My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, this is a complicated case, in two unlinked parts. The current permission granted by Kerrier District Council in July 1983 is for 60 caravans and/or tents from April to October each year, whereas the permission on the adjacent field on which compensation has been paid was for the permanent siting of 60 holiday chalets. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no power to hold an inquiry into this, or any other, planning permission granted by a local planning authority.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that, if the revocation, which cost ratepayers £100,000, was intended to inhibit development in this area of outstanding natural beauty, it was a complete waste of public money? Does the Minister not think it curious that the local planning authority, three times in two years, turned down the particular planning application, the last time in June last year, in the light of the report from the inspector? How does the Minister square the decision of the council with the statement made by the inspector that the policy of the council, which was to inhibit development of a caravan and chalet site, was one that had to be supported in order to protect this particular area of outstanding natural beauty?

My Lords, I would first take issue with the noble Lord that revocation was a waste of public money. In fact, whenever revocation (or, as in this case, cancellation) of planning permission is concerned, compensation is always payable. That is what happened in this case. So far as planning permission in the adjacent field for 60 tents and/or caravans is concerned, this went to public inquiry, an inspector was appointed and the report went along the lines that the council's opinion was validated within certain parameters, which particularly pertained to access to the site and access to the beach.

My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister feels that in reaching this decision adequate attention was paid, not only to the question of compensation but to the protracted and controversial planning history of the site of these two fields together, going back over 20 years, to the erratic and inconsistent decisions of the local planning authority and to the national interest, evidence of which was given by the campaign to secure the reversal of the previous planning decision and shown by the widespread interest outside Cornwall in preserving the last undeveloped area of Mount's Bay in what has been recognised officially as an area of outstanding natural beauty?

My Lords, I am aware of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, in this matter, and I have in front of me a copy of a letter to my right honourable friend from him, and also my right honourable friend's reply. I, too, understand that the site lies in an area of outstanding natural beauty, but, again, it is for the Kerrier District Council to take this into account. They are the responsible elected authority, and are perfectly capable of weighing the issues involved. So far as I can see, in this case they did exactly that.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, when the £ 100,000 compensation was paid, it was made clear whether it was compensation for no development or compensation for only limited development?

No, my Lords. The compensation was paid for the chalet development not proceeding, and the council obtained a signed agreement with the owners that this should be so.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when there have been previous instances of a similar character over the past 20 years, governments of both parties have always found it wise in the end to have an inquiry, simply in order to clear the air and to ascertain whether a decision by a local authority is in the national interest? All the nuances, as to whether there was fair play or proper play, are then cleared up, which is to the benefit of all.

My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, my right honourable friend has no powers to instigate an inquiry into this case. There has been a call, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, for a new hearing, but my right honourable friend feels that it is only in the most exceptional circumstances, where an authority's decision appears to be so grossly wrong as to damage the wider public interest, that he would be prepared to exercise his default powers of revocation. It does not appear to him that in this case there is any call for that.

My Lords, how can the noble Lord say that local authorities are capable of making decisions for themselves when they are lining the pockets of developers but not when they are trying to do good for the people who elected them?

My Lords, I cannot see the relevance of that to the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords, can the noble Lord see the relevance of this question: will it be a fact that the developer will use the £100,000 towards the cost of the development he now intends?

My Lords, I have no idea. That is a matter for the developer.

My Lords, does the Minister not appreciate that this is not just a question of planning but that the protection of our natural heritage is at stake? What action is open to the Minister and to his colleagues when planning permissions are granted which are directly contrary to the structure plan of the county, a structure plan which the Minister himself has approved? The county planning officer for Cornwall is on record as saying in 1982 that this development was directly and materially opposite to policy. What action, therefore, is open to the Minister? If the Minister says that no powers are open to him except revocation, I would ask him to consider very carefully taking that action. But even if the Minister is not prepared to take that course of action, would he not be prepared to hold an inquiry so that the people in the area can be satisfied that a matter of vital concern, not only to them but also to many other people, has received the closest possible ministerial scrutiny?

My Lords, as far as scrutiny goes, the papers have been in front of me for weeks and I have been examining them, as time permitted, for a considerable period of time. As far as the validity of the current application vis-à-vis the structure plan is concerned, I am informed that it is perfectly within both the law and the practicality of what was set out to be achieved by the structure plan.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a Question of this kind, which seems to require quite long speeches, would better be dealt with by way of an Unstarred Question rather than by a Starred Question at Question Time?

