be acceptable to the degree that it is accepted by the inspectorate that this is to use criteria only distantly related to the activity being inspected, even if it is taking place in an educational setting. Worship is not undertaken primarily for educational reasons—we do not celebrate Mass in order to educate ourselves, but to thank God, to listen to his Word and to join ourselves to his sacrificial redemptive offering. We do not pray in order to educate ourselves: we pray because we want to adore and praise God, to thank him, to confess our sins and to ask his help. There can be an educational spin-off to worship, of course, but education is not the primary purpose of worship. And so worship which is educationally poor may nonetheless be good worship; while worship that is educationally rich may be poor quality worship."
      To what extent will the Ofsted inspector be able to tread sensitively and properly in the very specialised area of denominational education? My right hon. Friend must consider seriously whether he can at least reach a compromise on the matter by extending the remit of the school inspector appointed by the governors, who is at present limited to the RE dimension, so that his remit runs part passu with the remit of the Ofsted inspectors so that he or she can cover the other areas that have to be inspected, such as moral, spiritual, ethical and social education, and collective worship.
      There would then be two parallel inspectorates going into denominational schools. Parents looking at the different reports would be able to pick the one in which they had most confidence. That compromise is a reasonable way forward. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it sympathetically and that he will table amendments in another place to give effect to this proper concern.
      Mr. Enright: It is always difficult for politicians to talk about personal beliefs and then to attempt to legislate for them. We are left with many dilemmas, not least because each of us has different beliefs, although we may all be Christians. There are, of course, differing beliefs between the differing religions.
      I shall talk mainly about voluntary-aided schools from a Catholic perspective because that is where my experience
      378
      principally lies, although I taught religion eight periods a day, five days a week for six months in a state school, which gave me some experience in that area.
      Voluntary-aided schools are a minefield for religious education. Many starving Irish people emigrated to this country. When they came here, they wished to protect their culture and their religion. The Catholic voluntary-aided schools were built on the pennies and halfpennies of washerwomen, tram drivers and navvies—working-class people who were poor by any standards but who were proud enough to say, "We want our culture, but we also want our culture to be within the community." That proud tradition continues.
      This very week, I received a plea from my old school, St. Josephs's Roman Catholic junior and infant school in Pontefract. The school has been given the go-ahead for some new building, and I thank the Department for Education for that. The letter asked for my help in an appeal to cover the school's share of the capital costs so that it could remain independent. When I think of the sacrifices made by my great-grandparents, my grandparents and my parents to keep those voluntary-aided schools going, I am only too happy to give a reasonable amount for the sake of generations to come because I am part of the Catholic community and I am part of the Pontefract community.
      8.45 pm
      Catholic schools were set up in the community, sometimes in conjunction with the school boards and sometimes ahead of the school boards. All primary education sprang up at a local level because it was important at that level. Tammany hall prefigured much of that. When we had direct elections for school boards locally, people had 10 or 11 votes, depending on how many places there were on the board. As Catholics, we knew our way around that so we gave our 10 or 11 votes to the same person. Catholics regularly came top of the poll, which meant that there was always one Catholic on the board. It is not quite like that with the standing advisory councils on religion these days. There was one powerful Catholic voice.
      Out of those school boards arose self-assurance and, importantly, assimilation into society. It was a slow and gradual process, but it was because Catholics were able to have their own voluntary-aided schools that they were able to gain the confidence to enter the local community and local politics. We shall never forget that it was the local communities, which ultimately became the local education authorities, which gave us assistance in doing that. We have a residual loyalty which it is important to remember. The history of people who emigrate is important to them. In this case, that history is certainly cherished.
      There we are, secure in our schools and willing to pay the price to remain not completely independent—certainly complying with the community but having the crucial ability to control what we are doing in our education in moral and religious terms. If we throw that away for grant-maintained status, which is often suggested, we shall throw away an important tradition. That is why Bishop Konstant has urged against schools becoming grant maintained. I do not wish to caricature the issue by implying that if a Catholic school decides to go grant maintained, we in the Catholic community will throw it to

      379
      the wolves. We shall certainly not do that. It is our duty, as it is the duty of the Labour party, to look after every child who is being educated.
      We are now considering what is meant in terms of religious education and in terms of the moral background of the schools. It is extremely important that we belong to the diocesan family. I use the phrase "diocesan family" deliberately because within the Catholic Church—this is little realised—devolution is important. We talk much about Maastricht and about moving downwards, as it were. Indeed, the word that is used for that is not political but comes from the Vatican, suggesting that deep down in the diocese, in the devolved situation, that responsibility lies.
      The family of diocesan schools must cling together. One must support the other, and within the voluntary-aided —the Catholic—system that is crucial. We look on our schools not as the property of the parents who happen to have children attending them at the time, but as part of the whole community—an aspect that is important not only to Catholic schools, but to all state schools.
      We are responding to the needs of the Catholic community in specific areas, so we can sacrifice one for the other in that, because there are difficulties in, say, Bradford, we in Pontefract can pay more, or perhaps because they have difficulty recruiting religious teachers in Leeds, we in Hemsworth can provide them with that religious teaching and the training that goes with it. We can follow the same exercise for sacred music and examining the liturgy.
      That is important to us, but it is equally important in the Catholic tradition that there should be consultation with other schools. There was a great deal of religious bigotry. Visit Pontefract and see a church that was built at the time when Catholics were still unable to vote. That church was built on a hill behind a peak so that it could not be seen by the good burghers of Pontefract, who might otherwise have stoned it. We have come out of that ghetto situation. It was a deliberate decision which led us out of the ghetto to talk to the local schools, including schools with Anglican origins as well as those with simply state origins. That informal association and co-operation is important. But, above all, we are asserting our Catholic identity in a Christian community.
      It is a stated principle passed down by the diocesan education commission that, whatever we do, we must not recruit from abroad or try to steal pupils from other schools. That is important and is clearly laid down. It is also clearly laid down that we must look to the disadvantaged and those with special needs—that we go out into the community to recruit, as it were, those sections of society because we believe that they belong preciously to the overall society that makes up our schools. We wish to give them our values, including our values of religious education, and we say that unashamedly.
      Much can be said about the standing advisory committees on religious education. Anyone who contributes to a SACRE or takes part in its deliberations—immediately before I came to this place I was a member of the Wakefield SACRE, so I know something of its workings—appreciates that it is a question not whether one person can outvote another in a SACRE, but of coming together in Christian and religious co—operation.
      Although we have only a small Muslim community in Wakefield metropolitan district, it has been important for us to understand that community. It is important from our
      380
      Christian viewpoint, not because we wish to be tolerant of it—that is a demeaning attitude to take—but because we have a strong desire to understand it. Other religions can enrich us as we can enrich them.
      If we are part of a SACRE, we should accept the consequences of the SACRE. In other words, we must accept the agreed syllabus, and there is something wrong about the Bill when it says that a grant-maintained school can enter an agreement with a SACRE but can withdraw from the results of it. It is cynical to say, "I am taking part in these deliberations, but I reserve my right to go elsewhere in the end."
      Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why SACREs do not approve religious education syllabuses which comply with the Education Act 1988 and which, in the main, should be Christian? Far too many syllabuses are not complying with that, which is why, according to a MORI poll, 44 per cent. of school leavers leave school without a proper understanding of what happened even on Easter day.
      Mr. Enright: While I do not necessarily accept the hon. Lady's statistics, I agree that what she says is a fair reflection of the way in which society is operating today. The hon. Lady has in previous debates referred to the case of a mother who wrote to her saying that her 11-year-old child could not recite the Our Father. I would be ashamed if my children could not recite the Our Father, but I claim that the present state of affairs in that respect has nothing to do with the schools but has to do with the family. Religion initially comes from the family, and we look to the schools to enhance the intellectualism of religion.
      The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said that we must look to the law. I am worried about that because I remember distinctly what Christ said about the scribes and the Pharisees and the law. If we look to the law in that way, we shall kill the spirit of religion.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Not only is ignorance of Christianity widespread, but it is extraordinary that, although a recent opinion poll showed that about half t he people in Britain regard themselves as Christian and only about 4 per cent. adhere to other religions, we can have SACREs in which Christians are in a minority. No wonder there is such widespread ignorance and, hence, the amendments that are before the House.
      Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I have looked at the syllabuses available from SACREs. It does not matter who is represented on SACREs. What matters is the syllabus that emerges at the end, and I know that there is no such syllabus which affects either the Catholic or the Anglican teaching of religion.
      Mr. Boswell: As I shall not be able to reply to the debate, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that I will reflect seriously on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly in relation to SACREs and the implications of inspection as raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends in their amendments. It will be impossible to discuss them further today, but we shall reflect on them before the Bill proceeds to the other place.
      Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Minister. It is a shame that, as a result of the guillotine, we could not discuss the matter properly in Committee. That is one of the consequences of the way in which we proceed.
      I would also like SACREs to conduct their business in public. That is most important. With my dying gasp, I point out to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that the whole of education is seamless. It is impossible to separate history, English, biology and physics from religious education and worship. Among other things, worship is educational: it is through worship that people are brought out in spirit. I believe that passionately, and it is important to state it here.
      The three points that the hon. Member—
      It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—
      Question agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on all remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government.
      Amendments made: No. 152, in page 205, line 34, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'The Education Act 1946 (c. 50)
        In the First Schedule to the Education Act 1946 (maintenance of voluntary schools), in paragraph 2, for "section one hundred and three of the principal Act" there is substituted "section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993'.
        No. 153, in page 206, line 31, at end insert—

        'The Education Act 1967 (c. 3)
        Section 1 of the Education Act 1967 (extended powers of Secretary of State to make contributions etc.) is omitted'. No. 135, in page 210, line 28, at end insert—

        'The Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
        In paragraph 22(1)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (use of schools for the purpose of taking a poll) after "authority" there is inserted ", a grant-maintained school".'
        No. 141, in page 210, line 34, leave out '4' and insert '4(1) (a)'.
        No. 142, in page 210, line 40, at end insert.

        'or (Approval of premises of maintained or grant-maintained special schools)'.
        No. 136, in page 213, line 10, at end insert—
        '. In section 9(7) (parent of boarder at maintained school requesting access to particular worship or religious education) after "particular" there is inserted "religion or".
        In section 11(4)(a) (standing advisory councils on religious education) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions".
        In section 13 (advisory councils: supplementary provisions) in subsections (1), (2) and (7)(b) before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,".' —[ Mr. Boswell.]

    Schedule 18

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 82, in page 221, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—
      382
      'Section 1(1)'.
      No. 154, in page 221, line 10, column 3, at end insert—
      'Sections 102 and 103.
      In section 105(2), paragraph (d) and, in the words following that paragraph, "maintenance contribution".'.
      No. 155, in page 221, line 14, at end insert—
      '1946 c. 50. The Education Act 1946. In Part II of the Second Schedule, the entry relating to section 102 of the Education Act 1944.
      1953 c. 33. The Education (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1953. Section 8(1).
      1959 c. 60, The Education Act 1959. The whole Act'.
      No. 156, in page 221, line 15, at end insert—
      '1967 c. 3. The Education Act 1967. Section 1'.
      No. 157, in page 221, line 16, column 3, at end insert
      'In Schedule 1, paragraph 4'.
      No. 158, in page 221, line 22, at end insert—
      '1975 c. 2. The Education Act 1975 The whole Act'.
      No. 159, in page 221, line 49, column 3, at end insert
      In schedule 1, in paragraph 1(2) "102", paragraph 12, in paragraph 21 "(1) and" and paragraphs 22 and 23'.
      No. 160, in page 221, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
      'In Schedule 3, paragraphs 4 and 13'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.1 pm
      Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The House has now debated the Bill for more than 160 hours on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The combination of two days' debate on Report and a two-day Second Reading debate is unprecedented for any education Bill in the history of the House, but it is fully justified. I am sure that whatever else may divide the House, we should agree about that.
      The Bill is the longest education Bill ever—now 268 clauses. We made important additions to it in Committee. First, we gave special schools the important new freedom to apply for grant-maintained status. Secondly, by requiring governing bodies to consider grant-maintained status annually, we will ensure that parents are given every opportunity and every reason to make their voice heard on grant-maintained matters.
      Mr. Bowis: May I tempt my right hon. Friend to take one more step towards local education authorities which

      383
      see the point of the Bill and support grant-maintained schools? Will he give them the right—it is right and proper that he should—to encourage the holding of ballots in schools in their areas?
      Mr. Patten: I will certainly reflect carefully on that suggestion. It strikes me as likely that, in the next few years, a number of progressive and forward-looking local authorities will wish to encourage schools in their areas to go grant-maintained. I shall look carefully at the provision of clause 30 and, having reflected, perhaps move to have the matter considered further in the other place.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned ballots. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the balloting process takes too long, and that there is concern about that?
      Mr. Patten: It is right that there should be proper debate about whether a school or a group or a cluster of schools should move towards grant-maintained status. We have already done our best to shorten the ballot period, which seems unnecessarily long. I shall reflect carefully on the interesting suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that we should make the balloting period as short as is consistent with free and open public debate. Having reflected on that matter. I may well urge my noble Friend Baroness Blatch to reflect on it further in the other place.
      Clause 150 will allow local education authorities to continue to make available services relating to special educational needs. I have outlined three of the important additions to the Bill.
      A number of amendments have been accepted and, in the past two days, we have discussed a number of amendments tabled by the Government as a result of commitments made by my hon. Friends in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, performed magnificently in Committee. I am about to buy a suitable new tie for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire to remind him of his service at that stage. I understand that, when successful football matches end, the players sometimes exchange shirts. It may be that, here, ties will be exchanged. [Interruption.] I see that there is little demand for the tie that my hon. Friend is wearing, and certainly there is none for the one being worn by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
      The process has not yet finished. We are considering the responses to the exclusion proposals in the consultation document that was issued last November. It would not be right to amend the Bill further before completion of the consultation process.
      I expect that we shall introduce further amendments in another place. These will ensure that we have the right mechanisms to deal with children who have been excluded from school, of whom there are too many. I want to be quite sure that, where children can be educated with their contemporaries in schools, that will happen. On the other hand, I am determined that, where this is not possible—where, for understandable reasons, control cannot be exercised in the classroom by hard-working teachers—proper arrangements will be made to provide pupils with a high-quality education and a measure of control in the community. This will be in the interests of the children
      384
      themselves, and will help to secure peace and quiet on streets and in communities. I recognise that there is a limit to what any head or classroom teacher can do.
      We have listened also to requests that our proposals for groups or clusters of self-governing schools be made more flexible. We plan a number of changes to provide for this. For example, secondary schools will be allowed to become full members of groups, and we shall provide for associations of schools that will be looser than full clusters but will remain formal relationships under a scheme approved by the Secretary of State. I see these moves as important indications of our commitment to flexibility and to making self-governing status a real possibility for all schools, of whatever size, if that is the wish of parents.
      The Bill puts in place the structures we need if our vision for education in the 21st century is to be made a reality. That vision is of a school system that will achieve international standards of excellence. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) spoke to the House on the occasion of the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill 1988, he compared the achievements of our 16-year-olds with the achievements of pupils in the high schools of what was then West Germany in securing certificates in foreign languages, maths and the language of their own country.
      At that time, less than 40 per cent. of English 16-year-olds attained qualifications equivalent to those of their West German counterparts. The figure is now 55 per cent. This is a measure of the improvement over the past five years, thanks to the national curriculum and to a regime of regular testing, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley.
      We can be confident that we are very much on the right track. Just a few years ago, only four out of 10 of our young people stayed in part-time or full-time education after the age of 16. The proportion is now between six and seven out of 10, and I predict that by 1996—by the time of the next general election—it will have reached eight out of 10. This will help the young people themselves to be happier and more fulfilled human beings, as well as helping the country.
      A key element of future success will lie in giving schools the freedom to respond fully to their pupils' needs, to manage their own affairs and to raise their standards. We look forward with increasing confidence to a system of self-governing schools, each offering parents something slightly different within the framework of the national curriculum. We look forward to a system in which each school can play to its strengths, sometimes involving increased specialisation, competing both with other schools and with what it achieved the year before, enjoying the greatest possible autonomy, and accountable to the greatest degree to parents and pupils.
      Finally, I want to thank all the hard-working teachers and governors who run the schools in this country for what they do for our children. I repeat my commitment to excellence across the education system. I want every school to realise the full potential of every child which it educates. Nothing less than that will do. Nothing less will guarantee our international economic competitiveness and our national, social and moral cohesion. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.10 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Hon. Members were not surprised that the Secretary of State was in his usual arrogant, boastful mood this evening. He boasted about the number of hours spent on the Bill. Of course, he was not present during most of those hours, because he was absent from the Committee. He boasted about the size of the Bill, as though he wanted to get into "The Guinness Book of Records" on size, but size is not everything.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that the Secretary of State's speech was more like a Second Reading speech than a Third Reading speech. Even at this late stage, the Secretary of State is having to confess that there are new problems which he has not thought through, and that amendments will have to be considered in another place. On Second Reading, Labour Members said that this was a bad Bill. In Committee and on Report, the Bill was made even worse, mainly because of the constant interference in terms of giving more powers to the Secretary of State.
      Clearly, the Bill's theme has been to concentrate power in education in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is what is wrong with the Bill. It is wrong because it is not what is best for education, and it is wrong in terms of democratic accountability, especially when the Secretary of State takes such pride in not listening to teachers, whom he had the gall to praise a moment ago, and parents, whom he insulted with descriptions such as "neanderthal".
      Time and again, the Secretary of State has chosen to grab more power. In many ways, the grabbing of power by the Secretary of State has highlighted some of the weaknesses in his argument and the failure of his policies, especially the precious grant-maintained policy. Grant-maintained schools have not mushroomed in Labour authorities, as the Government predicted. Instead, most grant-maintained schools are in Tory education areas. Clearly, if opting out is a sign of dissatisfaction with local authorities, parents have a higher level of dissatisfaction with Conservative authorities than with Labour ones.
      The Secretary of State cannot face the decisions of parents and the fact that more then 24,000 schools are not even considering becoming grant maintained. He has decided to force governing bodies to discuss grant-maintained status each year. That says so much for his trust and respect of governors. He will have power to declare a ballot void if he chooses. That says so much for trusting the judgment of parents.
      Clearly, when schools become grant maintained, they will not be opting out of local authority control. They will be opting in to centralised political control under the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Bob Dunn: If the hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Education and wanted to close grammar schools in my constituency of Dartford, and if the people of Dartford voted in a referendum not to have those schools closed, what would she do? Would she keep them open or close them?
      Mrs. Taylor: The idea that we are now to have a referendum in Dartford is a new one. I would be happy, if I were Secretary of State for Education—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates that—to seek to improve the opportunities for every child in Britain. I would not segregate children into successes and failures. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. In
      386
      Committee, one of the few occasions on which Tory Back-Bench Members spoke was when selection was discussed. That is their hidden agenda. They do not want to talk about it, but selection is one of the objectives of the Bill.
      The Secretary of State has often said that he is proud of the Bill, and that he will be a tough Secretary of State. But we cannot trust him with the powers in the Bill, not least because he is inconsistent in using his powers. He has said many times, and he repeated recently, that he intends to be tough on surplus places. He takes great pride in saying that he will be tough. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) obviously approves of that.
      The Secretary of State has also said, boldly and directly, that he will not allow schools to opt out to avoid closure; yet, within the past few days, he has allowed Shire Oak community school in Walsall to become grants maintained. It was due to close, as a result of rationalisation of surplus places: it is operating at 51 per cent. capacity. The Secretary of State has allowed that school to opt out. So much for his statement to the House:
      "I will not allow grant-maintained status to be used as a bolthole for failing schools".—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 651.]
      That is the Secretary of State's rhetoric, but we see the decisions he makes.
      Of course we must object to the use of the guillotine on the Bill. Crucial amendments have not been discussed, such as the amendment—
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Taylor: There is no time, I am sorry. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, because of the guillotine, there is not time to give way as much as I would normally do. I hope that he will listen to the point that I am about to make, because I am sure that he will be interested in it. I hope that Ministers will listen too.
      I wish to give an example of the serious.and important amendments which should have been discussed during the passage of the Bill and have been ignored as a result of what has happened. [Interruption.] If the Minister will control his Parliamentary Private Secretary, we might have a debate.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know that the discipline in this class is as good as it might be.
      Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed where that indiscipline was coming from.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order on Third Reading for the hon. Lady to discuss an amendment which was not called?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: It is usual to talk about what is in the Bill, rather than what is not.
      Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that that is the case, but it is rather strange that the Secretary of State had to announce that he would consider so many new issues at a later stage.
      One of the amendments that Madam Speaker selected, but on which discussion was not allowed, was suggested to me by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

      387
      to Children. It related to the responsibilities of grant-maintained schools and their failure to allow, in one case, a teacher to go to court to give evidence in a child abuse case because the school said that it could not afford to provide cover. Grant-maintained schools are not under the same obligation as local authority schools to release teachers in such circumstances, which is the sort of anomaly and serious problem that we should have been discussing.
      The Secretary of State has shown us his priorities. Even as amended, the Bill does nothing to tackle the real education issues that face us: underfunding, which has caused schools in Tory-controlled Enfield to say that they cannot guarantee full-time education for all pupils next year; the cuts, which are challenging the very existence of nursery education in many areas; and the Government's total lack of commitment to nursery education.
      The Bill does nothing to help those parents who are bewildered by the constant chopping and changing in the curriculum, the teachers who have had to administer discredited tests, or the governors who have to hold jumble sales to buy books.
      The Bill does not deal with the important problem of class sizes—no doubt because the junior Minister said yesterday that he does not think that they are important. The Government's obsession with grant-maintained status and the market comes before everything else. This is a bad Bill, which will damage our children's educational opportunities and concentrate too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and Opposition Members will oppose it.
      9.21 pm
      Mr. George Walden: May I resume the speech that I began yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Official Report states:
      "Mr. George Walden: I welcome the new clause as I welcome the Bill. Far from doing what the hon.
      Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers)"—
      I am glad to see him in his place—
      "and other members of the Opposition parties have alleged, the new clause will introduce a more equitable distribution of powers between the Government and the councils—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution this day, put the Question".— [0fficial Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 179.]
      New clause 22 is obviously the most important clause in the Bill and it will bring about a more equitable distribution of power between the Government, councils and schools. Everyone failed to realise that, as Lenin once said, it was a case of
      "all power to the soviets"—
      soviets meaning the councils. Previously all power resided in the councils. The Department of Education and Science had minimal powers. Anyone who contests that should look closely at its shoddy, substandard 1960s building, which mirrors the shoddy, substandard educational standards that have reigned in Britain since that time. The building contained only a small number of officials because all the power resided with the councils and none in London or with the schools.
      Dr. Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Walden: I shall certainly do so when I have finished this point.
      Clause 22 redistributes power equitably, more towards the centre, and is the most important provision in the Bill.
      388
      Why should more power go to the centre? Because that is necessary to control devolution of power to the schools, leaving some powers in the middle, with the councils. From that point of view, the Bill seems fair and equitable.
      Dr. Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Walden: I am being urged by my hon. Friends not to give way. I had better not as I have a lot to get through.
      Unfortunately, I have to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as there is a major contradiction in the clause that I have just lauded.
      Clause 22 states that the Secretary of State will encourage
      "diversity and increasing opportunities for choice."
      Given the present climate in Britain, that is nonsense. Some 86 per cent. of our schools are comprehensive. Therefore, the realistic choice and diversity—even with grant-maintained schools—for normal parents will be either to send their children to a comprehensive school, with all that that means in terms of the philosophy of education, or to pay for them to get out of the system, which I do. I do not agree with the philosophy governing comprehensive education in this country. But those of us who can afford to opt out of the system are few and far between for financial reasons.
      Therefore, there is a major contradiction as—[Interruption.] I am about to make my argument; hon. Members must wait. In reality, the choice is between a public school, which with its expensive fees is totally inaccessible to most people in this country, and the dogma of comprehensive education. Therefore—here is my argument—I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to amalgamate the perfectly reasonable powers in new clause 22 with another part of the Bill dealing with the technology schools initiative and introduce in this country, where possible, a diversity of types of school to give us a more continental and far more successful system with genuine choice and excellence. It would include selection by aptitude, of which they are riot afraid on the continent.
      If one is born to a low-income family on the continent, one has a damn sight more opportunity to get on in society than we do in our class-obsessed country, which has given rise to the comprehensive system, the whole ethos of which is to keep down standards for everyone.
      Hon. Members: Nonsense.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is reaching a point where I cannot hear the words of the hon. Member who has the Floor—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is speaking rubbish."] That may be a matter of opinion, but the tradition of the House is that hon. Members allow others to speak even when they disagree with them—a tradition that I intend to maintain. Hon. Members who indulge in too many sedentary interventions may find it difficult to catch my eye when they wish to speak formally.
      Mr. Walden: I should be horrified if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, missed anything that I had to say as I believe it to be true.
      Comprehensives have failed—[Interruption.] I quote Professor A. H. Halsey, from last week, not yesterday. The professor wobbles around like a Russian doll and scares the hell out of the Opposition when he does. But he never

      389
      quite falls over and assures us that he is an ethical socialist. What is so ethical about condemning generations of people from low-income families in this country to low expectations in education, which is what Professor Halsey and Opposition Members have done? I know what I am talking about as I went through the state system—and when I was not in a comfortable financial position.
      I am keen that we should raise the sights of people in this country so that they come closer to approaching the ambitions of those on the continent, where I have personal experience. At present, under the comprehensive system we have a system of institutionalised mediocrity. When we talk about the state of our young, and the state of law and order, Opposition Members, including the Labour Front Bench home affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), should consider whether comprehensive schools, with their lax academic and disciplinary expectations, have done anything to contribute to law and order. Let us have an honest debate on the subject, not merely a tactical one.
      My practical message for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that, when he is considering applications for grant-maintained schools, he should encourage applications under the technology schools initiative to produce a genuine diversity of types of schools for people, particularly from low-income families, in the cities, so that those children have the same effective choice that well-to-do children have.
      I do not believe that, because people live in inner cities, they should not learn, say, the classics. I do not believe that that should be the effective preserve, as it is at the moment, of people with money who can afford to go to private schools, which is the reality. They should have the option of going to an acadmically demanding grammar-type school based on aptitude.
      There should also be, as on the continent—the more advanced and more enligthened continent—high-grade technology schools,, expensively well equipped, my right hon. Friend must note, for children whose aptitudes lie in another direction. Those children deserve the effective choice that people who happen to be born to more well-to-do families in effect have.
      That brings me to the second point, which has been extremely well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I do not understand, and have never understood, the Government's attitude to nursery education. The social reality is that people such as myself who are not rich but have a bit of money buy nursery education for our children. We do that for two reasons. First, it gives them a head start. We do not need studies to know that. We know that that is true. Secondly, it gives my wife, not to speak of myself, a little more free time than we might otherwise have.
      So let us not have studies about nursery education. Let us get on with nursery education for everyone, not just for people with money. Besides being obviously educationally beneficial, besides being useful for wives—most of them —who deserve more free time, nursery education, as common, ordinary, sensible people know, helps to get the children early, at the age of two or three, so that they stand a much greater chance of not ending up in the juvenile court.
      390
      Under the nursery regime, which does not mirror the mistaken permissiveness of the 1960s but is a serious, organised educational regime, in which something is expected of the child in terms of social behaviour and in terms of beginning to know how to learn, even at the age of three, not only will society be helped but the present abysmally low expectations in primary schools in this self-congratulatory country of ours will be boosted, as they will be in the secondary schools.
      One day we may even get ourselves to the level where we can safely expand our A-levels in the way that they should be expanded without diluting them across the board in the way in which the education industry would like to do today.
      For all those reasons, I recommend to the Government that, irrespective of party political points of view, nursery education has become a socially as well as an educationally vital issue in Britain. If Liverpool does not demonstrate that, I do not know what it does demonstrate.
      Finally, you will be glad to hear, Madam Speaker, it would be irresponsible for any hon. Member to make the sort of intervention that I have made with all its cost implications without saying from where the money will come. I have told my right hon. Friend that to have genuine diversity of schools he will have to spend a lot more on the technology colleges. They must be well equipped. They must be centres of hope in the deprived areas of the country.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: All schools should be.
      Mr. Walden: Agreed. They must look good. They have to recruit highly qualified, difficult-to-get teachers in physics, maths and the fairly rare and highly skilled technologies. All that costs money. Nursery schools cost money. I have been given a figure of fl billion and it will probably turn out to be more. We do not have that money because we are £50 billion in debt, so we must get it from the public.
      I hope that Labour Members will listen carefully, because wisely—I commend the Leader of the Opposition for this—Labour has established a commission to examine universal benefits. I can identify one universal benefit from which billions of pounds could be saved, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends might not like it. I have gone on for many years about mortgage tax relief and I seem to be getting somewhere with that argument, but let us look now at child benefit, which is indiscriminately flashed around the middle classes. The women, they tell me, like to get it—
      Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the purpose of the Third Reading debate, which is to discuss the contents of the Bill. Benefits are not among them.
      Mr. Walden: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, agree that it would be remiss and irresponsible of me to talk about the technology schools initiative and nursery education, which are in the Bill, and to make recommendations involving Government expenditure, without briefly explaining where that money is to come from—
      Madam Speaker: Order. It would be irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman if he did not allow other right hon. and hon. Members to participate in the debate.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Walden: For that reason if no other, Madam Speaker—because I see that I am causing a little consternation among Opposition Members—I will sit down, having said that the major changes that I recommended should be explained to the country frankly. It should be explained that they will cost money and that that money should come from curtailing the universal handout of child benefit to the middle classes—to the middle-income groups. It should be explained that the money will be returned to education, because there can be no better benefit to all our children—particularly deprived children—than spending money on education.
      9.32 pm
      Dr. Wright: Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), I shall be brief.
      Ever since the White Paper that led to the Bill first appeared, I have been searching for its meaning. What did it mean? What does it mean to make legislation in this way? What does it mean to offer consultation, yet not to consult? What does it mean to drive through proposals without consultation? What does it mean to ask for advice but not to take it? What does it mean to deny a level playing field when people ask for one?
      What does it mean when people who express proper concerns about the education service—as people in Staffordshire have done in respect of the music service, which other hon. Members mentioned, and many other services—are simply turned away with mutterings about "producers' interests"?
      What is meant by some or all the most surreal moments we have experienced? In yesterday's debate, we were told of a retired headmaster in Chelmsford who was supposed to have committed the most heinous crime of distributing leaflets giving his views about an opt-out proposal.
      Mr. Simon Burns: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not seen the leaflet and does not understand the situation in Chelmsford, and I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House. The reasons that teachers at the school in question were so outraged was that the leaflet was patently untrue and dishonest in the way that it tried to con parents into believing something.
      Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me: he did not like the arguments in that leaflet. This is an important point: it tells us a good deal about the kind of government, the kind of legislation and the kind of politics that have been created. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman described that retired headmaser as disgusting; the Minister said that the arguments were intimidating. In a free society, a retired headmaster was described as disgusting and intimidating because he had had the temerity to distribute some leaflets. He did that because he felt that there was a threat to the education service to which he had devoted his life. That is the kind of response that we get from this Government.
      Anyway, there I was, searching for the meaning of the Bill sensing that it had something to do with the Government's ideological mission, and then discovering that the Government's determination to destroy local education authorities was given far more priority than any interest in what was happening to the service that those authorities were delivering. That has become abundantly clear as we have asked questions about specific aspects of
      392
      the Bill, and have received no answer except "Somehow, the market will provide". We are talking about libraries, orchestras, and all the other services that affect the quality of life. We are told that that does not matter; somehow, the market will provide.
      There I was, searching for the meaning of the Bill. Eventually, I found it—courtesy, as it happens, of the hon. Member for Buckingham: the outcome could not have been more fortuitous. It so happens that the hon. Gentleman followed the maiden speech that I made some months ago, and advised me to read a book—[Laughter.] He obviously felt that I needed to read a book. The book in question was by Ferdinand Mount; many Conservative Members, if not Opposition Members, will know that Ferdinand Mount used to be the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, the great Thatcherite think tank. He was also editor of The Spectator, and adviser to the departed leader.
      I read that book and it answered the question that I was asking—"What is this legislation about?" Ferdinand Mount had come across a lecture given by the Secretary of State to the Conservative Political Centre a year or so ago; he felt that that lecture was the epitome of the current trend of thought. I cannot resist sharing his views with the House. We have heard a good deal about—
      Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, on Third Reading, hon. Members must debate precisely what is contained in the Bill—not what might be in the Bill; not what is not in the Bill; but what is now in the Bill, as amended, if it has been amended. We must be precise about that; otherwise I shall have to draw the facts to the attention of all hon. Members again, and I do not want to waste any more time.
      Dr. Wright: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My reason for sharing Ferdinand Mount's views with the House is that I think that I have discovered the kernel—the crystal —of the Bill, and I think that I can express it in a sentence. I am sure that it would be helpful if I did so; it would be a shame to deny the House the meaning of the Bill, as interpreted by Ferdinand Mount. He says:
      "the sad truth is that the terms in which Mr. Patten proceeds to discuss our political culture do not suggest that it has endowed him with that understanding of the British Constitution which would have come as second nature to a highly intelligent youngish politician of an earlier generation…'All power to Parliament' is thus Mr. Patten's cry, faintly but unnervingly reminiscent of Lenin's 'All power to the soviets'—and not without the same fraudulence, since both slogans mean in effect 'All power to the government or governing party'. What seems alien to both Lenin and Mr. Patten is the idea of dispersal of power to a variety of institutions—whether parallel, independent or subordinate."
      You now see, Madam Speaker, why I wanted to share that with the House. Suddenly, all was clear. The essential meaning of the Bill is distilled in that quotation. It uses the language of choice but in reality it is about rigid centralism. That is what it is about and that is what it will be remembered for. It claims to be about education but it is about something quite different. The tragedy is that another Government will one day have to pick up its consequences.
      Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Faber.
      Dr. Robert Spink: I thank the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood for giving way to me.
      Madam Speaker: Order. I need to be clear: has the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) completed his speech or given way?
      Dr. Wright: I have both finished and given way.
      Madam Speaker: In that case, I am now in charge. I call Mr. Faber.
      9.46 pm
      Mr. David Faber: I shall not follow the ranting of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), which would have been more appropriate for the Balliol junior common room than for the House.
      In Committee and during the past two days, we have heard many claims by the Opposition that the Bill will somehow destroy local democracy and that it is centralising legislation. To those of us fortunate enough to have grant-maintained schools in our constituencies and to know them well, that seems an incredible suggestion as we see true local democracy at work for ourselves.
      The truth is that the grant-maintained system in general and the Bill in particular helps to enhance local democracy, not destroy it. Throughout our reform process, we have sought to devolve powers to the very lowest level. Governing bodies are directly accountable to parents and to the local communities which they serve. They feel more involved and believe that the decisions they are taking matter.
      The proof is that large numbers of parents are coming forward to serve as governors and are turning out in greater numbers than ever before in ballots. The average is about 60 per cent., well above that in local county council elections. We heard the latest figures for grant-maintained schools from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Question Time yesterday. I shall not repeat them now.
      There has been much debate in Committee and during the past couple of days on the reasons why schools opt for grant-maintained status. The Opposition spoke of bribes, but were ably answered yesterday, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who said that if freedom is a bribe, bribes are indeed available. What is on offer is freedom from local education authorities, the freedom to decide the course of one's own school and the freedom as to how one's money should be spent. We are well aware of the benefits—increased pupil numbers, the freedom and ability to employ more teachers, and to improve pupil-teacher ratios, new curriculum subjects and, as I have been able to see at first hand, greater resources available for and, more important, given to special educational needs.
      Above all, grant-maintained status plays a crucial role in maintaining the impetus to improve standards. GCSE grades in these schools have improved above the national average and parents are now voting to send their children there to get the best possible education for them.
      In Wiltshire we are fortunate not to suffer the worst excesses of intimidation and misinformation put about in so many LEAs by opponents of grant-maintained status. However, even there, we still suffer ill-informed and inaccurate public lobbying against grant-maintained status, usually by local politicians for dogmatic rather than well-thought-out reasons and sadly, all too often, at some distance from the local school and community to which they refer. They also usually fly in the face of the recommendations of governors and head teachers.
      394
      I warmly welcome the Bill's measures to tackle any form of intimidation or misinformation, at the ballot stage and subsequently, and I also welcome the further measures announced today by my right hon. Friend.
      Conservative Members sat and marvelled in Committee at the repetitive flow of socialist dogma and educationist theory that we had to put up with. We should not be surprised. After the Labour party's fourth consecutive election defeat last year, there was a brief reforming ray of light. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) issued a press release on 10 June saying:
      "some LEAs may wish to consider local referenda among all parents to test opinion on key issues".
      That sounds to me like parental ballots on opting out. The hon. Gentleman continued:
      "parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions about what they think is best for their school. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to such parents."
      Sadly, the shutters came down all too quickly. The Labour party is again committed to abolishing grant-maintained schools and putting them back into local education authority control. At the Labour party conference last year, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said:
      "We oppose opt-out in principle because it is wrong. It is wrong in principle for a group of parents to be able to hijack a school".
      I wonder what the parents of the 236,000 children now at grant-maintained schools—the number rises daily—will feel about that. I wonder what they think of being accused of hijacking their own children's education and seeking to improve it.
      I can do no better than remind the House of the words of the former leader of the Labour group on Wiltshire county council, who last year dramatically resigned from the Labour party and crossed to the Conservatives. Speaking of Labour policy on education among other subjects, he said:
      "The Labour Party is today, at national and local level, in a state of total confusion, quite unable to put forward ideas to meet the problems of the modern world. Many of the rank and file still cling to ideas that are twenty to thirty years out of date and show little imagination in their simple, doctrinaire slogans of political frustration."
      It is this Conservative Government who are making the radical changes needed to raise standards and safeguard our children's education for the future.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who showed a breathtaking disregard of history and of the fact that a Tory Government have been in power for the past 14 years —a Tory Government in which he played a small part. Then I discovered the reason for the hon. Gentleman's disregard of history. He had the benefit of an education at Moscow university at the height of the Stalinist comeback after Kruschev's fall. All was revealed by that knowledge.
      Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry; I have been advised that I have not enough time—and, on reflection, I have not.
      Mr. Walden rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: If I could carry on—
      Mr. Walden rose—
      Madam Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Buckingham have a point of order?
      Mr. Walden: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is personally hurtful to me to he accused, albeit tangentially, of being in any way influenced by Stalin. The hon. Member for Bridgend should have known that Stalin died in 1953. I was a British Council postgraduate student at Moscow university in the time of Kruschev. The hon. Gentleman's history is deficient.
      Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham, who has clearly had a good education, should know very well that that is not a point of order for me and he should not waste the time of the House.
      Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Buckingham talked about genuine quality and his fears about standards. Over the past 14 years we have had an increase in illiteracy for the first time and at the beginning of the 1990s reading standards in primary schools declined for the first time since records began. If there is any fault, it must be in the past 14 years of Conservative Government. As for poorly equipped schools, parents are having to dip into their pockets to make up for Government underfunding.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The Conservative party has been absolutely misguided in jettisoning the commitment in 1972 of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, to provide places for all three and four-year-olds in nursery education within 10 years. The Home Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for Education, jettisoned that target and the money resolution in the Bill has prevented us from discussing nursery education.
      In conclusion, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) talked about the abolition of grant-maintained schools. We do not intend to abolish the schools. We intend to abolish the undemocratic, unaccountable funding council and allow the schools to manage themselves in the same way as any good LEA schools and to look again at the funding formula so that all schools are decently treated.
      9.55 pm
      Mr. Forth: We have just heard quite the quickest U-turn in policy that we have ever witnessed. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State predicted that the Labour party would have to accept the concept of grant-maintained schools and within 24 hours it has done so. It is a remarkable tribute to the powers of persuasion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for that startling revelation.
      Mr. Griffiths: Let me point out that I said that we would not be abolishing the schools, but the funding council, to allow the schools to be managed in the same way as any good local authority school, and to review the funding formula so that it is fair.
      Mr. Forth: On reflection, that may be a double U-turn —the quickest one we have ever heard in the House.
      Let there be no mistake; this is a far-reaching Bill. It is deliberately so and marks among other things the end of the long-standing local education authority monopoly of state school provision—something which all Conservative Members and an increasing number of parents will welcome.
      396
      The Bill is also a continuity of the policies that we have pursued throughout the 1980s and into this decade. It is a continuity of policy on special educational needs, on choice and on diversity of schools, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.
      Ever since we published our White Paper last year, all that we have heard throughout the stages of the Bill is dreary criticism from the producer interests driving Opposition Members into the usual litany of complaint and negativism about everything that we have done to improve standards of education—something to which we are dedicated and to which Opposition Members seem constantly to be blind in everything they say and do.
      Opposition Members accuse us of centralisation, yet we wish to give real powers of decision in making priorities and spending money to parents, governors and teachers and not to the bureaucracy of the local education authorities which call the tune to which Opposition Members dance whenever they are asked or told. The Opposition's position is no more or less than special pleading of the worst possible kind and we reject it out of hand.
      The Bill provides a framework for the growing grant-maintained school sector, a new deal for pupils with special educational needs and a new body to deal with the curriculum, assessment and testing—something which is of key importance and at the heart of excellence in education to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State are dedicated.
      Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible for the Minister to face this side of the House or the Chair as many Opposition Members cannot hear a word he is saying? He is talking only to his hon. Friends.
      Madam Speaker: I always prefer to see the handsome profile of a Member rather than his bald patch.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your guidance and advice, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some tonsorial advice later after we have completed our considerations.
      The Bill is of crucial importance to the future of education. It contains all the elements that I have described to the House. I commend it to the House because I believe that it will provide a high quality of education for all our children.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 252.

      Division No. 171

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Bates, Michael

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Booth, Hartley

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Baldry, Tony

      Bowis, John

      397

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hague, William

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Butcher, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butler, Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash, William

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Horam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Congdon, David

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Cran, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Dover, Den

      Knox, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Leigh, Edward

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lidington, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Elletson, Harold

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Luff, Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      MacKay, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Maclean, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Madel, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forman, Nigel

      Malone, Gerald

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mans, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Marlow, Tony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Freeman, Roger

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Fry, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Gale, Roger

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gallie, Phil

      Mills, Iain

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Garnier, Edward

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gorst, John

      Needham, Richard

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      398

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sproat, Iain

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stephen, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Stern, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Stewart, Allan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Streeter, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Paice, James

      Sweeney, Walter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Sykes, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Pawsey, James

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thomason, Roy

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Redwood, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Richards, Rod

      Trend, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Trotter, Neville

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Viggers, Peter

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Walden, George

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Waller, Gary

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Ward, John

      Sackville, Tom

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Whittingdale, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shersby, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Sims, Roger

      Willetts, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Yeo, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Ainger, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Byers, Stephen

      Allen, Graham

      Caborn, Richard

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashton, Joe

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clapham, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Coffey, Ann

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Cohen, Harry

      Benton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Betts, Clive

      Cousins, Jim

      Blunkett, David

      Cryer, Bob

      Boateng, Paul

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Boyes, Roland

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bradley, Keith

      Dalyell, Tam

      399

      Darling, Alistair

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Hoey, Kate

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Home Robertson, John

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

      Hood, Jimmy

      Denham, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Dewar, Donald

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dixon, Don

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Dobson, Frank

      Hoyle, Doug

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dowd, Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hutton, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Illsley, Eric

      Eastham, Ken

      Ingram, Adam

      Enright, Derek

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Jamieson, David

      Fatchett, Derek

      Janner, Greville

      Faulds, Andrew

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Flynn, Paul

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Fraser, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fyfe, Maria

      Keen, Alan

      Galbraith, Sam

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Garrett, John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      George, Bruce

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Leighton, Ron

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Lewis, Terry

      Godsiff, Roger

      Litherland, Robert

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Graham, Thomas

      Loyden, Eddie

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McAllion, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gunnell, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Hain, Peter

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McKelvey, William

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Madden, Max

      400

      Mahon, Alice

      Rooney, Terry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheerman, Barry

      Maxton, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Meacher, Michael

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Short, Clare

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Simpson, Alan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Snape, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spellar, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stott, Roger

      Murphy, Paul

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Straw, Jack

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tipping, Paddy

      Olner, William

      Turner, Dennis

      Parry, Robert

      Tyler, Paul

      Pendry, Tom

      Vaz, Keith

      Pickthall, Colin

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wallace, James

      Pope, Greg

      Walley, Joan

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Purchase, Ken

      Wilson, Brian

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Winnick, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Wise, Audrey

      Raynsford, Nick

      Worthington, Tony

      Redmond, Martin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Reid, Dr John

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Alan Meale and

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

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

Community Care
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 7) (House of Commons Paper No. 504), which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
Special Grant Report (No. 7) follows Special Grant Report (No. 6), approved by the House on 11 February. This completes the distribution of grants to local authorities for the financial year commencing on 1 April for expenditure on community care services as defined by section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
I am always happy to debate the subject of community care, whatever the hour, but I very much regret the circumstances of this debate, which has been necessitated by a costly and ill-advised legal action, the effect of which has been only to cause delay for local authorities in setting their budgets and to create an unnecessary atmosphere of uncertainty.
This report confirms our commitment to the provision of adequate—indeed, generous—funding for our community care reforms. Not only have we transferred from the Department of Social Security to the local authorities the full £399 million that would have been spent if the policy had remained unchanged; we have added £140 million. That represents 35 per cent. on top of the existing expenditure to allow local authorities to develop their services. Then there is another £26 million relating to the arrangements for the successor to the independent living fund. The whole sum—£565 million—is now to be ring-fenced so that the local authorities can spend it only on community care services. Of course, local authorities will have complete discretion to meet the needs of the local community as they see them and to reflect their priorities. They will be able, for instance, to take account of the importance of providing services for people with drug and alcohol problems.
Mr. John Bowis: It is good to hear of the global sum that my hon. Friend has announced and the release of the £20 million that was unfortunately held up by the legal processes. My hon. Friend will know that many of us have received letters from organisations, such as Turning Point and the Cranston projects, which deal with drug and alcohol problems. These letters express concern that, now that this money has been released, the allocation is perhaps weighted towards rural areas—as opposed to the inner cities where it is believed that many of the drug and alcohol problems are to be found. Can my hon. Friend reassure us that this is the fairest means of distribution?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is one of the most vigorous advocates for the people of Battersea and Wandsworth. There is no issue affecting his constituency which is not promoted most energetically in this House and, behind the scenes, with Ministers. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks in that 50 per cent. of the special grant is being distributed in accordance with the existing pattern of service providers. Of the transfer element of the grant, 50 per cent. is distributed in accordance with the standard spending assessment; the other half reflects where the existing treatment and other residential centres
402
for elderly or disabled people are located. We have indeed taken into account the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed.
The original suggestion—that the money for residential treatment of drug and alcohol abusers should itself be the subject of a ring-fence—was made at a time when the concept of a ring-fence for the totality of community care funding was not even contemplated. Now that we have this total of £565 million guaranteed for expenditure on community care services, it would be quite wrong if, within the total, we were to impose a sub-ring fence for the £20 million—
Mr. David Blunkett: Why?
Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I shall explain. For a three-fold reason it would be wrong to provide a sub-ring-fence. First, that would completely destroy one of the fundamental principles on which the whole community care policy is based—the principle of individual assessment. We are not willing to undermine that principle. Why should an elderly or disabled person be entitled to an individual assessment before a decision is made about the services that he or she should receive but an alcohol or drug abuser be denied the same privilege?
Mr. David Hinchliffe: On the question of funding for treatment for drug and alcohol problems, is not the central point that most people who attend units are self-referred and do not arrive through the assessment process? Is not the central concern about the prospects for projects, particularly in areas such as inner London, the fact that the appropriateness of community care provisions in relation to assessment and care management is being seriously questioned?
Mr. Yeo: If we were to allow the process of self-referral to continue without any assessment threshold at all, we should create two types of damage. First, people treated in these centres would not, after completion of treatment, be the responsibility of any local authority. There would be no statutory body with any continued interest in their welfare. [Interruption.] That would be the case after 1 April.
The second reason why it would be damaging to accept the existing arrangement whereby self-referral takes place is that the resourcing of services would continue to be based entirely on a pattern which was a historical accident and which did not reflect local needs. That is why we rest firmly on the principle that individual assessment should take place.
The third reason why it would be wrong to have a sub-ring fence is that to confine the expenditure to the purchase of residential services would perpetuate a bias in favour of residential services. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially Opposition Members, have expressed much concern about the matter and we debated it on 11 February.
Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Minister accept that his proposal is a lot of theory whereas practical steps are needed to ensure that facilities are available to those who need them? Not only individuals but communities will lose out. I have seen the benefit of facilities such as Dyfrig House to my constituents, and others throughout England and Wales. They require this sort of assistance to be there when people

403
need it. If the Minister follows theory, he is ignoring the reality being urged on him from all sides, including those who have experience of such problems.
Mr. Yeo: In the past five months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have engaged in extensive discussions with the providers of residential treatment services and we have met a great many providers. In the light of those discussions, and reflecting our own concern about the importance of good services for drug and alcohol abusers, we have decided to do three things.
First, we have issued a circular to local authorities to make clear the high priority which the Government attach to seeing that appropriate services, in response to individually assessed needs, are provided for this important group of clients. Secondly, we have decided that it would be helpful if local authorities engaged in a direct debate with the providers of services about rapid assessment procedures and the way in which the process of identifying the responsible funding authority can be accelerated. Those discussions are already taking place with the help of the Local Government Drugs Forum.
Thirdly—and uniquely for this group of providers—we have decided to set up special monitoring arrangements so that we can have up-to-date quick information about the pattern of referrals by local authorities to drug and alcohol residential treatment centres during the first three months of the new policy.
Those are three responsible ways in which we have recognised the specific needs of the client group and the concerns of the providers of the treatment. I am confident that local authorities will share my view about the importance of the client group and that they will provide services in a responsible and effective way.
Ms. Glenda JacksonWhat concerns people in the voluntary sector who are providing these necessary services at present is that local authority social services simply do not have the resources to provide fast-track assessments. There seem to be no additional funds for them to increase staff and facilities to create the fast-track system.
Mr. Yeo: Part of the extra £140 million to which I referred, which has been made available over and above the money transferred from the Department of Social Security, is designed precisely to pay for the extra staff who will be needed to enable local authorities to carry out the additional assessment work that they will need to undertake in relation to community care as a whole.
Mr. Roger Sims: My hon. Friend is right that the essence and philosophy behind the policy is not to perpetuate the present pattern of funding. Does he also accept that it is inevitable that as authorities take on completely new responsibilities in a completely new environment they will be more likely to pay attention to their local residents than those who come from outside the area? People with drug and alcohol problems who refer themselves for treatment tend to be from outside the local authority area and they are likely to be at the bottom of the list.
If my hon. Friend is not prepared to ring-fence the sums for drug and alcohol problems—I understand his argument—will he at least consider giving some guidance to authorities to emphasise that, at least for the first year,
404
they should continue the present pattern of funding so that the facilities currently available at least have some time to adjust to the new pattern of referral?
Mr. Yeo: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. He has spoken to me about it in the past. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks because even what he suggests would to some extent run counter to the principle of tailoring services to meet individually assessed needs. To require or even issue guidance to local authorities to stick to an existing pattern of expenditure would run counter to our wish that individual needs should be the driving force behind the policy.
The Local Government Drugs Forum is currently promoting discussions between the local authorities a nd providers, in addition to dealing with the rapid assessment procedures. Its work also addresses how we identify which authority is responsible for the type of person who, as my hon. Friend suggested, might have moved around the country quite a lot as a result of their problems. It is clearly necessary for us to find a local authority which is responsible for that individual. The great advantage of that policy is that, once the authority has accepted responsibility for funding that individual's treatment, it has a continuing responsibility for that individual.
One of the weaknesses of the present policy was acknowledged even by the providers who expressed concern about our decision not to ring-fence the money. Many of the people who have been through the treatment drop out of the system. They lose touch with the people who have given them help, advice and treatment and fall back into their old habits. That happens not in every case but in a significant number of cases. It is less likely that it would happen if a local authority had a continuing relationship with an individual and took an interest in the arrangements for that person after treatment had been completed.
I conclude by saying that the court dismissed the application by an independent sector provider of an alcohol treatment centre for judicial review of the Government's decision not to ring-fence the money. The Government's position was entirely vindicated as a result of the court action. Against that background, I commend the report to the House.
10.27 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Tonight's debate is obviously a serious embarrassment to the Government. It is an embarrassing reminder that their implementation of the community care changes—which were originally due, let us remember, in April 1991—is not only delayed but discredited. Special Grant Report (No. 7) is before the House tonight because three weeks ago on I I February, when the original report on community care funding was before the House, the Government were being dragged through the courts on a judicial review of their about-turn on the clear commitment to ring-fence future funding of residential drug and alcohol projects. The Government were dragged through the courts because of their shabby disregard for the interests and concerns of those with drug and alcohol problems and for the future operation of many projects throughout the country which have a first-class track record in the care and rehabilitation of people facing such difficulties.

405
It is astonishing that the Government should try to hide their shame by claiming in local authority social services letter 93/5, issued on 22 February, that
"the sums contained in Grant Report No. 7 are not attributable to services associated with any particular client group."
We are asked to accept that the removal of £20 million from Special Grant Report (No. 6), approved on 11 February, during the Government's time in court was nothing to do with any client group. We are asked to accept that the funding contained in the report before us refers to no one in particular. We are also asked to believe that it is purely coincidental that the £20 million in Special Grant Report (No. 7) is so very similar to the amount arrived at in the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and Alcohol Concern research document, which was used by the Department of Health's algebra group in its deliberations on the care funding formula. Updated to 1993 levels of income support, it was calculated that around £21.5 million would be needed to fund clients in residential care with drug and alcohol problems—what a coincidence.
The Government might wish to say that the debate has nothing to do with drug and alcohol projects, but everyone else, including some Conservative Back Benchers, knows that that is precisely what we are talking about. We are discussing a most disgraceful about-turn on a clear political commitment, given by the previous Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in response to widespread public concern—echoed by Conservative Members—that a failure to ring-fence drug and alcohol projects would lead to their rapid demise. In the debate on Lords amendments, the right hon. and learned Member said so. I was present and some Conservative Members may also be able to recall that he said:
"some local authorities might be tempted to give a pretty low priority to the work of outside agencies for unattractive groups, such as drug abusers."
He went on to announce that funding for such groups would receive specific protection:
"To use the jargon, that money will be ring-fenced and local authorities will be able to spend it only on grants to such bodies."—[Official Report, 27 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 404.]
When the Government deferred the implementation of the community care changes because of the poll tax shambles, the then Secretary of State made a clear commitment—in a statement to the House on 18 July 1990—to a specific grant for local authority funding of bodies that provide services for drug and alcohol abusers.
Nearly three years later we are asked to believe that the change in the Government's policy on the ring fencing of community care funding has somehow rendered the commitment on drugs and alcohol obsolete, but it has not. The concern expressed by the then Secretary of State at the time is, if anything, even more relevant now in view of the financial climate facing local authorities and voluntary organisations and the fact that drug and alcohol problems are probably even worse in 1993 than they were when the commitment was given.
The Government's assumption that an overall ring fence will protect the projects ignores the reality accepted by the previous Secretary of State that, in practice, unattractive groups are likely to lose out.
406
Can the Minister say in all honesty that if his local authority had to choose between placing an elderly lady in a nursing home and funding a drug addict or alcoholic, it would go for the latter? Given the tight budgetary conditions of the new financial year, that is just the sort of decision that authorities will have to make.
I suspect that, regardless of political control or of which party is in control, most local authorities are likely to prioritise the elderly. We already have evidence that some drug and alcohol projects will become financially unviable within days of the introduction of the April changes. The SCODA and Alcohol Concern survey show that 71 per cent. of the 94 agencies responding said that they knew that they would be losing income in April. More than half the respondents predicted closure within the first four months of implementation of the community care changes — a loss of nearly 1,000 bed spaces. Those are not scare tactics, as we already have clear evidence of closures.
The North West London Housing Association, which provides a service for problem drinkers in Ealing and Haringey, has forwarded me a letter, which was sent to the North-East Thames regional health authority on 22 February and sets out the position and the difficulties:
"the position is that we are now five weeks away from the introduction of the new arrangements, there is an enormous shortfall in the resources needed to continue present services in Registered Care Homes,…there is no sensible or reliable system to deal with homeless problem drinkers and there are other unresolved dilemmas.
The DOH response to all this is to monitor the situation from next month and to continue to claim (as it did as recently as the week before last in the High Court) that removing ring-fencing was in our interests because it would allow local authorities to allocate even more resources than they would have been able to under ring-fencing."
Mr. Levine, the director, continues:
"Against the background above my committee has had no option but to instruct me to close down the service by the end of June at the latest. Their duty as charity trustees requires them not to put the funds of the association at risk or operate when funds cannot be guaranteed."
The financial consequences to the public purse of the collapse of that project are fairly obvious. It will increase pressure on the police, the prison system, hospitals, the probation service, the child care system and social services. For a Government facing a public sector borrowing crisis, the implications for spending on the other services are horrendous.
More important are the human consequences for people such as the woman I met who had come from Essex and was in an alcohol recovery project house in Lambeth. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—who is present for the debate—and I met her. She was working towards rehabilitation with her two children in care—she hoped to be back with them soon. What chance will there be of future referrals to that project for women outside London? What chance do the children of such women have of avoiding being permanently in care, as that woman's children are at present?
When the House debated the Special Grant Report (No. 6) on 11 February, I described the arrangements for distributing the funding after April as plain daft. This report is further evidence that the consequences of the formula used by the Government are, to say the least, bizarre. Turning Point, an organisation that is known and respected by hon. Members, has had the figures in the report analysed.
Recording the home local authority of residents during the financial year 1989–90, Turning Point calculated the

407
likely levels of money required by each authority to fund local residents who enter a project within that authority and those who attend a service in another local authority region. Just as the figures in report No. 6 show no correlation between need and funding, Turning Point's analysis demonstrated marked variations between the distribution in report No. 7 and knowledge of the funding needed.
I am pleased to see that hon. Members from both major parties who represent the London area are present. Once again, inner London has been particularly badly hit by the measure. Turning Point calculates that, of the 13 inner London boroughs, 10 will receive, on average, almost £120,000 less than the research suggested was needed to fund the treatment costs of people from each borough who receive care. Manchester has particular problems, with research suggesting a shortfall of about £500,000.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that the services in Manchester are already massively overstretched and, as the drug addiction problem is still increasing, the human cost is high. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Greater Manchester police have calculated that the cost to the local community, in terms of criminality due to drug addiction, is already enormous and rising? The fact that the Government have acted as cheapskates over funding for Manchester means that that cost, both in human terms and financial terms, will be borne by the community in the Manchester region.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am familiar with the constituency of my hon. Friend and well aware of the difficult problems that he and his constituents face every day. I agree that, in Manchester, there will simply be a transfer of the funding requirement from where it should be—in the hands of local authorities so that they can support projects on drug and alcohol problems—into the police budget, which is already very stretched. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the bizarre nature of the finding arrangements contained in this report mean that, while Manchester will lose £500,000, Avon—which has a large number of private residential and nursing care beds—will, according to Turning Point, receive about £250,000 more than it needs.
Especially worrying is the fact that, as well as illustrating the consequences of the bizarre distribution formula, the research has unearthed clear errors in the calculation by the Department of Social Security of the location of income support payments upon which 50 per cent. of the formula is based. For example, in June 1992, the DSS calculated that 10 people across six care groups were in receipt of enhanced income support in homes within the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. It calculated that there were no claims for clients of residential drug and alcohol establishments.
But Turning Point operates a registered residential facility for drug users in the borough and it is known that income support payments were made to about 17 claimants in the project which was fully occupied during that month. Given that example and others, regardless of the distribution formula, the basis of the Government's calculation of funding is, to say the least, open to question.
I urge the Minister to recognise the inconsistency between the fine words in, for example, "The Health of the Nation", on drinking habits, mental disorder and suicide in particular, and the Government's position on this
408
question. I urge him to reconsider and to recognise the inconsistency between Richmond house media hype and the reality of Government policy.
A classic example has come my way. For some reason I always get two copies of each press release. I received one yesterday dated 1 March from the Department of Health. It is headed:
"Government will tackle alcohol misuse head-on, says Dr. Mawhinney".
I am sorry that the Minister for Health has left the Chamber. The press release goes on to quote the Minister as saying:
"We are not killjoys—a little bit of what you fancy, alcohol-wise, may do you good …But it does no harm to remind ourselves again of the scale of the problem."
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the scale of the problem and well aware that it is likely to become much worse as a direct result of Government policy.
The Government talk, and the Minister referred to it tonight, of fast-track assessment. What we need is fast-track funding that is guaranteed and distributed in a way which reflects need. It should be recognised that with drug and alcohol projects the traditional means of referral do not tie in with the concept of assessment and care management.
What is needed is an understanding that drug and alcohol projects form a national network and require a funding system which recognises that fact. What is needed is a restoration of proper safeguards to protect the funding of those crucial projects. But, above all, what is needed is a recognition that tonight staring us in the face is a human tragedy which could and should be avoided.
10.42 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I must comment first on the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). It is a travesty to say that the principle of community care is discredited in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. It is a principle espoused by virtually everybody. The hon. Gentleman said that it was entirely discredited by the announcement this evening. It is a pity that we should start off in that tone of voice.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Talk about tone of voice!
Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman can talk about how I speak, but I am talking about what has been said.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman has completely misquoted me. I was not talking about the principles of community care. I believe in the principles of community care. I was referring to the manner in which the Government have implemented the changes that will take place with effect from 1 April.
Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman did use the term "discredited", but Hansard will prove whether I am right or wrong.
Rather than talking about the principle of community care, which is accepted as an advance on both sides of the House, we should concentrate on the possible difficulties in the announcement this evening.
My hon. Friend the Minister explained the way in which funds had been allocated. In that context, I noticed that my own county of East Sussex has been given a large allocation, which I presume directly reflects the number of

409
elderly people in residential care and in nursing homes in that county, and the large number of treatment centres in East Sussex run by organisations such as Turning Point.
Although we are delighted that we can identify now how allocations to local authorities have been made, it concerns me—this will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister—that the formula used bears too little relation to the referrals made in the past and likely to be made in the future.
Of specific concern—this point was touched on by the hon. Member for Wakefield and in interventions by my hon. Friends—is the disproportionately large number of homeless drug and alcohol misusers in inner urban areas. They are unlikely to have an identifiable home local authority, yet they are in greater need of residential care, perhaps, than any other category.
As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, guidance was issued for consultation, which clearly stated that admission to residential care should not be delayed whilst the responsible authority is identified. However, with the larger number of homeless people in inner urban areas, less than adequate funding—even through a more appropriate allocation mechanism—will inevitably mean that many with the most urgent need for residential care will be unable to obtain it, because funds for a replacement will not be readily available or, in the worst cases, will not be available at all.
In that instance, fast track cannot work. Fast track must depend on the availability of funds to operate. If it does not work, it will be impossible to meet the individual needs to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
410
All that underscores the error of the transfer formula, which does not account for the geographical spread of referrals to drug and alcohol services. Research revealed that one in five referrals to a service originate from the local authority in which the project is based, so 80 per cent. of referrals originate in other areas. That is crucial not only to the funding material but to the scheme's operation. That was one factor that persuaded the Government to ring-fence funding for that vulnerable client group in the first place.
My hon. Friend's attempt to improve the mechanism for distributing funds still stands a horrible risk of backfiring. I may be wrong in that assessment, and I am sure that Opposition Members hope that their assessment is wrong too—because we care mainly that people should receive the care and services that they need. In case we are right in our assessment, I put a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Instead of monitoring for three months, the monitoring period should be extended to at least six months, and preferably to the end of this year—in other words, over a nine-month period. The truth is that homes will taking steps now to get people into their homes and to keep them there, and that will put out of kilter the statistics that will be available during the first three months of the new scheme's operation. Although I appreciate the direction that the Government want to pursue in their application of funding, and hope that they will be proved correct, we owe it to the people who need the services in question to monitor the scheme longer than is presently envisaged.
10.49 pm
Ms. Glenda Jackson: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the great concern that has been expressed—not only to me, I am sure—by the organisations that provide the care that we have been discussing. That applies not least to the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless and the West London Mission, which has formed a group comprising 19 organisations that provide 22 centres—some residential and some providing day-care facilities—offering particular care and concern to those suffering from drug and alcohol abuse.
Those organisations make the specific point that, certainly in London, the removal of ring fencing for particularly vulnerable members of society is aggravated by certain factors. First, people move from one area of London to another, but at least 40 per cent. of the facilities are concentrated in three boroughs of the capital. The organisations also fear that there will be a desperate shortfall not only in basic funding but in the number of people prepared to accept responsibility for individual clients whose first residence is not in the borough to which they go to be housed or treated.
In my constituency, St. Mungo's Association has been running a registered residential home for single homeless men, all of whom have histories of varying degrees of grave mental problems—some exacerbated by drug and alcohol abuse. The care that is necessary for such people simply to make it possible for them to function in society again on the most basic, fundamental level is intensive, and takes up a great deal of time. The association's costs are currently covered by direct payments from the Department of Social Security, at a rate of £188·30 per head. It also has a grant of £30,000 from the local authority.
At present, of the 29 residents living in those houses, 10 could be deemed to be local; they are Camden residents. Between seven and eight come from the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the 11 other residents are referred to the registered residential home from the St. Mungo's central Endell street referral point.
The organisation is desperately worried about the possibility of an enormous shortfall, which it believes will amount to about £42,000. It is almost impossible for it to plan for any future provision. It fears that its own costs will inevitably increase if it has to pursue individual local authorities to provide for its residents; but its major concern is that relationships that have been built up—not only with its present residents, but with those for whom it has cared in the past and those for whom it wishes to care in the future—run a grave risk of being damaged. It feels that its residents will feel that the changes in the present system smack entirely of bureaucracy and officialdom, and that the necessary trust which is the basic step in rehabilitating such people will be destroyed at the first stroke.
I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the present arrangements. I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone): I feel that the time scale that the Department is setting itself for monitoring is far too short. The idea of fast-track assessment is an absolute impossibility for most local authorities; they have not the staff, the funds or the time to be able to "fast-track" some of the most vulnerable members of society.
412
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spoke of the choice that many local authorities will have to make between an elderly, frail lady and someone suffering from the effects of drug and alcohol abuse. I entirely agree; but let me point out to the Minister that many frail, elderly ladies are also sufferers from drug and alcohol abuse. Surely it is in that regard that we should express what I believe should be our true concern: that "care in the community" should mean caring for everyone in the community.
10.54 pm
Ms. Liz Lynne: I was saddened to hear of the Government's change of heart about the ring fencing of the drug and alcohol budget. I was a member of the drug and alcohol abuse committee in Rochdale when the news was first announced that the Government were to ring-fence that budget. Every member of the committee was delighted, because it meant that some of the services would be protected. I urge the Government to change their mind now.
Why have the Government plucked the figure of £20 million out of the air as the amount to be set aside for the judicial review? I have asked a number of people involved in drug and alcohol work how much money was needed for rehabilitation in England, but none of them came up with that figure. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us where it came from.
I agree that three months for monitoring purposes is certainly not long enough. There should be a proper review of what will happen after 1 April to drug and alcohol services in the community.
The drug and alcohol service has always been the Cinderella service. It is often said that the mental health service is the Cinderella service, but the drug and alcohol service is even more so. We have heard that it will be believed that elderly people should benefit more from community care, whereas drug and alcohol misusers will be put at the end of the list.
There has been much talk recently about drugs and crime. Indeed, only yesterday we debated juvenile crime and juvenile offenders. We must accept the link between crime and drug and alcohol abuse. It is a great problem in Rochdale and the north-west. Greater Manchester was mentioned specifically in that connection.
Someone rang me today to tell me about the case of a 29-year-old man with three children. He has a heroin habit and steals to feed it. He has tried to get treatment at our local drug rehabilitation centre, but there is a waiting list. He is asking for treatment and help to get off the roller-coaster, but he cannot get it. After 1 April, it will be even more difficult. If the budget is not ring-fenced, more people will be sucked into crime.
Several surveys have been carried out on crime and its relationship with drug and alcohol abuse. The first to which I draw the House's attention was carried out in Nottingham. An audit in December 1990 found that alcohol was a factor in 88 per cent. of cases of criminal damage, 78 per cent. of assaults, 40 per cent. of instances of domestic abuse and 30 per cent. of child abuse cases. That is happening across the country, but we do not have enough statistics to know whether the true position is even worse.
Another report revealed:
"young 'heavy drinkers' are more likely tban 'light drinkers' to report having committed minor violent offences, and more

413
likely to report that they have been the victim of crime…9 per cent. of adult males, 9 per cent. of young males and 4 per cent. of young females in the prison population are clinically diagnosed as dependent on alcohol, and perhaps as many as half drink more than the…recommended sensible limits."
In the past few days, young offenders have been much discussed in the House and by the media. A report by the probation service states that probation officers have cited addiction or compulsion as a key factor in 34 per cent. of crime committed by young offenders. Among the 17-year-olds surveyed, the influence of alcohol was a factor in 41 per cent. of cases and the influence of drugs in 30 per cent. of cases. Among the same age group, 6 per cent. of offences were committed to pay for the habit.
As I have already said, so many people are being sucked into crime to pay for and feed their habit. It is about time that the Government did something to stop that. I urge them to change their mind today about the ring fencing.
Talking about juvenile offending yesterday in the House, the Home Secretary said:
"We are seeking to develop yet stronger policies to deal with the abuse of drugs. It is one of the causes of crime that society has the ability to control, as long as we back up the police, the voluntary agencies and every other agency to try to contain it."—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 149.] The Home Secretary said that yesterday. Today I ask the
Government to change their minds, ring-fence the drug and alcohol budget again, and help the people in our society who are misusers of drugs and alcohol to have a decent standard of living.
11 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I welcome the global figure that the Minister has announced will be provided for community care. It is an excellent figure, and we should set our discussion against that background; that is where we start.
Secondly, I believe that history may record that it was as a result of a question from me to the Minister at the time that the ring fence for drug and alcohol projects was originally announced, so I have some personal interest in that success, and in the services that we are discussing. In my constituency, there is the Davies centre, which is part of Turning Point, and other projects such as the Cranston project, to which I have already referred in an intervention.
I am joining in what has been rather a good debate. Perhaps the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was a little belligerent, but that was nicely balanced by the quieter tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). We all share a genuine desire to help and support people who have the problems resulting from addiction to drugs or alcohol to which everyone who has spoken has referred.
Much is being done in the health service. There are many initiatives in hospitals, detoxification units and so on. Representing the inner-London area of Battersea, my concern is that people should not take the view that the problem should be passed out to the shires—that we somehow export our problems to be looked after. We should remember that Battersea is also a halfway home for people who have been in detoxification units and are on their way back home.
Inner cities themselves create much of the problem—they create many drug, alcohol and mental health
414
problems—but people who have suffered in the inner cities do not necessarily want to live outside London and the other big cities. They want eventually to come home. The wonderful support that the Davies centre and other such places can give enables them to come back to their homes within the city.
That is what I, working alongside, value so much, and that is why I hope that the Minister will monitor most carefully the effects of his decision to ensure that the money reaches the people who need it, that it is filtered through the new wider ring-fenced system and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes so wisely said, the fears that some of us have are proved groundless and the optimism built into the new system is justified. Should that prove not to be the case, we shall then be able to put matters right.
11.4 pm
Ms. Tessa Jowell: I hope that the Minister will listen to the overwhelming cross-party support for a rethink of the Government position on ring fencing. I shall briefly refer again to the important conclusions of the Turning Point survey which have informed the debate and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred.
I should like to provide some specific evidence from the London borough of Southwark. The Government's distribution formula suggests that Southwark needs about £116,000 to support its services for drug and alcohol misusers. The Turning Point survey, calculated on the basis of where the misusers are, suggests a figure of £244,000. Southwark will get £128,000 less than the current service providers deem necessary for drug and alcohol misusers living in Southwark. Let us contrast that with Kent. The Government believe that Kent needs £718,000. Turning Point, which deals with real clients rather than attributed figures, says that Kent needs £230,000, producing a potential surplus of nearly £500,000.
Why is there such a difference? The Turning Point study accurately reflects the unique nature of this particular group of community care service users. In many cases we are talking about people who have been in and out of drug clinics all over the country for many years. Typically, they become homeless and are without family support because of their substance abuse. They are not a settled group. Their use of services is therefore different from that of other community care service users.
Specialist clinics report that only 4 per cent. of drug and alcohol misusers are referred by social services–50 per cent. of them are self-referred. Their links with home or any local authority are slim. They may move around the country because they are trying to avoid their own local drugs scene or because the area where they originated does not have the facilities to treat their needs.
Because Southwark has among the lowest number of permanent residents who are known to have drug or alcohol problems, it gets less money under the Government's system of distributing the community care grant. However, the reality is that people who are homeless and have drug and alcohol dependencies will continue to come to inner city boroughs like Southwark. They will not stay in small leafy towns just because the Minister's bureaucratic formula tells them to do so.

415
According to Turning Point's research, Suffolk will receive three times as much cash as it needs while 10 out of the 13 London boroughs will receive an average of £1·18 million less than the residents require for their care to be sustained.
It is particularly important that the total found by Turning Point to be needed properly to support alcohol and drug abuse facilities—£21 million—is close to the £20 million that the Government announced that they had set aside during the judicial review. The issue is not that far more money is needed, but for that money to be directed to where the people are and where the services need support.
Ministers are in a small minority in believing that their policy is right. It is opposed by every organisation representing informed opinion—not just the providers of services to people with drug and alcohol problems, but the Association of Directors of Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, the Institute of Health Services Management and the National Care Homes Association.
I conclude with a simple question to the Minister which I hope he will answer when he replies to the debate. If he makes such play of the importance of stability and protection for the services of elderly people living in independent residential homes during the first year of community care reforms, why does not he accept that exactly the same need for stability and consistency applies to services for people who suffer from drug and alcohol misuse?
11.10 pm
Mr. Alan Milburn: Like the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), I think that we have had a good and well-informed debate. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that every hon. Member who has spoken so far has expressed grave concerns about the lack of operation of the ring fence.
The irony is that this debate need never have taken place. It would not have been necessary to be in our places this evening if the pledge that was given in 1990 by the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), had been honoured. He guaranteed that ring fencing would be provided for drug and alcohol residential centres, in response to cross-party support in the House, from those in another place and from expert organisations, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friends and Conservative Members. That support and pressure still exists and the decision to withdraw the 1990 ring-fencing promise has been universally condemned. I hope that the Minister will note that 123 hon. Members from both sides of the House have signed the early-day motion standing in my name which seeks a reversal of the Government's policy. I know from my work as the chair of the all-party alcohol misuse group and from the first-hand concerns that have been passed to me by both practitioners and clients of the impact that the Government's policy will have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has already referred to the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and Alcohol Concern survey of 91 residential units. The Minister will know that half are threatened with closure by July. Some are already issuing redundancy notices to staff so that they might comply with the legal position that confronts them. Interestingly,
416
hardly any of them believe that the Government's last-minute response to the furore caused by their broken promises will help to guarantee their future. A limp advice note from Ministers to local authorities together with a still undefined fast-track assessment procedure, whatever that means, is hardly an adequate replacement for guaranteed funding, which is what each centre needs.
The Minister will know that the imminence of closure is not a red herring or a false threat. It stems from the reliance of the centres on income support payments from their clients, payments that will disappear from 1 April, and from the special nature of their clients. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the 140 drug and alcohol residential centres provide a national network of specialist help, support and rehabilitation services and offer short-term treatment. He will know also that there is a high turnover of residents.
It was a recognition of the differences between alcohol and drug misusers and the groups that form the overwhelming majority of the recipients of community care—the elderly and the mentally ill, for example—that prompted the then Secretary of State for Health in 1990 to make the ring-fencing commitment in the first place. Unlike the elderly, alcohol and drug misusers do not enter residential care as a last resort or as a poor alternative to community-based services. They accept such care as a positive first step, or a short-term option, to allow them to regain control of their lives away from the environment of alcohol and drug misuse that has been the cause of their problems.
The decision to ring-fence drug and alcohol misuse services was made because even in 1990 it was clear that the competing priorities on the community care budget meant that the client groups which were more popular or acceptable, or which had a legal entitlement to service, would be prioritised and that is precisely the situation that we face now. The present Home Secretary described it in graphic language in June 1990 when he said that the elderly and disabled were popular and had a powerful lobby and he accepted that some local authorities were less inclined to give the correct priority to the mentally ill. He also accepted that drug and alcohol abuse were not always popular recipients of social services money. As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a master of understatement.
The £20 million given in DSS payments for the direct use of those centres will now be lost in the general community care pool. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to the press release and notice that accompanied the instrument that we are debating. It is clear that that money is not being ring-fenced.
The Minister argued tonight, as he argued in the Adjournment debate on the subject last December, that the ring-fencing commitment would merely have perpetuated the existing pattern of services. He must know that that is not so. The ring-fencing commitment was not merely a case of trying to preserve the old order. It was a case of trying to smooth the transition to a new order. I think I see the Minister looking astonished at that remark. He should read the speeches of his right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends, who made it clear that the purpose of the ring-fencing commitment was not designed to set in stone a commitment for all time, but to ensure sufficient breathing space for a proper allocation of resources and development of services to occur so that the principles of community care could be properly met.

417
All that has gone down the tubes and the Minister's decision has doomed dozens of centres, including those in my area, to closure. He has given them, and the local authorities involved, less than six months to introduce procedures that it was originally envisaged would take until 1996 to get right.
In the debate last December, we went into some of the issues and spoke of the incredible complexity of the referral arrangements to each centre. The centres know that the fast-track procedure about which the Minister spoke and which he lamentably failed to explain in detail will not work. The professionals and the clients know that it will not work. Why on earth will not the Minister recognise that it will not work?
By refusing to countenance ring-fencing, the Minister is not only arrogantly dismissing the advice of drug and alcohol centre professionals, but is dooming the 5,000 people who use their services to a life on the streets without treatment, without care and without any hope of rehabilitation back into a normal life in society—and that at a time when the problem of drug and alcohol misuse is not only growing but has finally been recognised by the Government.
The annual cost to society of alcohol misuse is estimated at £2·5 billion. A few months ago, when the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" was launched, we heard of the Government's determination to tackle alcohol problems. How can that be squared with a policy that will close 140 drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres? In a week in which we have heard so much noise from Ministers about bearing down hard on crime, it is more than a little ironic to find the Government adding to the crime problems of the nation, bearing in mind that the majority of hardened drug users finance their habit by illegal means. They do so by theft, drug dealing and prostitution. With people having nowhere else to go and no prospect of help because the centres have been closed, the result will be more crime, not less. Society will end up picking up the tab for the Government's obstinate refusal to see sense on this issue.
My hon. Friends have already alluded to some of the anomalies in the report and have dealt with the detail. I make a last-minute heartfelt plea to the Minister not only to monitor what is going on—from 1 April, he will be monitoring redundancies and the closure of vital drug and alcohol centres—but, more important, to reinstate the ring-fencing commitment. If he does not, not only the people who use the centres but society as a whole will face a bleak future.
11.20 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who made an excellent speech. I only wish that someone of his character and calibre, and with his understanding of the issues and preparedness to protect the services and the people who use them, represented the Government at the Dispatch Box tonight.
I find the Minister's announcement extremely depressing. He seeks to hide behind the fact that the High Court found in his favour. I must tell him that the High Court has made many mistakes over many years. Besides, it is not really very important whether the High Court
418
found in his favour on the ring-fencing argument. That is no justification. We want ring fencing to protect the projects and to protect the victims of drug and alcohol misuse.
I represent a depressed, deprived inner-city area. Our unemployment rate is shooting up. It is now well over 20 per cent. On some estates, it is over 40 per cent. The number of people who are suffering serious problems of alcohol abuse is very great and is increasing. Moreover, the figures are often understated in surveys because many people who suffer from alcohol abuse seek to hide it by various means. I do not necessarily blame them for hiding it; I merely recognise that it happens. Likewise, the number of youngsters who are becoming involved in serious problems of drug abuse is increasing all the time.
I am glad to say that we live in a society in which there is universal condemnation of drug abuse. Unfortunately, there is little less concern about and research into the reasons why young people in particular become involved in drug abuse. We live in a dreadfully alcohol-related society, however. One has only to take any underground or bus journey in London or watch television to be fed a steady stream of advertisements encouraging one to drink. That advertising rubs off. Drinking is a form of escape and solace and it is also often the result of a great deal of peer-group pressure. I believe that the problems of unemployment, overcrowed and poor-quality housing, debt and depression lead people into drinking. We must recognise the many causes.
All that the Minister proposes is that, in effect, the overstretched and overworked projects that are doing their best to cope with the avalanche of requests for help should be cut and should lose money because they will be unable to compete in what has become the marketplace of social services demands in local authority decision making.
Many hon. Members have served on local authorities —in my case, I am glad to say, in slightly happier times. If I had thought that the 1970s were going to be the high point of local authority expenditure, I would have spent a bit more. Local councillors face an absolute nightmare in deciding between a whole variety of competing demands in every conceivable area. From my time at the London borough of Haringey in the 1970s and early 1980s I know that, even then, it was not a very popular move to go to a social services commmittee and ask for money for a drug or alcohol recovery project. The committee would say that it needed the money for pensioners' organisations, under-fives, people with disabilities, and so on—all perfectly sensible and worthy causes, which we wish to see supported. Anyone now going to a social services committee and saying that a certain amount of money was coming in would be confronted with a host of people trying to get their hands on funds for equally valuable and worthy causes. The purpose of the great campaign to have the community care budget ring fenced is to protect the principle of community care provision by local authorities. That is an added reason for having ring fencing of the budget for drug and alcohol recovery units.
I have visited a number of schemes in north London. One that comes to mind is the women's alcohol recovery project based at Drayton park in Highbury, which has a very dedicated staff and does an absolutely first-rate job. Most of the women are self-referred or have been brought in by friends. They are not necessarily local residents, or even identifiable as resident anywhere. Many are people of no fixed abode, having become homeless and friendless as

419
a result of the trauma of alcohol abuse and having been taken in by some good Samaritan. The people who provide such services face the future with a degree of horror. They know that the demand for their expertise and services is increasing steadily, but that their ability to meet it is reducing steadily. They recognise that this proposal does not help them at all—a point that they made very articulately in the Lobby this year.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend know that his point about expertise is made also by the directors of social services? Leaving aside the other problems that my hon. Friend has has correctly identified, those people do not have the necessary expertise to deal with the difficulties created by alcoholism. This is especially true now that they have to cope with so many changes in care in the community. My hon. Friend may not know that when they expressed their feelings to the Select Committee on Health they were absolutely backed up by senior health service officials, who pointed out that failures in this area will result in our having more people in the care of the medical side of the service, at greatly increased cost.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point as a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Health. Under-funding of any type of social or primary care service results in enormous demands on the acute health services, which are put at risk of being unable to cope. If the Minister has the time or the inclination, or even the interest, he should spend some time visiting general hospitals in London. It would be helpful if he were to listen to the debate. Perhaps he has so little interest in the subject that he cannot be bothered to listen to what hon. Members are saying about their experiences. When his mind was elsewhere I was about to suggest that he should get to know something of what hospitals experience in having to deal with the victims of these problems because of the lack of facilities elsewhere.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the force of our argument about the need for ring fencing for these services and full support for the very dedicated people who are doing so much good work in this area. Why should they have to cope with cuts and closures and with increasing numbers of drug and alcohol abusers on the streets, causing more problems and more deprivation for themselves and others?
11.29 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: This debate is marked by the fact that the nine Members from both sides who have participated, excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—and I exclude him in a friendly fashion—have given eloquent testimony to the fact that what the Minister has announced tonight is wrong in principle, although Conservative Members may have said that some Labour Members put the view more passionately than they did.
The underlying trend of what has been said is that the markets do not involve successful fast-tracking. The resources are not following projects, although the Government gave a commitment to that. The Government gave away the promise made in 1990 by the former Secretary of State to ring-fence resources. That has given greater impetus to the feeling in the community that the Government, first, do not have a real commitment to the
420
principle of community care and, secondly, have a hidden agenda in terms of leaving local authorities holding the can for the serious problems which will arise because of underfunding in the care gap.
In the debate on Special Grant Report No. 6, I said that the Minister was a Shylock. He proved tonight that he is not only a Shylock but a Pinocchio because, whenever he raises the issue of community care, one believes less of what he says about the Government's intentions in that regard.
To attack organisations for taking a case to court fundamentally undermines the real reasons why they went to court. They went to court out of total desperation at failing to convince the Minister that the Government's commitment should have been maintained. That commitment has not been maintained because the surveys and practical experience of the organisations show that 71 per cent. of projects have begun to lose income in the first nine months of the new scheme. By December 1993, 70 per cent. of all projects will have disappeared from most regions in the United Kingdom.
In the House a week ago, the Secretary of State introduced the document, "Making London Better", which contains two basic principles. I quote:
"The number and variety of community nursing services available have increased, for example, through walk-in and telephone advice, counselling, and support groups and help for those facing crisis and long term illness. In London some of these initiatives are already underway. The pace of change can be speeded up…Important elements make up the process of modernising primary health care in London …Devising accessible services for Londoners with special needs such as those who are mentally ill or who misuse drugs or other substances."
A week ago, the Government gave a commitment to new services in London. Tonight, we are seeing the withdrawal of those services. The background to the withdrawal of services is that the number of addicts registered in London is 10 times the national average. In 1990, the age-adjusted rate in Greater London for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis was 60 per cent. higher for males and 31 per cent. higher for females than the average for England and Wales as a whole. Cirrhosis is a key indicator of the level of alcohol problems in the community.
Despite the Government's evidence and the introduction of the White Paper last week, the Minister intends to follow through with Special Grant Report No. 7 and withdraw the resources. It is an act of criminal irresponsibility by a Minister who never listens or learns. As a consequence, the most vulnerable people in the community suffer as a result of his decisions.
Mr. David Harris: He is shaking.
Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman had any compassion, he would be not only shaking but apologising for this shabby report. The Minister should have further discussions about the ring fencing immediately. We need no back-chat from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
By December 1993, 69 projects and 1,521 beds will have been withdrawn and two thirds of the agencies will have given redundancy notices to skilled staff. It beggars belief that, within nine months of the projects coming under a new financial regime, skilled people working with drug and alcohol abusers in the community are being given redundancy notices. What a commitment to community care.

421
It does not stop there. In every region in Britain there will be closure after closure month after month from 1 April right through to 31 December. Projects throughout the country for men, for women, for men and women, for women and children, and for men, women and children will close. It is a league table of shame.
Last week the Government announced league tables for performance. How about introducing a league table for the Government's monitoring of the closure of alcohol abuse services? By the end of this year, 1,533 beds will be lost from projects in the United Kingdom despite the Government's much-vaunted claim that the introduction of community care would bring an improvement in facilities in the community.
Having listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight, the Minister still has an opportunity to change his mind. If he does not want to listen to me and my honourable colleagues because of his party political bias and his commitment to Government policy, let him listen to his hon. Friends behind him. Let him listen to what they have said and bear in mind the areas from which they come. Let him listen to the problems that they have outlined. They did so because they know from their personal experience, from the organisations which have come to them and from the constituents who have submitted proposals to them, that the dogma does not work.
The practicalities are such that the Government's proposals will lead to the closure of projects, an increase in crime and a reduction in the ability of individuals in the community to self-refer to organisations in the community. That is the most damning effect of the proposal. By refusing to ring-fence the money, the Miniser will reduce the opportunity for self-referral. Fast-tracking interferes with that opportunity. The market will not recognise self-referrals. That will create winners and losers. The losers will always be the users of the two services. I beg the Minister to change his mind now.
11.36 pm
Mr. Yeo: This has been a valuable debate. I have listened carefully to the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I had hoped that I might hear rather more speeches vigorously in support of the Government's decision, but never mind—I know that there is such a thing as a silent majority on such matters.
The hon. Members who have spoken obviously attach a high priority to the needs of drug and alcohol abusers, and so do the Government, but hon. Members seem to assume for some reason that their views will not be shared by any of their local authority colleagues. No one has explained why that sudden divergence of opinion should arise, but that was the underlying assumption behind every request for ring fencing to be restored.
The Turning Point survey has been referred to by many hon. Members. It acknowledges that even in 1990, long before the local authorities assume responsibilities for community care in April this year, about half the applications for top-up funding for residential services for drug and alcohol abusers made to social service departments in the London boroughs and county areas
422
surveyed were successful. The local authorities already recognised the needs even before they took on the duties that they are about to have.
Let me explain to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that the Special Grant Report (No. 7), which we shall approve in a few minutes, does not remove resources. It adds £20 million to the special transitional grant, which is ring fenced for the purpose of expenditure on community care services—some of which will be for drug and alcohol abusers'. The decision not to ring-fence the money for the residential treatment services does not mean that a single penny has been removed from the funds that the Government make available for drug and alcohol service providers.
The way in which the argument has been put this evening sometimes seemed a little over the top. Let us remind ourselves that since 1979 the real increase in expenditure on personal social services has been two thirds. In the past three years, the real increase in the personal social services standard spending assessment has been one fifth. If we take account of the special transitional grant of £565 million—I remind the House that that is not merely the money being transferred from social security, but an extra £140 million to help local authorities develop their services—and the standard spending assessment, next year local authorities will have at their disposal 15 per cent. more resources for social services expenditure than they have this year. It will be up to local authorities to decide how much of that massive sum they allocate to the treatment of drug and alcohol abusers.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) about the resourcing of Manchester.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: No, I have only four minutes to wind up.
This year, Manchester city council is spending £64 million on social services and it has a personal social services standard spending assessment of £76 million. Next year, the SSA will be £79 million and it will get a special transitional grant of £6 million, which is excluded from the rate-capping calculations. The only reason why there could be any shortfall in funding for social services in Manchester is because of the decisions of the Labour-controlled Manchester city council, which is exclusively responsible for denying the people of Manchester the services that they need.
A great deal has been made of the survey by Turning Point, which is scarcely a scientific study, as it is based on studies using 1989–90 prices and arbitrarily grossed them up by 68 per cent. over four years. I am not sure why costs should rise by that massive amount during that time, but I hope that when local authorities make referrals to drug and alcohol treatment centres they will at least ensure that they are getting value for money.
I recognise that the distribution decision is difficult. We went through detailed discussions with the local authority associations about how to distribute funds for community care. There is no obviously right answer. We are all concerned to try to achieve a smooth transition to the new policy, but 35 per cent. of the special transitional grant will be distributed on the basis of the present income support

423
expenditure pattern and the other 65 per cent. is based on SSAs, which take into account socio-economic factors and tend to favour the inner cities.
I believe that that was the best judgment that we could arrive at to achieve the smooth transfer that we want. I stress again that our community care policy, the generous funding that we provide, and the way in which the money is being distributed are not intended to protect the position of every provider of treatment, but to ensure that services are designed to meet the needs of the individual.
I must inform the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) that we are giving the drug and alcohol service providers exactly the same protection that she says is being accorded to the providers of residential homes for the elderly. They are all being treated alike.
On monitoring, I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friends, but I am not sure how they reconcile with the fact that Opposition Members have told us that some of the establishments will go out of business in three months. If that is the case, our three-month period will be long enough, especially bearing in mind that client turnover in the centres is rapid-the average stay is only 19 weeks. Monitoring by the social services inspectorate will continue, even after the end of three months, to see how the implementation of community care is going.
In conclusion, no providers of residential or other treatment for drug and alcohol abusers have anything to fear from our policy if the services that they offer are of a kind that are recognised as effective and valuable for that client group.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 59.

Division No. 172]

[11.43 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Dykes, Hugh

Ancram, Michael

Elletson, Harold

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Faber, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fabricant, Michael

Bates, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forth, Eric

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Freeman, Roger

Bowis, John

Gallie, Phil

Brandreth, Gyles

Gillan, Cheryl

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hague, William

Butcher, John

Harris, David

Carrington, Matthew

Hawksley, Warren

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Chapman, Sydney

Hendry, Charles

Clappison, James

Horam, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hunter, Andrew

Congdon, David

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Cran, James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Day, Stephen

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Lidington, David

Dover, Den

Lightbown, David

Duncan, Alan

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Luff, Peter

424

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sweeney, Walter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sykes, John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malone, Gerald

Thomason, Roy

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thurnham, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholls, Patrick

Trend, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rathbone, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Richards, Rod

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Whittingdale, John

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

WiHerts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Spencer, Sir Derek

Yeo, Tim

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sproat, Iain

Mr. Andrew MacKay and

Steen, Anthony

Mr. Robert Hughes.

Stephen, Michael

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Barnes, Harry

Jones, Lynne (B 'ham S O)

Bayley, Hugh

Jowell, Tessa

Bermingham, Gerald

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Blunkett, David

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Boyce, Jimmy

Kilfoyle, Peter

Clapham, Michael

Lewis, Terry

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clelland, David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Coffey, Ann

McCartney, Ian

Connarty, Michael

McMaster, Gordon

Cryer, Bob

Mahon, Alice

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Meale, Alan

Davidson, Ian

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dixon, Don

Milburn, Alan

Dowd, Jim

Pope, Greg

Etherington, Bill

Prescott, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Primarolo, Dawn

Gerrard, Neil

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Simpson, Alan

Gordon, Mildred

Skinner, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Stott, Roger

Hall, Mike

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Harvey, Nick

Turner, Dennis

Heppell, John

Wilson, Brian

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Wise, Audrey

Hinchliffe, David

Hood, Jimmy

Tellers for the Noes:

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 7) (House of Commons Paper No. 504), which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
11.53 pm
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As fewer than 100 voted in favour of the report it can hardly be said to have the full-hearted consent of the House, so is it now legal?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The answer to that is yes.

PETITION

  Railway Stations
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have a petition containing more than 1,000 signatures, which is addressed,
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  The petition has been prepared by Mrs. J. Salter of Hele vilage, Torquay. Mrs. Salter is confined to a wheelchair and she draws to the attention of the House the fact that it is now British Rail policy to remove staff from its railway stations from 6 o'clock in the evening.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the implications for disabled people, women travelling by themselves, the elderly and the young. The petition asks the House to urge the Secretary of State for Transport to make representations to British Rail to change that policy forthwith. The petition ends in the usual form:
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will for ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

George Beattie
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
11.55 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Tonight's Adjournment debate is about a 19-year-old Carluke boy who was convicted of murder in 1973. A simple lad—not very well educated—he was known in Carluke as a big softie. My speech will be confined to George Beattie's conviction, and I seek to prove to the House that it was a great miscarriage of justice. George Beattie did not and could not have murdered Margaret McGlouchlan. George Beattie is innocent.
A major problem with miscarriages of justice is getting the case reconsidered by the authorities. The only way to make Ministers or civil servants sit up and take notice is to get the message through to the public, through the newspapers or television. Miscarriages of justice—particularly those involving murder—are generally so complicated that newspapers and television present only a simplified version of the case, and then from one particular angle. In reality, such cases have many aspects and involve many intricate pieces of evidence.
George Beattie was convicted of murder in 1973. BBC Television broadcast two "Rough Justice" programmes about him in 1983 and 1985, and produced persuasive evidence that he was innocent of the crime for which he is in gaol today.
Those programmes concentrated solely on the evidence put before the court, and there is now evidence concerning police conduct in the case that points to George Beattie being a victim of a miscarriage of justice on several levels.
The aspect of Beattie's case to which I refer concerns personalities, professional reputation, police bureaucracy and—yes—politics. To understand fully what happened to Beattie, one must understand what was happening during the police investigation. The leading figure in the police work was Scotland's finest detective, William Muncie. Coincidentally, Muncie was born in Carluke, where the murder took place.
Success in the case against Beattie meant that Chief Superintendent Muncie would bring his career in Lanarkshire CID to a triumphant end, in the town of his birth. After the case, he went on to be Lanark assistant chief constable—then, even better, assistant chief constable of Strathclyde. Muncie's promotion meant that he left behind him an investigative disaster, with an innocent man gaoled and a murderer gone free.
Muncie had an impressive reputation. He had investigated 53 cases of murder, and the McGlouchlan case was to be his 54th. He had found the murderer every time—not one failure in any of his cases. It was a remarkable record to live up to.
Among Muncie's big murder case successes was the serial killer Peter Manuel; Gordon Hay—the Biggar murder: and James Keenan, the Lanark case. They were all solved using Muncie's favourite method, which was outlined in his memoirs. He first decided who was guilty, then took months finding the proof. That method failed him in the case of the murder at Carluke, when George Beattie was convicted.
To understand what happened, we must imagine being present at some of the investigations. Perhaps the key moment was 6 am on 11 July 1973. In the dawn light, Chief

427
Superintendent Muncie questioned George Beattie in the Carluke glen, where the body of a young woman, Margaret McGlouchlan, had been found four days earlier. The superintendent had already been up half the night dealing with this, his last case. Perhaps it is not surprising in the circumstances that he forgot all his own golden rules, and allowed his men to charge Beattie. No doubt in other circumstances he would have shown better judgment.
In fact, Mr. Muncie was trusting to luck: he had been very lucky during his career, but his luck ran out that morning. No doubt he thought that the evidence against Beattie would turn up, but it did not. Nothing seems to have gone right in the case from the start.
When Beattie was charged, Muncie was already four days into a botch-up of an investigation over which he had lost control. Uniformed police had trampled all over the scene of the crime before Muncie even got there; the photographer, acting without Muncie's direction, had missed a vital shot of the umbrella that the victim had used to defend herself. It would have told the court so much about what had happened—but there was no photographic evidence of where that umbrella had been found, and in what condition. One of the key points is whether the umbrella was up or down at the time; but, because Mr. Muncie was not on top form, we cannot say with any certainty which was the case.
Most important of all, Muncie's men had found a knife on the ground near the victim. They were all convinced that it was the murder weapon, but they were wrong. The chief superintendent himself soon realised that the rust on its blade ruled it out. What happened to his opinion shows the lack of organisation on the team: it did not reach all its members. That may not be surprising. The team of detectives came from half a dozen different stations, and examination of the police work reveals that liaison was poor.
Mr. Muncie, however, added to the problems himself, perhaps because of his robust personality. He let a Scottish newspaper fly him around the area in a helicopter; he said that it helped him to see the hidden paths around the glen. We may wonder why he did not know all those hidden paths, having spent his boyhood in the village when all the children played in the glen. The important point, however, is that the Daily Record picture taken from the helicopter was an investigative mistake of the first order. The picture that the newspaper published gave away one of the key police secrets—where the body had been found.
But there was worse to come. Two of Mr. Muncie's officers gave a guided tour of the scene of the crime to the man on whom Muncie eventually fixed as the murderer. That suspect—my constituent George Beattie—told officers John Adam and George Waddell that he had walked through the glen at the time when they believed that the murder had taken place. The officers decided to take him to the scene—through the police cordon, past Muncie's caravan headquarters, right to where the murder had happened. It started to rain.
Hon. Members may think that what happened next was highly irregular. There the men were, standing right by the scene of the murder—on the very spot where the attack on the victim had begun. When it began to rain, they did not walk the few yards to the police caravan headquarters for shelter; instead, Detective Constable Waddell ran past the caravan, nearly a mile to the car. The other officer—Adam
428
—was left alone with Beattie at the scene of the crime. Apparently, he took no notes of what he did or said to Beattie while they were there.
The police would claim that Beattie was not a suspect at the time; he only became that when he told them details about the scene of the crime. But Beattie was the only man whom the police found who had been in the glen at about the time when they thought that the victim had been killed, so he must have been some kind of suspect. Why take him to the scene of the crime, leave him alone with an officer and then claim that he could not have known details of the scene unless he had committed the murder?
The story told by the two police officers had changed by the time it got to court. Adam, the man who stayed with Beattie in the glen, later claimed that he, not Waddell, had gone to the car. Waddell did not corroborate the second version. What was the head of a police investigation doing allowing such behaviour? Muncie knew that detectives should never show a suspect the scene of a crime. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Adam and Waddell were immediately sent back to base in Motherwell and took no further part in the inquiry after that incident.
We might wonder why none of the other detectives heard of the "guided tour" of the scene of the crime. Of course, the officers involved were no longer on the case, because they had been sent back home, but no one told the other detectives on the investigation what had happened. Later, when another two detectives questioned Beattie, they were surprised to learn that he knew so much about the scene of the crime.
The handling of Beattie got worse. He was left waiting in a room where the girl's clothing was laid out. His interrogators were doubly surprised when he described clothing that had been locked in her suitcase. The most astonished was Sergeant Dougie Mortimer from Lanark. He knew little about the case, because he had been on holiday and had only just joined the inquiry. When Beat tie came out with the details about the victim's clothing, Mortimer persisted until the young lad was having something like an epileptic fit.
There followed an aspect of the case that the police completely failed to investigate. Beattie concocted a hare-brained story that men in top hats with mirrors had committed the crime. One can imagine that such a strange story would have mystified the police, but if they had carried out any sort of investigation, they would have found where the tale came from, and realised that Beat tie was saying the first thing that came into his head at the time.
The officer questioning Beattie, Detective Sergeant Mortimer, was not a pop fan. He did not know that, just before Beattie had gone out on the Friday, the night of the murder, men in top hats with mirrors—a pop group called Slade—had been on television. Beattie had seen them, and it had been one of the few visually memorable images that he had seen that evening. I have here a picture of the men in the top hats with mirrors—Slade, a top of the pops British pop group. Such a simple answer to an important question in the case against Beattie was an answer that any teenager could have given, but it completely foxed the officers on the case.
At 1.30 am, after about six hours of interrogation, Mortimer charged him with murder. Personalities now came into the case. Muncie liked to charge suspects himself, but a mere sergeant, who had been on the case for only a day, was stealing his thunder. At 5.30 am, having

429
had no sleep, the lad was brought before the chief superintendent at the scene of the crime. Muncie was making sure—in fact, the stage was set for Muncie's biggest mistake.
Muncie was proud of his investigative technique, and often talked about it. His motto was "always alert". He had a golden rule that all his men were supposed to follow: if a suspect was apparently admitting to facts which could incriminate him, they should be repeated to an officer who was not in any way connected with the inquiry. That is a good and fair way of conducting an investigation—it is a pity that Chief Superintendent Muncie totally forgot about it when it came to nailing the murder on George Beattie.
What is more Beattie was ill when Muncie saw him, yet Muncie denied him a doctor for a further 16 hours. By then, Beattie had been awake for about 20 hours. He had already been charged, but here he was, at the scene of the crime, tired and poorly and being made to postulate what must have happened when the murder took place, to policemen who avidly took down his every word as gospel—except, of course, those sections which did not fit their theory. Of course, Beattie, although charged, had no solicitor present. What a botch-up of an investigation.
It got worse. Muncie asked the accused to retell his tale. Beattie tried to repeat his "guided tour", but he made several mistakes, on which Muncie should have pounced.
Beattie said that the knife found in the glen was the murder weapon. We must remember that most of the detectives on the case were of that opinion, but their boss knew that it was not correct. The forensic department later proved him right—there was no blood on that knife, so it was not the murder weapon. Muncie said nothing about Beattie's mistake.
Muncie should have probed for special knowledge. He did not. One fact which the police knew but which was still secret was the fact that the murderer had not taken Margaret's expensive engagement ring. Beattie did not know that. Indeed, he had no special knowledge. He knew nothing of the one item of Margaret's that was never found—her charm bracelet.
What about the fact that Beattie had described details of the clothes in the victim's suitcase? Muncie should certainly have spotted the mistakes that Beattie made about the clothing. He himself noticed that the clothes had not been exposed during the murder—so even the murderer could not have known the details that Beattie had blurted out under interrogation. When Muncie asked where the body had lain, Beattie did not know, even though Muncie had marked the spot on the Daily Record photograph.
Any reasonable person would have known that there was something wrong with the arrest, yet here was a police team that lacked simple liaison procedures, and operated without proper briefings. The men were working almost 24 hours a day. In such circumstances, people do not think straight, and officers can become desperate to write cases off.
No one heard of those circumstances during the trial, of course. In court, it seemed that police procedures were perfect, working hours magnificent, and venerable chief superintendents infallible. But no one is infallible. Although Chief Superintendent Muncie was the famous
430
detective who had spotted the teeth marks that convicted Hay in the Biggar murder case, that sharpness was missing when he dealt with the forensic evidence in the Carluke case—because that evidence showed that Beattie was innocent.
Normally, Muncie would have spotted that, in the Carluke murder, the meal that the victim had eaten before leaving home was not in her stomach. That was vital evidence, because it meant that she must have died at about 11 pm, not 8 pm. But the police missed the significance—just one mistake among many.
There is a lurking doubt that the police had smelt that there was something wrong with their case. In Scotland solicitors have the right to question prosecution witnesses such as police before the trial—but Muncie was "too busy" to give a precognition. Perhaps that was because he could not afford to be questioned before the trial.
Picture him in his office as he prepared the case for trial. He knew that at least he had one "ace"—a blood spot on a tissue handkerchief found in Beattie's pocket. The blood grouping was not Beattie's and matched the victim's in two main—though common—groups. Unfortunately, that evidence had been handled in a nonchalant manner. There were no proper notes of its discovery, and no protective measures were taken—poor police work again.
Some of the other scientific evidence was worrying. There was blood under the victim's fingernails—she had scratched her attacker. Although the scratches would have shown on the murderer for days after the murder, Beattie had no scratches. And they could not match the blood under the victim's nails to Beattie.
A greater problem was the blood on the stones under the victim's head. It was clearly hers, but the sub-grouping in the blood did not match the blood found on Beattie's tissue handkerchief. How can Chief Superintendent Muncie have felt when that news came through? His "ace" was gone. There was only one solution. It would have to be claimed that that blood had no relevance to the guilt of the accused. The snag with that argument was that it was a lie—because the blood actually proved that Beattie's guilt did not exist.
So what could be done to lessen the damage that that evidence did to the police case? Quite simply, the evidence was suppressed. We can only guess who suppressed it—but the fact is that it never appeared in the documents presented either to the defence or to the court.
I can tell the House about that evidence now only because the information was let slip after the trial in a letter to Beattie's lawyer from the deputy Crown agent in the Crown Office:
"Mr. Eynon did not examine stones found under the body of the deceased. Another forensic scientist did".
I understand that Mr. Eynon was the forensic scientist during the case. We now know, after the trial, that a separate secret forensic test was taken on the blood.
He goes on:
"They were stained with human blood of group O MN. He also analysed a sample of the deceased's blood which was of group O MN."
There was no O MN in the sample on the tissue, and that proved conclusively that Beattie was innocent.
The report was withheld from the court and from the defence, and it must be asked why. It is new evidence; it was not given to the court, so it should be examined closely now. The letter also said:
"I am not prepared to make a copy of his report available to you."

431
As George Beattie's Member of Parliament, I am asking for a copy of the report, because I want to see what is in it.
As for the problem of the wrong knife that Beattie had chosen as the murder weapon, Muncie glossed it over in court with an adroit answer. He said that the most important thing was blood. Let me refresh the Minister's memory; it was the same knife that Muncie had eliminated because there was no blood on it.
What was the chief superintendent thinking? Of course he knew that defence lawyers tend to stick by their written questions. Beattie's lawyer had no questions about the blood on the knife as none had been found. The court did not take Muncie up on the matter. It let it lie, so that the jury was left with the impression that there had been blood on the knife and that it was the murder weapon.
The kindest thing we can say about Chief Superintendent Muncie and this incident is that he must have momentarily forgotten that the knife he was describing to the jury was the very weapon that he had eliminated at the start of the case because it had no blood on it at all. It would not be nice to say that an officer with such a high reputation deliberately lied to make sure that his last case ended in a conviction, ensuring him a 100 per cent. success record before he left for one of the highest ranking police jobs in Scotland. However, we might excuse George Beattie in his cell in Saughton prison tonight for thinking that.
Those are not matters that Scottish Office Ministers would take seriously when reviewing Beattie's case, but they might well say that it was a matter for an internal inquiry into the police force concerned.
At the bottom of the case is the motive. The police totally failed to come up with any motive for George Beattie to commit the crime, but there is motive for the police to pursue Beattie. The whole case went wrong because of their botched investigation.
Beattie is not in Saughton prison because he committed a murder in Carluke in 1973. He is in gaol because, if the truth comes out, too many reputations will suffer in high places. That is the sad truth; it is something that the Scottish Office and its Ministers must stand up to and answer. They have hidden behind the many complications, twists and turns in the story of George Beattie. They must now realise that the guilty verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
As we sit in this place, proud of its history and its democratic processes, the conviction of George Beattie is a blight on us all. George Beattie is innocent, and the Minister must realise that everyone knows it. He seeks justice from Parliament and the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the name of justice and decency, I ask that George Beattie be given that justice.
12.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): In the eight minutes which remain available to me I cannot cover all the points I should like to have raised if I had the full 15 minutes. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that his remarks tonight will be closely examined and carefully studied. I appreciate that he has deeply held views about the conviction of George Beattie, and in responding I shall deal first with the conviction and then with the life sentence aspects.
432
George Beattie was convicted of murder on 4 October 1973 in the High Court in Glasgow. The victim was a 23-year-old woman from Carluke. She had been stabbed repeatedly on the body and robbed. Doubts have been raised subsequently about the safety of this conviction. I know that various submissions have been made to previous Secretaries of State about Mr. Beattie's case.
In particular, a former Member of Parliament, the late Dame Judith Hart, who was Mr. Beattie's constituency Member of Parliament at the time, wrote to the then Secretary of State in November 1983. She drew to his attention the findings of the BBC production team who had studied Mr. Beattie's case in preparing a programme in the "Rough Justice" television series, which had been shown earlier that month. Having examined these points carefully, the Secretary of State replied in April 1984 explaining that there were not sufficient grounds for him to intervene in the case.
Dame Judith wrote to the Secretary of State again in May 1984, enclosing a paper written by the BBC producer involved, seeking to challenge the Secretary of State's decision. It dealt with several forensic matters and, again, it was carefully examined. The forensic evidence in the case was re-examined by an independent expert with no previous involvement in the case—the director of the medico-legal department at Liege university, Belgium. His report confirmed the validity of the techniques that were used by the forensic scientists in the case and showed that the BBC material did not materially affect the consideration of the case.
The Secretary of State replied to Dame Judith in June 1985, explaining that there remained a lack of any grounds on which he could properly intervene in the case.
I know that there has been some renewed interest in the conviction recently, on the part of the hon. Gentleman and others. I realise that this may have been intensified by Mr. Beattie's recall to custody. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman met my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to discuss the case on 4 November 1992. I can confirm that at present there is no petition before the Secretary of State on Mr. Beattie's behalf. However, if the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, has new evidence or other considerations of substance in the case which have not previously been examined, he or she should submit a petition to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern that a forensic report on blood found at the scene of the murder has not been made available. The report was referred to in a letter of 25 June 1974 from the Solicitor-General of the time to the late Dame Judith Hart, who was Mr. Beattie's Member. The report classified the victim's blood and blood found on stones beneath her head as group O,MN, and accordingly did no more than suggest that the blood on the stones was that of the victim. The then Solicitor-General also confirmed to Dame Judith that no blood was found near the scene of the crime belonging to a group other than Beattie's or the victim's.
Indeed, both the blood on the stones and the blood on the tissues was found on testing to be similar to the victim's blood. The confusion arose because of a misconception that the victim's blood could not have been both group O,MN and group 0 rhesus D positive. In fact, it could be both. I stress that both tests were carried out on blood taken from the same sample of the victim's blood.

433
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the police conduct of the inquiry into the murder of Margaret McGlouchlan. As I have said, his words will be carefully considered and examined. If he has evidence in support of his allegations, and sources, he should arrange to submit them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will ensure that they are closely examined.
It may be helpful if I explain the review procedures for life sentence prisoners in Scotland. The mandatory life sentence exists to protect the public from those who have committed the extremely serious crime of murder. Our system of law provides safeguards and hurdles so that the very greatest care and consideration precedes the release of any life prisoner. The hon. Gentleman said on 19 October:
"Prisons are there to contain people who threaten our community, but people should not be imprisoned unless they deserve it."-[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 272.]
If, at any time, a life licensee's behaviour gives cause for concern, the Parole Board may recommend his recall to custody, whereupon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may revoke a life licence. A person recalled to custody is informed of the reasons for his return to prison and has the right to make written representations.
In Mr. Beattie's case, there were several reviews. He had regular local and home leaves, which with the exception of one, when he returned to the hostel late, passed without incident. He was released on life licence in August 1986. He was supervised in the community first in Scotland and later—
Mr. Hood rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only two more minutes. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I have had only a brief—
Mr. Hood: I wish to be helpful to the Minister.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only two more minutes.
Mr. Hood: Will the Minister make available to me the report to which he has referred that deals with the blood that was found under the victim's head, which was found to be O,MN? Will he provide that report, provision of which has so far been refused?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly make inquiries on that point in co-operation with the Lord Advocate, after which I shall write.
The key point about the blood is that the forensic report of 20 July 1973, which was a production at the trial, indicated that the blood stains on the paper tissues and the blood sample from the victim were group 0 rhesus D positive and that the blood sample from Mr. Beattie was group A rhesus D positive.
As I said, he was released on licence. He returned to Scotland in August 1990, when he took up residence with his mother and began working as a bus driver. The first incident related to his conviction for breach of the peace which gave rise to concern. He was alleged to have confronted and verbally abused the female driver of a car which was obstructing the bus he was driving. Following that, there was a breakdown in relations with his female supervising officer.
The final incident took place on 23 April 1992, when Mr. Beattie visited the office of his new male supervising officer. He was alleged to have kicked the officer on that occasion. He was subsequently convicted of breach of the peace and admonished. That incident was the culmination of what was considered to be a worrying pattern—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charterline Telephone Service
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what budget he has set aside for the Charterline telephone information service he intends to set up in the east midlands pilot project; what charges will be made for the service; how it will be vetted to guarantee that it is politically impartial; and whether he will also fund other citizens' rights information lines which are not under his political control.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter unit is still negotiating the contract for this service. Revealing the budget would undermine the charter unit's negotiating position.

  Callers will be charged at the local call rate for using the service. The service will direct callers to a contact in the public service organisation which is best placed to answer their query or deal with their complaint. It will therefore be a politically impartial service.

  It would not be right to fund other independent information lines which might have other purposes than the provision of information about public service organisations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  NATO
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the terms of the agreement for the forces of NATO to operate outside the areas previously agreed; and what measures are necessary to amend the North Atlantic treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  NATO Foreign Ministers agreed in June and December 1992 that the alliance should support, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with its own procedures, peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe or the United Nations. NATO Defence Ministers agreed in December that support for UN and CSCE peacekeeping should be among the missions of NATO forces and headquarters. Copies of the communiqués from all these meetings are in the Library of the House.

  There is no need for the North Atlantic treaty to be amended to permit NATO to operate outside its own area in pursuit of these decisions; the treaty obliges members of the alliance to respond to an armed attack on one of them within the North Atlantic area, but it does not prevent NATO members from acting collectively outside the North Atlantic area if they so agree.

  Taiwan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with Taiwan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  For well-known reasons, diplomatic relations do not exist between the United Kingdom and Taiwan. There are many unofficial links, reflecting widespread recognition of Taiwan's growing economic weight. The Anglo-Taiwan trade committee and the Anglo-Taiwan education centre respectively promote commercial and educational exchanges. United Kingdom exports to Taiwan in 1992 totalled £545 million. There is scope for expanding business co-operation in many areas including financial services, investment and joint ventures —such as that between British Aerospace and Taiwan Aerospace Corporation. A new air link between the United Kingdom and Taiwan was recently announced.

  EC Social Chapter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the non-incorporation of the opt-out on the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty into United Kingdom law would have on the competence of the European Court of Justice with regard to the rights of British workers and fair competition between United Kingdom companies and their continental counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Non-incorporation of the protocol on social policy into United Kingdom law would have no effect on the competence of the ECJ to interpret the Treaty on European Union, including the clause of the protocol which states that"Acts adopted by the Council …shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom".

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what informal or formal representatives from his Department attended the round table meeting held by UNESCO on 23 February in Paris to bring together artists, writers, journalists and ex-politicians from all sides of the ethnic divide in former Yugoslavia; and what assessment he has made of the effect of an application by the United Kingdom to rejoin UNESCO on such peacemaking and peacebuilding initiatives.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The round table was not attended by any United Kingdom representatives. We welcome Senor Mayor's initiative in organising the meeting. We have made no decision on a resumption of UNESCO membership. The work of UNESCO in this and other fields will obviously be taken into account in reaching any decision.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following meetings are planned:

  2 March—Consumer Affairs Council

  139

  8 to 9 March—Foreign Affairs Council

  15 March—Economic and Finance Council

  15 March—Transport Council

  16 to 17 March—Agriculture Council

  18 March—Fisheries Council

  22 to 23 March—Environment Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  (a) Consumer Affairs Council—2 March

  Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts

  Directive on protection of purchasers of timeshares

  Future action on labelling of products

  Community system on information on accidents

  Exchange of information on products which may jeopardise consumer health or safety

  Action plan for consumer policy (1990–92)

  Proposal for an EC Directive on Comparative advertising amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising

  (b) Foreign Affairs Council—8 to 9 March

  Relations with Central and Eastern Europe

  Association Agreement with Bulgaria

  EEA—Protocol of adaptation

  Cohesion Fund

  Former Yugoslavia

  GATT and other trade issues

  Commercial Defence Instruments

  FSU Textiles Agreement

  (c) Economic and Finance Council—15 March

  Annual Economic Report and national actions to promote economic recovery in Europe

  Convergence programme for Greece (possible)

  Carbon/Energy taxation

  Progress report

  Report of the Court of Auditors for 1991

  Travellers' allowances

  (d) Transport Council—15 March

  Debate on Transport White Paper (11011/92)

  Aviation

  External relations (5080/90) (4146/93)

  Computer reservation systems

  Air traffic management equipment and systems (8420/92)

  Land Transport

  Transport Infrastructure Programme (1993–1994) (8065/92) (10437/92)

  Trans European Networks:

  Guidance for roads (8065/92)

  Inland waterways (8065/92)

  Combined transport (8066/92)

  Fiscal harmonisation (heavy goods vehicles)

  Road haulage cabotage (10038/91) (4943/92) (5334/92) (7662/92) (8315/92) (10855/92) (10881/92)

  Transport agreement with Slovenia (5033/93)

  Transport of dangerous goods (4954/93)

  Road transport external relations (11234/92)

  Maritime Transport

  Maritime safety communication

  Aviation agreement with Switzerland (possible)

  Inland waterway external relations (possible)

  (e) Agriculture Council—16–17 March

  Price fixing proposals (Com(93) 36)

  Milk quotas

  GATT Agriculture

  Processed tomatoes (10485/92; 4185/93)

  Greek tobacco (possible)

  Potatoes (possible) (10483/92; 4613/93)

  (f) Fisheries Council—18 March

  Control system for the Common Fisheries Policy (9019/92)

  Spanish/Portuguese Accession (4158/93)

  Harmonised technical conservation measures in the Mediterranean (11229/92)

  High seas fisheries (possible)

  140

  Market situation of fisheries products

  European fisheries research (possible)

  Third country agreements (possible)

  (g) Environment Council—22–23 March

  ECO Audit regulation (5218/92)

  CO2 monitoring decision (7569/92)

  Carbon/ Energy tax (7018/92)

  Ratification of Climate Change Convention (11233/92)

  Ratification of Biodiversity Convention (4593/93)

  Volatile Organic Compounds emissions directive (VOCS) (Stage I) (8348/92)

  Hazardous waste incineration directive (5761/92)

  CITES regulation (10500/91)

  Emissions from motor vehicles (4142/93)

  The Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 2 March. The directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts will be discussed by Ministers in the hope that it may be adopted. Discussion will also focus on: a directive on the protection of purchasers of timeshares; future action on the labelling of products; the possible extension of the European home and leisure accident surveillance systems (EHLASS) for a further five years; the exchange of information on products which may jeopardise consumer health or safety and the action plan for consumer policy (1990–92). The proposal for an EC directive on comparative advertising, on subsidiarity grounds, will also be discussed by the Council.

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 8 and 9 March. The Council will discuss the EC's relations with central and east European countries and sign an association agreement with Bulgaria. Ministers will be asked to agree a protocol of adaptation to the EEA agreement which would allow it to come into force without Switzerland. Ministers will than discuss the cohesion fund; former Yugoslavia; progress on the GATT negotiations; Commercial defence instruments and a textiles agreement with former Soviet Union states.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 15 March, when Ministers will consider formal adoption of the Commission's annual economic report. Further discussion will take place on actions to promote economic recovery in the Community and there is also expected to be a brief discussion of a progress report on the Commission's proposal for carbon/energy tax. The Council will examine the report of the Court of Auditors on the 1991 budget with a view to making a recommendation to the European Parliament on giving the Commission a discharge with respect to the implementation of the 1991 budget. Ministers may also discuss the economic convergence programme for Greece and increases in the current allowances for travellers from third countries.

  The Transport Council will meet on 15 March. The Council will discuss aviation external relations and trans-European network guidelines. Other subjects for discussion by Ministers include: the transport infrastructure programme; inland waterways and combined transport; road freight fiscal harmonisation; road haulage cabotage; the transport of dangerous goods; road transport external relations and the transport agreement with Slovenia. Additional aviation items include: computer reservation systems and air traffic management equipment and systems. Ministers may also discuss inland waterway external relations and a proposed aviation

  141
  agreement with Switzerland. There will also be a Commission presentation on the maritime safety communication.

  The Agricultural Council will meet on 16 and 17 March. Ministers will discuss the 1993–94 price-fixing proposals; milk quotas; the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations and processed tomatoes. They may also discuss Greek tobacco and the review of the potato regime.

  The Fisheries Council is due to meet on 18 March. Ministers will discuss the proposed control and enforcement regulation; review of the accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal; harmonised technical conservation measures in the Mediterranean and the market situation for fisheries products. They may also discuss the Community policy on high seas fishing; European fisheries research and negotiating mandate for a fisheries agreement with the Russian Federation.

  The Environment Council will meet on 22 and 23 March, when Ministers hope to reach agreement on the ECO-audit regulation, the volatile organis compounds (Stage 1) emissions directive, the CO2 monitoring decision and ratification of the climate change convention. The Council will also discuss: carbon/energy tax; ratification of the biodiversity convention; the hazardous waste incineration directive and the CITES regulation. The Commission will present its communication on marine pollution and may make presentations on substances that deplete the ozone layer (hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide) and emissions from motor vehicles.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are currently undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration to reduce debt burdens of countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is Government policy to cancel the debts of those very poor and indebted countries which are successfully pursuing sound policies of reform. So far, nearly £200 million of old aid debt has been cancelled in countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and other countries will benefit as they fulfil the qualifications for this treatment. All new aid to very poor countries is now given only in the form of grant aid.

  Those debt-distressed countries which do not qualify for aid debt cancellation may apply to have their debts rescheduled through the Paris Club, composed of the major creditor Governments. The Paris Club is prepared to reschedule aid debt over long periods at highly concessional rates of interest. The effect of this is to increase greatly the grant element of the loans concerned, so producing a very substantial reduction in the present value of the obligation to repay.

  Many of these countries owe most of their official debt to export credit agencies rather than to aid agencies. That is why the United Kingdom proposed the comprehensive Trinidad terms initiative for reducing the debts of the very poorest and severely indebted countries. So far, over $3 billion has been consolidated under these agreements in sub-Saharan Africa by the Paris Club, cancelling over $1 billion during the lifetime of the agreements.

TRANSPORT

  Lorries
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish his consultation paper on heavier lorries for combined road and rail transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has published the paper today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Drink Driving
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has issued to road safety officers concerning the role of children in getting across to adults the "don't drink and drive" message; and if he will make it his policy that all "don't drink and drive" advertisements on television sponsored by his Department are transmitted during hours when children are likely to be viewing.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have not given specific advice to road safety officers, although they are involved in the planning of our drink-drive campaigns.

  We aim to show our television commercials to as wide an audience as possible and recognise that children have an important role in influencing the attitudes of adults. Surveys have shown that children's views against drinking and driving have been reinforced by watching the commercials. The final decision on when commercials can be transmitted rests with the Independent Television Commission.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has undertaken into impairment caused by alcohol to the driving of young or infrequent drinkers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There has been no specific research into this subject in the United Kingdom. International research suggests that young drivers arid infrequent drinkers are more likely to be impaired at lower alcohol levels, but there is considerable variability between individuals at all ages.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so as to reduce the alcohol limit in Britain to 50 mg/100 ml and to include random breath tests.

  Mr. Carlisle
  No. The current limit of 80 mg/100 ml is scientifically based at the level at which, for most people, the chance of being involved in an accident starts to rise sharply. More than half of all drink-drive offenders are convicted at twice this limit. Lowering the legal limit and introducing random breath tests would risk directing resources away from this group of high risk offenders.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received to lower the legal unit of alcohol in the breath and blood for tests carried out by the police; and what information he has as to the legal limits set by other countries.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We receive representations from time to time from road safety organisations and from members of the public. The best information we have on legal limits for drinking and driving in other countries is for other European Community member states, a majority of which share the same legal limit as the United Kingdom.

  Shipping (Dangerous Cargoes)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research contracts his Department has let into measures for controlling the routes of ships carrying dangerous or polluting cargoes while they are in British waters; and what plans he has for future research.

  Mr. Norris
  A contract was let in 1989 to assess shipping movements along the west coast of Scotland since the deep water route to the west of the Hebrides was implemented.

  The Department is also involved in the European Community project "Euret", which is directed at the development of vessel traffic systems.

  Roads Maintenance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was transferred from the highway maintenance standard spending assessment to the highways structural maintenance elements of transport supplementary grant in the settlement for 1993–94; how much of that sum has been allocated for structural maintenance on principal roads and how much for Bridge strengthening; and what was the amount of local authority expenditure on structural maintenance on principal roads in 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  For 1993–94 a further £120 million has been transferred from revenue support grant to the transport supplementary grant system to cover structural maintenance on carriageways of principal roads. This followed two previous transfers, £90 million in 1991–92 for assessment, strengthening and other structural maintenance on bridges and £100 million in 1992–93 for carriageways of roads on the primary route network.

  Of the £310 million transferred, £172·8 million has been allocated in 1993–94 for structural maintenance on carriageways of principal roads, and £137·2 million for assessment, strengthening and other structural maintenance of bridges.

  For 1993–94 local highways authorities may switch resources between bridges and carriageways according to local priority.

  The amount of local authority expenditure on structural maintenance on principal roads in 1992–93 is not yet available. Local highway authorities have budgeted to spend £119 million on these roads in 1992–93.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the location, cost and duration of the road improvement schemes funded by his Department in the city of Westminster since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department was not directly responsible for funding road improvements in the city of Westminster prior to 1986. No major improvement schemes have been carried out on trunk roads in the city since then. We have supported a number of local road improvements through transport supplementary grant.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the proposals for a channel tunnel rail link from Union Rail; and when he proposes to publish them.
  144
  Mr. Freeman
  A report from Union Railways on options for refining the route of the channel tunnel rail link was received on 11 January 1993. The Government will announce as soon as possible a route for consultation, together with information on the options put to Ministers by Union Railways.

  British Rail
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account is taken of British Rail's capital requirements to maintain the network in setting the public spending total for the Department of Transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's capital requirement is one of the most important factors taken into account in setting the Department's public spending allocation.

  Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make compulsory the wearing of safety helmets by children on bicycles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have no plans to make compulsory the wearing of cycle helmets by child cyclists. We must ensure that children and parents are fully aware of the very significant improvement in safety that helmets give. This has been the subject of recent publicity by the Department and will be an important element of our forthcoming cycling safety campaign.

  Railway Lines (Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the future of the Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury and Machynlleth-Pwllheli railway lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The level of service provided on these lines is currently a matter for British Rail. In due course, that responsibility will be assumed by the franchising director.

  Ashford International Station
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an announcement about the proposed Ashford international station.

  Mr. Freeman
  The public expenditure settlement for 1993–94 allows for British Rail to undertake urgent track and signalling works for the proposed Ashford international passenger station. What exactly needs to be provided is still under discussion and I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as decisions have been reached.

  Red Routes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the figure for accidents and casualties on the Archway road red route pilot and for the pilot corridor in 1991; and if he will instigate an independent inquiry of the pilot study.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to instigate an inquiry. Independent monitoring of the pilot red route has already been carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory.
  145
  The following figures are for the periods of 18 months before arid after the introduction of the scheme in January 1991.

  Pilot route

  Pilot route corridor

  Before

  After

  Change per cent.

  Before

  After

  Change per cent.

  Accidents

  701

  626

  -11

  1,008

  857

  -15

  Casualties

  788

  683

  -13

  1,132

  951

  -16

  Notes:

  (1) The above figures were taken from the London Accident Analysis Unit's database in November 1992. Accidents occurring 50 metres either side of major junctions, or on minor side roads within 50 metres of the centre line of the main road, have been allocated to the main road.

  (2) City Road has been excluded from the table because the London Borough of Islington never implemented the red route controls there.

  (3) The normal requirement for the analysis of accident statistics is a three year period. We have provided figures over the shorter period because of the particular public interest in this project.

  Agencies, Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consideration was given to including, in the advertisement placed in the Official Journal of the European Community for the sale of DVOIT, a requirement that it must remain in Swansea;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the proposed privatisation of DVOIT in Swansea.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the advertisement for the privatisation of the Department of Transport agencies based in Swansea will specify that the privatised facilities should remain in the Swansea area.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 10 February 1993]: I am advised that the proposed privatisation of DVOIT by means of a sale to a private sector company will be a transfer within the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Future location options for DVOIT will be a matter for prospective purchasers of the agency to consider.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools(a) did and (b) did not receive a capital allocation named grant in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is shown in the table for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Self-governing schools: named project capital allocations

  (a)

  (b)

  Year

  Number of schools with named project allocations

  Number of schools with named project allocations

  1990–91

  27

  2

  1991–92

  34

  31

  1992–93

  92

  74

  Note: The figures in column (b) relate to the number of self-governing schools eligible to bid in that year's named project capital funding round.
  146
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many ballots for grant-maintained status the Electoral Reform Society has reported to him that improper conduct and procedure had taken place.

  Mr. Forth
  Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. reports the factual results of ballots to the governing body of the school concerned and to the Department. From time to time the Department receives complaints about improper conduct or procedure in a ballot. If these require investigation, Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. may be asked for its comments.

  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total capital expenditure named projects grant, for grant-maintained schools in each of the last three years; and how many grant-maintained schools there were in each of these years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is shown in the following table. Final outturn figures for 1992–93 are not yet available as expenditure is still being incurred by schools.

  Self-governing schools: Named project outturn expenditure

  Year

  Expenditure1 on named projects (£ thousands)

  Named of schools in sector2

  1990–91

  5,835

  29

  1991–92

  7,485

  65

  1 Expenditure figures relate to spending by schools on named projects awarded allocations in each year listed and excludes expenditure on projects started in earlier programme years.

  2 The figures relate to the number of self-governing schools eligible to bid in each year's named project capital funding round.

  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many ballots for grant-maintained status he has ordered to be re-run; and what were the reasons for these orders.

  Mr. Forth
  Four ballots have been declared void and required to be re-run to date. In each case, the grounds for the decision were errors in the ballot arrangements.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he has taken to notify parents about grant-maintained schools; how much these measures have cost in each financial year; and what further expenditure is planned.

  Mr. Forth
  Information specifically for parents about grant-maintained schools is set out in "Grant Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask" and through the telephone helpline.
  147
  The printing costs of "Questions Parents Ask" in the financial years from 1989–90 to 1991–92 totalled £40,000. It is not possible to disaggregate this information further without incurring disproportionate cost. Printing costs this year are estimated at £60,000. Distribution costs fall within the terms of the contract with the Departmental despatch centre and cannot be identified separately. Expenditure in 1993–94 has been planned on the basis of current demand.

  The GM helpline for parents is a pilot scheme which will run to the end of March. Decisions about extending this service will be made at that time. The estimated cost for the six week pilot is £225,000 which covers the running of the telephone helpline and publicising the availability of the service in the national press and magazines.

  English
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if his departmental advisers on the teaching of English to 14-year-olds will meet representative heads of departments from London's secondary schools for discussions on coursework, assessment and curriculum issues.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is advised on curriculum issues by the National Curriculum Council and on assessment issues by the School Examinations and Assessment Council. It is for those bodies to respond to any requests for meetings put to them.

  Educational Equipment (Exports)
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which Minister in his Department is responsible for promoting the export of educational equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  I am responsible within the Department for Education for educational exports. The Department provides support to companies wishing to export educational equipment, while the British Council has responsibility for promoting the export of education and training services, a field in which it is especially active.

  Truancy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement itemising the main details and purpose of each scheme he is funding under the grants for education support and training programme 1993–94 to deal with truancy; and if he will provide the same information for schemes whose proposals were presented to him which have not been funded.

  Mr. Forth
  Proposals submitted by local education authorities (LEAs) under the reducing truancy programme of the grants for education support and training (GEST) scheme 1993–94 took a variety of forms. Bidding was competitive, with priority being given to those LEAs where the problems were most severe. Individual bids were assessed according to the extent to which they:

  Children for whom statements of special education needs were made for the first time in LEAs in England 1987 to 1991

  Calendar year

  Local education authority

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  ILEA

  968

  1,103

  1490

  1,368

  n/a

  City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  171

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161

  148

  clearly identified the scale of need at the schools designated;

  demonstrated an innovative and well thought out strategy for tackling truancy/unauthorised absence;

  provided a clear statement of objectives, together with performance indicators against which the effectiveness of provision could be measured;

  made appropriate use of the experience and expertise of the Education Welfare Service; and

  were based on, and furthered, good practice.

  On that basis, projects to a total value of £9·6 million were approved in 74 LEAs. Eight projects were rejected.

  Schools Expenditure, Cambridgeshire
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital expenditure on state schools in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984 in(a) nursery schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the information requested.

  Capital spending by Cambridgeshire LEA on schools in each year since 1984

  £thousands

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1984–85

  1,674

  3,240

  1985–86

  2,127

  3,947

  1986–87

  2,011

  3,127

  1987–88

  5,699

  3,686

  1988–89

  8,697

  6,511

  1989–90

  11,582

  9,045

  1990–91

  8,203

  5,625

  1991–92

  8,758

  11,929

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1991–92 are provisional.

  2. Capital expenditure on nursery and primary schools is not identified separately in the returns made by local authorities.

  3. Spending on special schools is omitted.

  Special Needs Education
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children of(a) primary age and (b) secondary age, (i) in each local authority area and (ii) in total have been statemented in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  Separate information on primary and secondary age children for whom a statement of special educational needs has been made is not available. Information on the numbers of children of all ages for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time during each of the calendar years 1987 to 1991, the latest year for which information is available, in each local education authority in England is given in the table.
  149

  Calendar year

  Local education authority

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  123

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57

  Kensington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  103

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  174

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  137

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  Barking

  30

  50

  54

  65

  73

  Barnet

  87

  53

  101

  85

  129

  Bexley

  122

  120

  183

  204

  257

  Brent

  290

  93

  80

  37

  81

  Bromley

  159

  135

  124

  132

  97

  Croydon

  207

  121

  132

  119

  109

  Ealing

  78

  126

  108

  137

  169

  Enfield

  32

  43

  22

  19

  31

  Haringey

  57

  61

  50

  73

  108

  Harrow

  94

  91

  73

  75

  96

  Havering

  111

  77

  62

  106

  136

  Hillingdon

  35

  47

  108

  73

  46

  Ilounslow

  169

  170

  234

  238

  95

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  44

  60

  70

  76

  76

  Merton

  150

  92

  71

  88

  62

  Newham

  51

  81

  131

  101

  154

  Redbridge

  74

  92

  77

  82

  117

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  83

  75

  87

  69

  76

  Sutton

  100

  91

  101

  108

  98

  Waltham Forest

  63

  52

  51

  97

  74

  Birmingham

  526

  361

  325

  335

  496

  Coventry

  158

  143

  120

  151

  146

  Dudley

  135

  135

  168

  193

  191

  Sandwell

  156

  152

  120

  51

  88

  Solihull

  106

  110

  104

  127

  128

  Walsall

  138

  86

  166

  153

  159

  Wolverhampton

  133

  146

  87

  160

  148

  Knowsley

  147

  130

  133

  202

  169

  Liverpool

  118

  151

  365

  618

  435

  St. Helens

  27

  146

  151

  136

  122

  Sefton

  122

  130

  96

  186

  179

  Wirral

  138

  294

  235

  133

  145

  Bolton

  97

  93

  97

  109

  121

  Bury

  153

  170

  157

  164

  168

  Manchester

  114

  165

  162

  112

  135

  Oldham

  80

  110

  207

  210

  89

  Rochdale

  119

  124

  154

  157

  78

  Salford

  52

  62

  48

  61

  18

  Stockport

  226

  199

  163

  244

  225

  Tameside

  97

  203

  184

  124

  148

  Trafford

  167

  97

  133

  125

  77

  Wigan

  104

  2

  188

  303

  388

  Barnsley

  44

  34

  45

  95

  122

  Doncaster

  154

  135

  162

  162

  142

  Rotherham

  215

  171

  155

  305

  301

  Sheffield

  145

  160

  105

  128

  197

  Bradford

  111

  94

  100

  75

  145

  Calderdale

  70

  72

  50

  45

  59

  Kirklees

  289

  191

  243

  249

  347

  Leeds

  124

  687

  351

  311

  441

  Wakefield

  139

  107

  166

  93

  202

  Gateshead

  22

  43

  56

  85

  198

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  132

  155

  131

  103

  154

  North Tyneside

  123

  129

  167

  178

  169

  South Tyneside

  105

  86

  97

  74

  70

  Sunderland

  104

  139

  170

  148

  263

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  487

  682

  603

  333

  450

  Bedfordshire

  264

  248

  264

  284

  329

  Berkshire

  262

  322

  421

  504

  716

  Buckinghamshire

  401

  498

  484

  716

  568

  Cambridgeshire

  49

  296

  90

  111

  340

  Cheshire

  487

  620

  575

  566

  720

  Cleveland

  277

  333

  420

  359

  353

  Cornwall

  231

  263

  419

  245

  426

  Cumbria

  227

  166

  155

  322

  323

  Derbyshire

  495

  633

  587

  742

  594

  150 151

  Calendar year

  Local education authority

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Devon

  586

  632

  847

  793

  924

  Dorset

  345

  198

  247

  287

  341

  Durham

  227

  265

  219

  204

  308

  East Sussex

  203

  261

  180

  247

  211

  Essex

  808

  800

  778

  627

  613

  Gloucestershire

  274

  300

  247

  278

  433

  Hampshire

  920

  950

  1,038

  1,034

  1,686

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  133

  192

  242

  397

  417

  Hertfordshire

  463

  462

  580

  584

  741

  Humberside

  193

  267

  255

  211

  483

  Isle of Wight

  63

  56

  45

  46

  68

  Kent

  700

  549

  595

  953

  983

  Lancashire

  810

  968

  1,269

  1,124

  1,305

  Leicestershire

  268

  389

  486

  465

  587

  Lincolnshire

  254

  383

  354

  665

  687

  Norfolk

  492

  407

  551

  508

  500

  North Yorkshire

  394

  247

  296

  397

  437

  Northamptonshire

  229

  277

  297

  230

  357

  Nothumberland

  164

  170

  142

  161

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  233

  327

  264

  218

  153

  Oxfordshire

  95

  88

  132

  144

  263

  Shropshire

  311

  364

  234

  434

  480

  Somerset

  309

  426

  244

  169

  161

  Staffordshire

  586

  538

  606

  639

  666

  Suffolk

  475

  454

  522

  387

  435

  Surrey

  848

  701

  953

  497

  1,178

  Warwickshire

  282

  269

  315

  249

  244

  West Sussex

  264

  262

  177

  267

  350

  Wiltshire

  405

  509

  530

  665

  775

  ENGLAND

  22,408

  24,017

  24,633

  26,519

  30,847

  1 Incomplete return.

  —= Not available.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many higher education institutions have requested additional funds for their access fund from his Department during the present academic year.

  Mr. Boswell
  Access funds are allocated to higher education institutions through the funding councils at the beginning of the academic year. Institutions are aware that once allocations are made no additional funds are available.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the access fund for the University of Manchester in 1992–93.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Universities Funding Council allocated £365,270 to Manchester university, including £24,440 for the Manchester business school, as the university's share of the access funds for the academic year 1992–93.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the operation of the higher education institution access funds for 1992–93.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is too early to say how the scheme is progressing in the current academic year. The funding councils are asked to submit an annual report to the Department on the use of the funds by institutions after the end of each year.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1992,Official Report, column 659, how many higher education institutions have none of their 1992–93 access fund moneys left.
  152
  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally. We have advised institutions, through the funding councils, to consider holding back some of their access funds and to make arrangements to meet requests for assistance late in the academic year and during the summer vacation.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many county court judgments were secured against students during(a) September 1992 to December 1992 and (b) January 1993 to February 1993 by the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much Her Majesty's Government have spent on tackling illiteracy in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for local education authorities to determine their level of expenditure on adult literacy provision. Government funding over the last five years of the adult literacy and basic skills unit, which is the central organisation for advice and research into adult literacy, was as in the following table.

  £ million

  1988–89

  2·3

  1989–90

  2·4

  1990–91

  2·7

  1991–92

  3·0

  1992–93

  3·2

  153
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the number of(a) adults and (b) children who are (i) illiterate or (ii) functionally illiterate in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  There are very few adults in the United Kingdom who are completely illiterate in the sense that they cannot read or write at all. The adult literacy and basic skills unit, which advises the Government, estimates that 4 million adults in England and Wales have real difficulty coping with everyday tasks like filling in forms; and a further 1·5 million are reckoned to have difficulty with numerical skills. Such people are often described as being "functionally illiterate", although there is no standard definition of that term. ALBSU has however recently developed a common set of standards for communication and numeracy. These standards describe competence levels in reading, writing, number and oral communication skills. They have been mapped against both the national curriculum and the communication and numeracy units in the new general national vocational qualifications. Better information on the incidence and level of these difficulties will become available as these standards are more widely applied.

  It is impossible to provide comparable figures for children, since the rate at which individual children acquire and master literacy skills varies. The testing and assessment arrangements being introduced under the national curriculum will in future provide parents and teachers with clear information about children's reading and writing standards.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research into the problems of illiteracy has been financed by his Department in each of the last five years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Boswell
  The adult literacy and basic skills unit, which is funded by the Government to advise on, and conduct research into, adult literacy, has conducted extensive research over the last five years. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with details of the cost of that research.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to tackle the problem of illiteracy in British industry and commerce; and at what cost.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department for Education, the Department of Employment and the Welsh Office are jointly funding an initiative on basic skills involving employers and training and enterprise councils. The basic skills at work programme has funded surveys of need and provision and is now funding pilot projects to explore new methods of providing vocationally-related basic skills training, for those in or out of work. The initiative will cost about £3 million over three years. In addition, many firms offer basic skills training independently.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made of the cost to British industry and commerce of illiteracy in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The adult literacy and basic skills unit, which is funded by the Government, is currently conducting research into this question. The results of that research are expected to be available in early April.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  London Marathon
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what fee it is proposed to charge the organisers of the London marathon for use of(a) St. James's park and (b) Greenwich park for the London marathon in 1993; and what is the basis for the charge.

  Mr. Key
  The London marathon is being asked to pay £15,000 for the use of the royal parks in 1993. This charge is based on the area utilised and the period of the event.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy in relation to the Sports Council's policy of sport for all; and how that policy is interpreted in relation to the London marathon.

  Mr. Key
  The Department supports the Sports Council's policy of sport for all. This is entirely consistent with charging a fee for use of the royal parks for the London marathon.

  Greenwich Park
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions in the past five years a cultural, sporting or entertainment event has been held in Greenwich park which has been organised by a private, voluntary or commercial organisation, Government Department or other statutory body, apart from letting of sports pitches; what was the nature of the event in each case; what were the estimated additional costs to the Department of the Environment or the Department of National Heritage for each letting; what was the fee levied; and what was the basis of the charge.

  Mr. Key
  Apart from the London marathon, only minor local events have been held in Greenwich park. These minor events involved the Department in no additional costs and no charge was levied. For that reason, no records have been kept of the individual events.

  National Lottery
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that there will be equal opportunities for disabled people when employees are recruited for the national lottery.

  Mr. Key
  The organisation licensed to run the national lottery will be a company in the private sector, bound by the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958.

  The Office of the National Lottery, headed by the Director General, will like other regulatory bodies be a non-ministerial Government Department. Its staff will be civil servants or engaged on conditions analogous to those of civil servants. The civil service is an equal opportunity employer and all applications for employment are considered on their merits.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what the total funds were for the national tourist boards in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland
  155
  for the last five years; what the projected funds are for the next three years; if he will show those figures per head of adult resident population, in real terms at current prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The following table shows the funds provided to each of the national

  Assistance to National Tourist Boards: Grant in Aid and Tourist Projects, Gross Expenditure

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Estimate

  1993–94 Plans

  1994–95 Plans

  1995–96 Plans

  English Tourist Board

  Cash£ million terms

  25·80

  21·80

  17·20

  15·70

  16·10

  14·00

  10·80

  9·00

  £ per head current prices

  0·86

  0·68

  0·49

  0·42

  0·41

  0·35

  0·26

  0·21

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Cash £ million terms

  9·90

  11·10

  12·10

  12·70

  13·60

  13·50

  13·90

  14·20

  £ per head current prices

  3·07

  3·23

  3·25

  3·20

  3·28

  3·17

  3·15

  3·14

  Wales Tourist Board

  Cash £ million terms

  9·30

  9·90

  10·60

  11·30

  13·70

  13·80

  13·70

  13·80

  £ per head current prices

  5·15

  5·12

  5·06

  5·06

  5·87

  5·75

  5·52

  5·39

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Cash £ million terms

  5·40

  5·70

  7·40

  7·10

  11·70

  11·90

  11·30

  11·50

  £ per head current prices

  6·00

  5·90

  7·06

  6·26

  9·79

  9·59

  8·74

  8·60

  Note: Population figures underlying per head calculations based on those aged 15 or over at mid-year for England, Scotland and Wales, and those aged 16 or over for Northern Ireland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chlor-alkali Manufacture
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the effect of the reallocation of electricity costs, the new pool tariff, on chlor-alkali manufacture.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are in dialogue with large electricity users about electricity prices, and this issue is among those that are being considered by the coal review. Any proposals would need to benefit all customers with appropriate circumstances.

  Coal Research Establishment
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for future funding of the Coal Research Establishment.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future funding of clean coal technology and the role of Coal Research Establishment in developing this technology is under discussion as part of our work on the coal review.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last visited the Coal Research Establishment.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have not visited the Coal Research Establishment. However, my chief scientific adviser on science and technology visited the establishment on 29 January 1993.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans there are to harmonise the system of export licences across the European Community.
  156
  tourist boards over the last five years; the estimated outturn for the current year; planned totals for the next three years; and the amount spent per head of adult resident population in each year at current prices. Allocations to the national tourist boards reflect the differing circumstances and priorities in each country; direct comparisons are therefore misleading.

  Mr. Needham
  On 31 August 1992 the Commission of the European Communities adopted a proposal for the Council regulation on the control of exports of certain dual-use goods and technologies and of certain nuclear products and technologies.

  The proposed regulation aims to provide a framework for common export controls to be applied by member states to dual-use and nuclear goods leaving the territory of the European Community, and for the harmonisation of export licensing systems. Member states are continuing to discuss Commission proposals in a Council high level working group set up for this purpose.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider introducing a system of blanket export licences on the line of that operating in the Netherlands.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom already operates a system of open general export licences—OGELs—which are similar to the global export licences issued in the Netherlands. An open general export licence is a general authorisation permitting the export of a range of controlled goods to a range of destinations without the need for prior application to the Department of Trade and Industry. Its use is subject to compliance with the conditions of the licence. There are currently eight open general export licences in force.

  Corporate Communications plc
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Public Relations Consultants Association about the collapse of Corporate Communications plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A letter on this subject has been received from the Public Relations Consultants Association. My officials replied to that letter on 1 March 1993.

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action his Department is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the additionality criteria for European Community structural funds; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what efforts his Department is making to account for European Community structural funds receipts transparently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Public expenditure arrangements take account of receipts from the structural funds when departmental programmes are set. My Department is responsible for providing public expenditure cover for forecast European regional development fund receipts for projects which fall within my Department's ambit. For the next financial year some £60 million of provision has been made, and in accordance with the agreement with the European Commission reached in February last year, this is reflected more transparently in the departmental report, which was laid in the House of Common's Library on 10 February 1993.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that miners working at the 21 pits in the coal review will not be financially disadvantaged by remaining in employment until the House has completed consideration of the closure proposals.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 February, Official Report, column 773.

  Mineworkers (Redundancy)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the present enhanced redundancy scheme for mineworkers ceases; and what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about extending it.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Pennistone (Mr. Clapham) on 26 February, Official Report, column 773.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to provide expedited approval procedures for European regional development fund assistance for schemes to enable early approvals to be gained to provide an incentive for infrastructure schemes to be carried out by local authorities and other eligible infrastructure-providing bodies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend has made no such arrangements. The possibility of ERDF assistance should be incentive enough to local authorities and other bodies to seek early approval for schemes which may qualify for grant. Applications must be appraised to ensure that they give value for money.
  158
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the United Kingdom's share of the European regional development fund for 1992–93 has been allocated.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: It is not possible to derive figures for the allocation of only the 1992–93 part of the United Kingdom's share of the European regional development fund, many of the programmes span longer periods.

  Approximately two thirds of the United Kingdom's share of the fund for the present period of the regulations from 1989–93 has been allocated.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the European Community Commissioner for Regional Affairs in relation to the achievement of(a) transparency, (b) additionality and (c) sequential causality in the approval procedures for assistance from the European regional development fund from United Kingdom local authorities and other eligible bodies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: In accordance with the appropriate Community regulations, receipts from the European regional development fund are taken into account in setting departmental expenditure programmes.

  The Government will implement from the beginning of the next financial year new arrangements to improve the transparency of the public expenditure treatment of these receipts, as agreed with the Commission.

  A number of meetings have taken place at official level to explain to the Commission progress on these new arrangements, which are at present being finalised.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with local authorities and their associations and other eligible infrastructure-providing bodies in relation to the impact of the approval of areas of Britain for European regional development fund objective 1 status on the availability of funds for areas with objective 2 status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: None. it was only on 24 February that the Commission adopted a proposed list of objective 1 regions for the period 1994 to 1999 which included the Highlands and Islands and Merseyside, as well as Northern Ireland whose objective 1 status was confirmed by the European Council at Edinburgh. The final decisions on which regions will be eligible for objective 1 rests with the Council of Ministers in the context of the review of the structural fund regulations.

  Carpet Trade
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the tariff levels of United Kingdom exports of carpets, headings 5702 and 5703, to(a) the United States of America, (b) South Africa, (c) Australia, (d) Turkey, including additional duties, (e) India, (f) Pakistan, (g) Thailand and (h) Malaysia together with any non-tariff barriers which apply and the tariff level for imports of that product from the same countries into the Community.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: The tariff information is as follows:
  159
  United States of America

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 0 to 10 per cent.

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  South Africa

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 20 to 30 per cent.

  Additional duties: Surcharge of 15 to 40 per cent.

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  Australia

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 0 or 32 per cent. (due to be reduced to 15 per cent. by year 2000)

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  Turkey

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 6·5 per cent.

  Additional duties: $100/sq metres if of wool/fine animal hair

  $600/sq metres if of silk

  $15/sq metres if of other materials

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  India

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 65 per cent.

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  Pakistan

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 90 per cent. but banned unless synthetic for hockey pitches

  Additional duties: 12·5 per cent. sales tax

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  Thailand

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 30 to 100 per cent.

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  Malaysia

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 5 to 40 per cent.

  Additional duties: 10 per cent. sales tax

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 4 to 14 per cent.

  Knitwear
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the tariff levels for United Kingdom exports of sweaters, heading 6110, to(a) the United States of America, (b) South Africa, (c) Australia, (d) Turkey, including additional duties, (e) India, (f) Pakistan, (g) Thailand and (h) Malaysia together with non-tariff barriers which apply and the tariff level for imports of that product from the same countries into the Community.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: The tariff information is as follows:

  United States of America

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 5 to 34·2 per cent.

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10.5 to 14 per cent.

  South Africa

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 100 per cent.

  Additional duties: Surcharge of 15 per cent.

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10·5 to 14 per cent.

  Australia

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 47 per cent. (due to be reduced 25 per cent. by year 2000)

  Additional duties: None

  160

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10–5 to 14 per cent.

  Turkey

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 7·6 per cent.

  Additional duties: 21 per cent. of CIF value for housing fund

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10·5 to 14 per cent.

  India

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 65 per cent.

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10·5 to 14 per cent.

  Pakistan

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 90 per cent. but banned

  Additional duties: 12·5 per cent.

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10–5 to 14 per cent.

  Thailand

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 100 per cent.

  Additional duties: None

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10·5 to 14 per cent.

  Malaysia

  Import duty imposed on United Kingdom exports: 25 per cent.

  Additional duties: 10 per cent. sales tax and 5 per cent. Surtax

  Duty imposed on imports into EC: 10·5 to 14 per cent.

  Overseas Trade
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the net total direct expenditure in terms of assistance to exporters made by the Overseas Trade Board in the latest year for which figures are available; what was the net cost of the provision of overseas trade services in that year; and what percentage the latter figure represents of the former.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The total cost of the overseas trade services export promotion programme in 1991–92 was £173·4 millions gross, £127·3 millions of which was the cost (including overheads) of the staff involved (including FCO commercial staff overseas and export sections of Territorial Departments).

  Direct expenditure on export promotion schemes and services was £46·1 millions gross (£27·9 millions net of receipts). Details are given in the annual report of the British Overseas Trade Board.

  Takeover Bids
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many formal recommendations he has received from the current Director General of Fair Trading since his appointment; and how many have concerned hostile takeover bids for publicly quoted companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The Director General of Fair Trading has made recommendations in respect of 95 merger cases since his appointment. There is no agreed definition of a hostile takeover bid. However, I understand that there have been five cases involving publicly quoted companies where the management of the target company has recommended rejecting the bid.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the European Commission to provide the economic assessment of COM(92) 520 final on transport of radioactive substances in the European communities, as mentioned at paragraph 12 of explanatory memorandum 11035/92.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the European Commission has been asked to provide an economic assessment. Its response has been that this is not a significant proposal which requires a cost compliance assessment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action his Department is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the additionality criteria for European Community structural funds; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what efforts his Department is making to account for European Community structural funds receipts transparently; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88 requires that the"increase in the appropriations for the Funds provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88 has a genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned and results in at least an equivalent increase in the total volume of official and similar (Community and national) structural aid in the Member State concerned".
  Accordingly, our public expenditure arrangements take account of Community receipts from the structural funds when departmental programmes are set.

  From the beginning of the next financial year, the Government will implement new arrangements agreed with the Commission to improve the transparency of the public expenditure treatment of European regional development fund receipts. Details of these new arrangements were set out in a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 30 June 1992 at column 526.

  British Telecom (Shares Sale)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of advisers appointed to advise on the forthcoming sale by the Government of shares in British Telecom, specifying for each adviser the area of work and date of appointment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the appointments made to date for the forthcoming BT share offer.

  BT share offer—advisers appointed

  Date of appointment

  Company

  Role(s)

  30 November 1992

  Ernst & Young

  Financial consultant

  8 December 1992

  S. G. Warburg

  Financial adviser

  Global co-ordinator

  Lead UK broker

  15 December 1992

  Linklaters & Paines

  Legal advisers

  162

  Date of appointment

  Company

  Role(s)

  15 December 1992

  Brunswick Public Relations

  PR/Marketing adviser

  3 January 1993

  Addison Design Company

  Design consultants1

  11 January 1993

  Solid Solutions Associates

  Financial consultant

  25 January 1993

  MORI

  Market research

  24 February 1993

  WCRS

  Advertising agency

  1 Appointed by Brunswick.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what month of 1993–94 he expects to offer for sale British Telecom shares currently held by the Government.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No decisions have yet been taken on either the timing of the next sale of shares in BT or the number of shares to be offered for sale.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which investment banks and brokers were invited by the Treasury to tender as advisers in the forthcoming sale by the Government of shares in British Telecom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  S. G. Warburg has been appointed as financial adviser, global co-ordinator and lead United Kingdom broker for the forthcoming BT share offer. The names of companies invited to tender for an appointment, but not subsequently appointed, are treated as commercially confidential.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations he has made or plans to make to estimate the effect on(a) purchases of books and newspapers, (b) consumption of food and (c) purchase of children's clothes, by families on a regional, socioeconomic and income basis of the imposition of VAT at various percentage rates.

  Sir John Cope
  Work carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies commissioned by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and Her Majesty's Treasury and completed in 1991 suggests an own price elasticity of -0·657 for leisure goods, which include books and newspapers; -0·.856 for food; and -0·754 for clothing. These elasticities suggest that applying the standard rate of VAT to goods which are presently zero-rated would reduce the volume of sales by 9·8 per cent., 12·7 per cent. and 11·.2 per cent. respectively. We are not aware of any reliable estimates of how these price elasticities vary according to region, socio-economic status or income.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent recommendations of the retail prices index advisory committee.

  Mr. Lamont
  I have decided to accept all the recommendations made by the committee in its report Cm 2142 on the treatment in the RPI of council tax and holidays as extended by the addendum Cm 2153 on the treatment of transitional relief. The report and the
  163
  addendum were presented to the House and published on 21 January and 24 February 1993 respectively. The Central Statistical Office will implement the changes with effect from the RPI for February 1993.

  Gross Domestic Product (Cornwall)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated per capita GDP figure for Cornwall for the latest available year; what is the comparable per capita GDP figure for areas of the United Kingdom which have been granted objective 1 status for EC support; and what is the latest available average per capita GDP figure for the whole European Community.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The European Commission has proposed that Northern Ireland, Merseyside and the Highlands and Islands region of Scotland be granted objective I status for the period 1994 to 1999, but the final decision is to be taken by the Council of Ministers in the context of the review of the structural funds regulations. GDP per head figures for Cornwall and the above regions are given below for the year 1989, the latest available on a consistent basis. Also provided is an index comparing these areas with the European Community average for the period 1988–90, on a "purchasing power" basis.

  Gross domestic product per head

  £per head 19891

  PPS/head, EC=100 1988–892

  Cornwall

  5,739

  76

  Northern Ireland

  5,747

  76

  Merseyside

  5,721

  79

  Highlands and Islands

  5,934

  100

  EC average

  n/a

  100

  Sources

  1 Central Statistical Office

  2 Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Communities

WALES

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inspections have been undertaken in Wales(a) in total and (b) to waste incineration plants by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution during each of the last three years.

  Table 1: average size of registered classes

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  25·5

  25·8

  25·7

  25·0

  25·8

  Dyfed

  21·4

  21·8

  21·0

  21·6

  21·7

  Gwent

  25·7

  26·4

  26·9

  27·1

  27·5

  Gwynedd

  21·1

  21·6

  22·1

  21·8

  22·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  26·0

  26·2

  26·2

  27·2

  26·9

  Powys

  20·2

  20·3

  20·6

  22·1

  22·2

  South Glamorgan

  27·0

  26·7

  26·4

  26·5

  26·6

  West Glamorgan

  24·2

  24·8

  25·1

  25·8

  26·0

  Wales

  24·5

  24·8

  24·8

  25·2

  25·4

  164
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The inspectorate carried out 338 inspections in 1990–91, 657 in 1991–92 and 588, to date, in 1992–93. Of these, 13, 20 and 15, respectively, were undertaken at waste incineration plants.

  Care and Repair Cymru
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the capital allocation for Care and Repair Cymru in each of the last two financial years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Care and Repair home improvement agency initiative provides help and advice on home improvements, maintenance and repairs for elderly and/or disabled owner-occupiers. There is no capital investment programme associated with the initiative.

  The Department provides revenue funding to the initiative. Care and Repair Cymru received revenue support of £141,751 in 1990–91 and £111,429 in 1991–92.

  Research
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Research Council to secure improved representation of academics from Welsh institutions on research students awards committees.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. Each of the research councils has its own mechanism for distributing awards to students. My right hon. Friend has, however, asked the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to establish effective working relations with the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the individual research councils to ensure that the interests of the higher education sector in Wales are taken fully into account at all stages.

  Primary School Classes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average class size in primary schools in Wales within each local education authority area during each of the last five years, expressed in average numbers and teacher-pupil ratios.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the average class size and pupil-teacher ratios in primary schools within each local education authority during each of the last five years is given in the following tables:
  165

  Table 2: pupil-teacher ratios

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  24·0

  24·7

  24·6

  24·2

  24·1

  Dyfed

  20·8

  20·2

  19·9

  19·9

  19·7

  Gwent

  22·5

  22·8

  23·1

  23·4

  23·6

  Gwynedd

  20·3

  20·8

  21·0

  20·8

  21·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  22·9

  23·2

  23·4

  24·0

  23·5

  Powys

  19·3

  19·7

  20·0

  20·5

  20·5

  South Glamorgan

  22·7

  22·7

  22·2

  21·6

  21·8

  West Glamorgan

  21·3

  21·6

  21·4

  21·5

  21·5

  Wales

  22·1

  22·3

  22·3

  22·3

  22·3

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the annual cost of treatment for coronary heart disease in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public libraries have been open and operational in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of public library service points, which include mobile libraries, provision in hospitals and residential houses etc, as well as public library buildings are:

  Number

  1979–80

  807

  1980–81

  923

  1981–82

  966

  1982–83

  948

  1983–84

  968

  1984–85

  1,005

  1985–86

  978

  1986–87

  1,156

  1987–88

  1,218

  1988–89

  1,242

  1989–90

  1,267

  1990–91

  1,318

  1991–92

  1,386

  Source: The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Public Library Statistoics.

  I am pleased to note the steady increase in the number of library service points in Wales.

  Forestry
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for promoting the future development of forestry in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The forests and woodlands in Wales, and the industries they support, play a valuable role in maintaining rural communities. More than 4,700 people work in the forests, in the downstream industries and in the haulage of timber. Many hundreds more earn a living from associated services and tourism. Forests also make their contribution to a better environment and provide opportunities for countryside leisure and recreation.
  166
  I want to ensure that we manage our forests and woodlands well, that we find the most suitable locations to expand the forest area, and that we look at ways of adding value to our home-grown forest products.

  I have therefore decided to set up a group of experts to examine these issues and to promote the future development of forestry in Wales. The group will bring together forestry, farming, environmental and development interests, under the chairmanship of the Forestry Commission's chief conservator for Wales. The terms of reference for the group—and a list of its members—have been placed in the Library of the House. The group will begin work shortly and I have asked it to report to me on its conclusions and recommendations by the spring of next year.

  Roads
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends updating the information given in the 1992 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s."

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have today published the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Attorney-General what recourse or protection is available against a person who, contrary to the repeatedly expressed wishes of the recipient, persists in sending letters to that recipient through the Royal Mail.

  The Solicitor-General
  I have no responsibility for the substance of the law relating to the use or abuse of the Royal Mail. An individual experiencing a problem should seek legal advice directed at the circumstances of the particular case.

HEALTH

  Organ Donations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organ donations have been made in(a) each regional health authority and (b) each district health authority in (i) 1982, (ii) 1987 and (iii) the last 12 month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the numbers of cadaveric solid organ donors in 1982, 1987 and 1992 in
  167
  England by regional health authority. Figures for

  Region

  1982 (kidney donors only)

  1987

  19921 (provisional)

  Northern

  26

  40

  51

  Yorkshire

  22

  49

  58

  Trent

  43

  58

  72

  East Anglia

  22

  36

  33

  North West Thames

  29

  45

  43

  North East Thames

  36

  56

  53

  South East-West Thames2

  50

  102

  100

  Wessex

  29

  42

  33

  Oxford

  26

  37

  39

  South Western

  31

  46

  48

  West Midlands

  52

  64

  70

  Mersey

  25

  29

  38

  North Western

  29

  41

  61

  TOTAL

  420

  645

  699

  1 Figures supplied by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  2 For operational reasons South East Thames and South West Thames are treated as one region.

  Community Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will meet representatives of the King's Fund to discuss funding levels for community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have no plans to do so.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific formal training environmental health officers are given in regard to food safety regulations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The most common route to qualification as an environmental health officer is a four-year honours degree in environmental health which has received accreditation from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and which includes integrated practical training. The content, interpretation and application of food safety legislation is covered in detail, and a central theme on all courses is risk assessment, so that environmental health officers are able to assess whether action under the Food Safety Act 1990 and associated regulations is necessary to protect public health. In addition the Department of Health runs seminars for environmental health officers on risk assessment and the implementation of European Community legislation.

  Abused Children
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will set up a monitoring unit in respect of abused children as advocated by the Warner committee; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We will be considering this recommendation from the Warner report in the light of the responses to the consultative process which ended on 28 February 1993.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of treating patients suffering from smoking-related diseases and ailments in each year since 1989–90; and if she will make a statement.
  168
  individual district health authorities are not held centrally. The numbers of organs donated are considerably higher as many donors supply more than one organ.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is available only for the costs of hospital admissions in 1988–89 and is taken from the Health Education Authority's report, "The Smoking Epidemic". This estimates the annual hospital costs for smoking-related disease in England and Wales to be £351 million (at 1990–91 prices).

  Complementary Therapists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts are being taken by regional health authorities and family health service authorities to encourage awareness among general practitioners and the public of the availability of complementary therapists on the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. General practitioners are already aware that, under their terms of service, they are able to employ a wide range of staff, including complementary therapists where necessary, to assist them in the provision of general medical services. The range of services they provide are contained in the information leaflets they are required to make available to their patients. Family health services authorities are also required to make available local directories of the general practitioners in their area and the services they provide.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's latest estimate of the annual numbers of the public paying to see an alternative health practitioner.

  Mr. Sackville
  No information is held centrally on which to base such an estimate.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of social workers currently practising are unqualified.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Redbridge Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the names of the chairman and non-executive directors of the Redbridge Healthcare Trust, the hours they will be required to work and the salaries they will be paid.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:Chairman: Mr. Mike Smith.
  Non-executive directors: Mr. Michael Faraway; Mr. Ismail Simjee; Mrs. Louise Hyams; Mr. Rod Budgett; Mrs. Mary Springham.

  Trust chairmen are expected to devote between three and three and a half days a week and non-executive directors between two and three days a month to trust business.

  They will receive annual remuneration of £19,285 (chairman) and £5,000 (non-executive directors).

  Gene Patents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the policy of national health service laboratories about entering into agreements to pay fees in respect of gene patents;

  (2) what advice she is giving in response to patent claims in relation to biotechnology intellectual property, with particular references to the cystic fibrosis gene;

  (3) what is her policy in relation to licence fees for the use of polymerase chain reactions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The subject of intellectual property rights, including those for polymerase chain reaction and gene sequences, is under review.

  Haemoglobin Testing
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken in relation to inner city areas of routine haemoglobin estimation by capillary sampling of children under five years using a haemoglobinometer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has not undertaken or funded any such studies. An expert sub-group of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy is currently reviewing all aspects of the weaning diet including the incidence and prevention of iron-deficiency anaemia in children in this age group.

  The national diet and nutrition survey of pre-school children is at present collecting data on the dietary intakes and nutritional status of children in Great Britain aged 14½ –4½ years, including haemoglobin levels.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much capital money her Department(a) has available and (b) has allocated for the provision of secure units for young people in England in 1992–93; and if she will provide a list of the establishments concerned and the sums allocated in each case;

  (2) how much capital money her Department (a) made available and (b) spent on the provision of secure units for young people in England in 1992–93 and each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have made available £2 million in capital money for 1992–93 to fund new provision and upgrading 170
  and refurbishment of secure units for young people in England. A further £680,000 is available to meet the capital cost of providing additional secure places for juvenile remands.

  The remaining information is shown in the tables.

  Secure accommodation capital expenditure April 1992 to February 1993 (England)

  £

  St. John's, Birmingham

  295,646

  Redsands, Cheshire

  7,454

  Stoke House, Coventry

  164,750

  Market Street, Derbyshire

  4,831

  Sutton Place, Humberside

  305,187

  Dales, Lancashire

  68,202

  Fylde, Lancashire

  22,762

  Briars Hey, Lancashire

  17,461

  Redbank, Lancashire

  48,279

  Stamford House, LB Hammersmith

  138,209

  Total to 28 February 1993

  1,072,781

  Secure accommodation capital Budget/expenditure 1982–83 to 1991–92 in thousands

  Year

  Budget £000

  Expenditure £000

  1982–83

  750

  525

  1983–84

  600

  316

  1984–85

  1,000

  572

  1985–86

  615

  506

  1986–87

  1,400

  503

  1987–88

  1,200

  1,205

  1988–89

  1,100

  1,029

  1989–90

  1,572

  926

  1990–91

  2,365

  2,333

  1991–92

  2,300

  2,153

  London Ambulance Board
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the names of the persons who are, or who have been, since 1 January 1991, members of the London ambulance board; who appointed them and on what date; what was the relevant experience of each relating to their membership; what was the terms of office of each member; and to whom the board is completely accountable, other than to herself.

  Mr. Sackville
  South West Thames regional health authority has made the following appointments for the periods indicated to non-executive positions on the London ambulance service board since it was established in June 1990:

  From 8 June 1990 for two years up to 7 June 1992

  Mr. Kim Morrell

  Mr. Stephen Miles

  Mr. Victor Paige

  Mr. Roderick Braithwaite

  Mrs. Adrienne Fresko (resigned 31 March 1992)

  From 8 June 1992 for the period to 31 August 1994

  Mrs. Mary Spinks

  Mrs. Janet Preston

  Mrs. Joanne Cutmore (resigned 23 September 1992)

  From 8 June 1992 for the period to 31 August 1996

  Mr. Victor Paige

  Mr. Roderick Braithwaite

  The board is accountable to South West Thames regional health authority as the authority with the responsibility for managing the London ambulance service on behalf of the four Thames regional health authorities.
  171
  The relevant background and experience of London ambulance service board members, as a non-statutory body, is a matter for South West Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Professor Marian Hicks, chairman of South West Thames regional health authority, for details.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the date and manner of appointment of Mr. John Wilby as chief executive of the London Ambulance Board, (b) the method of advertising used for the post and (c) the number and positions of the persons attending the final interviews of the appointing body; and who was responsible for making the appointment.

  Mr. Sackville
  South West Thames regional health authority appointed Mr. John Wilby as chief executive of the London ambulance service on 1 August 1990 following a recruitment exercise for the post including a national newspaper advertisement, assessment and candidate selection. The final selection panel comprised Baroness Cumberlege, the chairman and Mr. Chris Spry regional general manager of South West Thames regional health authority, Mr. James Harris, then chairman of the London ambulance board, David Rennie, chairman of Harrow DHA and John Smale, personnel director of the brewing division of the Guinness Group.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and on what authority the board of South West Thames regional health authority appointed the members and chairman, respectively, of the London ambulance board; what responsibilities were given to them; when and where they were published; and what reports of that board have been published in the public minutes of that authority since its creation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service board is a non-statutory body established in June 1990 by South

  Prescription charge increases 1 January 1963 to 1 April 1993, in cash and real terms

  Date

  Prescription charge (£)

  Cash change (£)

  Per cent. Cash change

  Per cent. Change real terms

  1 January 1963

  0·10

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1963

  0·10

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1964

  0·10

  —

  —

  -4·3

  1 March 1965

  nil

  -0·10

  —

  —

  1 April 1965

  nil

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1966

  nil

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1967

  nil

  —

  —

  —

  10 June 1968

  0·13

  0·13

  —

  —

  1 April 1969

  0·13

  —

  —

  -5·0

  1 April 1970

  0·13

  —

  —

  -7·6

  1 April 1971

  0·20

  0·07

  53·8

  40·9

  1 April 1972

  0·20

  —

  —

  -7·5

  1 April 1973

  0·20

  —

  —

  -6·5

  1 April 1974

  0·20

  —

  —

  -16·4

  1 April 1975

  0·20

  —

  —

  -20·3

  1 April 1976

  0·20

  —

  —

  -11·9

  1 April 1977

  0·20

  —

  —

  -12·0

  1 April 1978

  0·20

  —

  —

  -9·8

  16 July 1979

  0·45

  0·25

  125·0

  92·8

  1 April 1980

  0·70

  0·25

  55·6

  31·5

  1 December 1980

  1·00

  0·30

  42·9

  42·9

  1 April 1981

  1·00

  —

  —

  -8·8

  1 April 1982

  1·30

  0·30

  30·0

  21·4

  1 April 1983

  1·40

  0·10

  7·7

  2·9

  1 April 1984

  1·60

  0·20

  14·3

  8·8

  1 April 1985

  2·00

  0·40

  25·0

  18·5

  1 April 1986

  2·20

  0·20

  10·0

  6·6

  1 April 1987

  2·40

  0·20

  9·1

  3·4

  1 April 1988

  2·60

  0·20

  8·3

  1·0

  172
  West Thames regional health authority which has responsibility for managing the London ambulance service on behalf of the four Thames regional health authorities. The responsibilities and reporting procedures of the London ambulance service board are a matter for South West Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may care to write to Professor Marian Hicks, chairman of South West Thames regional health authority, for further details.

  Ambulance Crews (Overtime)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now make it her policy to ensure that all offers of voluntary overtime by ambulance crews that would fill gaps that would otherwise occur in scheduled rostering are not subject to budget restrictions.

  Mr. Sackville
  All national health service providers, including ambulance services, must provide services within the resources allocated to them. It is for individual ambulance services to manage overtime levels within the overall staffing budgets and to ensure that staff are rostered to provide services to the public.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase in prescription charges in each year since 1963; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is in the table. The prescription charge remains substantially less than the average total cost of a prescribed item to the national health service; only one in five prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors now attracts a charge, compared with two in five in 1979.
  173

  Date

  Prescription charge (£)

  Cash change (£)

  Per cent. Cash change

  Per cent. Change real terms

  1 April 1989

  2·80

  0·20

  7·7

  1·1

  1 April 1990

  3·05

  0·25

  8·9

  0·9

  1 April 1991

  3·40

  0·35

  11·5

  4·3

  1 April 1992

  3·75

  0·35

  10·3

  5·8

  1 April 1993

  4·25

  0·50

  13·3

  10·3

  Health Advisory Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget was allocated to the health advisory service for the financial year 1991–92 and 1992–93; what was the actual expenditure for 1991–92 and the estimated out-turn for 1992–93.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: The budget allocation for the health advisory service (HAS) in 1991–92 was £432,282, and the expenditure was £398,483; in addition to this the HAS had access to Departmental funds to pay for the secondment of personnel from health authorities and social services departments and £667,104 was spent on this in 1991–92. In 1992–93, the HAS budget included an allocation for secondments, and was set at £997,500; the estimated out-turn is £450,000.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government (Staff)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the numbers of people employed in local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of people employed by Scottish local authorities in September 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, was 305,361.

  Quarterly figures for local authority staffing are published jointly by the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities arid are available in the Library.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to come to firm decisions on his plans to privatise or franchise Scottish water.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend will take a decision on the future of water and sewerage services only after all responses to the consultation have been carefully considered. None of the options contained in the consultation paper has been ruled out.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to the consultation document on water and sewerage sources which were(a) opposed to privatisation/franchising and (b) in favour of full-scale privatisation/franchising; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We are still analysing the many responses to the consultation paper and do not therefore have the figures requested by the hon. Member.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of drug taking and drug dealing were reported in Scottish secondary schools in(a) 1985–86, (b) 1987–88, (c) 1990–91 and (d) 1991–92.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not collected in the form requested. However, the numbers of persons under 17 in Scotland dealt with for drug offences was 157 in 1990 and 226 in 1991. The equivalent figures for the earlier years requested are not readily available, but I shall write to the hon. Member with further information as soon as possible.

  The figures I have given do not indicate whether or not the offence occurred on school premises.

  River Tay (Flood Control)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about a flood control scheme for the River Tay; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There have been nine representations about a flood control scheme for the River Tay. Such a scheme would require a full investigation of the Tay catchment area and I am pleased to say that Tayside regional council is considering proposals for a study. We have already indicated to the council that we would be willing in principle to contribute to the study, and details of the council's proposals are awaited.

  Local Government
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations he consulted with in Scotland while taking stock of measures to improve the future government of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I and my ministerial colleagues meet a wide range of organisations during the course of our duties and have taken the opportunity of listening to their views on constitutional issues.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which five manufacturing industries have been the largest foreign earners in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  According to the Scottish Council Development and Industry it carries out an annual survey of Scottish manufactured exports and this is the most comprehensive source of information available.

  In each of the five years to December 1991, the five leading exporters among Scottish manufacturing industries have been, beginning with the largest: office

  175
  machinery, food and drink, chemicals, electronics and mechanical engineering. The order has been unchanged over the five-year period.

  Top five Scottish manufacturing export industries in the five years ending 1991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1. Office machinery1

  1,929

  2,388

  2,573

  2,792

  2,588

  (Per cent.)2

  30

  33

  34

  33

  29

  2. Food and drink1

  1,378

  1,485

  1,694

  1,991

  2,129

  (Per cent.)2

  22

  21

  22

  23

  24

  3. Chemicals1

  701

  686

  723

  833

  1,065

  (Per cent.)2

  11

  10

  9

  10

  12

  4. Electronics1

  607

  590

  684

  796

  803

  (Per cent.)2

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  5. Mechanical engineering1

  461

  486

  536

  599

  667

  (Per cent.)2

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  1 (£ million current prices).

  2 Percentage of total manufacturing exports.

  Government of Scotland
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further stock he has taken on the future government of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Our review of constitutional arrangements is well advanced and I hope that an announcement about its findings will be made to the House shortly.

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the formula to be used in April to distribute Department of Social Security resources in the new community care provisions in the Borders region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State made clear when the Department of Social Security transfer was announced in October 1992 that the distribution within Scotland would be reviewed after the first year of operation.

  Salmon Farming
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the future of the salmon farming industry in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend and I receive regular representations about the future of the salmon farming industry, particularly recently concerning proposals to stabilise the salmon market. We recognise the importance of salmon farming for the highlands and islands of Scotland and have welcomed the industry's proposals to establish producer organisations. We have not, however, been able to agree to the proposed compulsory powers for such organisations.

  Economy
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the STUC to discuss the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend last discussed the Scottish economy with the STUC on 14 December 1992.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16 to 18-year-olds in the Glasgow, Govan constituency were unsuccessful in their attempts to find a YTS place during 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what basis he has used for the assessment of civil legal aid expenditure for the financial year 1993–94; and if he will make a statement on proposed changes to eligibility.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend considers the forecasts supplied by the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the context of the public expenditure survey.

  I set out the Government's revised proposals on eligibility for legal aid in Scotland in my reply of 17 February to the hon. Member for Ayr at column 226.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what submissions he has received from Scottish local authorities about the future administration of the water and sewerage services.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received submissions from all the regional and islands councils, and from 42 district councils. These are being considered.

  Stranraer-Carlisle (Communications)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further improvements are planned for communications between Stranraer and Carlisle.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The recent network review of trunk roads in Scotland confirmed that the upgrading of the A75 has substantially eliminated the main operating difficulties on the route. However, the Government have plans for further improvements which emphasise safety and overtaking opportunities. I
  177
  understand that ScotRail is investigating the possibility of restoring a short section of track at Ayr to allow the Stranraer-Carlisle service to run via Mauchline. This could reduce the present journey time between Stranraer and Carlisle by around 25 minutes.

  Broadleaf Trees
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the ratio of broadleaf trees to conifers planted and to be planted in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Sir Hector Monro
  One third of the total area of woodland planted in 1991–92 by the Forestry Commission, and by the private sector with the aid of Forestry Commission grants, was with broadleaved trees. This included the restocking of felled woodland. I expect the ratio of broadleaves to conifers to be similar in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Elderly People (Housing)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further assessment he has made of the housing requirements of elderly people and people with disabilities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidelines on the provision of sheltered housing and housing for the disabled were issued to local authorities on 28 March 1991 in the circular "Housing and Community Care" and set out the recommened level of provision in each case. The authorities were also advised to set targets matching local circumstances and needs over an appropriate timescale.

  Forestry
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to privatise Forest Enterprise.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Government have no such plans.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial services industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The financial and business services industry makes a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. In employment terms it has grown by over 80 per cent. since 1979 to its present level of 220,000, representing 11 per cent. of all Scottish employees in employment. Over the past decade the industry's contribution to Scottish gross domestic product has grown from 91 per cent. to 15 per cent. Funds under management at December 1992 stood at a record £103.4 billion. The industry is well placed to benefit from the opportunities of the single European market and I expect to see continuing strong growth in output in the years ahead.

  Exports
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest Scottish export statistics.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Council Development. and Industry published the results of its latest annual survey of 178
  Scottish manufacturing exports in November 1992. This is the most comprehensive source of information on Scottish manufactured exports.

  In 1991 the value of Scottish manufacturing exports reached its highest ever level of £8.8 billion and this represented a 3 per cent. increase in current value.

  Scotland exports more per head of population than the United Kingdom and, in 1991, the value of manufacturing exports for each Scottish worker was £23,000—some 19 per cent. above the United Kingdom figures.

  Companies (Irvine)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken against companies in Irvine which have moved on soon after accepting Government grants.

  Mr. Stewart
  Where companies have received regional selective assistance to assist projects in Irvine and these projects have ceased within the conditions period of the offer of assistance, the action taken has been to pursue recovery of grant paid.

  Power Supply
  Mr.Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of Scottish Power to discuss the security of supply.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Scottish Power from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Minches (Shipping Safety)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding shipping safety in the Minches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has recently received a number of representations regarding shipping safety in the Minches. These representations have been concerned primarily with the grounding of the MV Braer in Quendale bay, Shetland, in January. Responsibility for marine safety lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the future of the Victoria infirmary.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets representatives from all health boards. As regards Greater Glasgow, I am aware that the health board is conducting a review of all its acute and maternity services. The Victoria infirmary features as part of that review and my right hon. Friend looks forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.

  Education
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the allocations of further education capital and recurrent grant for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.
  179
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allocation of capital and recurrent grant to the 43 further education colleges and Orkney and Shetland Islands councils is as follows:

  Grant allocations 1993–94

  College

  Capital grant

  Recurrent grant

  Aberdeen College of Further Education

  513,193

  11,456,100

  Angus College of Further Education

  38,604

  2,504,800

  Anniesland College

  147,363

  3,250,300

  Ayr College

  43,776

  3,998,500

  Banff and Buchan College

  8,683

  2,649,300

  Barony College

  90,438

  1,016,700

  Bell College

  364,230

  4,444,400

  Borders College

  48,747

  3,496,400

  Cambuslang College

  46,287

  3,734,000

  Cardonald College

  271,187

  5,209,200

  Central College of Commerce

  359,873

  3,218,100

  Clackmannan College

  46,552

  2,178,500

  Clydebank College

  39,886

  5,934,400

  Coatbridge College

  51,410

  3,399,300

  Cumbernauld College

  8,029

  2,177,900

  Dumfries and Galloway College of Technology

  66,967

  4,584,800

  Dundee College

  166,504

  10,073,500

  Elmwood College

  165,147

  2,924,700

  Falkirk College of Technology

  30,226

  7,468,700

  Fife College of Technology

  50,732

  6,017,400

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  8,680

  2,883,400

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  247,419

  3,517,200

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  635,986

  4,450,200

  Glenrothes College

  10,457

  4,313,000

  Inverness College

  343,528

  6,038,700

  James Watt College

  77,200

  4,886,500

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  417,623

  7,107,500

  John Wheatley College

  73,768

  2,625,500

  Kilmarnock College

  222,743

  3,921,000

  Langside College

  356,916

  4,737,900

  Lauder College

  38,574

  4,560,800

  Lews Castle College

  172,067

  1,879,400

  Moray College of Further Education

  70,295

  4,214,700

  Motherwell College

  317,232

  5,955,000

  North Glasgow College

  279,311

  5,526,100

  Oatridge College

  207,576

  1,793,400

  Perth College of Further Education

  95,565

  5,039,600

  Reid Kerr College

  503,999

  6,496,800

  Stevenson College

  206,626

  9,423,200

  Stow College

  78,982

  3,039,600

  Telford College

  680,966

  11,310,000

  Thurso College

  11,058,877

  2,319,500

  West Lothian College

  41,949

  4,739,100

  Orkney Islands Council

  20

  391,000

  Shetland Islands Council

  20

  1,093,900

  Computerised Management

  8,704,173

  3202,000,000

  Information System (to be allocated)

  2,710,000

  1,800,000

  TOTALS

  11,414,173

  203,800,000

  1 Includes £0–9 million for ongoing project.

  2 Capital expenditure dealt with through Section 94 allocation to local authority.

  3 An additional £0–8 million will be available to FE Colleges through the Training Credit pilot schemes.

  The recurrent grant allocations derive from an analysis of historic budgets. Direct comparison with the position in 1992–93 is not possible because of the changed status of the colleges, their taxation liabilities, variations in income resulting, for example, from changes in higher education tuition fees and the different methods used by each education authority to allocate budgets.
  180
  In 1994–95 recurrent expenditure is planned to rise to £215 million and capital expenditure to £12–76 million. It is proposed to introduce a new student based funding methodology from 1994–95.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current target figures for students entering higher education.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: The Government do not set target figures for students entering higher education. It is for individual institutions to decide the number of students to admit to higher education courses in the light of the demand for those courses and the level of available resources. The expenditure plans set out in Cmd 2214 allow for the proportion of young Scots entering full-time higher education in the United Kingdom to remain roughly constant at its current level of about 34 per cent. for the next three years. Thereafter, the Government expect the proportion to rise to 40 per cent. before the end of the decade.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to compensate the student housing sector if Scottish Homes maintains its decision to withdraw funding for student accommodation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: No. Scottish Homes has not withdrawn funding for student accommodation. It has issued guidance on the relative priority to be attached to student accommodation projects compared with other housing needs. Scottish Homes has only very occasionally funded student accommodation. The impact of the guidance, in terms of housing for students, will therefore be minimal.

ENVIRONMENT

  Country Sports
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the total income, tax revenues and jobs resulting from country. sporting activities.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am aware of the recent report by Cobham Resource Consultants, produced on behalf of the standing conference on countryside sports, entitled "Countryside Sports—Their Economic and Conservation Significance." This report demonstrates the significance of country sports to the rural economy and we have noted its conclusions with interest.

  The report estimates that total direct expenditure by organisers of and participants in country sports in Great Britain, amounted to some £1·4 billion in 1991, and provided for direct employment equivalent to 65,000 full-time jobs and indirect employment equivalent to 60,000 full-time jobs.

  Clean Technology
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been undertaken by his Department to encourage European Community cooperation on the promotion of clean technology following the European Commission report "Industrial Competitiveness and Environmental Protection" of 1986.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission communication, reference number SEC(92)1986, was produced in November last year and discussed under the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers on 24 November 1992. The Council warmly welcomed the communication and, inter alia, invited the Commission and member states to co-operate to encourage the development and diffusion of cleaner technologies. The Council of Environment Ministers in December welcomed the communication as a step forward in integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas. The Government look forward to further discussions under the Danish presidency.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the implications for United Kingdom policy of decisions undertaken at the emergency meeting of the joint European Environment and Transport Council in January to discuss oil spills.

  Mr. Maclean
  As the answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 28 January at column 796 made clear, no decisions were taken at the meeting which require any change in United Kingdom policy.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the actual expenditure on departmental publicity relating to housing matters in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The information in respect of publicity relating to housing matters (excluding staff costs) is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £

  1987–88

  362,252

  1988–89

  261,764

  1989–90

  1,540,580

  1990–91

  1,206,323

  1991–92

  1,392,074

  1992–93

  11,399,500

  1 Forecast.

  It is not possible to identify related staff costs. Expenditure figures for 1979–80 to 1986–87 are not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Energy Efficiency Office in testing materials used under the home energy efficiency scheme.
  182
  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for the scheme's administering agency, the Energy Action Grants Agency.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are currently undertaken by his Department to monitor the standard of installations carried out under the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Energy Action Grants Agency (EAGA) which administers the home energy efficiency scheme employs technical monitoring officers who make physical inspections of a proportion of all work carried out under the scheme.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to review the maximum levels of grant offered for home insulation under the home energy efficiency scheme;

  (2) what plans he has to extend the range of improvements which can be grant aided to low-income households under the home energy efficiency scheme;

  (3) what plans he has to increase the rate of loft insulation and draughtproofing in low-income households as part of the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  There will be a small increase in the amount of grant available under the home energy efficiency scheme from some £35 million in the current year to £37.5 million in 1993–94. The scheme is intended to ensure that the greatest number of low income households can benefit from basic energy efficiency measures. I have no current plans to introduce changes to the scheme which would increase the average cost per household and thus reduce the number who could benefit.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being undertaken by his Department to encourage take-up of energy advice offered under the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Neighbourhood energy action is currently undertaking research for the Energy Action Grants Agency on the delivery of energy advice under the scheme.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish pilot schemes to test the value of introducing energy efficiency measures for households in addition to those specified under the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for I he Environment if he will make it his policy to provide funds under the home energy efficiency scheme on the basis of numbers of eligible households within a given area.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Eligibility for grant under the scheme depends on the client being in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Allocations of funding to installers must take account of the amount of similar work already carried out in an area and the installer's ability to use the allocation.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish energy audits on a sample of households which have been assisted under the home energy efficiency scheme.
  183
  Mr. Maclean
  The interim evaluation of the home energy efficiency scheme currently being carried out by the building research energy conservation support unit includes energy audits of a sample of households assisted by the scheme. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House when it is available.

  Landfill
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recommendations have been made by the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment on landfill pricing; when their recommendations were made; what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment recommended in October 1991 that the price of landfill in the United Kingdom should be increased significantly to levels obtaining elsewhere in the EC. In our response in October 1991, we pointed out that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was already having an upward impact on landfill prices. However, we agreed to re-examine landfill pricing and have undertaken a programme of work since then. On 9 February this year, I announced the publication of a consultants' report for the Department, "Landfill Costs and Prices: Correcting Possible Market Distortions". We have invited comments on the report by 26 March 1993. We will then consider whether to introduce one or more economic instruments for solid waste.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average gate fee for municipal solid waste disposed to landfill in the United Kingdom; and what information he has about gate fees obtaining in other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report published by my Department last month, which examines the possibility of a levy on waste going to landfill, indicates that the costs of landfilling municipal solid waste in this country range from £5 to £30 per tonne. Comprehensive information is not held about gate prices for municipal solid waste disposal in other member states of the European Community. Prices in some countries are thought to be below the minimum figure for this country. Prices in those countries which have introduced a tax on waste going to landfill are considerably higher than the maximum for this country.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average gate fee for municipal solid waste disposal to landfill in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made as to whether that price fully reflects(a) the cost of compliance with the existing pollution control regime, (b) the cost of damage to the environment and harm to human health and (c) the position of landfill in the waste management hierarchy as the disposal route of last resort.

  Mr. Maclean
  The prices charged for municipal solid waste disposed to landfill are set by the operators of individual sites. In determining prices, operators will take account of the conditions imposed through the licensing regime which require measures to be taken in order to prevent disposal operations causing pollution or harm to human health.
  184
  Waste management in this country takes place within a legislative framework which ensures that each operation is strictly controlled so as to avoid pollution or harm to human health. Within this framework, market forces currently generally determine the disposal option for waste destined for final disposal. In the 1992 Environment White Paper, the Government indicated that they would in future make a presumption in favour of using economic instruments to achieve environmental objectives. As part of our programme of work to explore the use of economic instruments, we have recently published a report which examines the idea of placing a levy on waste going to landfill.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of municipal solid waste is disposed to landfill in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on practice in other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom produces about 20 million tonnes of municipal waste each year of which about 85 to 90 per cent. is currently disposed to landfill. Landfill has historically been the principal waste disposal route for most European countries. Other countries do not benefit from the geology that makes landfill an environmentally sound disposal option in the United Kingdom. Some are now reducing their dependence on landfill although it continues to be a major means of waste disposal for most states. Information produced by the statistical office of the European Communities shows that the proportion of municipal waste disposed to landfill by other member states is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  50

  Denmark

  53

  Germany

  66

  Greece

  98

  Spain

  77

  France

  45

  Ireland

  100

  Italy

  31

  Luxembourg

  30

  Netherlands

  55

  Portugal

  28

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to implement the EC habitats directive by primary legislation.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are assessing what is necessary to implement the directive. Our proposals will he issued in due course.

  Wildlife Sites
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of damage to wildlife sites from destruction or damage by developers subsequent to refusal of planning permission on nature conservation grounds have been brought to his attention in the years from 1989 to 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret the information is not available in the form requested. Over the last two years about 24 cases have been drawn to the attention of the Department.
  185
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the need for new powers to control wilful damage to wildlife sites of the kind occurring at Royate hill, Bristol.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the last 12 months 50 to 60 letters in support of proposals for some form of additional protection for sites of local wildlife importance have been received by the Department. The majority of these followed the unfortunate incident at Royate hill.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to local authorities to prevent damage to wildlife sites from destruction or damage by developers subsequent to the refusal of planning permission on nature conservation grounds.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities may use their powers to enter into management agreements with landowners, to declare local nature reserves and make byelaws to protect them. They may make tree preservation orders and article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights. They have a number of powers to acquire land by agreement or, where authorised, compulsorily but it is for the local authority to decide which power or powers are appropriate. Wild birds and certain species of animal and plant are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or under specific legislation and local authorities and others have the power to prosecute offenders.

  Nature Conservation Orders
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities on the need for nature conservation orders.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Commission to issue notes of guidance on local government reorganisation for Avon, Humberside, Cleveland and Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Local Government Commission is due to publish its draft recommendations for local government structure in Cleveland and Durham by 9 May. Draft recommendations for Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset and for Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire are due to be published by 13 and 20 June respectively.

  Illegal Camping
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress on consultation on the law relating to illegal camping.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am considering carefully over 1,200 responses to this Department's consultation paper "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968". I have placed a list of the responses in the House of Commons Library, and copies of the responses are in the Department's library. An announcement about the way forward will be made as soon as practicable.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the eco-labelling regulation has been followed by the United Kingdom Eco-labelling Board in its development of criteria for eco-labels; and if he will set out the consultations the board has had with interest groups and the assessment it has made of the full life cycle ecological impact of products.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no reason to believe that the United Kingdom Eco-labelling Board has not followed the requirements of the EC regulations in its development of criteria for eco-labels.

  As the board has responsibility for operational aspects of the scheme I have asked it to write to my hon. Friend setting out the consultations it has carried out with interest groups with information on the assessments they have made of the full life cycle ecological impacts of the product groups.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to subject the eco-labelling scheme to a full cost-benefit analysis to establish if the environmental improvements achieved are consistent with the time and money being invested.

  Mr. Maclean
  We shall evaluate the effectiveness of the policy as we do with all new policy initiatives to ensure that it meets the objectives set and provides value for money.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what reasons underlie the targeting by the United Kingdom Eco-labelling Board of hairsprays, deodorants, and hair styling aids for eco-labels; what plans he has to include furnishings, textiles, hi-fi equipment and other products with known environmental impacts; and if he will make a statement on how product categories for new eco-labels will be selected in future;

  (2) what progress is being made with the European eco-labelling scheme; and which product categories he expects to be finalised for launch in June.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom Eco-labelling Board has been established to administer and promote I he European Community eco-labelling scheme nationally and has responsibility for dealing with the operational aspects of the scheme. I have therefore asked the board to reply to my hon. Friend direct.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority(a) the amount spent on council house repairs and maintenance, (b) the number of council-owned properties and (c) the average spent on repairs and maintenance per council-owned property, for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Sir George Young
  I have deposited a copy of tables showing the information requested by the hon. Member in the Library of the House. The amounts shown in the tables relate to revenue expenditure on repairs and maintenance and do not include expenditure on major repairs charged to capital.

  Norbreck Parade, London
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to call in the report of the inspector in relation to the appeal held on 3 and 11 February at Ealing town hall in relation to the creation of an access from the north circular road to Norbreck parade, London NW10.

  Mr. Baldry
  The appeal has been recovered for the Secretary of State's decision.

  Numbers employed in local authorities in Cambridgeshire At June of each year

  Authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-lime

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Parl-lime

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Cambridgeshire county

  12,261

  8,349

  12,355

  8,617

  12,613

  10,135

  12,979

  10,914

  13,088

  11,022

  13,179

  11,059

  13,397

  11,374

  13,403

  11,712

  13,380

  12,369

  Cambridge

  911

  109

  942

  121

  933

  143

  1,005

  156

  1,051

  160

  1,112

  152

  1,242

  177

  1,084

  237

  950

  231

  East Cambridgeshire

  214

  31

  211

  29

  210

  22

  210

  20

  213

  20

  219

  19

  205

  26

  206

  26

  N/a

  N/a

  Fenland

  367

  74

  365

  83

  362

  89

  368

  92

  383

  90

  392

  82

  406

  125

  413

  145

  392

  140

  Huntingdon

  567

  162

  563

  158

  555

  176

  559

  159

  570

  157

  549

  163

  600

  164

  609

  200

  580

  233

  Peterborough

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  1,236

  127

  N/a

  N/a

  South Cambridgeshire

  372

  30

  355

  31

  370

  36

  379

  40

  358

  40

  352

  43

  354

  46

  326

  45

  317

  51

  N/a—Data not available.

  Source: Joint Staffing Watch for England.

  Note: Education, highways, fire services, police and social services are administered by Cambridgeshire county council. The other authorities shown are district councils which, amongst other services, administer housing, planning and refuse collection.

  Inland Bathing Waters
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inland bathing waters as required by article 1 of the EC water quality directive 76/160 he has designated.

  Mr. Maclean
  So far, no inland waters have been identified as within the scope of the bathing water directive.

  Norfolk Beaches
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the National Rivers Authority to reinstate the programme of tests for enteroviruses on all Norfolk beaches in the current year.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. It is not a requirement of the bathing water directive to test for enteroviruses at all bathing waters.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the National Rivers Authority discontinued testing for enteroviruses on all but two Norfolk beaches in 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  In accordance with the requirements of the bathing water directive, bathing waters which failed the directive's coliform standards in 1991 were sampled by the National Rivers Authority for enteroviruses in 1992. Only two Norfolk bathing waters failed the coliform standards in 1991.

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the additionality criteria for European Community structrual funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Local Government Employees
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed full time and part time in local government in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the table for each authority in Cambridgeshire. Totals have not been given because data for some authorities are not available centrally.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is responsible for providing public expenditure cover for forecast ERDF receipts for local authority other services block schemes, for those non-departmental public bodies, agencies and charities which fall within my Department's ambit, and for privatised water companies. Provision for some £176 million has been made for 1993–94 as shown in the Department's annual report, which was laid in the House of Common's Library on 10 February 1993.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of revenue support grant per inhabitant for(a) Ashfield, (b) Bassetlaw, (c) Broxtowe, (d) Gedling, (e) Mansfield, (f) Newark and Sherwood, (g) Nottingham, (h) Rushcliffe, (i) Westminster, (j) Wandsworth and (k) the City of London for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The level of revenue support grant per head of resident population for the authorities requested is given in the table:

  Local authority

  Revenue Support Grant per head 1992–93 £

  Revenue Support Grant per head 1993–94 £

  Ashfield

  267·19

  16·98

  Bassetlaw

  285·41

  31·14

  Broxtowe

  264·73

  15·45

  Gedling

  275·29

  19·92

  Mansfield

  279·49

  26·67

  Newark and Sherwood

  286·69

  37·40

  Nottingham

  329·40

  83·43

  Rushcliffe

  257·90

  12·22

  Westminster

  958·85

  802·79

  Wandsworth

  714·59

  619·18

  City of London

  10,771·14

  11,225·31

  The figures for the two years are not comparable since revenue support grant for the year 1993–94 is to be paid direct to each billing and major precepting authority,

  189
  whereas in 1992–93 it was paid into the collection fund administered by the charging authority on behalf of all tiers of authority in the area.

  Shudehill Developments Ltd.
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the chairman of Shudehill Developments Ltd. in regard to the proposed retail development at Dumplington in Greater Manchester; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a letter from Mr. Melmoth only last week. Mr. Melmoth argues that the results of a study commissioned by his company show that, should the Dumplington shopping centre be allowed to proceed, the future of Manchester city centre as a regional shopping venue would be under very serious threat and the shopping development which his company proposes to develop at Shudehill might no longer be viable.

  Mr. Melmoth's letter is being considered alongside the other representations we have received about Dumplington, about which we expect to make an announcement very shortly.

  London Boroughs (Debt)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he proposes to make available to London boroughs and the Common Council during 1993–94 in respect of the extra costs due to his decisions on housing revenue account subsidy in respect of debt from the former Greater London Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 February 1993, c. 283–84]: My right hon. and learned Friend is currently contemplating the recovery of the amounts of housing subsidy paid in connection with deemed debt prior to 1 April 1990. Were he to recover such subsidy in any case, he intends to issue capitalisation directions and supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) to assist the authorities concerned.

DEFENCE

  C-130J Aircraft
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the percentage British input to the proposed C-130J aircraft to replace the Hercules fleet.

  Mr. Aitken
  The C-130J is one of the options being considered as a replacement for the existing RAF Hercules fleet. It is a new development of the Hercules aircraft being designed by Lockheed as a private venture. Several British companies are bidding as sub-contractors and 1 was pleased to hear recently that Dowty would be providing the propellers. However, this is a matter for Lockheed. The percentage of United Kingdom work content is one of the factors to be taken into account when bids are eventually sought.

  Civil Airline Research
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contributions have been made in the last five years from his departmental budget towards research and development costs of civil airlines.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department makes no contributions towards the R and D costs of civil airlines. However, the Defence Research Agency undertakes a number of generic research programmes, jointly funded by the MOD and the DTI, of relevance to civil as well as military aircraft applications; these have a current value of £40 million, of which the MOD will contribute £27 million.

  Electronic Supplies Ltd.
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the dispute between his Department and JNES engineering company; whether he will investigate difficulties met by other engineering companies in fulfilling orders for identical components; what assessment he has made of the extent to which problems are attributable to the designs provided by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has received a number of representations on this subject. The issues involved have been fully investigated and were considered and settled at an arbitration hearing in 1990.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  French Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has made to(a) the French Government and (b) the European Commission about the legality, and effects on competition, of the £33.8 million of aid provided to the French fishing industry and its effects on fair competition;

  (2) what proposals he has to consult the fishing industry with a view to providing support to it equivalent to the subsidised loans and emergency aid made available to the French industry by the French Government;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of the emergency aid given to the French fishing industry on the extent of French fishing within British waters as designated under the Fishing Limits Act 1976.

  Mr. Curry
  I have asked the French Government to supply information about the reported aid package for fishermen, in the course of pressing them for action in relation to the recent intolerable attacks on United Kingdom fish exports. We have also pressed the Commission to seek detailed information on this aid, so that it can discharge its responsibility to conclude whether it is compatible with the provisions of the treaty. I have no plans to consult the industry about the provision of similar aid in United Kingdom.

  In the absence so far of fuller details, it is not possible fully to assess the effect of the aid. However, the vast bulk of the aid does not appear to take the form of grant but of loans to assist with the servicing of existing loans. The rights of French vessels to fish in United Kingdom waters are unaffected by the aid package, as they are strictly controlled by annual quota allocations and the rules of the common fisheries policy.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the guidelines are for the average time it should take his Department to answer hon. Members' correspondence; what the average time has been, in each month, for the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department's target is for Ministers to reply within 21 days of receipt to letters from hon. Members and noble Lords. The percentage of letters replied to within this deadline in each month of 1992 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  January

  70

  February

  81

  March

  89

  April

  93

  May

  93

  June

  89

  July

  89

  August

  71

  September

  74

  October

  84

  November

  78

  December

  60

  We do not hold information on the average time taken to reply to Ministers' correspondence.

  Vegetables
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to encourage the retention of less common varieties on the national approved list for vegetables.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has, in conjunction with the French authorities, put forward a proposal to the EC Commission's standing committee on seeds and propagating material for agriculture, horticulture and forestry which would have the effect of relaxing current controls over the sale to the amateur gardener of small packets of seeds of traditional vegetable varieties. This proposal is currently under consideration by the standing committee.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), of 15 February,Official Report, columns 91–92, what were the voting figures recorded in the meeting of the Agriculture Council held between 9 and 13 February.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Number of murders committed

  111

  67

  71

  114

  108

  11

  Number of persons charged with murder2

  23

  31

  18

  38

  38

  n/a

  Number of persons convicted of murder

  27

  15

  22

  27

  26

  3

  1 Up to 31 January 1993.

  2 The figures provided in the above table relate to all murders. However statistics on the number of persons charged with murder are available only in respect of scheduled offences of murder.

  192
  Mr. Curry
  At the meeting of the Agriculture Council in question a vote was taken on the proposed arrangements for bananas in the single market. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands voted against the proposal; all other member states voted in favour.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Railways
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 February to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley),Official Report, column 19, if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultants' report on the scope for introducing a private element into the management and operation of Northern Ireland Railways.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Separately from this report, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company has recently submitted the findings of a study it had commissioned into the delivery of public transport services in Northern Ireland. It may take some time to reach firm conclusions and it would be premature, therefore, to place a copy in the Library.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firms were registered with the Fair Employment Commission on 6 February 1990; and how many of these firms had supplied their review of employment practices by 6 February 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 6 February 1990 the Commission registered 1,569 private concerns. While every registered concern is required to conduct a review of its employment composition and practices at least once every three years, there is no statutory requirement to supply a copy of its review report to the commission.

  Murders
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table of(a) the number of murders committed, (b) the number of persons charged with murder and (c) the number of persons convicted of murder in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year; and for each of those years how many of the persons (i) charged and (ii) convicted actually operated the means of committing the murder.

  Mr. Mates
  The available information is as follows:
  193
  Information in respect of (i) and (ii) as to the extent of each individual's involvement in the murder is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-domestic Property Rates
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will introduce legislation to reform the rating of non-domestic property in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce a general revaluation on non-domestic property in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans he has to review the valuation of non-domestic property for rating purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  There are no present plans to change or replace the existing arrangements for the rating of the non-domestic sector in Northern Ireland. The case for a revaluation is kept under review and any plans would, as in the past, be announced well in advance.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals against the rateable value of(a) non-domestic property as a whole and (b) licensed premises have been heard in each year since 1976.

  Mr. Mates
  Information is available only from 1986–87 and then only in respect of the total number of all appeals, including domestic, decided by the Commissioner of Valuation. It is only possible to distinguish non-domestic property and licensed premises appeals from 1991–92 onwards.

  The total number of all appeals decided by the Commissioner in each year was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  959

  1987–88

  1,005

  1988–89

  1,140

  1989–90

  1,105

  1990–91

  874

  1991–92

  702

  11992–93

  539

  1 January 1993

  The figure for 1991–92 includes approximately 386 non-domestic appeals of which eight related to licensed premises and that for 1992–93 includes approximately 302 non-domestic appeals of which 14 related to licensed premises.
  194
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the valuation of non-domestic property in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The more recent representations ma de about the valuation of non-domestic property in Northern Ireland have mainly concerned individual properties and circumstances affecting the quantum of assessment and distinguishment of the valuation for either derating or exemption from rates.

  A number of representations with more general application have been made by district councils about 1 he valuation of municipal leisure centres and residential and nursing homes. Representations have also been made on behalf of the retail licensed trade about problems associated with the method of valuation of licensed premises.

  Manse Road, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints he has received about conditions on the surface of Manse road, Fourwinds, Castlereagh; what is the source of mud at this location; and what action he has taken to improve conditions on this stretch of roadway.

  Mr. Atkins
  No complaints have been received in the past 18 months. While mud may occasionally be deposited on this particular stretch of road from traffic accessing an adjacent housing development, the developer is aware of the need to keep the road clean.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the payments of compensation for miscarriages of justice made in Northern Ireland under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or ex gratia from public funds indicating, in each case, the period of imprisonment in respect of which the payment was made.

  Mr. Mates
  Since section 133 came into operation, the right to compensation under that provision has been acknowledged in three cases. In none has the full amount yet been assessed, although interim payments on account —not specifically related to the period of imprisonment —have been made. No ex-gratia payments of this nature have been made from public funds over the period.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what grounds a life sentence prisoner may be released prior to the standard 10-year review.

  Mr. Mates
  A life sentence prisoner may be released at any time at the discretion of the Secretary of State. In practice release before 10 years in custody may take place only where exceptional circumstances exist relating to the crime itself and the offender's role in it; on medical grounds; or where the prisoner has given significant assistance to the authorities which has put his/her life in danger.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of any life sentence prisoners released in the past six years prior to the standard 10-year review, the dates of such releases, the grounds for each release and the respective times served.

  Mr. Mates
  Seven such prisoners have been released on licence during this period: one in 1988 after six years; one in 1990 after eight years; four in 1991 after six, seven, eight and nine years respectively; and one this year after seven years. Those released had served an appropriate time to mark their offences. With the exception of those released after eight years in 1990 and nine years in 1991, the period served for retribution took into account significant assistance to the authorities. It would not be appropriate to give the names of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements exist to grant early release to life sentence prisoners in exchange for information and to assist such persons with relocation; and whether final decisions on such matters are taken at ministerial level.

  Mr. Mates
  A reduction in the retributive period may be given to those serving life sentences in exchange for information, based on the quality and quantity of the information provided; its accuracy; the willingness of the informant to confront those apprehended on the strength of his/her evidence; and the degree to which the informant and his/her family are put at risk of reprisal. All such decisions are taken by Ministers. Such individuals are released into the protection of the police.

  Number of persons convicted and sentenced to immediate custody for certain offences in the Metropolitan police (including City of London) and England and Wales, by sex and length of sentence 1989, 1990 and 1991

  Length of sentence

  Area/offence

  Year

  Total found guilty

  Immediate custody

  4 months and under

  Over 4 months, up to 6 months

  Over 6 months, up to 1 year

  Over 1 year, up to 18 months

  Over 18 months, up to 2 years

  Over 2 years, up to 3 years

  Over 3 years, up to 4 years

  Over 4 years, up to 5 years

  METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT1

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute

  Sexual Offences Act 1956, Sections 30 and 31

  1989

  M 30

  16

  2

  4

  1

  5

  3

  —

  —

  1

  F 4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  M 20

  8

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  F 7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  M 22

  11

  3

  1

  4

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  F 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution

  Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 5(1)

  1989

  M —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  M 2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  F —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  M —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  196
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the respective criteria for life sentence reviews applied by the Life Sentence Review Board, judges and the Secretary of State or Minister.

  Mr. Mates
  Life sentence cases are reviewed in order to assess whether a sufficient period has been served to mark the gravity of the offence and whether the risk of reoffending is remote. These criteria are applied by the board, the judiciary and Ministers.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many breath tests were carried out over the Christmas and new year period 1992–93 in Northern Ireland; how many of these proved positive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: During the period 19 December 1992 to 1 January 1993 a total of 156 persons were breath tested; 29 of these (18–6 per cent.) were found to be over the legal limit.

  The percentage of tests which proved positive has fallen slightly since last year and maintains the downward trend of the last few years. However, it is still unacceptably high.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prostitution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) men and (b) women, convicted of living on the earnings of prostitution or exercising control over a prostitute, have been sent to prison in each year since 1989; and what was the period of imprisonment imposed in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for the Metropolitan police district, including the City of London, and England and Wales is given in the table.
  197

  Length of sentence

  Area/offence

  Year

  Total found guilty

  Immediate custody

  4 months and under

  Over 4 months, up to 6 month

  Over 6 months, up to 1 year

  Over 1 year, up to 18 months

  Over 18 months, up to 2 years

  Over 2 years, up to 3 years

  Over 3 years, up to 4 years

  Over 4 years, up to 5 years

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute

  Sexual Offences Act 1956. Section 30 and 31

  1989

  M 101

  58

  7

  13

  10

  14

  5

  6

  —

  3

  F 17

  5

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  M 62

  22

  5

  2

  7

  3

  1

  4

  —

  —

  F 14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  M 68

  30

  7

  1

  10

  4

  2

  4

  1

  1

  F 11

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution

  Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 5(1)

  1989

  M 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  M 2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  F —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  M —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Including City of London.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current system of inspection in identifying breaches of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the inspection system is adequate to check and monitor the current work of licence holders and conditions in designated establishments.

  Police (Encrypted Radios)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 144, how many police forces currently use encrypted radios; and what assistance his Department gives to police forces in obtaining such equipment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Thirty-eight police forces in England and Wales have digitally encrypted radios for use

  Screening breath test required and the number of positive results—England and Wales

  19 December 1991–1 Januarv 1992

  19 December 1992–1 Januarv 1993

  Police force area

  Number of breath tests

  Number with positive outcome

  Number of breath tests

  Number with positive outcome

  Avon and Somerset

  1,173

  107

  514

  85

  Bedfordshire

  479

  60

  702

  59

  Cambridgeshire

  936

  38

  1,558

  39

  Cheshire

  903

  97

  826

  78

  Cleveland

  898

  87

  621

  52

  Cumbria

  689

  61

  757

  33

  Derbyshire

  674

  49

  807

  61

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,244

  114

  1,263

  119

  Dorset

  422

  42

  626

  62

  Durham

  710

  77

  1,015

  67

  Essex

  2,129

  124

  2,754

  105

  Gloucestershire

  493

  46

  408

  25

  Greater Manchester

  4,711

  350

  5,126

  297

  Hampshire

  1,958

  149

  1,982

  134

  Hertfordshire

  606

  62

  428

  49

  Humberside

  984

  91

  525

  65

  Kent

  2,175

  120

  2,029

  109

  Lancashire

  1,347

  146

  1,423

  127

  Leicestershire

  1,216

  96

  1,086

  54

  Lincolnshire

  1,063

  33

  941

  49

  198
  on specialist operations. In addition, 19 police forces have purchased an analogue speech privacy device which gives a lower level of security than digitally encrypted radios but can operate with existing radio equipment. The Home Office has provided financial and engineering support for the development and trial of this new equipment and has negotiated favourable purchasing arrangements with suppliers on behalf of the police service.

  Breath Tests
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were breath tested by the police in each region during the 1991–92 and 1992–93 drink-drive campaigns; and how many tests were positive.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has collected figures for the number of screening breath tests required and the number of positive results in each police force area between 19 December 1991 and 1 January 1992 and between 19 December 1992 and 1 January 1993. These are given in the following table:
  199

  19 December 1991–1 January 1992

  19 December 1992–1 January 1993

  Police force area

  Number of breath tests

  Number with positive outcome

  Number of breath tests

  Number with positive outcome

  London, City of

  111

  10

  86

  9

  Merseyside

  1,151

  145

  566

  130

  Metropolitan Police District

  12,347

  835

  12,379

  804

  Norfolk

  3,486

  59

  917

  35

  Northamptonshire

  778

  35

  728

  33

  Northumbria

  533

  122

  383

  118

  North Yorkshire

  1,175

  69

  665

  38

  Nottinghamshire

  609

  79

  342

  80

  South Yorkshire

  1,098

  150

  831

  95

  Staffordshire

  932

  82

  505

  69

  Suffolk

  896

  50

  638

  68

  Surrey

  1,721

  83

  1,188

  43

  Sussex

  806

  102

  741

  71

  Thames Valley

  2,855

  154

  3,856

  131

  Warwickshire

  188

  33

  205

  24

  West Mercia

  939

  99

  1,184

  98

  West Midlands

  1,344

  251

  1,160

  205

  West Yorkshire

  1,886

  240

  1,638

  188

  Wiltshire

  1,034

  51

  919

  40

  Dyfed-Powys

  711

  54

  776

  41

  Gwent

  849

  47

  734

  34

  North Wales

  1,824

  76

  1,284

  76

  South Wales

  2,035

  146

  1,953

  149

  England and Wales

  64,118

  4,921

  59,069

  4,248

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue a consultation document on private wheel clamping.

  Mr. Jack
  A consultation paper on wheel clamping on private land in England and Wales was published on 23 February 1993.

  Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. They have also been sent direct to all hon. Members, to individuals and groups that have already expressed an interest and to others with an identifiable interest in any of the options discussed in the paper. Copies of the document may also be obtained free of charge by writing to C4 Division, Home Office, Room 339, 50 Queen Anne's gate, London SW1H 9AT.

  The document requests that observations of both fact and opinion should reach the Home Office no later than the end of May.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations the Minister of State has received from the chief executive of Manchester city council about the proposed reduction in grant paid under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have received a letter dated 10 February. In my reply, dated 26 February, I reaffirmed that the Government remain firmly committed to the reduction of racial disadvantage; that section 11 grant 200
  continues to play an important role in our programme; that we regret that, due to the general economic circumstances, it is not possible to sustain throughout the next three years the level of expenditure that had earlier been planned; and that we are anxious to work closely with local authorities and others to ensure that members of ethnic minorities derive maximum benefit from the substantial amount of funding which is available.

  Mrs. Khanum Jan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is to be taken on the application by Mrs. Khanum Jan (Ref.: J244929) to be granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The immigration department wrote to the hon. Member on 9 February confirming that the application had been granted and seeking assistance in contacting Mrs. Jan. Three attempts to post her passport to her had proved unsuccessful, apparently because she had changed address. We were finally told the new address on 25 February and returned the documents the same day.

  Offenders (Staffordshire)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders in Staffordshire were(a) under 18, (b) under 21 and (c) under 25 years in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: Information for 1991 on the number and percentage of known offenders by age group is given in the table.
  201

  Number and percentage of offenders cautioned and found guilty at all courts in Staffordshire police force area and England and Wales by age and type of offence 1991

  Staffordshire police force area

  England and Wales

  Indictable offences

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  Indictable offences

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  Age/disposal

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Aged 10 and under 18

  Cautioned

  2,078

  57

  539

  48

  2,617

  55

  95,533

  53

  27,076

  27

  122,609

  44

  Found guilty

  881

  13

  349

  4

  1,230

  8

  42,019

  13

  17,918

  4

  59,937

  8

  Total Tound guilty and cautioned

  2,959

  28

  888

  9

  3,847

  19

  137,552

  27

  44,994

  8

  182,546

  17

  Aged 18 and under 21

  Cautioned

  391

  11

  146

  13

  537

  11

  23,891

  13

  11,573

  12

  35,464

  13

  Found guilty

  1,571

  23

  1,062

  12

  2,633

  16

  73,357

  22

  45,361

  10

  118,718

  15

  Total found guilty and cautioned

  1,962

  19

  1,208

  12

  3,170

  15

  97,248

  19

  56,934

  10

  154,182

  14

  Aged 21 and under 25

  Cautioned

  241

  7

  89

  8

  330

  7

  16,790

  9

  11,060

  11

  27,850

  10

  Found guilty

  1,465

  22

  1,520

  16

  2,985

  19

  70,402

  21

  39,223

  9

  109,625

  14

  Total found guilty and cautioned

  1,706

  16

  1,609

  16

  3,315

  16

  87,192

  17

  50,283

  9

  137,475

  13

  All ages

  Cautioned

  3,676

  100

  1,120

  100

  4,796

  100

  179,885

  100

  98,880

  100

  278,765

  100

  Found guilty

  6,740

  100

  9,225

  100

  15,965

  100

  335,394

  100

  450,558

  100

  785,952

  100

  Total found guilty and cautioned

  10,416

  100

  10,345

  100

  20,761

  100

  515,279

  100

  549,438

  100

  1,064,717

  100

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions have been issued to benefits agencies in the past year about refusing income support under the deprivation of capital regulations to those paying off part or all of their mortgages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 2 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what instructions have been issued to benefits agencies in the past year about refusing Income Support under the deprivation of capital regulations to those paying off part of or all of their mortgages; and if he will make a statement.
  It may help if I explain that claims to Income Support are decided in the first instance by adjudication officers. If a customer is dissatisfied, they may appeal against the decision to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal. Further appeal may also be made to a Social Security Commissioner. These authorities carry out their functions independently, consequently, no Government Minister or Departmental official is able to comment on the decisions they make or intervene in matters for which they are responsible.
  Guidance on the treatment of capital and deprivation of capital is provided in the Adjudication Officers Guide. I can confirm that staff in the Benefits Agency offices have been reminded of the provisions of existing legislation and guidance available to them regarding deprivation of capital.
  These reminders were issued in the form of circulars from the Benefits Agency Central Services and Central
  202
  Adjudication Services. There has been no change in the treatment of capital or deprivation of capital, in Income Support Law, in the past year.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Bellinger
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to make a decision on the application by Mr. Michael Bellinger (NI No. YB 99 28 98 A) of 2 Holman way, Ivybridge, for industrial injury benefit; and why there has been a delay in his appeal.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 2 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when he expects to make a decision on the application by Mr. Michael Bellinger (NI No. YB 99 28 92 A) of 2 Holman Way, Ivybridge, for industrial injury benefit; and why there has been a delay in his appeal.
  I am pleased to tell you that Mr. Bellinger's appeal has already been listed and is due to be heard by the Medical Appeal Tribunal later this month. The Independent Tribunal Service telephoned Mr. Bellinger on 25 February to arrange a date for his appeal hearing. Mr. Bellinger's wife took the call and agreed the date with ITS. I would like to point out that Adjudication Officers and the Independent Tribunal Service carry out their duties independently of the Department and consequently neither Government Ministers nor the Department can intervene in matters for which they are responsible.
  There does not appear to have been any undue delay on the part of the Benefit's Agency in dealing with Mr. Bellinger's appeal. I have written to you separately and in greater detail about this matter.

  203
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also appear in the Library.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [Lords].

  Mr. Scott
  We share the Bill's aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people but we believe this Bill will result in extensive litigation and additional costs for business and taxpayers. The aim is best achieved by programmes of education, persuasion and practical help, backed up, where necessary, by targeted legislation.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of taxpayers who receive(a) family credit, (b) housing benefit, (c) community charge benefit, (d) all three benefits and (e) at least one of those three benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. Couples who claim family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit are treated as a single unit. Therefore, the numbers given are in terms of taxpaying households rather than individual taxpayers.

  Number of households in receipt of benefit

  000's

  Family Credit

  221

  Housing Benefit

  277

  Community Charge Benefit

  471

  All three benefits

  19

  At least one of the benefits

  704

  Notes:

  1. Figures in the table show the position at May 1990, the latest available date for all benefits.

  2. As at July 1992 the number of taxpaying households receiving Family Credit was 282,000.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the orders made through the Privy Council under the royal prerogative in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is supplied in the following tables:

  The Civil Service Order in Council 1991.

  The Diplomatic Service Order 1991.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal British Legion.

  Order amending the Charter of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.

  Order appointing Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition to the Visitor of the University of London.

  Order amending the Charter of the British Film Institute. Order amending the Charter of the Chartered Insurance Institute.

  Order re-appointing Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  204

  Order re-appointing the Visitor of Brunei University.

  Order appointing a Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College, London.

  Three Orders approving drafts of Hong Kong Letters Patent and Instructions to the Governor.

  Order approving the grant of a Charter to Henley Management College.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to the Scout Association.

  Order appointing a Visitor of the School of Oriental and African Studies.

  Order re-appointing members of the Court of the University of Leeds.

  Order approving a report of a Committee on a Petition to the Visitor of the University of London.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Institute of Purchasing and Supply seeking a Charter of Incorporation.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Royal Charter of Surgeons of England seeking a Supplemental Charter and the grant of a Charter of Incorporation to the College of Anaesthetists.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the King's School Canterbury praying for the grant of a Supplemental Charter.

  Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to a Proclamation relating to bank holidays.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to Cheltenham Ladies College.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to the Chartered Institution of Bankers in Scotland.

  Order amending the Charter of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

  Order amending the Charter of the Institute of Actuaries.

  Order amending the Statutes of the Grand Priory of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in England.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Animal Health Trust seeking the grant of a Supplemental Charter.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal Archaeological Institute.

  Order amending the Charter of the University of Leeds.

  Order appointing a Visitor of King's College, London.

  Order appointing members of the governing body of the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine.

  Order proroguing Parliament.

  Order approving a Supplemental Charter for the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Order approving a Supplemental Charter for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland.

  Order amending the Charter of the Institute of Metals. Order amending the Charter of the Chartered Insurance Institute.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal Agricultural Society of England.

  Order amending the Charter of the University of Birmingham.

  Order amending the Charter of the University of Essex. The Civil Service Commission Order 1991.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Institute of Taxation seeking a Charter of Incorporation.

  Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to three coinage Proclamations.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to the King's School Canterbury.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to the Animal Health Trust.

  Order amending the Charter of the National Association of Boys Clubs.

  Order approving amendments to the Supplemental Charter of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Order appointing a Governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers seeking the grant of a Charter of Incorporation.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland seeking a Supplemental Charter.

  205

  Order approving the grant of a Charter to the Royal College of Anaesthetists.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

  Order amending the Charter of the British Standards Institution.

  Order amending the Charter of the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters.

  Order proroguing Parliament.

  Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to a Proclamation dissolving Parliament.

  Order directing the issue of Writs for the calling of a new Parliament.

  Order amending the Charter of the Fellowship of Engineering.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal British Legion.

  Order amending the Charter of the University of Keele.

  Order approving a Report of a Committee on a Petition to the Visitor of the University of London.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation seeking a Charter of Incorporation.

  Order amending the Supplemental Charter of the Royal Commonwealth Society.

  Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to a Proclamation concerning Bank Holidays.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplementary Charter to the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

  Order re-appointing the Visitor of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Engineering Council seeking a Supplemental Charter.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Chartered Institute of Marketing seeking a Supplemental Charter.

  Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to a coinage Proclamation.

  Order granting a Charter to the Institute of Purchasing and Supply.

  Order granting a Supplemental Charter to the Engineering Council.

  Order granting a Supplemental Charter to the Chartered Institute of Marketing.

  Order amending the Charter of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

  Order amending the Charter of the Chartered Institute of Building.

  Order amending the Charter of the University of Exeter. Order amending the Charter of the of the University of Leeds.

  Order amending the Charter of Somerville College, Oxford.

  The Civil Service Commissioners Order 1992.

  Order appointing the Clerk of the Privy Council.

  Order appointing a member of the Governing Body of the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of Birkbeck College seeking a new Charter.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of Malvern College seeking a Supplemental Charter.

  Order approving the grant of a Supplemental Charter to Malvern College.

  Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to a coinage Proclamation.

  Order amending the Charter of the King George's Fund for Sailors.

  Order amending the Charter of the British Psychological Society.

  Order amending the Supplemental Charter of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Royal British Legion seeking a Supplemental Charter.

  Order amending the Charter of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

  206

  Order amending the Charter of the University of Surrey.

  Order referring to a Committee a Petition of the Institute of Legal Executives seeking a Charter of Incorporation.

  Two Orders approving drafts of Hong Kong Letters Patent and Instructions to the Governor.

  The list does not include Orders relating to the appointment or swearing of new Privy Counsellors. There were 18 such Orders in 1991 and 33 in 1992.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Crypt
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 1022, if he will seek to arrange for the Crypt, St. Mary's Undercroft, to be licensed for marriages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Chapel of St. Mary Undercroft is not registered for marriage ceremonies of any denomination,as I indicated in my letter to the hon. Member for Bradford, West which I quoted in the House last week.However, I regret that in one respect the information which I gave to the hon. Member may inadvertently havebeen misleading. I have subsequently been advised that it is possible for a marriage to take place in the Chapel according to the rites of the Church of England if the Archbishop of Canterbury provides a licence under the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533. As to the possibility of registering the Chapel for marriages in the future, that would be a matter for the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker and I have drawn the hon. Member's question to their attention.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment Figures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to review the procedure by which the unemployment figures are recorded and published.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no plans to change current procedures for recording the unemployment figures derived from the claimant count and from the labour force survey. If there are any changes to publication arrangements these will be announced in advance, as usual.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the changes that have been made to the way unemployment figures have been calculated since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 26 October 1992,Official Report, column 496.

  Unemployed Building Workers
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give for each job title the number of building workers registered as unemployed in(a) the Bolton-Bury travel-to-work area and (b) the north-west region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The most recent estimates from the summer—June to August—1992 labour force survey show
  207
  that in the north-west region there were 16,000 people unemployed on the internationally agreed ILO definition who were previously employed in building trades. No information is available from the survey for travel-to-work areas.

  The regional estimates for unemployed people by individual building occupations are all below 10,000.

  Redundant Claimants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundant people in receipt of an occupational or personal pension aged over 55 years are receiving reduced unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 3 March 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the number of redundant people in receipt of an occupational or personal pension aged over 55 years who are receiving reduced unemployment benefit. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately we do not collect the information you requested and it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by examination of each of our client records. However, an analysis of the claims so far transferred to the new computer system we are currently introducing throughout the country, indicates that almost 4 per cent. of our clients, who are in receipt of unemployment benefit at full or reduced rate, have declared that they are in receipt of an occupational or personal pension. It is not possible to say how many of these are over 55 years of age.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Gas Extraction Industry
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures she has for the number of jobs dependent on the gas extraction industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates of employees in the extraction of mineral oil and natural gas industry are available from the census of employment. The most recent United Kingdom figure, from the September 1989 census is 43,000. Estimates for 1991 will be published in April 1993. The Department has no figures for people indirectly employed in any industry.

  Defence-related Industries
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research her Department has commissioned or published on levels of recruitment of former workers in defence-related industries and the types and levels of skill available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In response to the July 1990 Defence White Paper "Options for Change", the Employment 208
  Department commissioned the Institute of Manpower Studies to research employers' experiences of the employment of ex-services personnel.

  Women's Issues
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list(a) the women, and the organisations they are associated with and (b) the women's groups, who have been invited to advise or inform the ministerial sub-committee on women's issues.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ministerial sub-committee member, is also co-chair of the Women's National Commission and has the responsibility of, among other things, informing the ministerial sub-committee about issues of concern to the WNC.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of youth training scheme graduates have gained employment after the end of the scheme for each year since 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Youth Training: Great Britain

  April 1988 to March 1992

  Trainees gaining employment after completing agreed training

  Period of leaving

  Gained emloyment after completing YT1 (per cent.)

  April 1988 to March 1989

  86

  April 1989 to March 1990

  86

  April 1990 to March 1991

  78

  April 1991 to March 1992

  70

  Source: YT National Follow-up Survey

  1 Including self-employment

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken part in Government-sponsored training schemes in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984; and what those figures represent as a proportion of the total number of people registered as unemployed in Cambridgeshire in each of those years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available in the form requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost of an unemployed person in lost tax receipts and benefit payments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  For Great Britain in 1992–93, total unemployment-related benefits cost £9.3 billion spread across 2·74 million unemployed people—an average cost of an unemployed person of just under £3,400 per person per year. We do not consider that calculation of lost tax receipts is appropriate.

  Fixed-term Contracts
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees were on fixed-term contracts in each year since 1988 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) in each standard region; and if she will express the national figure as a percentage of all employees.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Available information for the United Kingdom and regions based on estimates from the spring —March to May—1992 labour force survey, are given in the following table. Comparable estimates for previous years are not available.

  Employees on fixed term contracts, by region spring 1992 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Number (000 's)

  Per cent, of all employees

  United Kingdom1

  581

  2·7

  Northern

  43

  3·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  44

  2·3

  East Midlands

  32

  1·9

  East Anglia

  20

  2·4

  South East

  178

  2·6

  Greater London

  69

  2·8

  Rest of South East

  109

  2·5

  South West

  43

  2·5

  West Midlands

  32

  1·6

  North West

  62

  2·6

  Wales

  33

  3·3

  Scotland

  84

  4·2

  Northern Ireland

  10

  2·1

  1 Excludes a small number who did not respond to the relevant LFS question.

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average amount spent per person on(a) employment training, (b) youth training, (c) the job interview guarantee scheme and (d) job clubs for each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The average amount spent per person on employment training, youth training, the job interview guarantee scheme and job clubs in Great Britain, for each year for which figures are available is as follows:

  Programme

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  ET

  n/a

  5,540

  5,404

  5,384

  6,014

  YT

  n/a

  n/a

  2,715

  2,687

  2,801

  JIG

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  57

  Jobclub

  1247

  1190

  140

  1141

  147

  1 External providers (contracted by the Employment Service only). Figures include Jobclubs run by the Employment Service.

  Notes:

  (1) Actual information later than 1990–91 is not available because average length of stay calculations are based on entrants to ET and EA in a given period and it is necessary to wait until all entrants in a period have left the programme.

  (2) Employment Action began on I October 1991.

  (3) The 1992–93 unit cost is for Employment Action in the programme's first six months of operation when the programme was building up.
  210
  (4) All figures are for Great Britain. These programmes are delivered in Scotland and Wales by Scottish Office and Welsh Office respectively.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom have been registered unemployed for more than five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In January 1993 in the United Kingdom, there were 118,300 claimants who had been unemployed for more than five years. This represents a fall of 158,270, or 57 per cent., from the peak level in July 1987.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed but ineligible for unemployment benefit because they had previously been self-employed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available. There is no rule to prevent a previously self-employed person from registering as unemployed or claiming benefit, although the self-employed are normally excluded from entitlement to unemployment benefit because they fail to satisfy the national insurance contribution conditions. Nevertheless income support is available for unemployed people whose income and savings fall below specified levels.

  Sellafield (Radioactive Leak)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what quality factors are normally used by health physics staff at nuclear installations; what alterations were made in them during the recent radioactive leak at Sellafield; and for what reason.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The quality factors normally used by health physics staff at nuclear installations for radiological protection purposes are:

  Factor

  For 'x' rays, gamma rays and beta particles

  QF = 1

  For 'thermal' neutrons

  QF = 2·3

  For 'fast' neutrons

  QF = 10

  For alpha particles, multiple charged particles

  QF = 20

  Since different types of radiation have different biological effects, absorbed doses have to be multiplied by a "quality factor" before they can be expressed on a common "dose" scale for radiation protection purposes —that is, put in terms of the "dose equivalent". No alterations were made to them in assessing the potential dose of radiation to a member of the public during the recent releases of radioactivity from the B204 and B6 stacks at Sellafield.

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

Income Support: Expectant Mothers
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any evidence to show that expectant mothers on income support, especially those under 25, are able to afford an adequate diet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, adequate diets, as recommended by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, can be achieved in a variety of ways and at a range of costs. The welfare food scheme continues to provide a nutritional safeguard for expectant mothers in receipt of income support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that Answer. But he has not told me that he has evidence that women can afford an adequate diet. Can I deduce from his silence that he does not have evidence that they can do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. I mentioned in my Answer the report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. That report concluded that the true additional requirements of pregnancy under conditions prevailing in the United Kingdom are probably modest and are limited to the last three months. Research carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shows that it is perfectly possible to afford an adequate and healthy diet at a figure roughly the same as that which people are already spending on food.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the term "adequate" is subjective? What is adequate for the noble Earl or for my noble friend may not be adequate for myself or for someone on income support.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if a pregnant woman of 25 needs a minimum of £42.45 per week to live on, how can a pregnant woman of 24 manage on £9 per week less?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on many occasions I have explained the reasons for the difference in the rates. The first is the added cost of increasing the rates for those under 24 of some £360 million. The second is that there are lower earnings expectations for people under 24 and the fact that they have fewer financial responsibilities. The third reason is that they are likely to live as part of someone else's household. In fact, only 15 per cent. of those on income support in that class are in receipt of housing benefit. The fourth
656
reason is that I do not believe that levels of benefit should be an incentive to leave home or an attractive alternative to seeking work or training.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are talking about pregnant women aged 24 or 25. Is the Minister really saying that pregnant women of 24 may be in the labour market and therefore must expect a rate of benefit lower than a woman of 25? Is a pregnant woman of 24 more likely to be living at home than one of 25 and therefore less likely to need support? I suggest that as the average age for first births is 22 the Minister may like to revise his information.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the woman under the age of 24 is part of a couple she will be receiving the higher rate of income support. Therefore, we are talking only about single mothers. The minute that a single mother gives birth and produces a baby further awards become available. There are grants from the Social Fund, extra premiums in income support, an extra premium for one-parent families and an extra premium for families. In addition, the woman will be receiving approximately £28.60 and at birth will move on to the higher rate of income support.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems is not so much the amount of money but the inability of many such girls to manage their finances properly and to buy the right kind of food as opposed to expensive convenience foods? To what extent are they given help in addition to their benefits to enable them to feed themselves properly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. The levels are perfectly adequate. It might be that there are problems with education and that people do not know how to spend their money adequately. However, I do not believe that it should be the job of the Department of Social Security to issue guidance on how people should spend their income support.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the diet recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food costing £10 per week. I assume that that is the diet to which the Minister referred because it is the only one I have seen. Its only meat content is equivalent to about one wing of a chicken. Is that known as living on a wing and a prayer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. The so-called £10 per week diet was the result of an academic exercise to determine how cheaply a healthy diet could be achieved and whether it was more expensive than an unhealthy diet. However, it deliberately did not take on board issues of palatability or attractiveness. Hence the diet was never recommended, nor was it intended to be. It was used as an illustration in a discussion on healthy eating on low incomes by the MAFF consumer panel.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the neo-natal and perinatal mortality rates in this country have improved year on

657
year? Does he accept that not only is that a tribute to the health service but that it must indicate that the health of mothers has improved? Does that not, therefore, negate all the suggestions put forward from the Benches opposite?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. Similarly, life expectancy has increased steadily during the 12 years since 1979.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for informing the House that once the mother has had the baby she will receive increased income support. However, despite the Minister's last reply, will he agree that medically speaking it is very important for the health of the future child that the mother should have an adequate diet before giving birth to the child?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have tried to explain that we believe that income support levels are adequate. In addition, as I explained in my original Answer to my noble kinsman, the welfare food scheme provides free milk—a pint a day—for all pregnant women on income support as well as help with vitamin pills.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before my noble kinsman goes too far along the line of agreement with his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, will he make an effort to inform himself of the work currently being done by Professor David Barker for the Medical Research Council, which indicates a considerable ongoing problem through low birth weight caused by inadequate maternal nutrition?
Before my noble kinsman goes too far also down the line of saying that people have choice, will he refresh his memory of his own Written Answer to me on 13th January which states that 177,000 women are subject to deductions from their benefits of more than 15 per cent.? Does that affect adequacy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, very often those deductions are to pay for essentials such as gas, electricity and other forms of heating which would otherwise have to be paid for from income support.

Interest Rates: Government Policy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their interest rate policy.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, interest rates are set so as to meet the Government's objectives for low inflation and sustained economic growth.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he aware that we recognise that the Chancellor must, we assume, perform a difficult balancing act between interest rates, inflation, exchange rates and fiscal policy? It would be better if we did not have to start from here. However, did the noble Earl note that on Monday the Governor of the Bank of England said that even if German interest
658
rates come down we should not follow suit, but rather we may have to increase our interest rates? Does he agree with that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with the premise that the noble Lord said that we should not start from here. This is a very good place from which to start, with interest rates the lowest since 1977 and the lowest in the EC.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that each member of the Community tends to have a different rate of inflation, a different level of unemployment, different capital investment needs, different balance of payments problems and that each member of the Community needs to have its own interest rates? Is that accepted by the Government as a factor of economic life?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, we certainly believe that each country should be able to set its own interest rates. That is what my right honourable friend the Chancellor has done. That is why, in real terms, our average is well below that of the EC and the G7.
Lord Richard: My Lords, given the fact that the Government's main weapon against inflation over the past few years has been the use of interest rates and that the use of those high interest rates has wrecked the British economy, has put thousands of people out of business and has ejected many from their homes, are the Government thinking in different terms as to how they might manage the economy when inflation rises again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, inflation rates are fully consistent with a sustained recovery this year, combined with low inflation over the medium term.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the interests of preventing undesirable speculation many of us applaud the fact that he is keeping his cards fairly close to his chest in relation to interest rate policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, given the inter-relationship between the rate of exchange and interest rates, and given the precipitate fall in the value of the pound against both the deutschmark and the yen since last September, will the Minister tell the House to what levels, if any, the Government regard it unacceptable for the pound to fall before they take action on interest rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that that question should have been asked yesterday rather than today.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in regard to the effect on small and medium-sized businesses, it is one matter to reduce interest rates but quite another matter if, at the same time, bank charges—for all sorts of reasons not mentioned previously—claw back the money saved by a reduction, therefore not improving the prospects for business investment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there have been substantial benefits. The full effect of interest rate cuts since October 1990 are worth over £11 billion per year off industry's interest bill and about £160 per month from payments on an average £33,000 mortgage.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House what is the Treasury's estimate of the impact on interest rate policy of the abandonment of the fully funding rule?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the Bank of England's first quarterly report on inflation, which no doubt the noble Earl has read with great care, and its estimate that, on present trends, inflation could rise above the Government's target before the end of next year, is that the point at which the Government would increase interest rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we continue to look at a number of indicators. We have a range for the inflation rate and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take whatever measures are necessary.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a reduction in the base rate from 15 per cent. to 6 per cent. is highly desirable? Will he assure the House that the whole of that reduction has been passed on to business?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that is desirable. I have said that the full effects of interest rate cuts are passed through to businesses and to home owners.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, following his answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, and his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is the noble Earl aware that although he is correct in assuming that the minimum lending rate has gone down, that is far from the case as regards ordinary small businessmen? Small businessmen are still being charged extortionate rates. The country requires a policy from the Government that ensures that the full benefit of the decline in interest rates is passed on to small businesses.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from all the discussions I have had with small businesses in recent months I know that they are extremely grateful for the reduction in interest rates.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm, when he said he was happy to start from here, that he is happy with the present level of the exchange rate? At the same time, will he answer the original Question on the Order Paper?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's second question, I answered the original Question on the Order Paper in my first Answer. With regard to the noble Lord's first question, we talked about sterling's value yesterday.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Earl and the Government believe it is right for each
660
country in the Community to set its own interest rate policy, why are the Government forcing the Maastricht Treaty through the House of Commons, and presumably through this House in due course, when economic and monetary union and the formation of a European central bank will remove that right from individual members of the EC?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord for bringing the Maastricht Treaty back into Question Time. We look forward to discussing it with him in the near future.

Homes: Private Lettings
2.52 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to expand the market for low-cost private rented accommodation in view of the shrinkage of the local authority housing stock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we are committed to increasing the supply of homes for rent. Deregulation of the private rented sector in 1989 has freed rents from excessive regulations and led to a welcome increase in private lettings, and there are a number of incentives in place to encourage investment in homes for rent. We have been meeting with institutional investors and others with a view to identifying what barriers there are to expansion of the sector, and what can be done to overcome them.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, he must be aware that since 1979 the proportion of private rented households to total households has declined from 10 per cent. to 7 per cent. and the resulting immobility of labour is one of the main causes of avoidable long-term unemployment. Does he really believe that present policy offers a realistic prospect of reversing that decline in a matter that is so essential to the creation of a more flexible economy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is, of course, quite right in saying that there has been a reduction in the private rented accommodation sector. That concerns the Government. In my original Answer I said that we have been meeting with institutional investors and others to see how we can rectify the imbalance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that local authorities have done so much to house thousands of people over many years, would it not now be possible for the Government to contact those local authorities or their association representatives, particularly those authorities with long waiting lists, to explore ways in which the Government may be able to help local authorities to build more accommodation? That would also help the building industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Question deals quite specifically with the private rented sector. We

661
believe that the main provision of social housing lies with the Housing Corporation. That is the role of the Housing Corporation, not of local authorities.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not anomalous that we have millions of unemployed, the construction industry at a standstill and an inadequate housing stock? Do the Government object to a national recovery loan to get the industry spiralling uphill again?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Earl will have seen that in the Autumn Statement we released enormous amounts of money from local authorities through their capital receipts to boost the housing sector and thus to help the construction industry. We also made special grants.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend think the Housing and Urban Development Bill will increase private rented accommodation?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, refers to the shrinkage of local authority housing. The Minister must be aware of reports in the press which state that the Minister in another place, Sir George Young, is introducing a scheme that will further encourage people to buy another million council houses by increasing the credits or discounts that they can obtain. Is the Minister aware that the one and a half million local authority houses that have already been sold have not been replaced and that the present rate of building by the voluntary sector will not replace those houses this century or indeed well into the next? We now have the worst of all possible worlds bearing in mind the number of repossessions that are occurring. There are now more people without a roof over their heads than ever before.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, our objective is to ensure that a decent house is within reach of all families. Measures have been taken to increase the supply where it is needed and the increase in funding for housing associations, together with increased efficiency, means that we shall be able to provide around 170,000 homes in the current three-year period.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the more Ministers talk about giving people the right to own or control the property in which they live, as they have been doing recently, the less inclined will potential landlords be to let vacant residential property for fear that in a few years' time a Bill will be introduced to allow tenants compulsorily to acquire their houses or flats against their landlords' wishes, and very probably at less than the market value?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this Government have no desire compulsorily to require landlords to sell their houses which are let.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Housing Corporation's programme for next year comprises some 50,000 new units? One should set that against a demand for 102,000 new units, according to the corporation's consultant study, or 76,000 using the figures of the Audit Commission. What does the Minister have to say about the shortfall?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have discussed on many occasions the reasons for the increased number of households that have arisen in recent years. Indeed my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is undertaking a special study to consider the relationships within families which lead to the increased number of households. Our job is to ensure that houses are available that meet the needs of society as a whole. We believe our policies are achieving that. I accept that we need to do more as regards increasing the amount of accommodation available in the private rented sector.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish to press, the point about low-cost private rented housing. Is it not the case that private rents are now so high that rent officers now refuse full housing benefit in one-third of all cases because the rents are unreasonable? Therefore families who are unable to afford the high rents become homeless. Surely the answer, as so many noble Lords have already said today, is socially rented housing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are a number of ways of solving that problem. Housing benefit is available and it can meet 100 per cent. of a person's reasonable rent and accommodation-related service charges if income is at or below income support level. We have a firm commitment to the private rented sector and we would like to see it increase.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will not cut much ice? Does he not agree that firms or individuals who rent out their houses are at great risk from this Government, bearing in mind the latter's record? Does he not agree that this Government have forced local authorities and housing associations to sell off their properties to anyone who wants them at discount prices? Under the Housing and Urban Development Bill people who own leases are being forced to sell their leases to other people. What is there to stop Citizen Major coming forward, just before another general election when he wants to defend some marginal seats, and promising tenants of private landlords that they also may buy their houses, whether or not the landlords wish to sell them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has entirely missed the point of the Housing and Urban Development Bill and its relationship with the private rented sector. There is absolutely no doubt that a Conservative Government seek to increase the level of the private rented sector. They certainly do not seek to reduce it, and never to nationalise it in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, ask the Duke of Westminster whether you can trust a Tory Government.
Noble Lords: Order!

Publishing: VAT
3 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are still of the opinion that the imposition of value added tax on books would adversely affect education and cultural pursuits in this country.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have received a number of representations from all sectors of the publishing industry about the consequences of VAT being levied on publications, and those will be considered very carefully in the period leading up to the Budget. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
Baroness David: My Lords, that is a not unexpected reply. Is the Minister aware that not only the publishing industry but also the whole educational world are extremely worried about the prospect of VAT on books? University libraries and university students will really feel the pinch if VAT is levied on books. Since further education colleges and sixth form colleges will come out from under the umbrella of the local education authorities, they too will not be able to claim the return on VAT which they have to pay on books. Therefore a much larger area will be affected.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the VAT position of education establishments. We shall take that into account, too.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, reading is habit forming in particular when the habit is acquired at an early age. If any factor cuts down or prevents the habit continuing, it affects not only knowledge, education, employment and much else, but cuts out an enormous slice of sheer enjoyment in life. Will the Minister include that point in his representations? There is a lighter side to the Question, but it is just as important a factor in people's lives.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall draw what the noble Baroness said to the notice of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I must declare an interest as deputy chairman of the Hands Off Reading Campaign. However, although Budget secrecy is a part of our national mythology, is there also a part which refers to Cabinet solidarity? There have been unequivocal demands from both the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education for an expansion of education and a raising of standards. Does that not bind the Chancellor's hands?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. Again, I cannot comment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I believe that the unusual circumstance has arisen in which the
664
noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I are in agreement. Does the Government recognise that there is a widespread body of opinion throughout the country which retains opposition to the taxing of literature which successive governments have maintained? Will the Minister bear that in mind? Will his noble friend the Chancellor also bear it in mind?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff does not make a habit of the present circumstance.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minster ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor to make a separate consideration of the market in learned academic books? Does he agree that those are a little like printed Parliamentary Bills? They are a market too small and too specialised to work by the normal rules. Does he agree that if such books were to disappear, it would be a considerable blow to education in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have noted carefully what the noble Earl said.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, does the Minister accept that such a tax would have an enormous impact on the spiritual and moral knowledge of people in this country? It would have effects on distance learning, on spiritual and moral individual development and on RE resource centres.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the right reverend Prelate. Having heard what everyone has said in the House today, it does not surprise me that we are so much better than Europe, which has VAT on books, magazines and newspapers.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the last election campaign the chairman of the Conservative Party stated,
"VAT will not be imposed on books, newspapers or periodicals"?
Does that remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the policy remains as I set out in my original Answer.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that both the price and availability of books would be much improved if he would consider the abolition of the Net Book Agreement.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is an interesting idea but it is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that VAT on books would have an adverse effect on the smaller book shops—in particular, those in outlying areas? It would lead to the much higher prices of books.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has also said.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that VAT levied on books and periodicals in

665
certain Continental countries is at a rate of about 2.5 per cent. or 5 per cent.? If VAT were levied in this country at 17.5 per cent., the printed media would be much more heavily taxed than any of its competitors in Europe. Is he further aware that competitors in Europe have subsidies on transport costs and postage? Similar subsidies would be required of Britain if we were to achieve the famous level playing fields about which we hear so much.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the range of VAT on books in Europe is from zero in Britain to 25 per cent. in Denmark. On magazines, it is from zero in Britain to 25 per cent. in Denmark. On newspapers, it is from zero in Britain to 10 per cent. in Ireland.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister realise the special difficulties that may be caused to charities which supply magazines as part of their members' subscriptions? Does he agree that whatever may happen to other magazines, those issued by charities will remain zero-rated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall also pass that remark on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a publisher. Does the noble Earl agree that British books make a notable contribution both to British exports and to British influence throughout the world? It would be desirable to avoid any measure which weakens the strength of British books in their home market.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the book is exported, there is no VAT.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the humble anticipation that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which is about to be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, 11 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in either debate. I remind your Lordships that when either the seven minutes or 11 minutes are indicated the eighth and 12th minutes have been entered into.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
666
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Carter and the Lord Dean of Beswick set down this day shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rural Areas: Social and Economic Needs
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to call attention to the case for comprehensive and coherent policies for the social and economic needs of rural areas; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper today calls for comprehensive and coherent policies for the social and economic needs of rural areas. Obviously it is a subject which has a wide range of facets. I know that speakers in the debate will wish to deal with those different aspects—education, housing, transport, and agriculture, or the special problems of Wales and Scotland. In opening the debate, I wish to set out an overview.
First, what do we mean by rural areas? The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) defines rural areas as the residue after urban regions have been defined. On that basis, about 80 per cent. of the UK land mass is rural; about 20 per cent. of the population live and work in the countryside, and less than 3 per cent. of the population—those engaged in agriculture and forestry—are the custodians of the visual and environmental aspects of the 80 per cent. of the land mass which is rural.
At the same time, a recent survey shows that 13 million people now living in towns and cities would like to live in the country and that 4 million people actually expect to move to a more rural area in the next five years. Forty-five per cent. of those surveyed longed for the open spaces of the countryside. Between 1981 and 1991, the census figures show that the fastest growth in population was in the remoter, more rural districts. But alongside this imagined rural idyll, there is the uncomfortable fact that 25 per cent. or more of rural households are living on or near the margins of poverty.
A recent survey of 10,000 rural parishes found that only 60 per cent. had a shop, only 3 per cent. had a public nursery, 94 per cent. had no day care groups for the elderly, and 60 per cent. had no primary school. There is real rural deprivation for some, but by no means all who live in the countryside. That is a fact of life which is borne out by many reports in recent years.
The biggest obvious change affecting the countryside is the decline in agriculture as a major employer, but with the paradox that agriculture, with an annual output of £12 billion to £13 billion, is probably still the largest single economic interest in the countryside. We know that nearly 100,000 jobs for farmers and farmworkers have gone in the past 10 years. Various estimates suggest that another 100,000 may go by the end of the decade.
This is a fundamental restructuring; it is not just a recessionary blip. As was put to me, we cannot expect someone who has worked on the land all his life to go

667
off and retrain as a computer operator. For example, one little-remarked on fact about the proposed set-aside of agricultural land is the potential job loss resulting from a successful set-aside policy—if one could define success in terms of set-aside. The estimates vary from one job lost per 400 acres of set-aside to one job lost per 800 acres of set-aside. Whichever figure is correct, an effective set-aside policy can only add substantially to the problems of rural unemployment.
The job losses in the countryside do not just result from the decline in agricultural employment. In the seven years from 1984 to 1991 nearly 38,000 jobs were lost in rural areas as a result of pit closures. As one miner's daughter pointed out, coal is a culture, not just an industry. Whole communities have been dependent on that culture—the infrastructure of the village revolved around the pit. The pit was the great provider and when the pit goes, so do the support services, sports facilities, recreation facilities and social facilities.
My own district council in Wiltshire is a rural area of villages and small market towns with a population of about 67,000. The waiting list for homes is 1,754 families. The number of homeless families in temporary accommodation is 110. The cost of the bed and breakfast accommodation is £50,000 per year and it has been as high as £80,000, compared with only a few thousand pounds five years ago. There is no doubt that the local authority waiting lists considerably understate the housing need for single people and couples without children who often just do not bother to register.
In that same small rural district, the latest unemployment figure is 1,358—the highest for many years and again considerably understating the true level of unemployment. Two years ago there were 106 people unemployed for between six and 12 months. The figure now is 494, an increase of nearly five times. In May last year 217 vacancies were notified and in January this year there were 55 vacancies. We know that 35 per cent of Army wives in the district are able and willing to work but there are no opportunities for them and they are not even on the register.
I have already mentioned the increase in population in the countryside, but we know that that growth is not balanced in terms of age and occupation. The rural areas have a greater proportion of retired people and fewer children and people of working age than in the country as a whole. That has led to the phenomenon which has been aptly described by Professor Howard Newby as, "two nations in one village".
There is a real social stratification in rural society with one part of the rural population having less need for jobs, schools and public transport, thereby increasing the pressures on the rest of the rural community who depend on such things. The two-car family has little need of the village shop but 25 per cent. of the rural families in Wiltshire have no car. We know that many villages have thus become dormitory settlements rather than balanced social units.
However, when all the various social and economic problems that beset the rural areas are considered,
668
there is one problem that stands out above all others. There is absolutely no doubt that the biggest social problem by far in rural areas is the lack of affordable homes to rent or buy. That view has been recorded and emphasised by report after report: the Duke of Westminster's study group; the Rural Development Commission; the Housing Corporation; the Association of County Councils; the Rural Housing Trust; the Archbishops' Commission report, Faith in the Countryside; and our own Select Committee on the European Communities in its report on The Future of Rural Societies. Paragraph 217 of that report states:
"The Committee were struck by the weight of evidence suggesting that the largest, and in some ways the most intractable problem affecting rural areas in the United Kingdom is the provision of adequate affordable housing for local communities".
The report of the Archbishops' Commission says the same thing on page 95:
"One issue above all others—housing—has been at the centre of the evidence which we have received, especially on our regional and diocesan visits".
We know that this problem is the direct result of the Government's right-to-buy policy for local authority housing, accompanied by the refusal to allow the local authorities to replace the lost houses.
If rural houses, as they become available, are snapped up by the rural incomers, thus pricing even the modest homes way beyond the reach of the working population, there must be a replacement supply of affordable housing if there is not to be a major social shift within villages.
That is exactly what has happened. It is a classic example of a popular, vote-winning policy bringing major socially undesirable results. The tragedy is that the Government could have achieved the objectives of the right-to-buy policy and prevented the worst social effects if they had allowed the local authorities either as enablers or as providers to replace the stock.
There are, of course, many other aspects of rural life that are affected by the social and economic pressures of living in the countryside. The village shop used to be an integral part of village life, but the spiralling cost of rural freehold property and the competition from supermarkets in nearby towns has drastically reduced the number of village shops. The Village Retail Services Association estimates that as many as a further 3,500 village shops are at risk of closing.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes says that its members identified the village shop and/or post office as the most highly desired amenity in rural areas. The situation of rural pharmacies is rarely mentioned, but the rules which govern dispensing by doctors can threaten the survival of the rural pharmacists who provide much more than just a dispensing service.
The problem of child care can be severely worsened by rural isolation, as can the situation of the army of informal carers looking after the elderly, the infirm or people with disabilities. The pressure to close community hospitals is intense in some rural areas, certainly my own.
Village shops, rural pharmacies, child care, informal caring, the closure of community hospitals are all examples of the many rural problems that may

669
be small in terms of absolute numbers but where the impact on the local community can be very severe indeed. We know that sports, play and leisure facilities play an important part in rural life. We also know that many rural education authorities are considering whether school playing fields are surplus to requirements. The lack of leisure centres and play or activity schemes is a feature of many rural areas. I should declare an interest here as a trustee of the newly formed John Arlott Memorial Trust, which has been set up to raise funds for the Rural Housing Trust and the National Playing Fields Association.
Time does not allow me to cover fully what has been well described as a damaging web of problems. We know that systems and structures have been dismantled, thereby creating the pieces of an immense jigsaw for which there is no obvious blueprint or co-ordinated approach. Virtually every agency—both public and voluntary—which is working on rural problems mentions the the overlapping of functions and the lack of comprehensive and coherent policies mentioned in the Motion for today's debate.
As an example, consider a small businessman who is looking to expand, or a farmer who wishes to diversify, and who is located in a less favoured area which is also an environmentally sensitive area, inside a national park and part of a rural development area surrounded by a site of special scientific interest. It is perhaps a far-fetched example but it illustrates very well the plethora of agencies and policies which exist in the absence of proper co-ordination.
A vast amount of very valuable work is done by voluntary agencies which are grappling with rural problems. Much of the work is done by those very rural incomers and urban transplants whose arrival is part of the continuing social stratification in rural areas. I do not use the phrase "the urban transplant" in any pejorative sense. I was one myself. But the irony is that the very same people will also have the time to serve on the parish council and will then resist the low-cost housing which is required in their hamlet or village to replace just a few of the houses that they have bought up. We also know that they are the people who have time to serve on the planning committees. It has been well put that the attitude to planning in rural areas is much more protective of conservationism than it is developmental. In my view there is an overlapping mix of policies and agencies which should be co-ordinated to present a coherent front.
The need for a coherent approach has been emphasised, but the general concept embraces a number of rather different ideas. First, the broad objectives of policy, whether economic, social or environmental, must be clearly formulated, together with guidelines for arbitrating the conflict between them. Secondly, those broad objectives must be translated into specific programmes which will actually achieve them. Thirdly, resources must be allocated in a rational way, so that if the aim is, say, to support farm incomes or to promote employment, the means is chosen with an eye to cost-effectiveness for that purpose. I gave the example of the set-aside of
670
agricultural land. Has anybody attempted to work out the unemployment cost of that? Fourthly, policy in so many different areas—agriculture, employment, education and training, housing, transport, and so on —must be planned within a coherent overall framework when decisions in one area so often have implications in another. Fifthly, different agencies, local or national, which implement policy must work smoothly together at a day-to-day level. Sixthly, and very importantly, the distinctive character of rural needs and rural problems must be given due recognition, even in areas such as housing, transport and education which straddle the rural-urban divide.
In the past there has been an argument for a department of rural affairs. It has not been accepted, even by my own party. But I believe that in time the argument for such a department will become even stronger. Far from fostering a coherent approach to rural policy, the present structure of government leads at best to piecemeal tinkering and, at worst, to an actual exacerbation of the conflict.
This immense subject requires a well planned combination of government action and voluntary effort. I know that other speakers will wish to deal with many aspects in more detail. I conclude with two quotations. The first is from the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference in January 1991. He said:
"We do not want to see a population exchange with the less well-off in rural areas being driven into the cities by the absence of affordable housing and jobs in the countryside".
One could wish that the policies of the Government were geared towards the objectives set out in that quotation.
Finally, M. Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission, said:
"Rural development is a public good which corresponds to a fundamental need of society as a whole".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, I must at once declare an interest as chairman of the Rural Development Commission. The commission's task is to advise government on matters affecting rural England and to take action in partnership with others as appropriate for further development of those rural areas. Because of my responsibilities outside this House, I speak mindful of the Addison Rules.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating the debate. I want to re-emphasise much of what he said. We do not disagree on the analysis. The Rural Development Commission does not always believe that rural areas, and more importantly rural people, get their fair share of attention. I should like to refer to three key issues which presently face rural areas in England. I shall refer to them briefly, because they were all mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
In many areas the rural economy is facing substantial structural changes. As we all know, over the past 20 years the number of people employed in agriculture has fallen by about 40 per cent. As many as 100,000 full-time jobs in the United Kingdom may

671
disappear in the 1990s. As many again may be lost in related supplying and processing industries. Half of those jobs, about 50,000, will be in rural areas.
Between 1984 and 1992, as we have heard, 40,000 jobs were lost as a result of the closure of rural collieries. Of the 30,000 mining jobs in the current review, over 10,000 are in rural areas. Again, the closure of defence bases and the run-down of defence industries will have a marked effect on many rural areas, including Suffolk, Wiltshire, the South West and my own county of Lancashire. It is ironically known as the peace dividend.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that housing is another issue of crucial importance for rural communities, particularly affordable rented housing to meet local needs. A study carried out for the development commission in 1990 estimated conservatively that an additional 80,000 affordable rural homes were needed over the next five years; that is some 16,000 a year. We are nowhere near that number at the moment. However, I am delighted by the measures introduced by the Government to increase the supply of rural social housing. Those measures are welcome but, as I have suggested, more are still needed.
Access to services in the countryside is also a problem. Last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, reminded us, the commission published the results of the first-ever survey of rural services in some 8,000 parishes in England. Looking at six key services we found that about 40 per cent. of parishes were without a permanent shop or post office. Nearly a quarter, perhaps sadly, were without a pub. More sadly, over half were without a school. There were 30 per cent. without a village hall, and 73 per cent. without a daily bus service. We would not argue that each of those services should be available in every village. But the survey shows that, even in the most prosperous parts of the countryside, life can be difficult for some groups of people, particularly those without a car.
So what can we do about the problems facing rural communities? What are we doing? The Motion refers to "comprehensive and coherent policies". The development commission has always believed in an integrated approach to economic and social problems. In each of the priority areas —the rural development areas, as we know them—we have introduced rural development programmes. These are integrated programmes of economic, social and related environmental action drawn up by local partnerships from the areas to which they apply. They involve county and district councils, English estates, the county rural community councils and other agencies such as the TECs. In 1990 we extended that approach to two new rural coalfield areas in the East Midlands. Last year we launched our new countryside employment programme in three pilot areas facing the challenge of severe agricultural change in order to help diversify the local economies.
These recent initiatives reflect the commission's evolution of a proactive role in tackling new economic problem areas. Parts of rural England need a regeneration agency just as much as the inner cities. The commission has launched a number of new or
672
improved programmes in the past year geared very much towards helping businesses weather this recession and prepare for new growth. Our business service has launched new advisory packages. We have greatly expanded our marketing grants. We have launched new grant schemes to encourage TECs and local enterprise agencies to provide more business advice and training in rural areas. Last year we expanded the scope of our redundant building grants scheme which provides economic environmental benefits most cost-effectively. We have continued to expand our social programmes. For example, we have funded a range of demonstration projects in child care and training for women which, among other benefits, improve the currently poor prospects for rural women of finding work.
Last but not least we have launched a grant scheme to help village halls cope with the costs of complying with new health and safety regulations. I must add that the burden of regulation is now one of the biggest bugbears of rural businesses and charitable bodies. The Government's renewed determination to reduce those, burdens is very welcome. We shall monitor progress closely. I hope that those brief examples will demonstrate to your Lordships that the Rural Development Commission takes a comprehensive view of its responsibilities and promotes an integrated approach to rural problems.
I should like to stress one final point that lies behind this Motion; namely, that preserving and protecting the physical aspects of the countryside, flora, fauna and landscape is all very well, but in itself does not safeguard the countryside's future. To do that we must above all have regard for the people—people who need jobs, homes and services.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for moving this Motion this afternoon. Many noble Lords, particularly those who will speak in this debate, deeply regret that more time could not be given to it. There is a very short time at our disposal in which to deal with a very important subject. Although I am the third speaker, as can be seen, I do not speak for the Front Bench of my party. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, who will wind up the debate, will undoubtedly say such things as need to be said from the party's point of view.
I imagine we all agree that the rural areas of this country are suffering from pernicious anaemia and poor circulation. There is no shortage of suggestions on what is needed to alleviate the symptoms. Most of those suggestions are good. As has already been said, action is desperately needed in the areas of housing, transport, and many others. But the disease goes very deep and relief of symptoms is not enough. We need to tack the malaise at its root. The truth is that the countryside in any nation cannot be healthy without a thriving, effective and populous agriculture. If one needs to look at the state of our agriculture today, one has only to read the extremely good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, last Wednesday.

673
Britain has been blessed and cursed with a very efficient agricultural system. It has been blessed because it was able, among other things, to bring us safely through the war and blessed because it has paid off for many years in a monetary bottom line. Britain has been cursed because ever since the agricultural revolution we have been travelling down the path of measuring prosperity in monetary output per worker, and the logical conclusion is the anaemic state of the countryside today. We have missed out on healthy peasant farming which has been the glory of most of Europe and which was the policy beloved of our Liberal forbears, of Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton and the people who preached the Liberal doctrine at the turn of the century, including Jesse Collings who spoke for the countryside from the Labour Party. We have missed out on that, although it is just possible that Spain and Italy are now just beginning to tread the somewhat ruinous path that we have trodden.
Those of us who read The Times on Saturday know, from reading the entertaining life of Paul Heiney, the possibilities of small farming. Of course it does not pay and it has to be paid for by his journalistic efforts. But we should find some way of making that kind of farming pay. Earlier last year the Prince of Wales spoke to the RASE and pointed to some of the ways forward. SAFE, the campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Food and the Environment, has produced a 10 point programme which I commend to your Lordships' attention. I shall briefly mention six of those points. I emphasise that this is a plea for the kind of agriculture that we should have throughout the EC.
First, there must be a farm support system which sustains rural employment. I may be wrong but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that we did not know the effects of set-aside. I understand that some research has been done and it has been suggested that one job is lost for every 130 hectares put into set-aside. We must have a farm support system which encourages employment. We must have a farm system that controls surpluses by rewarding environmentally friendly farming systems. We must have a farming system that encourages lower outputs—low farming rather than high farming—and avoids much of the damage done by energy-intensive farming. We must have a farming system that produces protection for wildlife habitats; a farm support system that encourages the restoration and creation of such habitats; and a farming system which militates against the inhumane treatment of farm animals. All that is done by a low farming system.
In conventional terms that is expensive and we are financially a poor country—over the past few days I have heard many speeches implying that we are a rich country; but we are a poor country with a lot of rich people. It will be argued that we cannot afford such reforms. But a country is basically prosperous or not depending on whether it can provide a satisfying life for its citizens. Part of a satisfactory life in Britain and Europe is a stable and satisfied rural population. For far too long we have calculated the bottom line only
674
in pounds and pence (previously in shillings also). It is time that we started to calculate in terms of human values a proper relationship between man and his environment and even aesthetic satisfaction. But if we continue as we are doing, in the words of the prophet, "we shall make a desert and call it peace."
3.38 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for bringing this very important subject to the attention of the House. We are not alone in this country in having problems in our rural community and with farming. I have with me a report which was published in November for the French Senate. It draws attention to the problems of what the French call their "rural spaces". It lambasts the French Government with a ferocity almost equal to that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this afternoon. Perhaps some of your Lordships heard the debate between M. Mitterrand and a number of Frenchmen just before the referendum on Maastricht. A French farmer tackled him, claiming: "You are destroying the farmers of this nation; it is genocide!"
This afternoon I want to speak briefly about the problems of the British farmer. Many people in this country perhaps do not realise what the farming industry is going through. Unlike the miners and French farmers, we do not go out and burn trucks on the road and parade through the capital with our tractors and combine harvesters.
I am told by the NFU that over the past two years more than 13,000 farmers and farm workers have left the agricultural industry. The Samaritans have had to set up special units in the countryside to deal with calls from farmers because there have been so many rural suicides. The important point is that British farmers, unlike French farmers, are not resistant to change; but sometimes circumstances are such that they do not have time to make changes. Farmers live by the rhythm of the seasons and of the life cycle of the animal population. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to make rapid changes.
I should like to look at the question of what the urban majority in our country want from the farming community. That is what the farming community want to know. If they know and are given time to change, they will respond. I believe that what the urban population want—put crudely —is cheap wholesome food and a picture book countryside. I suggest to your Lordships that the two are simply not compatible.
Picture book farming is today an expensive way to produce food because of the march of technology and the reasonable expectations of those who work on the land. When I was a boy my father farmed under 1,000 acres and employed 35 men; today we farm over 2,000 acres and employ 3.5 men. Agricultural wages in 1940 were £3.6 per week—£63 at 1992 values; today, wages are on average £216 per week. That is a change we cannot reverse. We cannot expect those who work on the land to go back to 1940 wages; we cannot turn back the tide of technology.
What can we do to produce cheap wholesome food in a countryside whose appearance is acceptable? The

675
French Sénat report suggests four measures. First, that the Government should define clearly a national policy for the future of the countryside; secondly, that they should open up new outlets for agricultural production—the report refers particularly to the possibility of producing fuels from agricultural products—and thirdly, that the Government should put in place a plan to relieve agriculture of some of its tax burdens. I must admit that that looks to me like a hidden subsidy; what price the level playing field? Fourthly, the report recommends the development of industry and business in the countryside as a source of alternate income for people living in the countryside. There are lessons we can learn from those proposals and perhaps the last of the four is the most important.
In my view, in seeking a long-term solution to the problems of the countryside and the farming industry, we shall need to differentiate between areas with soils of different productivity potential, different climates and different landscape values. I suggest that in areas with a high potential for high-yielding crops or grazing and with suitable topography, farmers should be encouraged to practise highly efficient, low unit cost agricultural food production. Those are the areas which would produce most of the country's low cost food and help with our balance of payments.
By contrast, in areas of exceptional national beauty where small farmers predominate, farmers can be subsidised to practise traditional and picturesque farming methods—what I might call "Mrs. Tiggywinkle farming"; a kind of open-air museum of farming the countryside. In areas of the Lake District, or parts of Devon or Wales that might be justified and the public may be prepared to pay the not inconsiderable cost.
In areas of poor or steep land I believe that forestry must be an important element in the solution. Finally, on all the land that lies in between I believe that we must look at extensification and, above all, at part-time farming. Part-time farming is the only way in which we can keep people in the countryside, enable them to participate in relatively small-scale farming and, at the same time, enable them to earn a reasonable living wage.
Whatever the policy is to be, I plead with the Government and all political parties to work together so that we do not have changes every time there is a change in political influence. Farming cannot be a political football; it takes too long to change direction. Finally, and in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I remind your Lordships of the words of Jean Jacques Rousseau,
"Agriculture is the first and most admirable of all the Arts".
3.45 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I am particularly so because for 10 years I was chairman of the Rural Development Commission between 1980 and 1990. I have little to add to his comprehensive survey, nor to that of my successor, my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth—except perhaps on one or two points.
676
The perception of rural life is often quite different from reality. One of the tasks of those of us concerned with rural affairs is to illustrate the essential difference between living in the country and living in the town. Distance and sparsity have an inescapable effect on the rural dweller. It is around those two factors that any government policy specifically aimed at rural areas should be framed.
Your Lordships will need no reminding that it is not uncommon in rural areas for people to have to travel 40 miles to visit granny in hospital—a round trip of 80 miles; to travel seven miles for a hair cut; to go five or six miles to the nearest village store where inevitably the costs are higher than those in the supermarket. The car has emancipated the rural dweller. To him it is not a luxury, it is a necessity. I make this point particularly because when we speak of broad-brush policies to reduce CO2 emissions by increasing the cost of energy, the rural dimension needs to be remembered, and the substantial extra cost that a rise in the cost of fuel would bring to the rural dweller. It is something that all of us who take any part in formulating policies should keep in the back of our minds.
There may be some policies that can and should be specifically aimed at the rural dweller. But there are also a number of policies that constrain the economic development of rural areas and constrain the natural development of alternative jobs in rural areas, in exactly the same way as they constrain them in urban areas. Therefore, before we look at specific new initiatives—one initiative to pile on another initiative —it is important that the Government examine the framework within which the economy works and within which the rural economy works.
Perhaps I can give two examples. When I was chairman of the Rural Development Commission we came to the conclusion that the best thing we could do was to encourage local enterprise, recognising that most of the businesses one finds in rural areas were started by people who lived in those areas in the first place. The natural thing to do therefore would be to cherish the acorn and try to help it turn into an oak.
Such businesses needed somewhere to start, and yet 10 years ago there were draconian planning regulations against the use of redundant farm buildings and against people working from their own homes. Our agency, along with others, quietly nibbled away at that concept, and I believe that literally hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created in rural areas—not because of government but in spite of government. We must remove the constraints that prevent jobs from happening spontaneously and organically. That is why, in the formation of policies, one should stand back and examine the situation widely.
We looked at a second initiative, one which again did not apply wholly to rural areas. We recognised that lots of people would have liked to have been their own boss and would have liked to have started their own business; but they had the desperate problem of how to start their own business and yet not be accused of moonlighting while they lived on the dole. The solution was very simple—to legitimise moonlighting

677
under a scheme called the Enterprise Allowance so that those people could go on drawing the same money, in effect, as the dole. The change of name to the Enterprise Allowance from the dole opened up a whole new range of opportunities and gave people a financial life-line to start their own businesses. It was responsible for the creation and sustenance of hundreds of thousands of businesses both in rural and urban areas.
In trying not to dwell on many of the subjects that have been touched on already, I should like to suggest three more initiatives which I believe could be applied just as well to urban areas as to rural areas.
We are all anxious about unemployment yet we regard employment as being a full-time job. The laws are so structured that if one takes a part-time job and one is already unemployed, the hassle of deregistering and then reregistering makes it almost impossible to take a temporary part-time job. Yet, particularly in rural areas, there are masses of part-time jobs.
Only this week an instance came to my knowledge of a girl who is 23 and unemployed. She volunteered to become an assistant shepherdess during lambing. As noble Lords will know, there is always a demand for pairs of hands during lambing. A deal was struck offering her £250 a week for four weeks—£1,000. She came back five days later and said, "I have discussed this with social security and, frankly, if I come off unemployment benefit, I shall be worse off as I shall lose my mortgage subsidy, my child allowance and all the other things. I cannot afford to take it, even at £250 a week". It is madness to have constraints on natural re-entry into the labour market via the part-time route.
We should not be driven by self-imposed regulations that prevent the market from working naturally. We should re-examine this whole area to see whether some concessions cannot be made in this field to allow quicker deregistering and reregistering on and off the unemployment roll or an allowance as applies to old-age pensioners; say where the first 50 per cent. of earnings for those who have been out of work for a reasonable period are disregarded. We must free up the existing barriers to re-entry via the part-time labour route.
My second point concerns the question of how small businesses finance themselves. Uniquely in this country, we have a system of accountancy that taxes working capital. As a small business or a small village shop expands, its stock and work in progress goes up. That is regarded as profit if the business is profitable overall and it pays tax of 25 or 30 per cent. on its increased stock holdings. It pays tax on its working capital. All business costs are ultimately allowable. If the same business then goes out to buy a small computer, instead of that cost being allowed in the year in which the expenditure occurred, the cost is spread either over four or seven years. In other words, the recovery of that cost, while allowable, does not happen at once. In the year it expands, that business has to pay both for its new investment and tax. Other countries look at this quite differently and enable companies to be exonerated from tax on increased
678
working capital. It would be perfectly possible for us to do that in this country in the same way up to a maximum limit.
Last but not least—I apologise to the House for over-running my time—is the question of overregulation. It has been said to me that it is impossible to run a small farm or business today without breaking the law. We must bring in more de minimis regulations for small businesses. Many of them feel like Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels. No one silken thread holds them down but thousands of them prevent economic activity that should properly happen from happening. I believe that there are areas that the Government could look at, where deregulation and a change of existing regulations would emancipate businesses greatly to the benefit of the economy whether they be in rural or urban areas.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate and on the way in which, from his obvious expertise, he introduced it. He has probably saved many of us a lot of time in our own speeches.
We do not often get the opportunity to discuss in any detail the social needs of rural areas. It is sad that noble Lords have only seven minutes, but in the few minutes available to me I should like to say something about the housing needs of rural areas. We tend to relate all the problems connected to the acute shortage of housing to urban areas and we seldom realise that those same problems exist in some lesser or greater degrees in rural communities. It is fortunate for me that recently the all-party group on homelessness had two speakers from the rural areas. We had a speaker from Action for Communities in Rural Areas, Miss Catherine Chater, and a speaker from the Association of District Councils, Mr. Graham Facks-Martin. We were brought up to date reasonable well by those two speakers.
Research by ACRE on behalf of the Rural Development Commission in 1990 indicated that, after taking account of re-lets, there was an annual shortfall of rural social housing provision of between 23,000 and 37,000 units. That is a massive shortfall when one considers the size of the problem in the rural areas. Graham Facks-Martin of the ADC said:
"It must be stressed that the root cause of the homelessness crisis is the inadequate provision of social housing, and should not be blamed on anything else. In the six years prior to 1991–92 the amount of social housing built was down to 30,000, from 80,000 in the first three years of the decade".
Local authority waiting lists significantly underestimate need, particularly in communities where they have little stock to offer. Those who are not classed as in priority need—single people or couples without children—tend not to register at all. There are many people in that category who do not show up in the records.
Homelessness in rural areas is increasing at a faster rate than in urban areas, according to a recent report, Homelessness in Rural Areas, by the Rural Development Commission. In the four years to 1992, the incidence of homelessness has tripled in deep rural areas. We know too that many homeless people who

679
originate from rural areas often seek accommodation in large cities—we certainly know of that problem in London—but even so it is clear that increasing numbers of people are now sleeping rough in rural areas as well. They may not be as obvious as they are on the Embankment. They are not sleeping on the streets but they are sleeping in cars, in garages—sometimes garages are let to people to sleep in—and in tents.
The report Homelessness in Rural Areas, produced for the RDC by Glen Bramley at the School for Advanced Urban Studies in Bristol in 1992, found that rural authorities tended to be stricter in their interpretation of the statutory homelessness legislation. For example, people encountering mortgage repossession, living in inadequate mobile homes and those living in short-term lets were seen to be intentionally homeless and therefore councils did not have a responsibility to provide housing for them—otherwise, the numbers accepted would be even larger. In Cornwall, for example, it was found that it was common for people living in short-term, six-month, winter-let accommodation to be made homeless when their accommodation was let as holiday accommodation for the rest of the year. The report also found a worrying increase in the use of bed and breakfast accommodation by rural local authorities which previously had not had to use it at all to house homeless people.
It has already been said that over a million council houses have been sold through the "right to buy" policy since 1980, which is nearly a quarter of all stock. In some rural communities the proportion is much higher without a single vacancy occurring from one year to the next. For some time local authorities have not been in a position to replace their stock directly because of financial restraints.
Housing associations have made some contribution, but still the shortfall remains and worsens. Until the recent collapse of the housing market, house prices had been rising rapidly and were beyond the means of the majority of those in rural communities. Another report found that 55 per cent. of new households in the under-30s age group could not afford to buy a new house and that 75 per cent. of large families had no option but to rent.
The Housing Act 1988 abolished fair rents, creating assured tenancies where the prevailing market sets rents. Those rents are dictated to a large extent by fluctuations in the housing aid grant schemes. I understand that housing association grant schemes are about to be further reduced. From 75 per cent. in 1989, they are now currently running at 71 per cent. and going down during this current year to 67 per cent. It is estimated that it is the intention to reduce them to 60 per cent. and then 55 per cent.
Those changes will create a dramatic increase in rents. The percentage of rent on a 67 per cent. grant is 30 per cent. of the net income; on a 60 per cent. grant the figure is 32.6 per cent. and on 55 per cent. the figure is 34 per cent. When one considers that the aim of the housing associations is a grant of 25 per cent., one can understand how very unaffordable these homes are going to be. Therefore I hope that the Government
680
will consider the overall effects of all those various aspects of the rural problem and that they will initiate changes along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Carter.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for bringing forward this debate. I believe that rural affairs in this context are every bit as important in their own way as urban affairs. I know the noble Lord well enough to appreciate that he knows a great deal about this subject. I also listened very closely to his overview which summed up the situation as it stood. I believe that he did that very well indeed.
I disagree with only one aspect that he emphasised as being the most important matter—that is, affordable housing. I would put unemployment first and then affordable housing. By unemployment in the countryside I mean the person who used to work in the countryside and who is, in a way, pinned to it either because of his housing or lack of a motor car, his skills or some such reason. I do not mean people who now treat the countryside as a dormitory. There will be many more of those in future.
Perhaps I may start—it is not because I sit between my noble friend Lord Vinson and my noble kinsman Lord Shuttleworth—by talking for a moment about the Rural Development Commission from the outside rather than from the inside of the agency. The nearest that I come to it is reading its report. I have said before in your Lordships' House that the commission is of prime importance in the countryside. There is a case for widening its remit and giving it a little or even quite a lot more money.
Re-reading last year's report I was a little disappointed to see that it concentrated on rural development areas—no doubt it picked them with great care because of their special poverty—but we are now dealing with poverty and a degree of deprivation over a large proportion of the country. I believe that there is a very strong case that the commission should be expanded. All its duties are well done. Going back to my employment theme, it has an extremely important role to play in that regard.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Government's duties. We have heard about the Prime Minister's speech at the Oxford conference. Reference was made to different provisions for employment in the countryside, such as workshops and factories and so on. That should not be inhibited by the planners. I rather doubt whether those words actually got down to grass roots level. It is very important indeed that influence should be used to ensure that redundant farm buildings, if they are wanted, are capable of being made into workshops or small factories. In addition, if someone has the initiative, money and, possibly, the help, he should be allowed to build a small workshop anew. Those measures would do a great deal to revitalise the country and perhaps take advantage of a faint rise out of the recession which surely must come some day.
Perhaps I may also mention retraining. Although the agricultural worker is an adaptable man, it is very

681
difficult for him suddenly to jump into another and totally different job. The remit of the Agricultural Training Board might be altered to show that its duties are not confined to training people for agricultural duties, but to retraining them for other duties and employment.
The point I made at the beginning of my speech as regards unemployment was occasioned by narrowing farmers' margins and, the final blow, the 15 per cent. set-aside. The set-aside land is allowed to be used for non-food projects. People rack their brains as to what that might be. I am told that there is an area the size of Norfolk which employs nobody at all.
My suggestion is that the situation provides an excellent opportunity to practise forestry. We have a declining forestry business. I ask the Government whether they can once more look at the grant structure of private forestry to encourage people to plant trees in areas where it is suitable so to do. At the moment the grants look reasonably robust, but the taxation advantages run out this April. When those were taken away—I sometimes feel that that was done to spite a few rich people—planting stopped. The Government have a completely arbitrary target, I believe, of 35,000 hectares per year. I believe it should be greater. That target has never been hit. They do not seem to take notice of the time it takes for trees to reach even production let alone profit levels.
The present grants do not acknowledge the fact that if 15 per cent. of land is to be put to forestry its asset value will drop from, say, £2,000 an acre to about £300. I ask most earnestly that the whole matter of forestry be looked at again with the possibility of re-planning the system to what it was before and at least increasing grants. More importantly than anything, those grants should be indexed because they are eroded by inflation and people do not trust them any more.
Finally, I make a plea that the bias that exists towards the green idea of every tree being of the deciduous variety should at least in part be reversed so that we can once more get going with a proper forestry industry.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall speak about village schools and I shall start with a quotation:
"Whitehall bureaucracy is totally unsympathetic and even fundamentally opposed to small schools … Concessions have had to be wrung out of a reluctant bureaucracy. It seems a pity that politicians in London seem quite unable to lift their eyes to the horizon to see the good things going on in rural communities. They are not able to contemplate rationally the havoc they are causing in the heartlands of the nation".
I have been quoting not from a Labour politician or from a Labour pamphlet but from a "high Tory" (so he describes himself) who is chairman of an education committee.
In the debate today we are talking about very important values. In a village there was, once upon a time, the church, the village store, the village inn, the post office and the village school. The church may have been made redundant or, to use the fashionable word, "clustered" with neighbouring parishes. The
682
post office and the stores have too often vanished. The school is in danger and, with it, the community education and activities that can go on in the building after 4 p.m. and at weekends: the activities that make for the cohesion of the community.
I know well the arguments for closing small schools. I faced all the problems when I was vice-chairman of Cambridgeshire Education Committee. I can reel them off: the dependency on the head and perhaps one or two teachers who may have been there for years. Is it right to leave a child with an inadequate staff for three and perhaps eight years of his or her schooling? Will there be the stimulus of a varied enough peer group to produce the interactions a larger number of children from different backgrounds could bring? Will it be possible to present the national curriculum? What about games? What about PE? What about music? Will pupils from a small school feel uncomfortable when they move to a secondary school? And what about the cost?
The supporters of small schools have answers. The cost may be greater, but there are costs in closure and in transport. There are, sadly, accidents. In Somerset a girl of 10 was killed in tragic circumstances. The coroner's court heard that an eight year-old boy had been in the front seat operating the door. Not all authorities have a strict policy of using only properly licensed vehicles and drivers. There are great advantages in being community based, and many say that these outweigh the disadvantages, which anyway can be overcome. Peripatetic teachers can be used. It is easier for one teacher to travel than for 20 or 30 children. So long as LEAs exist, INSET for teachers at teachers' centres can help the isolated teacher enormously.
Many heads say that they can deliver the national curriculum and in fact have been doing so for years. In response to a department document, Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools, which queried the effectiveness of small schools, the ACC said that counties overwhelmingly reported that small schools could deliver the national curriculum so long as they received support. Several in fact felt that it was in the smaller schools where the planning and introduction of the national curriculum had been most effectively achieved. However, there are other heads who say: "Can any school deliver the national curriculum?" One thought it overcomplicated and overloaded. Another thought the problem was not the national curriculum but the unnecessary documentation. Dr Burstall, the director of the National Foundation for Educational Research, having examined all the small school HMI reports for a three-year period from October 1983 to October 1986, said that one point emerged clearly. I quote:
"No evidence is presented in the reports which supports the view that a small school per se is inherently disadvantaged from an educational standpoint".
Many authorities—and Cambridgeshire was one of them—started to develop sharing arrangements between the schools, often trading under the general description of "clusters" or "federations". These are not cheap either but may go some way to compensate

683
for the curriculum isolation that small schools may suffer. The White Paper of July 1992 proposed that small schools could opt out in a group. It states:
"Any small primary school will be eligible to apply for grant maintained cluster status together with at least one other primary school, including those in neighbouring LEAs. It is expected that schools with fewer than 100 pupils will benefit most from forming a cluster".
Such is the Government's enthusiasm for an energetic pursuit of opting out. The ACC did not support the proposal and queried whether the clustering would allow more economic provision. Where authorities had introduced clustering it was clear that co-operation between schools depended not only on an area's geography but also on what was acceptable to small schools and their communities. In every case, though, the role of the LEA in establishing clusters and in providing extra funds to support the arrangements and to give advice had been essential.
There was not much enthusiasm for "federation", as suggested in the White Paper: that is, the creation of a multi-site school under a single head and with a single governing body. However, the Government's proposals appear in Clauses 109 to 119 of the Education Bill, shortly to make its appearance here. I would like to issue a warning based on the Cambridgeshire scheme to link four schools. All four were closed, with the approval of the Secretary of State, using Section 13 of the 1944 Act. When, later, the committee decided to end the federation it was able to close two of the schools, with no legal obligation to fulfil to the communities concerned. They were powerless: so beware.
Closing schools is a very emotive topic and it invariably attracts strenuous opposition. There is an example from Devon, where a school with 12 pupils was proposed for closure. Parents unanimously voted for grant maintained status. The closure proposal and the grant maintained application sit on Mr. Patten's desk. His decision will be of interest.
The cry from the department is, "Get rid of surplus places". A government adviser was complaining that money was being thrown away on school buildings where there were surplus places, and was quoting village schools as a clear example of that. It has been suggested that Ministers have been afraid to risk the wrath of the Tory village schools lobby. In fact it is not village schools, even thousands of them, that would make an appreciable difference to the total—1.5 million—of surplus places. One may have to conclude that this is just another ploy for taking village schools away from village communities. Rural communities must not be sacrificed in an attempt to minimise urban schools' surplus places. As the National Association for the Support of Small Schools said in a recent newsletter:
"Let every village school display its number of surplus places outside for all to see. That will tell all".
One final point is causing anxiety in rural areas: if the cost of transport is delegated to schools, how is this to be managed fairly? Apportioning the cost will not be a simple matter; in fact I think that it will be a very complicated one. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance about this. I look forward to discussion in Committee on the Education
684
Bill, and I beg the Government to listen very carefully to the arguments for retaining village schools. I would remind noble Lords of what my noble friend Lord Carter said: that according to a recent publication, Regional Lifestyles 1992, 4 million people plan to move to the country in the next five years, and younger age groups are particularly keen. Schools are going to be needed.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for having introduced this debate, and particularly for laying out the facts of the rural economy so clearly. These are factors which are often misunderstood by those who come to talk about this subject. I must declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Rural Economy Group. In recent weeks we have had presented to us a number of different views, all connected with the rural economy.
The first view considers the whole of the economy and structure of Great Britain. It argues that it is time to revise the received wisdom of always trying to regenerate our cities, on the basis that cities grew because they were economically viable and because there were certain needs that brought people together to work and invest in a particular area but that now the needs of the people have changed. There again the reference to the fact that many people now want to move from urban areas shows that that is changing. We need to look now at the demands of where investment wants to go rather than trying to push people into an area where they do not want to go so that they have to be given great incentives to move, and where we have seen in the past enormous failures of investments that have been made by taxpayers to attract people to areas where they did not really want to go, and they very soon left. Many of the declining areas in our cities are the results of such policies. Following that, the view was taken that we should look again at all our economic resources, and to a much greater degree encourage or allow investment to be made where the investors wanted to put it.
Another point of view takes that a little further. It has recently been advocated by the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities, which has been asked to look into the problem of rural communities in Europe. I should like to quote three short paragraphs that explain the view that the committee has taken. The first states:
"The Committee emphasizes the need to reverse the trend towards an even higher concentration of population in major urban centres … a situation already criticized in the Green Paper on the Urban Environment".
The second states:
"In this Own-initiative Opinion, the Committee aims to put together proposals on how to provide residents of rural and extra-urban areas with high quality structures and services on a par with those found in cities and geared to the areas concerned".
The committee then stated:
"Europe needs a determined policy for planning and developing rural areas. The policy of rural depopulation and excessive population concentration in capital cities and a number of regional cities must be stopped".
I recently had discussions with a new organisation that has been set up to bring together a consortium of

685
rural training and enterprise councils. These TECs are primarily involved in the rural areas and are deeply anxious about the problems of training, to which my noble friend referred, and about how we can stimulate opportunities for younger people, especially in rural areas. I found the existence of that organisation very telling. It reflects the way in which this problem is hitting closely at those TECs.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester (who is in his place) has coaxed me into becoming involved in trying to save the declining churches in the rural areas of his diocese. Perhaps there is no better illustration of what is happening now in rural areas than the fact that in previous centuries we have been able to raise the money in rural areas with which to build splendid, fine churches, but we are now finding it extremely difficult to raise enough money from our populations to keep the glass in our church windows and doors.
The other view that I have heard expressed is that we should attach only one prime aim to our rural areas—that is, the importance of the environment. Many bodies of opinion in this country hold the strong view that the environment is of prime importance in rural areas and that the market should not dictate what should happen there. That view says that we should not consider the needs of the people or the businesses who might want to go to those rural areas, but should consider primarily the needs of the environment. Such people believe that our prime responsibility is to get the countryside to look—as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said—as it used to look 100 years ago. Such people say that we should set out a planning programme that will ensure that we do not encroach on our rural areas.
In tackling this problem, we must understand the dilemma facing the Government. There are two very extreme views on the economy of our rural areas. I know that some noble Lords participating in this debate rightly have the view that economic considerations should be paramount; but others feel equally strongly the other way. There is a way to reconcile those two views. Even if one allows some development and investment in rural areas, encourages growth and encourages people to find other ways of creating wealth (which the decline of the agriculture industry has made so necessary) that can be done without spoiling the rural environment. We could still leave vast areas of Britain's beautiful countryside completely untouched.
When we refer to the necessity of encouraging further investment in order to provide services for an extra 5 million people, we are really only talking about developing the margins of our existing country towns and villages. There is no need to create new towns in rural areas. There is no need to create vast new industrial complexes. However, what there is a need to do is to realise that the economic aspect of what we do in our rural communities is as important to the nation as what we do in our cities.
Britain's future will depend upon us being the most efficient producer of everything that we produce. But one cannot be an efficient producer if one pays people
686
not to produce on their efficient land while giving them a subsidy to produce on their inefficient land. That is a sure recipe for destruction whatever the industry, yet that seems the overriding policy that the environmentalists have imposed upon the Government. The Prime Minister has declared clearly for such a change, as have many Ministers. In my view, the Government have taken a very positive step forward in PPG7, which is a new attitude to planning. They must now build on that and think in terms of what is right for the nation and industry as a whole. They should not be influenced too much by those small pressure groups which do not necessarily feel that it is their responsibility to think in terms of the nation, but only of their own point of view.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, rightly stressed the economic situation of the rural areas. However, any economic development would be useless without satisfactory transport—and it is with the question of transport that I should like to deal.
The lack of adequate transport makes staying in the rural areas very difficult for various categories of people. There are those who for various reasons want to stay but who, because of the lack of facilities to which my noble friend Lord Carter referred in the excellent and comprehensive speech with which he opened the debate and because of the lack of transport, feel that they have to leave even though they may have been born and bred in a particular village. This applies particularly to the young families we should like to see staying in the countryside. I understand that some 5 million women live in rural areas. Many of them do not have a car or access to one during either the day-time or the evenings. The same applies to quite a number of elderly people. If transport is not available, such people feel isolated and denied the things that make up the quality of life.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, pointed out that a car is not a luxury in a rural area; it is a necessity. However, despite the general increase in car ownership, many people cannot afford to buy a car or to pay the running costs. That is particularly the case given the long journeys that are necessary in rural areas, especially to reach employment. Many people find that the running costs are an unbearable drain on the household budget, especially as wages in rural areas are often on the low side.
In many rural areas there is little or no public transport. Where there are bus services, they are regularly axed at evenings or weekends. The services are often infrequent. As many noble Lords know—I have experienced this when travelling around—there may be only one or two buses a week. That is a problem for many people in rural areas. Where there is a bus service, it must be regular, reliable and properly timetabled. There may be a long walk, sometimes of miles, to reach the bus stop or pick-up point. That distance can often only be covered with the help of a friendly lift. To say the least, it is annoying to make such a journey (either walking or with a lift) only to find that the bus has left, that the

687
timetable has been changed, or that there is no bus because the operator does not have a reliable reserve vehicle to replace one that has had to be taken out of operation. That is one of the problems of deregulation and is, I believe, increasingly a problem in rural areas.
I turn now to the present position of the county councils. As their budgets do not allow them to subsidise all the bus routes that might be required to cover the rural areas, consideration must be given to other less conventional means of transport. Where there are school buses, these could be made available to other passengers. There is, however, the problem of the school holidays, so consideration would have to be given to how such periods could be covered.
Then there is the maximum possible use of post buses. I have had the pleasure of at least a couple of dozen holidays in rural areas in the north-west Highlands, and I know the value of the post buses to the community there. Without them there would be no transport at all. That system should be developed as much as possible. Of course there is a possible threat to the Royal Mail and one dreads to think what may happen to many of the post bus services which are such a boon to the people in the rural areas.
Every possible help should be given to enable community transport to be provided. This may be done with minibuses given by village or voluntary organisations. There must be an effective rota of voluntary drivers. Car sharing can be of help, but often the person desiring the lift finds that the times which suit the person offering the car sharing are inopportune, and that is another difficulty. Provision of transport for tourism can be of considerable help. But then we have a further problem outside the tourist areas.
Rail services play a useful but limited role in the rural areas. Only a small percentage of villages have either a station or a rural halt. Services mainly provide travel to, and between, the larger towns. Of course we have the services provided by certain metropolitan authorities through the Section 20 grants. These pay for rail services many of which go into the rural areas. They are operated by British Rail's regional services. What may be the position if the threat of rail privatisation becomes a reality one dreads to think.
Full consideration must be given by the county councils in particular and by district councils to the question of transport. Reference has been made to the need for integrated policies. Consideration of development plans should be linked to transport needs and how to make provision for them. I should like to think that in each county council there was a section devoted solely to transport with a view to assessing exactly how to cover each rural area and, where one cannot be covered by public services, to deciding what encouragement will be given to ensure that community services are brought into being. The aim must be to cover every part of every rural area with the best transport we can, whether by means of conventional services or of unconventional services.
I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who I believe was his predecessor as chairman of the Rural Development Commission. I know little about the
688
work of the commission, but I am always happy to receive its Rural Focus. I find that the work it is doing is of considerable interest. As a statutory body, that work is of great importance, but it needs to have adequate resources to do its job. The elected regional councils whose establishment the Labour Party is urging could, along with the commission, play a great part in developing transport.
The aim must be to have adequate transport: without it, life in the rural areas becomes almost impossible because of the feeling of isolation. If we cannot provide proper public transport facilities, then every encouragement must be given to the development of unconventional services.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, all those living in the British countryside must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing this subject for debate today. Sadly, Her Majesty's Government, and their predecessors since 1979, while professing and declaring their belief in helping and maintaining the rural economy, have actually achieved exactly the opposite. With friends like this, those in rural areas certainly do not need enemies. In terms of numbers, we are very much an urban society these days, and therefore when there is discussion of social deprivation, poor housing and unemployment, it always seems to revolve around urban areas. However, there is now an ever greater need to highlight the problems in rural areas, much of them as a result, sadly, of Her Majesty's Government's policies.
Many noble Lords have already drawn attention to the disastrous results of the common agricultural policy, which has accelerated the decline in employment in farming. While some of the decline is due to greater efficiency, now we have the dreaded set-aside in action, taking good land out of use and leaving less work for farm workers. We used to be self sufficient in milk production, but thanks to obeying to the letter the EC imposed milk quotas—and can we believe that everyone else is following such a strict line as we do?—we now have formerly expanding businesses producing wonderful and individual farmhouse cheeses which are now not allowed to produce the milk to expand further. Agriculture this century has been a great success story. Is it not sad to see what is happening to it now?
The position with forestry is even worse. One would think that in a country that has to import 92 per cent. of its requirements of timber and timber products great incentives would be given to increase production, as we have in many ways ideal growing conditions for effective forestry. For many years, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Radnor, we had a taxation regime that encouraged the planting and growing of trees. As many in your Lordships' House will remember, my father was at the forefront of those who advocated forestry in Great Britain. Indeed, he planted many hundreds of acres not with blankets of uniform conifers but with beautiful, mixed plantations—a prophet of correct ecological practices well before others.

689
Would he not be disappointed to see the outcome? Private landowners all over Britain are being forced to lay off their forestry workers because Her Majesty's Government reacted far too hastily to the fact that certain pop stars and BBC presenters were using the forestry taxation rules to convert taxable income into capital. Unfortunately, the ill thought-out changes in taxation penalised active, long-term family forestry operations, particularly in our case where we have little mature timber as a result of my father's active planting policy, and therefore a very low Schedule B income.
We have reacted in the only way that we could—as have many other private forestry owners—by making our staff redundant. What a dreadful consequence for them and for the British countryside! Surely the same end of preventing the use of forestry taxation reliefs for tax avoidance could have been achieved without jeopardising the future of family forestry businesses.
The recession has also had its effect on estate works departments, where the fact that outside builders, given their low workload, can give such keen quotations means that often estate departments are unable to compete. Taking our particular case as an example, Weston Park is now in the ownership of a private charitable foundation. Obviously, the trustees have to abide by charity rules, and the estate works department, which traditionally carried out all the work on the mansion house and buildings in the park, helpfully balancing out summer and winter work, now quite rightly has to compete with the prices quoted by outside contractors, and is unable to do so. Therefore, yet again we have had to cut back, and now have a much smaller team, which is disastrous for local employment, as we have had to make redundant many workers, some of whom had been on the estate for their working lifetime, and in many cases their fathers before them.
We also now have many redundant farm buildings, often most attractive and potentially useful structures, Which cannot be used for farming because they are unsuited to modern practices. As we are in a green-belt area, it is often difficult to obtain a practical change of use for those buildings, though I believe that some planning authorities are more enlightened about this than others. The overall effect of the present situation around us has been, and continues to be, a serious decline in rural employment and the local economy, with little apparent hope of any improvement; a situation that is repeated all over the country.
There is also a considerable cost penalty to living in the countryside. For instance, within one mile of our house, we have the largest gas pipeline in Britain; but we are unable to get a gas supply, which is the cheapest and most effective form of heating. It now costs a small fortune to be connected to the mains electricity supplies or mains water. If one happens to live in a remote area, try getting a telephone line connected at a sensible price if, apparently, it requires more than 100 man hours to install it.
Many noble Lords have touched on the necessity to own a car because local bus services appear to be in terminal decline. There are fewer small shops while the
690
new and wonderful out-of-town supermarkets are not all that far out of town. Therefore they are available easily to those in the countryside only if they have transport. Old people find it hard to collect their pensions unless they have their own transport because the day when every village had its own post office has long gone. Village schools have all but vanished for very good and understandable reasons, but all that penalises country dwellers.
Sadly the idealised view of rural living is far removed from reality. We believe that as we are so few we are considered to be relatively unimportant in economic terms. We do not protest as the French do by blocking motorways and overturning fish markets. And if we did could we expect to receive the same lenient treatment from our authorities? In France no one seems to be arrested. Perhaps we should not be so silent and inactive. That appears to result from a sense of helplessness to do anything to improve our future as more government and EC policies destroy the economic and social position of rural areas.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am particularly indebted to my noble friend Lord Carter for introducing the debate. Some of your Lordships may have noticed that for the past two years I have had on ballot for short debate the future of the forestry industry. The fact that I have not yet been successful in the ballot enables me today to say a few words about my favourite subject. I propose to take advantage of the debate so to do.
I am also indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, whose father was one of my predecessors as chairman of the Forestry Commission. I agree with his plea and that of the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, whose father was a most distinguished forester, that the tax regime should be re-examined. The net effect of the change in policy has meant no further money to the Exchequer and it is helping to destroy an industry.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, also said that the set-aside—that is, the land which is doing nothing and for which farmers are paid—should be considered more actively as a suitable area for substantial forestry development. As the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, said, this year our trade deficit will probably be about £11 billion. The import value of timber and timber products will probably amount to £8 billion, which makes a substantial impact on our balance of payments situation.
When the subject was considered on a previous occasion I was encouraged by government assurances about their commitment to forestry. Perhaps I may read from the annual report of the Forestry Commission which gives the forestry policy as stated by Ministers on 18th September 1991. I was encouraged by the aims stated in the report, which reads:
"Forests and woodlands are an integral part of the rural environment, providing important opportunities for recreation and for public access to the countryside. They are also a valued component of our landscapes and an essential habitat for wildlife. Our forestry industry makes a substantial and increasing contribution to meeting the growing national demand for timber… The two main aims of the Government's forestry policy are thus:

691
The sustainable management of our existing woods and forests.
A steady expansion of tree cover to increase the many, diverse benefits that forests provide".
That is a statement of government policy. Indeed, the Government have reiterated the fact that their target is still 33,000 hectares.
In the light of that commitment, perhaps I may quote the figures. Some 20 years ago we in this country were planting 42,000 hectares per annum. That has dropped to approximately 15,000 hectares per annum. That is hardly consistent with the Government's commitment to an expanding forestry policy. In the uplands in particular forestry provides five or six times the number of opportunities for employment as compared with, for example, sheep farming. Yet despite the fact that employment in forestry can make a sizeable contribution to the issues which we are discussing today forestry is decreasing in employment terms. The Forestry Commission did a remarkable job in restoring some of our woodlands and in providing rural employment. However, it is now the victim of doctrinaire thinking on the part of the Government.
I know that the Minister rejects that view but the facts are there. During the past 10 years the Forestry Commission planting programme has been cut from 15,000 hectares to 3,000 hectares last year. The organisation is now concerned with administration rather than its original function of planting trees and increasing our tree cover. During the past five years the Forestry Commission has shed more than 2,000 employees. That is important in our rural economy because there are few opportunities for employment in some of the areas in which the Forestry Commission operates. Therefore, the Government cannot go around saying, "We believe in an expanding forestry policy", while at the same time allowing the industry to die. The industry is in crisis. We have encouraged large investors to come to this country on the assumption that timber supplies will be available for the new pulp and news print mills. However, that is not the case. A decline in the planting programme today will catch up with us in 20 or 30 years' time.
I beg the Government to look at their future policy. When I was chairman of the Forestry Commission there was a partnership in forestry in this country. There was no serious competition between the private and state sectors. We worked together. About 50 per cent. of our planting programme was private and the rest was state. It was a healthy relationship. We shared research, experience, pest control and good neighbourliness in the countryside. It was an excellent example of a mixed economy.
That no longer exists because the Forestry Commission is being steadily diminished. That would be all right if the private sector were taking up the slack. However, the tax regime is such that the private sector is no longer interested in substantial forestry investment. As a result there has been a contraction in a basic industry which uses up a renewable natural resource and the Government must look at that problem urgently.
This has been a friendly and non-party debate. I believe in partnership and consensus in dealing with those problems. However, the Government must get
692
away from their doctrinaire attitude of diminishing the state sector when the private sector is unable to take up the slack.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too have an interest to declare as a member of the Rural Development Commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth.
There are two points that I should like to make. The first is to draw attention to an aspect of what I see is the imbalance between conservation and development in rural areas. The second is to make a specific proposal for, in the words of the most useful Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, coherent policies for the economic needs of rural areas.
For generations there have been battles between conservationists and developers. I yield to no one in my concern for conservation, having been for 12 years a member of the Countryside Commission. Nevertheless, I believe that we must face up to certain crucial points. First, there is a hierarchy of designated areas in the countryside. It is important to stick to designation and to recognise that those areas need to be especially cherished. However, even in those areas it is possible to have useful development. I recommend to those of your Lordships who do not already know them to visit the useful high tech developments which have taken place in the Peak District National Park.
Some areas have been forced to diversify. An obvious example is Durham. In 1951 there were 134 pits employing over 100,000 miners; now, I believe, there are only two pits employing fewer than 2,000 people. However, it is interesting as an example of the fact that pollution, which is so disliked by conservationists, does not come only from new industries but also from old industries. I was staggered to see that even today coal waste is being tipped directly into the sea at Seaham in Durham.
Agriculture has a part to play. My noble friend Lord Bradford was perhaps aiming at the wrong target when he complained about the Government. Perhaps he should have spoken about Brussels. I am an unashamed free trader. I believe that it is possible to be a free trader and a supporter of the European Community. I believe that set-aside is total nonsense and non-viable in the long run. Nevertheless, I salute my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for having taken action in the negotiations which ensured that the set-aside nonsense is nothing like as pernicious and discriminatory against British agricultural production as Mr. MacSharry originally hoped that it would be.
Paradoxically, because macro interventions of the set-aside type usually get it wrong, there is now a useful extra injection of set-aside cash to the rural economy from the devaluation of the pound and also from large increases in the price of certain products. Feed wheat at £140 per tonne is rather helpful for those of us who grow it.
I believe that there is unbalanced emphasis on conservation in the planning process. There is a particular proposal which I should like to make to the Minister. We hear a great deal about environmental

693
impact assessments as part of the planning process. I am not quite sure how—perhaps the Minister and his colleagues will give some thought to it —but an economic impact assessment should also be introduced into the planning process so that the economic impact of proposed developments in the countryside can be balanced alongside the environmental impact. They are both important. However, I believe that at present we have the balance slightly wrong.
Finally, I make one specific suggestion as to how we could give an immediate and cost-effective boost to jobs in rural areas. I am not a great believer in large-scale megaprojects. Very often, with road building and so on, the phasing is wrong in terms of the economic cycle. One should always be looking—and I should like to think that the Government are looking—for short-term action which is fairly certain to be effective. I have a modest proposal to make but I hope that the Government will consider it. Perhaps the Minister will discuss it with my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary.
English Heritage, with which I have no direct links, has a budget of about £100 million per year, of which some £17 million is spent on giving grants for the repair of individual historic buildings and monuments, both secular and churches. Of that about £10 million goes to churches. Currently the grants are about 40 per cent. They used to be up to 90 per cent. when the scheme first started.
In rural areas it is very difficult for small parishes with important churches to begin to afford the balance between 40 per cent. and 100 per cent. I therefore suggest that the Government should offer for 1993–94 an additional £5 million to be spent specifically on giving help to the repair of listed churches. I mean parish churches and not cathedrals because, on the whole, cathedrals find it much easier to raise funds for themselves.
Such a scheme would have several advantages. First, churches are widespread throughout rural areas. Secondly, the contractors who would do the work are almost exclusively British. Thirdly, the materials used for that work are almost entirely United Kingdom sourced. Fourthly, it would encourage greatly the craftsmen and craftswomen who can do that kind of work. Fifthly, it is an extremely good time to undertake such work because competition is very keen and the Government would receive extremely good value for money.
I recognise that proposals to spend extra money are never popular with the Treasury. Nevertheless, I hope that it will look at the advantages of spending that kind of money compared with some of the other vast expenditure which often provides less value for money. I suggest that the Government need to consider such schemes as a means of giving a stimulus in the short term to rural areas and particularly to small building companies. That may be relevant to the debate which is to follow. It could make all the difference between the survival and disappearance of such companies.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems of rural Britain. I am grateful too for his constructive and inspiring opening speech.
I thank all other noble Lords who have expressed anxiety about the plight of those who live in rural areas, and in particular my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley for his emotional plea on behalf of the agricultural industry. I thank him for that.
I am a countryman born and bred and I have never wished to live anywhere else. However, I should be the first to say that country life on the whole is not the idyllic dream so often portrayed on the television or written about in glossy magazines. For those who live and work in the countryside, the reality is too often grinding poverty, compounded by poor housing, inadequate services, non-existent public transport and a chronic low wage economy which drives away youth and enterprise.
I do not wish to paint a picture of unrelieved gloom. Many survive happily in the country. They have worthwhile occupations and manage very well. However, I wish to press home the point that rural Britain has problems to equal those of urban Britain and that the case for coherent and comprehensive policies to tackle them is unanswerable.
Time is limited in this debate but I should like to mention some facts. Unemployment in rural areas is on the increase. In many areas the figures are above the national average. Some of the worst areas are South Yorkshire, Cornwall, Cleveland and the Isle of Wight. There is also the problem of a chronic shortage of affordable housing. In Wales we are very much aware of that and sympathise greatly with other areas where young local families have been forced to move away as a result of the influx of affluent second-home owners and the depletion of council housing stock. This problem, in my view, needs to be tackled urgently unless we want our villages to turn into picturesque but lifeless museums or just boring dormitories for city commuters.
Village shops are disappearing at a tremendous rate. Rural schools are closing and cottage hospitals are becoming a thing of the past. What is vital for the survival of rural life in Britain is, undoubtedly, the health of the agricultural industry. Although it is the largest industry in the country, it employs only 2 per cent. of the working population—in Cardiganshire where I farm, the percentage is much higher of course —but it underpins the whole rural economy. If agriculture is allowed to decline, the whole rural economy will decline along with it. I wish to make a plea to the Minister. I am sure he is aware that there is now a distinct possibility that the Agricultural Training Board Cymru will be abolished and decision making and funding for Wales will become the province of a single agricultural training board based at Stoneleigh in Warwickshire. If we want to keep our young people in Wales and if we want to train them, I beg the Minister to keep the Agricultural Training Board headquarters in Wales.

695
The Liberal Democrat approach to agricultural policy is to place it within the whole rural context and to develop policies with that concept in mind. In today's world I believe that that is more necessary than ever and I fear that the Government's somewhat piecemeal approach, leaving so much to market forces, can only fail us in the long run.
I wonder whether I might, as a Welshman, make one suggestion. We in mid-Wales have benefited a great deal from the setting up of the Development Board for Rural Wales, which has brought in light industry and helped small business as well as assisting social developments. I do not pretend that it has solved all our problems by any means. It does not have sufficient finance or power as yet. I should like to see its boundaries extended. However, within its limitations, it has done a good job. Might it not be a good idea to set up a similar development board for rural England to cover all rural counties which could co-ordinate policies and encourage renewal in the most hard-pressed areas?
Before I finish I should like to touch briefly on two other points. The first concerns crime in rural areas, which has grown tremendously over the past few years. This is not the time to discuss the reasons for that as the debate would go on for hours, but I think that police numbers should be increased to deal with the vast distances involved in rural areas and to give the population in those areas the confidence of the police presence.
Secondly, I am concerned about transport in rural Britain. I shall refer only to Wales as I am more familiar with our problems there. We have experienced the cut-backs and rationalisations forced on British Rail through lack of proper funding, but I become less and less confident about the future. We have learnt recently that British Rail is to lose freight business because Shell has decided to transfer its oil transport from rail to road when supplying its Aberystwyth depot. Not only will this mean more large lorries on heavily used tourist routes, but it will also undermine the viability of the Birmingham to Aberystwyth route and cast another shadow over its future. I am told that the decision has been taken for commercial reasons. That does not fill us with confidence over the prospect of the privatisation of British Rail. Commercial considerations could well kill a number of the less profitable but socially useful routes in Wales and other parts of rural Britain. To lose the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line or the Heart of Wales line, for example, would be yet another blow to the rural economy. We need those routes for our tourist industry and to link our small communities. They must not be allowed to close.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, this has been not merely an interesting debate but a very comprehensive debate. In spite of the fact that it was time limited, the variety of subjects covered in the two and a half hours allocated to it has, in my opinion, been quite remarkable, as has the quality of the speeches, due no doubt in large measure to the experience of the people who took part in the debate.
696
The reform of the common agricultural policy, while not at the heart of this question, is certainly now a major factor concerning it. There will inevitably be reductions in farming effort as a consequence, and included in that will be some continuation of the inevitable reduction in the number of people employed on the land. Thus we have an accentuation of a policy which is already of considerable concern.
In rural areas any reduction in farming effort and in the intensity of farming means a contraction in economic activity overall and that of course, in turn, produces social effects because there will be a spin-off in ancillary trades and some reduction in the willingness of other people to come in with new development. Rural unemployment is thus increasing and I am sorry to say that investment in the countryside may be in danger of decreasing.
The role of planning machinery in all this is of vital importance. I am glad that this point has been emphasised by a number of speakers this afternoon. Change of use and new development are vital if some of the difficulties which rural areas are experiencing are to be reduced. In this area there is a new element, the reform of local government, which, although it will be a slow process in England because of the method chosen by the Government, has already produced specific proposals for Wales for single tier authorities.
I do not wish to advocate any particular form of local government for England, but the fact of the matter is that the attitude of the planning authorities to developments in rural areas is of vital importance both now and in the future. So, too, is training. The future of the Agricultural Training Board was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, and in particular the question of the funding of that board. It has had a useful existence, funded as it is by the Ministry of Agriculture. If there were to be, as a result of the review, any major reduction in funding for the Agricultural Training Board, that would be a serious matter for the rural areas, particularly at a time when more training and retraining of an agricultural character is still essential.
Rural public transport has been mentioned by more than one speaker and in particular by my noble friend Lord Underhill, and with it the impact upon the Post Office bus if proposals for the privatisation of the Royal Mail are proceeded with. There has been, under pressure from central Government, some reduction in county council funding of rural transport. The loss of the Post Office bus—if that were to be an outcome of the privatisation of the Royal Mail—which was pioneered in Scotland would be serious for all communities, as has already been pointed out.
The effect of Sunday trading on the village shop cannot be ignored. I served as an assessor to the Auld Committee which considered the Shops Act 1950 in some detail. I was particularly struck at that time by the evidence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Auld Committee which drew serious attention to the likely impact on small food shops everywhere if there were no restrictions of any kind on Sunday trading, particularly as regards the large supermarkets. Inasmuch as the Government have

697
reactivated this question, we must look very carefully at the three options which the Minister mentioned the other day in another place. We must take care to look hard at his own point of view; namely, that no restrictions whatever would be the best solution. I do not believe that the impact of that solution across the board can be ignored, and certainly not in rural areas. While affordable housing in rural areas may not be the most important subject, it is certainly a basic subject so far as concerns the rural communities.
Some 30 years ago I served the International Co-operative Alliance movement. At that time I was almost embarrassed by the fact that the housing co-operatives in many countries in Western Europe and in the United States, upon which our present British housing associations are largely based, were full of admiration for the municipal housing which was then going full steam ahead in Britain. Those foreign housing associations were impressed by the speed with which local authorities could acquire land for housing, the ease with which planning consents were granted, the funding of such development by central government, the avoidance of fragmentation in development so that in the main the developing authorities were sizeable bodies, and the continuity of policy. In those days those factors radically impeded housing associations in Western Europe and North America.
Affordable housing is geared to land costs, interest rates and rent subsidies. Perhaps the Minister will answer this question when he replies to the debate. Are Her Majesty's Government totally committed to excluding local authorities from housing development of any kind in rural areas? We are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, was able to report briefly but effectively on the work of the Rural Development Commission. Its work is impressive and we strongly support it. That body performs an essential task in England. One hopes that parallel organisations exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The work that the RDC undertakes is no less essential beyond the boundaries of England.
The Rural Development Commission's present lines of development are directed at the main problem areas, although saturation points may have been reached with wrought iron gates and craft shops. New enterprises are essential in the country because, as well as creating a favourable climate, the Rural Development Commission has pursued an active policy in promoting them. One would wish to see some liaison in training courses between the RDC and the Agricultural Training Board. We welcome the initiative of the commission on village halls, subject to the condition about their having charitable status and certain other factors.
From these Benches we wish to encourage the Rural Development Commission to consider prospects for village community co-operatives, perhaps to run the shop, the pub, local transport, halls, the Post Office and other relevant activities. There now exists a body in Britain called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. It is fairly new and it has had the good sense, on changing its chairmanship recently,
698
to invite my noble friend Lord Carter to take on that additional task. The important factor about the UKCC is that for the first time we have in Britain an organisation which represents the whole co-operative activity. Therefore an experiment between the RDC and the UKCC in developing a suitable rural village co-operative is worth consideration. Expertise is now on tap covering banking, insurance, supplies, retailing, credit, leasing, mortgages and farming. We welcome the emphasis which is now placed on rural areas by the Government and in particular by the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside. I believe that his apprenticeship training in MAFF stands him in good stead and we are not too disappointed by the noises that he makes about the way in which he considers the future should be developed.
I do not pretend that rural areas are more deprived than urban areas. Deprivation in the rural areas undoubtedly exists, as many speakers have pointed out, even though it is of the genteel variety. Problems exist and will grow in a recessionary situation. Policies are certainly important; and that is the purpose of the Motion that we have put down today. A positive response is required, plus, as we see it, continuity of assistance.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, like all noble Lords I welcome the opportunity to have a debate about our rural areas. The debate began extremely well with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He quoted the Prime Minister and Jacques Delors. We later had a quotation from Jean Jacques Rousseau. I thought that we might have had a debate made up of quotations, but regrettably they came to an end.
It is an important debate because it draws attention to the need for comprehensive and coherent policies for the economic and social development of rural areas. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain to your Lordships how the Government have developed a strategy to meet the needs of the countryside, today and in the future.
The countryside is the result of continuing changes, from the Ice Age to the enclosures, the industrial revolution and our present age of modern technology. It is continuing to change fast, as the economy adapts to changes in agriculture and other industries in the countryside.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, recognised that the rural economy is no longer based exclusively or even predominantly on farming, forestry and local raw materials. Agriculture, forestry and fishing now produce less than 2 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom. In the past 30 years the number of people engaged in agriculture has fallen by 39 per cent. In the Rural Development Commission's priority areas, the rural development areas, agriculture accounts for only 9 per cent. of waged employment. We have a responsibility to address the implications of this decline in agriculture—for farmers and other country dwellers and for the landscape and wildlife habitats.

699
There are still areas where jobs are short, but in general the rural economy is extremely diverse. The service sector, manufacturing, distribution and catering industries are now the main sources of employment in the rural development areas. Indeed, some rural areas have an employment structure which is akin to that of successful urban areas. However, success has brought with it a range of new problems, such as the availability of affordable housing for people on lower incomes.
In future we shall see further changes and we shall need to keep their implications under review. There will be further changes in agriculture as CAP reform takes effect, and changes reflecting improvements in communications technology. Farmers will continue to use large tracts of our countryside. They currently farm some 73 per cent. of the land surface of England. But as worries about food shortages are replaced by worries about over production, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said we should more and more look to farmers to manage our countryside in environmentally sensitive ways—by managing hedgerows, by planting broadleaved British trees and through less intensive farming methods.
The Government's role is to ensure that there is a coherent comprehensive and up-to-date package of policies in place to maintain a thriving countryside. We need to achieve this through a sensible balance between the development of the rural economy and the protection of the countryside. Our two key objectives are to achieve a healthy rural economy and an attractive rural environment. That was well explained by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, and by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, who brings to the debate his unique and wide experience.
Our aim is the promotion of a diverse, healthy rural economy through the stimulation of employment and development in the countryside, while at the same time making sure that there are adequate measures to maintain and enhance our landscapes and wildlife.
Those are our objectives. They set a difficult balancing act. It would be rash to claim that we have in all cases and at all times struck exactly the right balance. But we are facing up to the challenge. Our 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance, laid down principles which we apply to all our environmental policies throughout the United Kingdom. We reaffirmed those policies, and added fresh initiatives, in the first and second year reports.
Last year we published Action for the Countryside, a major policy document setting out a clear, comprehensive and co-ordinated package of policies for the countryside in England. It includes a £45 million package of new, improved and extended initiatives to promote rural development, to conserve and enhance landscapes and wildlife and to promote access to and public appreciation of the countryside. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also published statements on their rural policies during 1991 and 1992.
These departments work closely with others to ensure that there are comprehensive and coherent policies providing a framework for the economic and social development of rural areas. But their main task
700
is to guide and encourage others. We want to encourage the enterprise of all those who live and work in rural communities and to see increasing activity by the private and voluntary sectors. We are anxious to see that the best possible use is made of limited public funds, by making full use of opportunities to influence others and by concentrating activities in areas with the greatest need. But we do not hesitate to take direct action where necessary. A key example of that is the advice which we have issued on planning policy in England and Wales. That was recognised by many noble Lords who spoke during the course of the debate.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, which was issued by my department and the Welsh Office last year, recognises the substantial changes that are taking place in the countryside and incorporates the principles set out in This Common Inheritance. It makes clear that it is important to sustain the process of diversification and to accommodate change, while continuing to conserve the full and varied countryside. Rural areas have to change if they are to survive. Indeed, a vibrant rural economy—rural homes and rural jobs, changing with the times—is an essential precondition for the protection and enhancement of the countryside. PPG7 recognises that rural areas can accommodate sensitive development without detriment. It gives advice to local authorities on the need to encourage rural enterprise and balance it with the need to safeguard open countryside and protect special areas like national parks.
PPG7 has been widely welcomed, as my noble friend Lord Wade said. That was the near universal reaction at the national conference we held last summer. In the year since PPG7 was issued we have put a lot of effort into getting its message across, at the national conference and a series of regional seminars, and for example in a popular guide for farmers seeking planning permission for diversification ventures or new agricultural developments. We are monitoring development plans to ensure that PPG7 policies are appropriately reflected and taken into account in planning appeals. Research on some key changes introduced by the PPG is under way. We believe that its balanced approach to rural development and conservation is the right one, and we are continuing to ensure that it is appropriately implemented.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked whether we should do more to publicise it. If we have failed, then of course we must do more. My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked whether we should include some assessment of the economic impact rather than just the environmental impact. That is something that I shall have to take away with me and think about.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others, mentioned the major problem of rural housing. On rural housing, we have been taking steps to ensure that there is an integrated package of policies. We accept that it is important for affordable housing to be available for those who live and work in rural areas. We recognise that there are particular difficulties in

701
some rural areas, especially where house prices have been driven upwards by demand from long-distance commuters and well-off retired people.
On the other hand, we cannot simply resist those market pressures. After all, they represent genuine demands from many people who wish to live in attractive rural surroundings. The survival of rural communities depends on successfully adapting to change. In July 1988, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced his rural housing initiative which, for the first time, set out a policy on low-cost housing in the rural areas in England. Since then, we have introduced a series of measures designed to boost the supply of low-cost housing in rural England. Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned that point. We are increasing the level of investment in rural areas through housing associations which have a major role to play in providing affordable housing for rent and low-cost sale.
To help ensure that our policies for rural communities are carried forward in a co-ordinated and coherent way, the Government also sponsor specialist agencies. In England, the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by my department, is the Government's main agency for diversifying rural enterprise. In Wales, similar tasks are undertaken primarily by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. In Scotland the main agencies are Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. In Northern Ireland, the Government have established the Rural Development Council, an independent body funded by the Department of Agriculture with assistance from the European Commission.
The agencies have a star-studded list of achievements to their credit. In 1992–93 Highlands and Islands Enterprise is expected to have created or retained 2,700 jobs. Since 1979, the Development Board for Rural Wales has built some 630 new factory units providing about 7,300 job opportunities. In England the Rural Development Commission's workspace programme created the potential for 2,287 jobs in 1991–92. Those are records of which we are proud and I am particularly grateful that my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, who is chairman of the RDC, joined the discussions today.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth discussed the problems with rural services. Where particular rural service problems arise they are generally tackled by the organisation or agency concerned. The Rural Development Commission also keeps a watching brief on developments in rural services on behalf of my department, the Department of the Environment, and makes representations where it is appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be interested to know that, for example, the Rural Transport Development Plan, administered by the Rural Development Commission, with funds from the Department of Transport, is there to assist with
702
capital start-up costs of new, innovative rural bus services in England. Similar schemes exist and are run by the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
The Rural Development Commission is also taking an increasing interest in village shops. In March 1992, it initiated three demonstration projects to explore ways in which village shops can be helped by financial management and community support. A report on the findings of those projects is currently being prepared. In addition, the RDC offers advice and training to shopkeepers through its business advisory services and has held seminars for prospective shopkeepers.
So to schools. The noble Baroness, Lady David, enunciated the plight of village schools most clearly. As a government we recognise that many small schools do an excellent job. We also recognise that many have to be retained because of the geographical isolation of the communities they serve, especially where the alternative schools available would necessitate unacceptably long journeys to schools for young children. The Government have made it clear that assessing the viability of small schools is not only a matter of the numbers on the roll. Wider considerations such as parental choice, local geography, the distances to be travelled to alternative schools and the age of children making these journeys are also very important.
Our policies for promoting improvements in the education service—through grants for education support and training, through the local management of schools and the implementation of the national curriculum—have all taken account of the needs of small rural schools. The Government hope that many small schools will be able to benefit from the proposals contained in the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, to allow them to apply for grant-maintained status in clusters. This will put the many benefits of grant-maintained status within the reach of schools that might otherwise lack the confidence to go it alone. Forming a cluster will be entirely voluntary and there is no question of schools being forced into clusters. Such schools will continue to be able to apply for individual grant-maintained status. We believe that grant-maintained status is best for all state schools and this is just as true for small rural schools.
I turn to the question of forestry which was raised so eloquently by my noble friends Lord Radnor and Lord Bradford and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said it was his hobby-horse. He has been interested in forestry over the whole of the United Kingdom since his time as chairman of the Forestry Commission—and a most eminent chairman he was.
The Government's long-term forestry strategy sets out two aims; first, the sustainable management of existing woods and forests and, secondly, a steady expansion of tree cover to increase the diverse benefits that forest provides, social and environmental as well as economic.
One point stood out in the speeches of the three noble Lords who mentioned forestry. It was their belief that forestry was for the long-term. Therefore, I think it wrong to criticise the Government for action taken in the short term. If we are honest, a small

703
two-year or three-year gap and a fall-off in the amount of planting that has taken place will be irrelevant in 40 to 50 years' time when the trees reach maturity.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the figures I quoted showed a trend over 20 years of a substantial and steady decline. Over how many years is the Minister prepared to judge that policy?
Lord Strathclyde: I look forward to the time when his debate will be chosen from the ballot and we can go into those problems far more fully. I intended to say that I accept the points made by the noble Lords who mentioned forestry. In the last election the Government had a clear manifesto commitment. We said at that time that we would review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment. I can tell the House that the Government hope to complete their review this year.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, on rural railways. I believe that we are being unduly pessimistic about the future for the railways, particularly with regard to the rural lines. The Government want to see more people travelling by train, not fewer. We also want to see the railways run efficiently. Our policy to achieve that is to privatise the railways and harness the skills of the private sector to run services; not just because we believe that private sector operators would be more efficient but because that should bring about a sharper focus on passengers and will ultimately lead to better, more reliable and more attractive services.
Nevertheless, we have given a clear commitment to continue to provide subsidy where necessary to support services which, although loss making, provide a valuable social service. There is no question of loss making services being regarded in any way as second best. Rather, the Government's franchising proposals are based on a desire to bring the benefits of a private sector operation to all passenger services, not just to those that can make a profit. There is therefore no reason why privatisation and the introduction of franchising should result in closures.
As the need arises, new policies and initiatives are introduced. For example, last year the Rural Development Commission launched its countryside employment programme to help diversify the economy and improve job prospects in areas which are suffering from structural changes in agriculture. The commission will deploy the full range of its programmes in the pilot areas and will co-ordinate these with the services available from other partners. Local businesses, land owning and environmental interests are also associated with the project.
My noble friend Lord Vinson referred to burdens impairing the success of small businesses, many of which operate in rural areas. I entirely sympathise with his concern. As my noble friend will know, we recently launched a drive to free businesses from the burden of unnecessary and over-bureaucratic regulation. I can assure noble Lords that that initiative is being pursued with vigour.
Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Bradford, who made a powerful speech on the problems of the common agricultural policy and on
704
our whole policy towards rural affairs over the course of the past 13 years. I felt that that was overstated. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford so wisely said, my noble friend Lord Bradford should look in the direction of the European Community. Set-aside has been caused by the problems of success. Surely in the short term it is far better to have set-aside than to have no source of income for our farmers throughout the country and in the rest of Europe.
Only through having a thriving, vibrant countryside can we ensure that our countryside, and our people, are well cared for. We can provide the policy framework and assistance where necessary, but the economic and social development of the countryside is not something which is solely for government. We are in the business of managing a vibrant and evolving countryside coping with today's needs. The key to that lies in the people of this country—not only those who live and work in the countryside, but those who enjoy it in their spare time. The future depends on the actions of all of us.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I should like to thank everybody who has taken part in debating a subject which this House can cover with both experience and expertise. It was certainly wide-ranging. By my count no fewer than 24 different topics were covered by the 15 speakers in the debate. The very range of topics mentioned indicates exactly the need for the comprehensive and coherent policies which are called for in the Motion. I should like to repeat my thanks to all who have taken part, and to the Minister for his very interesting reply. I hope he will not mind if I say that I was not completely convinced by the answer that he gave on rural housing, but I am sure that we shall return many times to that subject. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Building Industry
5.37 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the state of the building industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am extremely grateful to be given the opportunity to debate the situation in which the building and construction industry finds itself today. I raise the matter not in a carping and over-critical sense, but in the hope that this great industry will be able to attract some further assistance from the Government when Members of the House have put the case to them. That is my main reason for putting forward this Motion. I believe it is quite a while since we had a debate solely related to the building and construction industry.
How did I go about obtaining the information that I thought should be placed before noble Lords? I contacted the usual people: the Building Employers Confederation and the Federation of Master Builders. I also contacted two or three of the larger building

705
companies that are usually identified with success, such as Wiltshire's and Laing's, in order to see the situation from an individual point of view. I regard the building industry as a barometer of how the country is doing and see it as closely related to the manufacturing industry. I believe it is accepted by anybody involved in this particular discussion that the building industry provides the first measure of how a country is doing economically. I say it is interrelated with the manufacturing industry because, if one starts to prime up the building industry (houses, new factories, etc.), the results feed out into various manufacturing industries and the benefits are immense.
It has been said, quite rightly, that approaching half a million building operatives have been made unemployed since the present recession started. Unfortunately there is no sign that that number will diminish. Everybody I have spoken to expects the situation to be exacerbated further during this year.
One of the disturbing figures that I was able to pluck out from the usual technical journals—it does not come from any political source—was that during that period almost 50 per cent. of the architects involved in the building and construction industry and the people termed "technicians" (I take it that that means surveyors, quantity surveyors, clerks of works, and so on) have lost their jobs and been made redundant. It is shocking that the country has allowed itself to drift into such an appalling state of affairs that no use can be found for people of such talent. As I said, my figures come from two different places which are not political. They are associated with the architectural profession; namely, the RIBA and the Association of Consultant Architects.
There is another point I wish to raise that has not been widely mentioned. My information comes from the Building magazine, which is a contractors' journal. There is a danger that has begun to surface more clearly than ever before. Because of the need to obtain work and keep teams together, firms are now bidding at 10 per cent. below costs. That is not my figure but comes from the trade magazine. It is a very dangerous situation when, in order to keep themselves afloat and keep going, normally successful companies have to buy work. That cannot be judged a success by anybody.
We might be told—it has proved wrong—that the Chancellor's Autumn Statement contained measures that would help the building industry. It was supposed to be able to raise £1.5 billion by a further sale of capital receipts. But that did not mature, as some of us said would happen, because most of the best assets had already been sold. We called for the release of substantial sums of money from the funds held in reserve. We did not believe in the mythical new sales, which in fact did not occur. Before the debate this afternoon I spoke to a Member from the other side who has a close relationship at a high level with the building industry. Unfortunately he could not speak in this debate. He said that my conclusions were right and bang on that particular situation.
I also took the trouble to check with the public
706
sector. Sometimes some Members of the Government give the impression that local authorities are the worst people in the world at operating in this field. However, in the local authority building departments, it appears that contracts that are also let out to the private sector will have to be drastically reduced because, to use a well worn phrase, the rate-capping and financial straitjackets that have been placed on local authorities will once again have the effect of contracting the building industry.
There is another point which does not concern the Government as such. The banks continually tell us how things are improving in their field. My figures show that the banks do not come out very well at all. Only last week one of the banks announced record profits; but from information given to me by someone involved in the building industry, once again in the private sector, it appears that in 1991–92, when interest rates stood at 15 per cent., the borrowing rate was plus 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. That equals a mark up of 13.34 per cent. or 20 per cent., depending on which figure is used from the basket. At present the interest rates stand at 6 per cent. But the banks are still charging a borrowing rate of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., which is a mark up of 35 per cent. to 50 per cent. That is a financial rip off. No one could accuse the banks of trying to help the present situation by treating the building industry in such an ungenerous manner. I think it would make sense to treat it better.
A survey dated 8th February from the Federation of Master Builders and the Building Employers Confederation found that there were the slightest of signs that the situation appeared to be getting a little better. But it is so fragile that it would be speculative to put a great deal of reliance on it. There are other denominators which indicate the other way. For instance, the figures which were issued today by the Halifax Building Society showed that house prices had dropped by only one quarter of 1 per cent. But they are still dropping. Prices are not holding and not rising. Even if they are going down by such a small percentage, that feeds into the industry and has a very adverse effect.
The Federation of Master Builders' quarterly trade journal notes that the workload of 45 per cent. of firms remained at the same level, and 45 per cent. of the rest recorded a decrease. It says:
"Reviewing 1992, 62 per cent. of members reported a below average or low workload. Expectations for 1993 are not high. Seventy-seven per cent. of our members expect their workload to remain at the same level or less".
The national president of that association, Mr. Ted Evans, says:
"No further fall in workload is reported in the survey overall. However, members' firms remain at a particularly low level of work with only 19 per cent. working to full capacity".
Such figures are relevant to the comments of the Building Employers Confederation. I have no time to go through all the figures, which I am sure your Lordships will appreciate. Under their new chairman, Sir Brian Hill, substantially the same figures were produced. Unless something is done, the little glimmers of light that appear will be blown out very quickly.
Let us put the question: what can be done to deal with the situation? Before introducing this debate to your Lordships today I naturally consulted the biggest trade union involved; namely, UCATT. That union says almost the same as the building employers. It is the same right across the board: there is very little difference in any of the percentages or in the picture they paint. Together with the building industry employers, it has a programme, most of which makes sense even to people who do not like to see too much government intervention.
Having speculated £7.5 billion in one day, trying to save the so-called economy of the country, the Government surely must understand the reports coming in over the years, not from the political arena by any means but from some of the names mentioned by my noble friend and colleague, Lord Carter, when he opened the previous debate this afternoon; namely, the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, the archbishops and the Audit Commission. They all draw attention to the appalling deterioration that is taking place in our housing stock, our schools and our hospitals. That is what they were saying. It is not what people in your Lordships' House invented. Surely a government that can speculate £7.5 billion on the roulette table of the money markets, can find resources from somewhere, somehow, when attention is drawn to such a serious issue.
I shall quickly skip through some of the proposals. A further cut in interest rates to 5 per cent. is suggested to stimulate business confidence in the housing market. Most people, and even many Conservative supporters, would agree with that. The Government should restore cuts in funding to youth and adult training and reintroduce an apprenticeship registration grant to employers so that they will train people; and they should raise the contribution which should be made to keep young people in training. The Government should start a local authority housebuilding, repair and maintenance programme—I shall probably be told by the Minister that local authorities can already repair—using the £5 billion in capital receipts that already exist, rather than the £1.5 billion that we knew from the start was a gamble. They should bring forward the vital multi-million pound transport improvements such as the West Coast main line improvement and the high-speed Channel Tunnel rail link. Those schemes are essential if we are to obtain our fair share of what is to take place in Europe.
The Government could remove the restrictions on local authorities which prevents them from borrowing on the open market to fund capital investment programmes. That will enable them to begin work immediately on the £4.3 billion repair and maintenance system. Our crumbling school buildings are only one section of that. Anyone who, as a Member in another place, has represented an area with crumbling school buildings, will know what it is like. I had what I may call the "disprivilege" to do that for a long time. Finally, the Government should start a temporary work programme to bring unemployed building workers back into the labour market.
In fairness to other noble Lords who have put down
708
their names to speak—I am glad that they have—I believe that we can have a debate which is objective in a way that may help the building industry. More than one Member from the other side has said to me, "The building industry? You mean what is left of the building industry". I ask the Government, in the name of sanity, to listen to what is said today. If they cannot give us a basket of proposals, they must do something urgently that will at least allow our great building industry to move forward once again and play its part in creating the social fabric that we want in this nation of ours. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House is obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating this debate in a thoughtful and thought-provoking manner. Nobody with a grain of common sense or intellect will deny that the building industry is facing horrendous times—not only in this country. I have much to do with Scandinavia, particularly Denmark and Finland, and with the old Commonwealth countries—Australia and New Zealand. They are all facing the same problems. That is no compensation for the many who are unemployed in the industry here and I would not wish the point I have just stressed to be used to camouflage any of those problems.
I must declare an interest as a non-executive director of a small firm of civil contracting engineers. I have a son-in-law who is a project manager for one of the world's largest construction companies. However, as my speech may well show, I have never been employed in the building industry.
It is an industry where one can be high on diagnosis of the problems but face extreme difficulties as to remedies. Obviously there are a number of theoretical remedies that one could produce. One involves value added tax, particularly on building improvements. That is a considerable disincentive, particularly to small builders. It would be wrong for me or anybody else to anticipate the Budget. But one hopes that whatever happens in a week or so, some consideration will be given to changes at least in value added tax, particularly for small builders. They are the ones who are really suffering.
I should like also to say a word on tourism. One Scottish hotel group in its annual report for 1992 revealed a 67 per cent. room occupancy for the whole year. That is a tribute to the hotel industry. One hopes that the Government can give some incentive to tourist development areas. Some is already given, but more is needed.
I am not a believer in the handing out of subsidies, particularly when they go to the wrong people. But it is almost ingenuous to say that the construction industry is the main industry in this country. No factory, no commercial concern, can operate without a roof over its head.
Speaking as one who spent all his working life in the City of London, I was aware that there was a great deal of overbuilding in the 1970s and 1980s. One only needs to visit the City of London—not only London; almost any major city in the world—to see the number of unoccupied buildings due to the worldwide

709
recession. We must all face the fact that the recession will be with us for some time to come under any government. I cannot see—admittedly it is a pessimistic view—that any government can produce short-term major remedies for the building industry. But that does not mean that a start should not be made.
I am old enough to remember the well-known Conservative Party conference some years ago where there was a plea for 300,000 houses. And 300,000 houses were built. Alas, we are not seeing that nowadays, not only under the present Government but I suggest under any government. There is not the capacity.
We must ensure that the labour is available. What is happening—certainly in the small company of which I am a non-executive director—is that site managers and engineers are taking a cut in wages as are the executive directors because the laying-off of essential people who work on building sites can be countermanding. One of the real difficulties is that once a site engineer is made redundant, it is extremely difficult to replace him. He may well feel bitter and say that once is enough and go in for some other industry. Solutions are very difficult here but I hope that, particularly for areas of special development and areas of tourism, the Government will give some sympathetic consideration to those in the industry, especially small builders who are involved in the construction of buildings which increase our exports and our trade. Tourism is an important export and I believe that the Government can be of some help.
We have a challenge—all parties face a challenge here—but to expect that politicians alone can solve the problem is being very naive. It will take an overwhelming effort all round. Let us hope that that can be achieved.
6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I observed with some concern in the evening press that the Prime Minister is complaining that there is too much gloom around and that part of our problem is that the gloomsters seem to have taken over the means of public expression. I can understand the Prime Minister's anxiety. When he looks round his own Cabinet table it cannot give him much cause for joy. I therefore hasten to inform the Government that my few remarks this evening are designed to help them to develop those green shoots of recovery, which apparently are once again trying to poke through, and to see that they reach full fruition. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take a constructive attitude towards these matters instead of becoming suicidally depressed, as they appear to be at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick pointed out that there are at present some 450,000 people unemployed, formerly of the construction industry, comprising joiners, carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, glaziers, plumbers, roofers, tilers, drivers, operators of concrete machines and so on. It is envisaged that a further few thousand will to come onto the unemployment register at any time. All that
710
is happening at a time when it is quite clear that the national requirement for the services of the building industry is clamant in terms of improving the infrastructure—roads, sewers and, above all, housing. I shall not refer to commercial buildings, of which there appear to be a surfeit at the moment. It must depress the Prime Minister to realise that, on the one hand, there will be close to 500,000 unemployed people in the building industry while, on the other hand, there are clamant needs, particularly in the field of housing.
Your Lordships will appreciate that last year there were I million houses unfit for human habitation and that drastic repairs and alterations were required to a further 1.5 million to bring them up to an acceptable building standard. There are a number of homeless people. I shall not put a figure on it. Figures seem to vary, according to taste, between 100,000 and 250,000. There are also those in bed and breakfast accommodation. It must therefore depress the Prime Minister to look at wasted resources on one hand and the clamant need on the other.
Apparently, the Treasury and the Prime Minister's economic thinkers do not seem to be able to solve this problem for him. We all know perfectly well that the 450,000 unemployed people in the building industry represent an addition of some £4 billion to the public sector borrowing requirement. The PSBR, in its turn, is an inhibition on further public expenditure. How, therefore, do we get out of the situation without exacerbating the threat of inflation which the Treasury seems to think would arise if we put more public expenditure into housing and into the construction of new housing in particular? I have deliberately omitted other forms of construction whose needs are also clamant.
Surely it is far better to employ people—skilled people in the main but some unskilled as well—to produce something really useful than to pay them out of social security for doing nothing. To pay them for doing something must be less inflationary than paying them for doing nothing. I should have thought that even the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would enable him to see that. If we begin to put people to work in the building industry, although the multiplier effect is rather less than that in manufacturing industry, for every person who is put back to work one can reckon that over a phased time another 2.5 jobs will be created. That is the conventional figure.
Why not put people back to work? The building industry is essentially an assembly operation. It does not need vast capital expenditure to equip it with new and sophisticated machinery or anything of that kind. Most of its machinery and plant is already there—where it is not rusting through not being properly covered. It therefore does not require any vast investment because a house is the end product of 100 different trades. It needs glass, hardware; and there is a fall-out too in the semi-durable field. That is the obvious thing to do, so why do not the Government do it?
We all know perfectly well that local authorities have at their disposal large capital sums that they are

711
not allowed to use which are the proceeds of the sale of council houses. That money could be put to use very quickly. The Government's classic answer, to which I have listened now on three or four occasions to a point where it becomes tedious, is that all local authorities do not have these resources and that therefore it would be unfair to allow any of them to use the resources at their disposal. I sincerely hope that we shall not have that answer trotted out again today.
It would be far better for the Government to use their own funds to provide local authorities with the necessary money. The local authorities are the real instruments to use. A little time ago the noble Lord was injudicious enough to say that housing construction in the United Kingdom was at an all time high. On reflection, he will realise that that is not the case. Indeed, I have the Government's figures in front of me.
In 1979 local authorities in Great Britain produced 75,573 houses. Last year it was 8,073—a shortfall of 67,500. If one takes together the house construction in new towns under the Government's own departments of housing, the total public housing provision at the end of 1991 was about 77,000 less than it was at the end of 1979. Even housing association residential accommodation was 2,000 houses less and housing provided by the private sector was 15,000 less. At the end of 1991 the total housing per annum was reduced from 244,504 in 1979 to a mere 188,120 at the end of 1991, which is a shortfall of 96,884, with 1 million properties still unfit for human habitation and 1.5 million still requiring extensive work for them to be brought up to a civilised standard.
Quite clearly the Government's duty is simply to go ahead with public housing. They have nothing to lose but their own prejudices which have become so closely ingrained that they appear almost incapable of thinking. Why do they not adopt a commonsense attitude toward these matters and use all the instruments at their disposal to avoid the terrible spiral into which they are getting themselves and which—and I say this with the utmost regret—will before very long, unless they are very careful, precipitate them from office.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I own and run a construction company in mid-Wales. I have spent my whole life in the industry and started with one of the illustrious companies which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned.
In preparing for this debate, I looked back at the record of our debate on the construction industry which took place in January 1992, which was the last time, I believe when we debated the subject. Again, it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, to whom I am most grateful for bringing to your Lordships' attention a vital industry, crucial to the economy and to the well-being of our citizens.
It is interesting—indeed depressing—how little has changed in the past year. Then, as now, we were hoping for a small improvement during the coming year. During that debate, I said:
712
"interest rates, which were coming down with inflation, are now stuck, in real terms allowing for inflation, at an all-time high, and may have to go up again. We are told that rates must stay up to support the pound. But can the pound be at the correct level if interest rates have to be kept well above those of our competitors even when inflation is down to their levels? I do not know the answers to those questions, but I do know that if nothing is done we may be in for a further downturn which will be a disaster for our industry".—[Official Report, 15/1/92; col. 266.]
We were told by Government Ministers that leaving the ERM would cause interest rates to rise and that the economic consequences would be disastrous. During the debates in your Lordships' House on the economy, I was surprised to hear several illustrious speakers, all of whom thought we had gone into the ERM at the wrong rate, castigating the speculators for getting us out. Thank God for speculators, I say! They did what the Government seemed incapable of doing. Just try to imagine the state of the economy and the construction industry if we still had interest rates at a level necessary to sustain the pound at the ERM exchange rate, and the effect on our exporters of coping with that rate. At least our interest rates have been allowed to fall with inflation again, although real interest rates (base rate less the inflation rate) are still at historically high levels.
The Government urge us to have confidence in their policies and in the future of the economy, in an effort to restore confidence. But confidence will not return to the businessman who wishes to build a new factory or to a family which wishes to buy a new home, until they can be reasonably sure of three key factors: first, that their new asset will not go down in value; secondly, that their interest payments will stay at a level that they can afford and will not be pushed up again to the horrendous levels seen in recent years; and, thirdly, that their anticipated income stream will continue or grow.
How can they have that confidence when the Government's policy—if it can be called a policy—seems to indicate that interest rates are as likely to go up as down? Ministerial statements on interest rates still seem to be aimed more at the foreign exchanges than at the domestic economy. But the foreign exchanges do not believe what Ministers say; after all, they are the same people who said that we had to stay in the ERM and that we would not devalue. But they react to what Ministers do and to the underlying economy.
What must be tackled by the Government is the revival of the economy and the health of the manufacturing and construction industries. They must develop and put into action a coherent policy, including interest rates, to achieve that end. If they do not, our balance of payments, exchange rate and thus inflation, will all go the wrong way. So far, there has been very little sign of such a policy.
Until that policy is put in place and made to work, there are palliative measures which can help the construction industry to pull through this awful recession. At the moment there is very little sign of an increase in workload, but in the past few months there has been a faint and frail revival at the lower end of the housing market. That revival must be nurtured and

713
supported and not stamped on by, for instance, the imposition of VAT on new housing which some people have talked about.
Housing renovation grants are providing much needed labour-intensive work for the smaller builders while also giving a valuable improvement to the poorer housing stock. However, the scheme does have some room for improvement. Under the regulations the householder can insist that the grant is paid to him or her rather than direct to the builder, even where this has previously been agreed, and can then sit on the grant for six months or so until the cumbersome and slow-moving legal system extracts the grant for the builder in payment for his work done—indeed, if the money is still there.
Councils have used the agency system to alleviate that problem but have, in some cases, been paying late themselves due to dwindling funds towards the end of the financial year. For many firms in present circumstances, such delay can be devastating. It is essential that funds made available for this scheme are not further reduced, as has been indicated that they are to be reduced in the coming year.
Another measure which would be of great help, and which has been mentioned before, is the reduction of VAT on house renovation and alteration work now allowed by the EC regulations down to 5 per cent; That would increase the value for money to householders, while reducing the advantage that unregistered operators have over properly set up and VAT-registered firms, while at the same time providing an added stimulus to the workload.
The construction industry is a vital element in the national economy, employing 1.3 million people and producing 7 per cent. of GDP. It is crucial to the well-being of us all, providing and maintaining our homes and places of work, among much else. This recession has caused unemployment in the industry to approach half a million. And it is a recession brought about by the pursuit of goals which proved illusory. "If it isn't working, it isn't hurting".
Now that the game has been lost, we implore the Government to pursue the new goal to turning round the economy with a great deal more zeal and determination than they have shown so far. The control of inflation is desirable, but it is not an end in itself; it is only of use if it is a means of realising the goal of greater prosperity for the nation. The construction industry wishes to be allowed to play its part in that endeavour.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, every time we engage in a debate such as this one looks through all the official figures for statistics and therein lies a problem. Everyone in the debate gives statistics but everyone seems to have different statistics. It was notoriously difficult in the past to get the real truth of the situation in the building industry. I remember in 1929, when I first joined the building industry, one of the older members of our community saying to me, "It is a funny thing; you have got to recognise that we are now building houses in exactly the same way as they
714
were built when they built Rome. There has not been much change". It does not seem to me that there has been much change as regards our attitude to assist the building industry.
From one of the statistics I gleaned today, the percentage of growth of the national product that the building industry accounts for is between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. That is an important element. Frankly, I do not know how that is going to be affected if foreign and continental firms make further penetration into British firms. I should have thought there would be an adverse effect, but, as I say, I am not an expert. However, I know a little bit about the building industry.
The changes that took place in the building industry in the 1930s had something to do with the growth of technology. Finally, after the Second World War, we reached the situation when the do-it-yourself trade practically killed thousands of small builders because nobody any longer could afford the cost of employing decorators or individuals in the building trade. With the growth of do-it-yourself, people began to do many things for themselves, and that accounted for the major decline in the building industry.
On the other hand, the scale of the construction industry became so great that there had to be large wealthy firms with all the resources and investment to plough into the machines that were needed to do the job. And so the industry almost became divided into two separate industries: the industry that catered for the home user, the home dweller and do-it-yourself, and the industry which catered for international development on a large scale.
There is no doubt also that we seem to have had a figure of 300,000 or 400,000 unemployed in the building industry. In 1919 4,700 firms went bankrupt. Seven thousand firms went bankrupt in 1991. Tarmac's profits were down 81 per cent.; Wimpey's profits were down 98 per cent.; and Barratts had a deficit of £100 million. That is hard luck for the private company but it is worse news still for the Exchequer. I understand that the Exchequer, according to statistics produced by the Institute of Housing, lost £1,000 million in that year. We can hardly afford that, and I do not want to go through the long list of things that can be done to get people back into work in the building industry. We have already heard some of them, so I will not take up time by repeating them.
In housing ownership there has occurred the growth of so-called negative equity: that is having a tremendous effect on ownership. It is leading to a situation where we need rented accommodation. Essentially, rented accommodation could be provided by buying in all the repossessions and allowing the small builder to get in on the act and make the houses fit for renting, especially to local authorities. No one is going to dispute the need for that kind of accommodation provided by local authorities to house the homeless if for nothing else.
Lately the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister or the Cabinet decided that it would be helpful if we were to employ a "brains trust" to help the Chancellor. It does not seem as if that brains trust has had a collective view. It seems that they get into a

715
room and have an argument about what ought to be put in the public sector. So the Chancellor is left in a very invidious position.
I should have thought that perhaps the Government ought to do something about the building industry. It may be that if we forget our prejudices from one side or the other and if the employers and the employed sit round a table, such as they used to be able to do in NEDO, they may well come up with a solution that will not impose too much of a burden on our economy. If they could do that we would be half-way towards meeting the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He asked: why can we not solve this apparently insoluble problem by getting together? That is the question.
I feel sorry for the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite: it seems that in this Chamber whatever subject comes up we have the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to give an answer. However, perhaps he could answer the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Why can we not get together and why cannot the Government issue a very clear and concise statement about what they intend to do in the matter of the building industry? There is no doubt about the need for a statement or about the need for the Government to activate a programme that will lead to the solution of some of the so-simple problems that everybody has enunciated.
Your Lordships will not be surprised if I look at the building industry against the background of the place I come from. I do, and will continue to do that, because one of the major problems in the building industry will be the unequal distribution of resources inside the industry when the upturn comes. I have no doubt that the upturn is coming, and I have no doubt at all where it is going to be. It will not be much further than a couple of miles from this building. So, on the question of statistics, I put down to the Government a Question for Written Answer. I did not want to take up the time of the Chamber by putting down an oral Question. My Question was a simple one: how much money have the Government spent in refurbishing and decorating buildings within one mile of Whitehall? The answer was, "Sorry, we cannot tell you because it would take too much trouble to get the figures." I could therefore ask them for the figures in regard to each building. I could ask the Government how many buildings they have and why they have had to spend £80 million having bought a brand-new building costing £100 million for the Secret Service. It may be that I would not get an answer, because it is such a secret service inside Whitehall. That all goes to underline what is going to happen when the upturn comes. It will not be an upturn in places like Northern Ireland, Merseyside and the North East; so that needs looking at in advance.
I do not really wish to pose the problems of Merseyside—not too often anyway—because people get the idea that there are always problems on Merseyside. There are. So, in advance, I say this to the Government. You have heard the reasons. I could have defined the problem as being the state of the building industry. I could have defined that quite easily: it is in a hell of a state. But the Government
716
know that. They have now heard reasons and will hear more before the end of the debate about the problems facing building, together with some of the proposed solutions.
So I say to the Government: get your act together and realise that you are talking about 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Realise that you are in a single market and that there is a very great danger that the British building industry and construction industry will face extinction. It will instead become a European one. I ask the Government to face those problems and at least take the nation into their confidence. Have an inquiry, have a Royal Commission—although it would take too long—but have an inquiry, get a judge to preside over people from the employers and the employed. Get them together and have a brains trust. I only hope that any brains trust the Government finally get is a better one than the Chancellor has had. At least that would give us some confidence that even out of that small inquiry and meeting the Government could perhaps put forward just one scheme. They may say, "We are going to take a chance and plough in the necessary money, first, to deal with homelessness; secondly, to deal with the question of negative equity; and, thirdly, to provide other people with the homes they need." The Government should say that they will take a chance and plough in millions of pounds to start the building industry on a process of recovery because there is no doubt at all that the building industry is ill and that it needs immediate resuscitation.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in commending my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for initiating this debate and for the positive way in which he has drawn attention to the crucially depressed state of the building industry in the United Kingdom. The building and construction industry throughout the United Kingdom is very much influenced and controlled by overall government capital development policies and by fiscal measures.
I recognise—and in some detail—the do-it-yourself and the master building operations that were referred to by my noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston. However, I should like to deal with the main elements of the building and construction industry within which there are nationwide organisational links and contractual arrangements between companies, management, professionals and employees. I should like us to build upon the organisational links which exist throughout the United Kingdom.
The tremendous changes that have already been referred to in building and civil engineering technology, with modern hi-tech plant, machinery and working equipment, are widely developed with skills and working practices and are closely adapted by individual companies throughout the United Kingdom. A vast amount of private and public capital finance, as well as significant workforce skills, talents and vocational commitment is vested in the industry. That is something of which we should he proud in the United Kingdom. We are second to none. I know that

717
Northern Ireland exports advanced computer design techniques to companies throughout the world and that we have taken a lead in that area.
Arising from the ongoing recession are the appalling pattern of unemployment, the rising wave of closures and the depressing drop in business confidence. These stark features are woven deeply across the diminishing tapestry of the construction industry. Those features cast dark shadows over all regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
When I rise to speak in your Lordships' House, it is assumed that I shall deal mainly with Northern Ireland affairs, just as my noble friend Lord Sefton deals mainly with Liverpudlian matters. Indeed, on this occasion my remarks will refer directly to the affairs of Northern Ireland because I believe that they reflect the situation in other areas of the United Kingdom. I know that some issues relate solely to Northern Ireland, but the main thrust of my remarks relates to features that can also be identified in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hasten to add that the matters that I shall raise are outside the direct remit of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is to respond to the debate. As I have not given the noble Lord any notice of the points that I propose to raise, I do not expect him to respond directly on the affairs of Northern Ireland. However, perhaps he will take them on board and relay the substance or the gist of this part of the debate to the Northern Ireland Ministers and the Secretary of State.
In June 1985 Northern Ireland had 25,000 employees in the construction and building industry. By September 1992 that figure had fallen to 21,130 employees in employment, with 1,820 registered as unemployed. The figures show that in a six-year period some 2,000 employees left the industry and that almost 2,000 were unemployed. That is a loss of some 16 per cent. of construction employees in seven years. Yesterday I spoke to the Northern Ireland official of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades & Technicians—UCATT for short—who indicated that since September last the employment situation has worsened considerably and the outlook for the industry is grim.
A feature worth noting is the Government's official figure for output in the industry. In financial terms, output from the industry in Northern Ireland rose from a base figure of 100 in 1985 to 142 in 1991. In financial terms, this is an output increase of 7 per cent. per year. With the reduced workforce of some 16 per cent. and the rise in output of some 49 per cent. over the period, this indicates, in my opinion, that the industry is strong in its efforts to encourage performance, competitiveness and innovation.
Sadly, like the rest of the United Kingdom, during the past six years business failures in Northern Ireland have increased dramatically. Figures from Dun & Bradstreet, the business information company which publishes Stubbs Gazette, show a record of 578 business failures in Northern Ireland in 1992. That compares with a business failure rate of 258 in 1987.
718
The building and construction industry suffered highly in those closures, with 105 closures in 1991 and 100 in 1992.
I turn now to the views of the Northern Ireland Construction Employers Federation and of its executive director, Mr. Gordon Burnison, as quoted in a Business Telegraph report of 2nd February, which stated:
"Mr. Gordon Burnison, Director of the Construction Employers Federation, drew together the conclusions from the first survey of the state of the building and civil engineering industry in the early days of 1993 in Northern Ireland.
Two features stand out. First, the continuing high level of unemployment in construction … This is a major cause for concern and suggests that measures to reduce it should be 'implemented immediately'.
Second, most of the evidence points to the continued existence of a large amount of unused capacity in the firms in the industry. In six months time, 57 pc of the firms expect to be working at not more than 50 pc of their capacity".
The article continues by referring to two matters,
"which may create some caution. First, the continuing rise in unemployment and the fears of redundancy will restrain people who might otherwise have traded up in the housing market. Second, the large amount of empty commercial property in Belfast will continue to depress the realisable rents on new space".
The biggest single factor boosting the construction industry in 1993 will be the commitment which has been given by the Government to increase its capital spending, largely on construction, by up to £50m above the original plans.
Much of this additional spending will help the civil engineering side of the industry. Already the cross harbour bridges and weir in Belfast are providing large contracts. The investment in the water and sewerage services is another big element.
This is a significant amount, but might be partially offset by some fall in private sector contracts".
I should like to continue in the same vein. I recognise that in Northern Ireland the Government have put a fair amount of capital into projects that had been neglected for many years. I support the general remarks of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington who said that further capital finance spending by the Government would have a multiplier effect of two and a half. However, I believe that such spending in Northern Ireland would be money well spent in terms of the good will and the economic well-being of the community.
My figures from the Department of the Environment relate to town and country services. I take the point that was made by Mr. Gordon Burnison of the Construction Employers Federation of Northern Ireland when he said that measures should be implemented immediately. I believe that such plans must be ready and in existence. I have obtained information from the planning division that some 20,000 plans are approved annually by the Northern Ireland Planning Division. Many of these already exist on shelves.
Would the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, kindly suggest to the Ministry in Northern Ireland that these plans be taken from the shelves in the 26 local government offices and in the agencies such as health, hospitals and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? They could be put into operation through some financial backing. This finance could be used for existing plans for repairs, improvements, and alterations to housing, hospitals, schools, roads and

719
other essential public amenities employing building and construction workers, and not appealing to voluntary labour to go out and do this work on a voluntary or part-time working basis. This would be real work that required expertise and would be a great return to the Northern Ireland community. I thank the noble Lord the Minister.
6.41 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating this debate and also for drawing it to my attention last week. For some years before coming to your Lordships' House I was involved with supporting the plant hire industry, and in particular the crane hire industry. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the capabilities of the crane hire industry today and the effect that this Government's policies have had on the industry. I should also like to address a particular problem facing the support side of the plant hire industry.
A task that is often carried out nowadays is the replacement of a railway bridge over one weekend. It is achieved by using modern, heavy, mobile cranes that can lift the massive pre-assembled sections into place. Mobile cranes are available that can lift as much as 800 or even 1,000 tonnes. More important is that the weight can be lifted at a distance from the crane. As much as 70 tonnes, the weight of a Challenger main battle tank, can be lifted at a radius of 30 metres from the crane. To support such an operation as many as 12 38-tonne artics are needed to carry the crane's ballast and other paraphernalia. Also, there will be the two 100-tonne low loaders to carry the new beams for the bridge.
Clearly the railway will be out of action while the bridge is closed to traffic. Any breakdown with the crane or the logistics would jeopardise the opening of the railway for Monday morning. The results of a main line closed on a Monday morning do not bear thinking about. The problem is that the capital investment for these machines is enormous. A 300-tonne crane costs over £1 million. The crane industry, and indeed the construction industry generally, needs a reasonably constant demand, and not boom or bust.
Several major companies have gone the latter way, sunk by the payment for under-utilised equipment being hired out at uneconomic market rates. The market will sort out the supply and the rates, but it cannot quickly adjust to a demand change without sending many firms under. That then makes a loss for the finance industry on the money advanced for the equipment. It is the Government's duty to run a stable economy, not one where at one moment the rates for goods and services are sky high and the next you are lucky if you can obtain much more than the marginal costs of being in operation.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to a problem facing the plant fitters; the mechanics who repair and maintain the construction equipment. They often have to work in extremely adverse conditions. As a rule they have to work outside in all weathers, and often far away from home. The employer frequently issues the fitter with a van for his
720
own use to carry his tools and equipment. The fitter is allowed, and indeed encouraged, to take the van home with him so that if the fitter receives an out-of-hours call he can go directly to the job without first having to go to the depot to collect the van. To take the example of the railway bridge project, consider the effect of a simple breakdown with any of the vehicles involved. The effect of just one extra hour of unnecessary delay could be disastrous to the whole project.
The problem is that under Sections 154 and 157 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act the plant fitter is taxed under the Inland Revenue's P11D system. This was designed to catch the directors and higher-paid employees. The rationale is that the employee has the benefit of the private use of the vehicle. After a few months as a fitter's van most vehicles are entirely unsuitable for any sort of private use. The driver's seat and controls will invariably be contaminated with oil, grease, and other unmentionables. The passenger's seat will be, to say the least, suspect. No wife or girl friend would want to travel in such a vehicle.
The rear load area will always be a little bit dirty and often filthy. There will be wrenches, jacks, crowbars and oil; not to mention the evidence of last week's catastrophic breakdown. For those reasons the fitter will often have his own family car for private use. I am well aware that some other employees in other industries have the use of a van which they can keep clean, empty, and use privately. One of my friends has one to carry television sets around. His van is always less than 12 months old, and it is right that he should be taxed on the benefit of his private use. In the construction industry there is no benefit for the employee. All the benefit goes to the employer, otherwise why would such a junior employee have his own vehicle?
The decision in Pepper v. Hart was that teachers in private education sending their children to the school where they themselves taught should be taxed only on the marginal cost to the employer and not on the cost to a new parent. In consideration of that case the Inland Revenue very kindly decided that some fixed costs—for example, road fund tax —no longer needed to be taken into account where the private use of the vehicle was incidental to its business use. The point is that the marginal cost to the plant company of having his employee keeping the vehicle at home is practically nil. The value, as I have indicated, can be great to the employer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can the noble Earl say whether the case has been taken to the commissioners on appeal against this kind of nonsense?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have no idea, but I doubt it. The gain to the employee is that he can provide a better service. I am not an expert on tax law, so I am not well placed to suggest a solution. However, I believe that it is possible for the Inland Revenue to

721
make an extra-statutory concession. The alternative is to address the problem in the Budget. What is the Government's position on this matter?
6.48 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this debate. It has been interesting to hear all the contributions. We have had a wide range of contributions from the input of the housing industry and the building industry to the input of cranes into the building industry. It has been illuminating. In my contribution this evening, I want to come somewhere midway between. Before I do that, I should like to look at the global situation.
This is the second recession that we have had in 14 years of Conservative government. During the first one, in the early 1980s, I was employed by a firm making earth-moving machinery used in the building industry. I remember saying to the managing director, "Why don't you go down to Whitehall and explain to the new Government what their policies are actually doing to our company?". We were being crucified. He said, "I have done that. I went there as part of a delegation of the CBI to see Keith Joseph and we explained the problems. The problem for us was that it was like talking to a brick wall because he did not understand what is going on". We have moved on a little but I am not sure that the brick wall has disappeared.
During the mid-1980s local government had the opportunity to raise local taxes and to borrow money. As a result of the combination of those factors, local government injected economic activity into the affairs of the nation. Then came Chancellor Lawson who also pumped money into the economy. Things took off in 1987 and 1988 and we saw unemployment go down and the building industry boom. There had not been such a boom in the building industry since the Barber boom of the early 1970s. Unfortunately, the result was the same; the collapse in the property market and in the building industry.
We are in the middle of the second and an even worse recession. If I hear any more talk of the green shoots which are appearing I shall scream, and I am sure that I shall be joined by a good number of the populace of this country. Please, let us hear no more about green shoots.
We now have an additional problem. For several years the Government have succeeded in hamstringing local government. We in local government—and I speak wearing my local council hat—no longer have the opportunity to raise revenue. We are effectively capped, whether poll tax or council tax. We cannot raise our revenue above certain limits set by the Government. We are also more rigorously restricted in borrowing capital than in the mid-1980s. Local government can no longer come to the aid of the national economy; that is solely in the hands of the Government. That may be one of the reasons why the present recession is so deep and continues for so long.
Perhaps I may explain what is happening in one element of local government and describe the
722
education scene in the City of Manchester. More than £30 million-worth of capital expenditure projects have been identified and are ready and waiting to be put into action. The Government allow Manchester to spend less than £10 million on a capital programme in relation to education. Your Lordships will appreciate the tremendous capacity which exists for work to be done.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House how much in capital receipts Manchester hopes to release during the next nine months?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given the current recession, it would be a bold man who could say how much Manchester could raise in capital receipts during the next nine months.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way because I believe that the Minister deflected him in his argument. Is it not a fact that Manchester schoolchildren received two-and-a-half times less in government support than those in schools on the periphery which have opted out? It is a fact that children who attend schools which have opted out receive in government support two-and-a-half times that spent on children who attend schools in an authority such as Manchester whose needs are greater. That is the unfairness of the situation and defuncts the point that the Minister was trying to make.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am glad for that intervention. It is interesting to note that not one school in Manchester has opted out of local education authority administration. However, in Tory Trafford at least two schools have opted out from a Conservative local education authority. That says something about the feelings of parents in terms of their confidence in Labour LEAs as compared with Conservative LEAs.
The direct works department of Manchester City Council has identified £26 million-worth of what it terms "programme refurbishments". That includes reroofing, rewiring, the relaying of playground surfaces, and so forth. We expect to have a government allocation of £400,000 to spend on those programme refurbishments. The situation is that £400,000 plays £26 million. I am explaining to your Lordships that there is an enormous demand for capital work and building industry work within just one section of one local authority.
The Minister in his intervention raised the subject of capital receipts. I am in something of a quandary because it is argued that local authorities are sitting on capital receipts which they have not been allowed to spend. That is the case. When in previous years local authorities sold property or land, they were allowed to spend only 25 per cent. of the capital receipts and had to bank the rest. Like most local authorities which have capital receipts, Manchester has that money in the bank.
We have a building industry which today many noble Lords have said is flat on its back and with a massive under-used ability to carry out work. The

723
Government are effectively preventing us from using the money that we have to employ building workers who are out of work to provide a decent roof over the heads of our children in school. I must point out that only last month I visited a school. It happened to be raining and I saw water dripping through the ceilings in the classrooms. I have in mind another Manchester school where the primary schoolchildren must brave the elements outside to go from the classrooms to the toilets. The children in Britain should not have to put up with those conditions. We have the money and we have the resources but when will the Government give us the opportunity to carry out the work?
7 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Dean for initiating the debate. I should like to go further and add my thanks to one other speaker; namely, my old personal friend the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. He is the lone speaker from the government Back-Benches. He may be a lone speaker but he was sympathetic and well informed. I hope that the Minister's reply to the debate will be at least as sympathetic as the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland.
I wish to speak only very briefly about the general picture of the building and construction industry. I then wish to raise a specific matter. Although my noble friend Lord Dean specified the building industry in the title of the debate, in his speech he extended the subject to include the rest of the construction and civil engineering industries. Noble Lords will be aware that civil engineering is where my own personal interests lie and have lain.
I received a letter from the director of external affairs of the FCEC, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors—I rather expect that he has sent a copy of the letter to other noble Lords—in which he says that civil engineering has not been as badly hit as building, which is true, and that, unusually, civil engineering will come out of the recession quicker than building. In all my past experience it has been the other way around: building has come out of the recession quicker than civil engineering. However, that is not true on this occasion.
In his letter he points out that, although civil engineering has not been as badly hit, its profitability has been. He explains the reason in his letter which states:
"This is a product of a combination of causes—the pace and scale of the decline in the building sector; builders crossing over to compete for civil engineering work; uncertainty e.g. over the Government's expenditure plans; unevenness in the flow of work, e.g. last year there were hiatuses at the time of the Election and again ahead of the Autumn Statement; clients looking to exploit a buyers' market by lengthening tender lists and letting work out only in small packages; and so on".
He goes on to say:
"Our sector of construction is not going to be restored to health in all senses until such time as there is a real prospect of recovery in building".
Therefore, the recovery in building is not only important for the building industry but is important for the construction industry as a whole. That goes
724
beyond building and civil engineering and applies equally to the supply of materials and plant and a wide range of ancillary services. That is all I wish to say in general about the building and construction industry.
I wish to refer to one matter which has arisen in the past few weeks; that is, the publication and acceptance by the Government of the Warne Report entitled A Review of the Architects (Registration) Acts 1931 to 1969. That was published two weeks ago and accepted in another place by Sir George Younger on behalf of the Government.
It is important because it has significant effects on the architectural profession which is an important and integral part of the building industry. The report proposes the abolition of ARCUK—the Architectural Registration Council for the United Kingdom. It also proposes an end to the statutory protection of the title "architect".
I hesitate to defend ARCUK in its present condition, but I deplore the deregistration of the professional title. The title was protected in the early 1930s in order to protect the public from charlatans —now called cowboys. I give your Lordships one example. Had registration existed in the 1920s—that is before ARCUK was set up—the late John Poulson, who died a few weeks ago, would never have been able to set up as an architect. That in itself would have been sufficient justification for protection of the title.
I quote Sam Webb writing in last week's copy of Building Design. He said:
"Poulson was unqualified; he never passed any recognised examination in architecture. He got in through the back door, having left school with no qualifications and after failing his studies at Leeds School of Art and being fired by his employer".
When he set up as an architect, which he could do under the then rules, his previous employer said that he could not design a brick privy. He was not quite as polite as that. However, that was his estimation of the capabilities of the man who eventually built up the biggest architectural practice in Europe with extraordinary consequences.
Webb goes on to say:
"As his first assistant, Bert Jones, said: 'The one profession he could set himself up in at that time with no qualifications was architecture'".
Warne's analysis is extremely superficial. He has swallowed the ethos of competition, applying it to the professions just as the Government apply it to everything. He seems to have no notion of the professional ethic—tattered at the edges though it may be sometimes these days. Warne notes that architecture is the only construction profession where title is protected by registration. He wonders whether it should be extended to the other construction professions; that is, civil engineering, structural engineering, heating and ventilation engineering, or building services engineering and so on.
Unfortunately, as he says on page three of the report, that falls outside the terms of reference of the review. Having asked the question, he was unable to answer it. At that point Warne should have laid down his pen and asked for new terms of reference. He did not do that. He feebly concluded that architecture could no longer be singled out and that the title's protection should be abolished merely because it was

725
the only construction title that was protected and because, by his terms of reference, he could not discuss the other professions. Therefore, he concluded that it should be abolished. That is an extremely feeble argument.
Does it matter? I believe that it does. I mentioned Poulson and I quote Webb again. He says later in his article:
"After Warne, he would probably be allowed through the front door to a fanfare of trumpets by the shortsighted guardians of our future".
He got in through the back door before Warne and would get in through the front door after Warne.
I draw attention to another example. Here we have a case where a protected title is about to be abolished when legislation is introduced. In the other construction professions, the title is not protected so that anybody can describe himself as a civil engineer or construction engineer. I notice that in the magazine the New Civil Engineer—and I should say that for a considerable time I was a director of the company which publishes that excellent magazine—Brian Hughes, the chief executive of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors explains why IAAS members want to be known as engineers. Noble Lords will note that it is not that they want to be engineers; they merely wish to be known as engineers, whether or not they are qualified in engineering. The chief executive is so qualified, as are some of the members, but the great majority are not. Because the title of "engineer" is unprotected, nothing can be done, as the Secretary of State for the Environment said a few weeks ago, to stop them. That is surely the height of absurdity. No doubt the Government think that this is unimportant. Over a considerable number of years the Government have shown animus towards the professions as a whole, except possibly the profession of law. Engineers cannot be protected at the moment whereas architects can still be protected. It is important for the strength of the engineering profession that the protection of its title should remain. I apologise to the Minister for not informing him in advance that I wished to raise this matter. I do not expect him to reply to me tonight but I hope he will reply to me later on. I suggest that the Minister throws out the Warne Report.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, like others I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating this short debate. As regards housing and the health of the building industry, he is a doughty warrior. He is right constantly to remind us of the continuing problems of those two interlocking subjects. I apologise for the fact that I am winding up the debate for my party rather than my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Many noble Lords will know that my noble friend is Director-General of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am certain my noble friend would have loved to be present to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, as he would have supported every word of it.
I qualified as a chartered surveyor in land agency. I was proud that I finally passed the exams with the aid
726
of a 10 per cent. reduction as I had been in the services. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I believe our professions, particularly engineering, are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. This country will lose out if people believe this issue is of no importance and that anyone can call himself an architect whether or not he has any professional qualifications. We shall be going down a very sticky road when that happens. I hope my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank will be present on another occasion to defend the architectural profession.
My noble friend Lord Davies has journeyed some 200 miles to be present for this debate. I thank him for that. My noble friend is in at the sharp end of this business as he is a practical builder. I should declare an interest in that I am on the managing committee of a housing association that places some contracts with builders. We have not placed any yet with my noble friend Lord Davies but that may yet happen as he does not live far away. I also have an Irish son-in-law who is, not surprisingly, involved in the building industry. He is based in Southampton but he is working in Manchester at the moment. At least the Prime Minister recently promised some £50 million, if not £100 million, to Manchester. I realise that is not to repair schools. I hope my son-in-law is presently engaged on work in Manchester connected with schools. He has travelled a long way to find work. I am sure many others involved in the building industry have had to travel far from their homes to find employment.
I do not have much to add to what has already been said today and on many previous occasions, both by honourable Members in another place and by noble Lords on both sides of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, gave us some terrifying statistics on the building industry. I have recently resigned as chairman of the National Housing Forum. I do not suppose many noble Lords have heard of that body but it is a useful body as it has representatives from nearly all the professions and from bodies such as Shelter, SHAC, the Institute of Housing, the Housing Centre Trust and others. The National Housing Forum tries to present a common approach to housing problems. I had the honour to serve that body for, some three years. That body annually promotes National Housing Week and it represents a good cross-section of a large number of bodies that are associated with housing in one way or another. It has representatives from the professions including the RIBA.
Regrettably, however, it does not include among its membership the Building Societies Association or the Council of Mortgage Brokers—I do not know whether those bodies cover the same areas—and it has representatives from only one of the builders' organisations. That is a pity as the National Housing Forum would have a lot more to offer if it had a more comprehensive membership which included more of the building concerns. That was my wish when I was chairman.
Certainly the present housing Minister has always treated the forum's views with respect. We are indebted greatly to the Rowntree Trust for much of

727
the research that has been carried out in this area. Sir George Young has always responded to the papers we have submitted to him. At my request he also readily attended at least two of the forum's meetings during my time in the chair. There is a great opportunity at the moment to achieve a consensus over housing policy. I believe it is the first time in many years that that has been the case. That opportunity is one that is well worth pursuing. The National Housing Forum presents just such an opportunity to achieve a consensus. That is a major advance on past history. The Government would do well to maintain that position.
Sir George Young is universally popular. I believe it is accepted that at long last we have a housing Minister who really knows his job. Whether he is able to obtain the money to do what he wants to do is, of course, another matter. However, I am sure he will do his best to maintain the present consensus on housing policy. Some of his recent initiatives, particularly in London, are greatly to be welcomed. I do not think they have had much effect on the building industry but nevertheless some useful initiatives have been instigated and I hope they will be extended to other cities.
I have some experience of conditions in rural areas. This matter may have been mentioned in the previous debate. These days small builders are almost entirely dependent on housing associations to keep them in business. I should add that incomers to rural areas such as myself also provide them with employment as we tend to renovate the houses we buy. I am an incomer to deepest Shropshire. The home I have in Shropshire is my only home; it is not a second home. Up the valley where I live there are four or five properties which have been skilfully done up in recent years and that has certainly provided work for small, local builders. However, much of that work is drying up at the moment. Certainly the housing association contracts that have been issued lately have kept going many of the smaller builders in my part of the world. I speak as a member of a management committee of a housing association which has some 550 properties. At present we have a continuing programme of new build. I hope that will be allowed to continue.
However, I am concerned that housing associations in England are now being threatened with the distinct possibility that many of them will lose their development role and will be expected to concentrate purely on management. We fought that proposal last autumn when it came from Ty Cymru which is the Housing Corporation of Wales these days. We fought it most vigorously because the original proposition was to reduce the developing housing associations, of which there were some 36 in the Principality, to about six or seven. I believe the original proposition was to have three or four in South Wales, one in North Wales and one somewhere in the centre. It was suggested—it is still being suggested in England today—that substantial savings would be made through awarding very large contracts to a single builder using standardised designs which could, if necessary, be split between different sites.
728
I am glad to say that in Wales saner counsels have prevailed and it has now been conceded that some 21 of the 36 housing associations should continue to both build and manage. I have raised this matter on previous occasions. Much time is devoted by people on a voluntary basis to the management of housing associations. They do not want merely to end up as managers. They want to see houses being built as, on the whole, they want to see something being done for the younger generation and for the elderly.
There is real hope as regards what is happening in housing associations because the mix of houses they are providing is quite comprehensive. We are providing accommodation for the single homeless, for the elderly, for kids who are in trouble and for families. That is a heartening scene and I believe that it is true of the country as a whole. I pay tribute to the Government for helping us to achieve that position, but I hope to goodness it will continue.
What happens in England will have a direct effect on small builders, local architects and quantity surveyors if the housing associations are to lose their development role. If that is pursued to its ultimate extent it will, I believe, lead to a repeat of the mistakes of the 1960s which have left us with badly designed estates and a huge bill arising from modifications and repairs where those repairs have been possible.
Some years ago I went to the former GLC estate in Andover. The properties were all built with flat roofs. I have never forgotten the vast amount of money that had then to be spent on lousy designs to rectify the problems by putting on pitched roofs.
Larger does not necessarily mean cheaper, as Rowntree research has proved. That research shows that some small builders can do the job more cheaply than the bigger boys. Already too many designs have cut the floor areas too rigidly. Designs are far below Parker Morris standards; perhaps those standards were over the top. But throughout the 1980s we have been cutting the space and are now putting up some very small boxes. That is proved by research from Salford University.
While more homes are desperately needed, I would rather that they were built to a good standard, even though it means having fewer starts—and there are few enough of them already. There has been a shortfall of about 60,000 a year in the social housing sector. Even the Audit Commission puts the figure at about 75,000 a year. Most people believe that the figure is nearer 100,000.
Rural social housing has been discussed recently. I got the chairman of Ty Cymru at least to accept that there is a role for housing associations in small villages in rural areas where there is room to build perhaps three or four properties; and that should be done. It would be totally wrong if the smaller housing associations in rural areas were not able to perform that role.
I lived for 18 years in a village on the Isle of Wight. If we had not built six council houses before the war and six after, we would never have had a fast bowler in the cricket team or someone to pull the bells in the church. That generation has now grown up. Those

729
people have had to go away because no other houses have been provided; and the village has become somewhat of an old-age area.
A crisis is upon us with regard to maintenance and repair of housing stock. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, dealt with this point in his speech. A paper prepared by Rochdale Borough Council—I read it before I came to the Chamber—is being discussed by the National Housing Forum this month. It demonstrates only too clearly that there is an enormous demand for maintenance in particular on council-owned property, which is falling into disrepair. There is great concern about that. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to about 1 million unfit houses in Britain today. That is a terrible statistic, but it is probably true. That is surely an area in which we can help to a much greater degree than at present. A number of skilled men are currently unemployed. Given the chance, they could play a major role in restoring and repairing our built environment.
I was sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Davies state that where grants have been given by local authorities to restore housing, perhaps to re-roof or some such matter, and the money is paid to the person employing the repairer, the employer sits on the money. Seven or eight years ago a small builder whom I knew nearly went bust because of such a situation. I gave him a job and prevented him from going bust. But it took him nine months to get his money. That situation ought to be rectified. If people who manage to obtain improvement grants sit on the money and then make some stupid excuse as to why they have not handed it over, it is diabolical.
Figures are bandied about which seem to contradict the present situation of the Government's urban programme. I read some of the Questions and Answers in another place recently. Some claim that the programme has been cut; Ministers strongly deny that. Perhaps we shall have a response from the Minister when he replies. However, there is no doubt that, if we do not take urgent action now, such maintenance and repairs will cost us even more in the future.
I refer to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. A number of large contracts which were promised in the past seem to have got nowhere at present. What is happening about the extension to the Jubilee Line, for instance? We heard that it was going ahead, but nothing has happened. There must be some big contracts about to be placed. The noble Lord referred to two other railway projects, and schools. At least we have a rail link into Manchester Airport which is about to open up. What about the link between Paddington and Heathrow? It is absolute madness that with an enormous major airport at Heathrow—almost the largest in the world—this country does not have a fast and efficient transport passenger service to it. If one travels on public transport, one is thrown about on the Piccadilly Line, with nowhere to put one's cases. It is extraordinary. I understand that the British Airports Authority is prepared to meet 80 per cent. of the cost.
730
Office conversion into housing is yet another area worth pursuing. We shall never occupy the offices that now exist in London, and no doubt elsewhere.
I conclude by paying a tribute to the construction industry. I was lucky enough to go to the Falklands when the airport was opened. It was a magnificent achievement put together by Laing, Wimpey and other large construction companies. They even built their own port. Could they do that today? The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to the loss of skilled people. Can they be got back in the future? All we can usefully ask the Minister to do is to press his department to keep pursuing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the hope that some really worthwhile initiatives will come about in the forthcoming Budget.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the subject of the debate is an important one and is of considerable practical significance. I much enjoyed listening to a number of noble Lords making contributions directly from their experience with some knowledge of the relevant industry. I shall not be able to emulate that. I echo a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, felt able to contribute to the debate with his normal good sense. However, I too was somewhat taken aback that none of the Minister's friends—other than the noble Lord, Lord Auckland—felt able to be present and speak either in support of the Government or for the industry with which many of them are connected. They may have reasons for that.
Perhaps we may start with the factual picture. If one considers the history of construction, say, from 1979, essentially it has mirrored the behaviour of the economy—the gross domestic product. However, it has fluctuated considerably more widely than GDP. When the economy goes wildly into recession, the construction industry goes into recession in a major way. Quite clearly when the economy somewhat boomed in the mid-1980s, the construction industry boomed away even more. But when the good times came to an end, as they did for the economy—they were not sustainable because of faulty economic policies—the position for the construction industry also came to an end but in a much bigger way. That is the position at present.
The statistical picture to which noble Lords have already referred is intriguing. Fixed investment at constant prices in dwellings peaked in 1988 and has been falling continuously since. If we consider the number of housing starts, that too peaked in 1988 at 250,000, and in 1992 was 156,000, a considerable decline. Completions, which lag somewhat behind starts by definition, peaked in 1988 at 232,000. They came down to 168,000 in 1992. Given that they lagged on starts, I assume that when we have the completion figures at the end of 1993, they will be even worse.
Above all, what I find interesting—I do not speak as an expert on housing—is that if we look at local authority housing starts, we see that they have dropped from a fairly low figure, in the middle of the period about which we speak, of about 20,000 per annum to under 3,000. I may have misunderstood the

731
figures because I find them astonishing. I have considered the figures and wondered whether I have misunderstood the Government's published statistics because they are so low. Essentially the Government have destroyed the local authority housing sector.
Indeed, for those of our fellow citizens who are on below-average incomes, the drop in local authority housing starts will not be replaced by the private sector. It is simply not profitable for the private sector to meet the demands of those poor people.
In the extremely interesting debate that preceded this one, my noble friend Lord Carter referred to the problem of affordable housing in rural areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had to apply his mind. My noble friend was right to emphasise the problem, but it exists throughout the economy in urban areas too. The problem of affordable housing for poor people is chronic and it is of concern to us all.
I did not read the evening paper so I was not aware of the Prime Minister's admonition, which my noble friend Lord Bruce mentioned, that we must not be gloomy and that we must cheer up. Noble Lords will know from my contributions to debates on other economic matters that I regard that as an absurd view. The only possible way to get the policy right is first to face the reality and not to pretend that things are better than they are. Essentially, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having pretended for a long while now that things are better than they are, has failed to act and goes on failing to act. Therefore, the correct position is, if anything, to assume that things are worse than they are. Then one might start to get them put right.
My noble friend Lord Sefton said—and I agree with him—that there will certainly be an upturn. However the problem is twofold, and he is as much aware of that as I am. There will be an upturn because we have never known the economy eventually not to turn up, but there are two problems. When will it happen? And, more important than that—because there are the beginnings of a sign that it may happen in 1993—how strong will it be? I am yet to be convinced that there will be a strong upturn in the economy at large and, a fortiori, I find it hard to believe that there will be a strong upturn in the construction industry.
Perhaps I may again refer to a topic raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. He referred to the empty offices all over London and reminded us that the problem exists in many other places. We should concentrate on the London problem because many of us have direct knowledge of it. We see it out there. It shows the nature of the difficulty with the economy. Given the enormous excess stock of offices, there is in a sense no need for more building at present. We ask: when will the stock be eliminated? Can a policy be devised whereby new uses are found for the offices, both in London and elsewhere? Unless we can find other ways of using some of the space the outlook for the construction industry is even more parlous. In other words, the point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce holds even more strongly.
Lay people often ask me: how can it be that we are short of housing in our country? Why is it that our
732
schools, like many other buildings in the public sector, are in disrepair? How can it be that our country's infrastructure is poor and deteriorating? Yet, at the same time, there is massive spare capacity in the construction industry. How can that be? Economists —and I include myself among them—are not short of clever answers to such a question. It is to do with excessive expansion in the past, the need for restructuring, the need to control inflation, and so on. No doubt the Minister's brief contains such clever answers.
However, the ordinary person insists that there is surely something wrong with an economic system if it reflects such a contradiction between demand and need on the one hand and capacity to supply but failure to do so on the other. As noble Lords know, I certainly regard myself as a very clever person but I am bound to say that for once on this subject the apparently uninformed view, the unsophisticated view, that essentially we have failed and that the economy has failed is correct. I do not think that the public want smart alec answers.
On policy, I have a few brief points to make. A great deal follows from what I said. The capacity to meet demand for construction is there; the industry is still there. We ought to be engaged in policies that lead to the capacity being used. The point I always make is that the building and construction industry is not import intensive and therefore its expansion does not have the deteriorating effect on the balance of payments that perhaps other expansion may have.
However, there is one other aspect of policy that concerns me and which my noble friend Lord Dean and others have raised. We shall certainly need the construction industry in the future. I for one was not aware—although I could have guessed and noble Lords made the point—how much unemployment there was until I was preparing for the debate. I certainly was not aware, although on reflection I should have been, of the enormous waste of talent involved in the industry currently being so depressed. In particular, the position with respect to architects is appalling. And that must be true of engineers and almost everyone else involved in the industry.
The point is that we shall need these people one day. When we need them, where will they be? The same goes for the point made by my noble friend Lord Dean. If workers are not in work then workers are not being trained, particularly not on the job. Therefore we shall not have workers with the appropriate skills in the future. I can already see that there will suddenly be a day when we shall be back again to the normal stop bit of the stop-go. People will say that the economy is overheating, that there is a great shortage of skills and the construction industry cannot meet the demand.
All that is sad, but the sadness is exacerbated by three other matters. I add, as a matter of ideology, that those who advocate intervention that might get the construction industry back to full operation are often accused of being Keynesians. Many of them are, but noble Lords ought to be aware that the economists who in the past 50 to 100 years called themselves classical economists have always advocated the use of

733
public works in a depression in precisely those circumstances. In other words, there is nothing particularly ideological about advocating expansionary policies.
A further main point I wish to make is that in the past recovery has been connected with construction. If we take the history of the 1930s, I agree that part of the expansion that eventually occurred then was connected with rearmament. But a great deal was connected with building up the construction industry. Supporting what my noble friend Lord Bruce said, the construction industry was being built up with cheap finance which was important in those days. It is certainly not irrelevant today.
My last point is slightly in favour of the Government. They showed signs in the Autumn Statement of moving in the right direction. There is no doubt about it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will remind us of what was in the Autumn Statement because it is not obvious of what else he can remind us. The Government took useful action. But what concerns me is that it showed us the main weakness. The Government do not seem to believe in what they are doing. All they do is too little and, with the present Chancellor, too late. What we really want now is a statement. I accept that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, cannot give it to us and we may have to wait for the Budget, but we need a statement now that the Government are fully committed to expansion and to supporting the construction industry. Then, to put it simply, the world and the economy will be a better place.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, opened the debate well enough. He said that he was not interested in carping and being over-critical. He wanted to be objective and helpful. Generally speaking, I believe that he was, as was my noble friend Lord Auckland. One or two other noble Lords made helpful and interesting speeches, such as the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Blease. Unfortunately, the standard of the rest was hardly memorable. We had speeches of special pleading from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; capital receipts from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who even accused me of being a pessimist. I may be many things, but pessimistic is hardly one.
We had yet another interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, about Merseyside and the iniquities of this Government. I listened carefully, and I must tell the House that not only do we listen carefully, but also that we listen very sympathetically to the leaders of the construction industry when they set out the industry's problems. I can assure the House that we fully appreciate the severity of those problems. We are aware of the crucial role that construction plays within the national economy.
The noble Lord asked for a strategy. That is why we have a "strategy for growth" set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement, aimed not just at promoting recovery in the economy in general, but
734
also specifically at providing a genuine boost to the construction industry. That was naturally enough spotted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It did this by a mixture of fiscal help designed to give an immediate spur to activity, and longer term projects. The Government's intention throughout was to restore confidence and so to stimulate the return to sustainable growth.
One of the areas where a return of confidence is especially important is the housing sector. We know that there is pent-up demand for housing. Equally, we know that the existence of a sizeable overhang of unsold properties is a drag on recovery. So we have taken steps to deal with it, and to give a boost to the housing market generally. As noble Lords will be aware, we have made available £750 million in the UK in the current financial year. In England about £580 million of it was allocated to the Housing Corporation, to enable housing associations to purchase new, empty and repossessed properties. The corporation estimates that this will take up some 17,500 units.
I felt during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that perhaps he did not know of the existence of the Housing Corporation and what it was for; namely, to provide affordable housing right across the country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Would he care to remind us of how many houses the housing associations are currently building? I looked at those figures, but he might himself like to remind the House of what numbers we are talking about.
Lord Strathclyde: I certainly hope to have those figures for the noble Lord before the debate finishes.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, we are talking about 40,000 this year.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has the answer. It is 40,000. That is not a bad figure, particularly in this year; and we shall continue to see those kinds of figures over the course of the next three years.
All of this will play a vital part in helping those in housing need. But for the housing market to recover, we need to encourage those people who are actually waiting to take the first steps into home ownership. So another £50 million has been made available to expand schemes which provide existing housing association and local authority tenants with grants towards the purchase of homes in the private sector. That will enable up to 3,500 new first-time buyers to enter the housing market and should act as a catalyst to get the market moving again. It means that, all in all, the package should take some 21,000 properties out of the pool of empty stock. That is a very significant reduction—it is certainly more than our original estimate.
Although a large number of the schemes approved so far have involved the purchase of new properties from developers, that is partly because such sales can be negotiated sooner than others. We expect more private treaty sales and purchases of repossessed

735
property to come through later. However, the specific type of property assisted does not matter. The aim of the package is to revive the housing market generally, and we need to look at the wider spin-off effects that those measures will have.
The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Ross of Newport, mentioned the situation of renovation grants. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested that renovation grants made by local authorities to private householders should be paid direct to the builders responsible for the work. I understand that firms can request that grants are paid direct to them; but local authorities can only do so when they have the permission of the householder. It is important to remember that the contract will be between the householder—not the local authority—and the builder. It will be for the householder to ensure that work is carried out satisfactorily. However, in those cases where householders unreasonably withhold payment, it is important that legal processes to ensure payment are efficient and effective. Therefore I sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord.
Another very important change to provide short-term help was the temporary relaxation of the usual rules on local authority capital receipts. All the proceeds of sales of assets generated from 13th November 1992 until 31st December this year will be available for use by local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, always enjoys this bit of my speech. But the noble Lord has fundamentally misunderstood the essence of capital receipts—what their purpose will be, and what was the purpose of past capital receipts.
That change is expected to stimulate £1.75 billion of extra capital spending over the next three-and-a-half years, and that could mean the creation of significant employment opportunities for the construction industry. The £1.75 billion figure is not our figure. These are forecast figures from local authorities on top; we have allowed a little bit extra for growth, and that is where the £1.75 billion figure comes from.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are almost into the period when the £1.75 billion is supposed to be raised. The Minister must be aware—indeed I think he may be unaware—that what he has just said is not borne out in reality. The local authorities say, and said at the start, that they could never realise such a figure, because most of their best assets had already been sold off. The builders now say that that is not feeding through. At the time we asked for a release of the money that was always there. Even if we were optimistic enough to think that the £1.75 billion would work its way through, the calculation meant that it would take nearly two years before it triggered off the building of one house. We are talking about urgent action now, not pipe dreams from Mr. Lamont.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know if the—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would give way again. I suggest that the Government's action is likely to make the situation
736
worse. Here we have a situation where there is an overhang in the property market. There is no demand for empty office blocks. There is no demand for expensive houses, particularly in the London area. In that market situation the Government say to local government, "Sell your assets". Yet the money is just not there for people to buy them. There is no demand for those assets. But the local authorities have the money from previous asset sales sitting in the bank. Why can we not use the money that we have to stimulate the market rather than depress the market by having what is almost a fire sale at the moment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think I was being charitable when I said earlier that noble Lords opposite had misunderstood. I think it is wilful misunderstanding of what we are putting across. I shall deal quite specifically in a moment with past capital receipts. The point is that these figures were originally forecast by local authorities. There are hundreds of millions of pounds of assets in the hands of local authorities that can be disposed of in the current property market. There are airports, houses, car parks and vacant land. There are enormous opportunities for local authorities. If the local authorities choose not to realise those assets, that is a decision entirely for themselves.
We hope that early and effective use will be made of this new freedom. It will of course be up to individual authorities to decide how they want to use the funds available, but they can be applied over the full range of spending programmes. That means that they could facilitate work on housing, school and local roads programmes; and that would mean the creation of significant employment opportunities for the construction industry. Noble Lords opposite should now ask their local authorities why they are not acting rather than talking to me.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I apologise but perhaps I may intervene yet again. The estimates of the capital receipts that local authorities were making at the back end of last year were surely on the basis of all the green shoots that the Chancellor was talking about which have not appeared.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords should not worry. I shall get to my passage on the role of the economy shortly. But let me first deal with a point raised earlier by noble Lords opposite: that the concession is time-limited and does not apply to receipts already in hand. This is because the underlying argument in favour of using part of these receipts for debt redemption remains true. When councils sell assets, it is only right that they should use the proceeds to reduce the burden of local authority debt—debt which was incurred providing the assets in the first place. Anything else would be unfair to those authorities who have, quite rightly, repaid debt as the law requires. In any case, failure to reduce the overall level of debt only stores up problems for the longer term. There may well be an ideological barrier between noble Lords opposite and myself. But that is the reason why we believe that local authorities should use their past receipts to pay off debts.

737
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has backed up the concession on local authority receipts with a new initiative called Capital Partnerships. This will encourage authorities to use their available receipts for work of lasting benefit to communities. It offers government incentives to secure the maximum private sector topping up for that work.
The first fruits of the Capital Partnerships initiative were announced last month. They were very impressive. The first tranche of schemes agreed included 81 projects in 46 districts or towns, involving everything from bus stations to business parks, nurseries to freight distribution complexes. The total cost of the schemes was £183 million, of which local authorities contributed £33 million, and central government £20 million; while no less than £130 million, over 70 per cent. of the total, came from the private sector. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, shaking his head. That is what happened last month. He does not like it because he does not like success.
That illustrates very strikingly that private sector funds are available, just waiting for good investment opportunities. It is a key feature of our policy for construction to bring in those funds.
The increased involvement of the private sector—whether it is in the aftermath of privatisation, or injections of private finance into central government programmes, or indeed in the form of increased home ownership—has one very great advantage that I hope noble Lords will not fail to appreciate. It gives a stable anchor for construction demand to an extent that is never going to be possible within the constraints on purely public spending.
That said, the Government will not shy away from playing its part. Despite a difficult public spending round, many of the key capital programmes affecting the construction industry have been safeguarded. It was confirmed that, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, the Government would go ahead with the single major project for which the construction industry had been arguing all through last summer and autumn: the Jubilee Line extension. If that project goes ahead, it will on its own represent £1.2 billion of public sector money over three years, and it has been estimated that it would add at least 3 per cent. to the total civil engineering workload over that period.
The road programme too was preserved in cash terms. That means public expenditure at record levels both in local authorities' support for expenditure on roads and in the national programme for motorways and trunk roads. Last month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced in another place expenditure on new construction and maintenance of national roads of just over £2 billion, which is the highest level for over 20 years in real terms and, in fact, one of the highest ever.
In a difficult year for public expenditure this clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to capital expenditure and to investment in infrastructure. Lower tender prices meant that we could have
738
opted to cut back the funding to the same level of activity: but instead we have chosen to go for more work for the same money. In fact, the number of new schemes next year should be double this year's levels. I know the industry has welcomed our decision.
The new injection of funds for the Housing Corporation this year will much more than deliver the manifesto commitment to provide 153,000 homes over the three years following the election. That is the figure for which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was looking. The funds made available for education also provide for the overall capital spending on schools to be maintained in real terms at least at this year's level. The capital programme for the health service is the largest ever, and represents a construction investment equivalent to the total cost of the Jubilee Line extension.
We have also been able to preserve, in full, the funding for both Rounds 1 and 2 of City Challenge. Round 1 will make £400 million available for inner city regeneration over a five year period, starting this year. Round 2 will entail another £750 million, again spread over five years. The projects involved should attract private sector investment, so increasing the amount of work generated by the injection of public money.
The single European market is now a reality—a harsh reality perhaps. It brings competition and it brings challenges, but it also brings genuine opportunities. Industry in this country will not be slow to seize those opportunities, both those that lie in Europe and those that lie beyond.
The construction industry's ability to compete in these wider, competitive, markets is going to depend upon its ability to provide a quality product, on time and to cost, to compare with what competitors can provide. For example, it must increase its effort on research and development. New building methods and new technology will be a vital factor in gaining work in the years ahead. The groundwork must be laid now. Later will be too late.
The industry must ensure that its workforce has the skills needed to meet not just the challenges of today, but those of the future. The recovery will create a demand for skilled labour, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, in the same way that resources were in demand as we came out of the last downturn, in the early 1980s. The number of jobs in the industry rose from 1.5 million in 1983 to 1.7 million in 1989. We need to be geared up to face this challenge. To that end, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has recently announced that the Government have agreed to the reconstitution of the Construction Industry Training Board for a further five years to spearhead training within the industry.
In addition, we are making renewed efforts to remove unnecessary regulation. One of the seven deregulation task forces to be set up by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, will cover the construction industry. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction has just announced that statutory registration of architects will be abolished—a piece of legislation which does not benefit employers,

739
customers or architects themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, rightfully made a speech about that matter. But other construction professions are satisfactorily self-regulated. The term "chartered" is protected: chartered architects, surveyors, builders, building services, engineers, and so on.
A few moments ago I mentioned markets overseas.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, perhaps I may say that he must be aware that, although the other professional bodies in construction are self-regulating, they would have no objection to registration sectors under ARCUK being extended to them. That of course was outside the Warne terms of reference.
Lord Strathclyde: Indeed, the whole thrust of this policy is to remove unnecessary regulation. Let me return to markets overseas. Last year my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction led a trade delegation to Vietnam, and I led one to Indonesia. That experience made it very clear to me that there are wide opportunities available to UK companies in countries which are growing rapidly, like Indonesia, and where that growth is putting pressure on the existing infrastructure.
My experience also made it clear that the standards of British design, construction and component manufacture are as good as or even better than the best available elsewhere. Last year, British construction contractors reported overseas earnings of about £26 billion; our consulting engineers earned £600 million; and our building materials and component manufacturers achieved exports worth £23 billion.
Shortly after I returned from Indonesia—though I claim no credit for this—Bovis landed the management contract for the prestigious Jakarta stock exchange project. There are many other British success stories from elsewhere in Asia, such as the contract won by Robert Watson to supply the steelwork required for the major and innovative new airport terminal at Kansai Airport in Japan.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has touched on the earnings of those very learned and useful professions. Perhaps he could also say how many hundreds of millions of pounds were earned by insolvency practitioners?
Lord Strathclyde: If we were having a debate about insolvency practitioners I should have that figure to give you. However we are not. The noble Lord does not like to hear successful stories about the British construction industry. The noble Lord said that the Prime Minister felt that too much about him was gloomy. I shall have to tell my right honourable friend the Prime Minister not to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, a celebrated British architect has just acquired the contract to redesign many parts of Shanghai. Would he have
740
obtained it had he not been classified as an "architect"? Perhaps the Chinese would not think he was fully qualified.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that he won the contract because he provided the best quality building.
Many noble Lords spoke of taxation policies. Those are clearly matters for the Budget, but I shall pass the comments on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The conditions are now in place for faster growth within the United Kingdom. Inflation is at its lowest level for six-and-a-half years; interest rates at their lowest for 15 years and the exchange rate is highly competitive. The view of the City and elsewhere is that, following the measures announced in the Autumn Statement, growth will begin again this year and pick up thereafter. The measures contained in the Autumn Statement create a climate of opportunity. They point the way to new activity and jobs so that the sad growth in industry unemployment that we have seen over the past couple of years can be stemmed and reversed. It is up to the industry to seize the opportunities for renewed growth that that provides.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. It has been extremely worthwhile. I do not comment on the absence of speakers from the Government Benches. I knew that the Minister would speak with his usual candour and make a useful contribution to the debate. I can only assume that the many noble Lords on the Government Benches associated with the building industry who did not speak had nothing kind to say about the situation in which they find themselves.
My noble friend Lord Peston clearly indicated what lies behind the problems of the building industry. In your Lordships' House over the past two months we have had two debates on various aspects of the economy, including the manufacturing industry. A politically honest Member from the Government Back Benches—a former senior Cabinet Minister—had the candour and principle to admit that when he was in office, "We got it wrong". I speak of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. He said that the Government of which he was part, along with the 10 noble Lords who came here after Dissolution, got it wrong.
We would start to get things right if the Government would admit that they got it wrong again and started to introduce the measures to get it right. Honesty is always accepted. But the Government refuse to do that, and that is their business.
I thank all noble Lords who took part today in what has been a worthwhile debate. I hope that the Government consider in an objective way what has been said for the industry. The industry does not hold the view given from the Dispatch Box by the Minister. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.

  DORKING ST. MARTIN'S AND OTTERSHAW SCHOOLS: TRUSTS
  DORKING ST. MARTIN'S AND OTTERSHAW SCHOOLS: TRUSTS
  US "AURORA" AIRCRAFT
  US "AURORA" AIRCRAFT
  LORRIES FOR COMBINED ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT: PAPER
  LORRIES FOR COMBINED ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT: PAPER