Yes, my Lords; I concur with the view of my noble friend.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, we expect the General Medical Services Committee to discuss this matter with the department early in March.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was much reassured to learn that this Question was to be answered by so fair-minded a man as the noble Lord but that I have not, as yet, derived much comfort from his Answer? Does the noble Lord think it right that we should continue with an arrangement whereby, if a general practitioner lives with his practice nurse or his practice receptionist, he can claim reimbursement of much of her salary and employment costs, but that if he is sufficiently unwise to marry the lady he can claim almost nothing? Is it right that we should continue with that arrangement? Is it any encouragement to us all to return to Victorian values?

My Lords, I should be the first person to recognise that there are many hard-working, devoted spouses of general practitioners and that they do to some extent suffer, but, as I have already said, the profession's representatives will be raising the matter in the near future with the department. It is fair to say that successive Governments have taken the view that it is not possible to reimburse wives or relatives in exactly the same way as it is possible to reimburse non-relatives, for the simple reason that the risk of abuse is, I am afraid to say, unacceptably high. For that reason, it is best to leave it to the discussions which are to take place in March.

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to be the second to recognise that many wives of general practitioners perform a very real service in helping their general practitioner husbands and that it is only fair that there should be some form of modest compensation? Is the noble Lord aware, as I am sure he is, that at present there is considerable confusion and uncertainty about the matter and that a second agreement will be welcome? Will the noble Lord accept that, so far as I and my noble friends are concerned, one must be aware that, unless their professional duties are properly recorded and monitored, there is scope for a degree of abuse of a system under which wives are compensated? Will the noble Lord also accept that it would be helpful, once agreement has been reached, if there could be an opportunity for an exchange in this House on an issue which affects very many general practitioners, their wives and their cohorts?

My Lords, I am sure that all those views will be taken into account in the consideration which is to take place in March, and, if it can be arranged through the usual channels, I am sure that the matter can then be discussed in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he will discuss particularly with his colleagues those doctors who practise in rural areas, because it could be that the wife is the only trained secretary in a particular district and that the general practitioner might have to go miles to find somebody else who is qualified?

My Lords, those points will certainly be borne in mind when the discussions occur in March.

My Lords, could not the matter be dealt with in the same way as secretarial allowances for Members of Parliament: that general practitioners should receive so much for expenses? Whether they pay it to their wives or to somebody else is up to them.

My Lords, that poses a rather different question, and I do not think that I am going to be drawn this afternoon on the question of the salaries of Members of Parliament or the remuneration of the wives of Members of Parliament.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, provisional figures for 1983 show that the average volume of gas flared from the United Kingdom North Sea operations has continued to fall. It is now just under 10 million cubic metres per day, compared with 18 million cubic metres per day in 1979, while oil production from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf has increased in this time by 30 per cent.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very encouraging reply, will he indicate what further measures the Government intend to take on energy conservation, since gas flaring has been equated with the waste of resources?

My Lords, the Government have consistently produced a tough policy on wasteful flaring with the objective of reducing and minimising flaring wherever this is economically and technically feasible. We shall continue to keep a very tight control on flaring to meet this objective.

My Lords, does the noble Earl the Minister not agree that, even though it is a reduced figure, 10 million cubic feet a day of gas flamed is indeed very wasteful? Would it not be as well if the Government were now to revive the project for a gas gathering pipeline, which seems to have foundered since it was left to private enterprise?

My Lords, I believe we ought to pay tribute to the decrease in gas flaring and the work which the industry has done in that field. So far as gathering pipelines are concerned, the commissioning under private industry of FLAGS—the Far North Liquids and Gas System—the Western Leg gas pipeline, the gas handling facilities at Sullom Voe during 1982, and the partial commissioning of the Northern Leg gas pipeline in 1983 have now contributed to the further reduction in flaring.

My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether any of the gas available is pumped back to repressurise the wells and thus make future recovery of oil easier?

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Earl's question directly but I will say that a lot of gas is reinjected so that it can be collected later.

My Lords, can the noble Earl say what is the level of gas flaring in Westminster at the present time?

My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to put that question down, I am sure that my noble colleague would like to answer it.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, all youth training scheme programmes are required to include an introduction to computer literacy and information technology.

My Lords, while I am delighted to hear that Answer, can my noble friend say how much young people are taking this up and making a possible career for themselves? One is so often told that one cannot get young people trained on lines which would be useful to them in their future careers.

My Lords, the programme is very satisfactory. I can tell my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood that the number of technology centres established is increasing. We hope to increase the number ultimately to 175. The centres are very well subscribed. There is no scarcity of sponsorship, and the young people who attend the centres are having very great success, with a high percentage of them finding permanent employment as a result. I may also say that even at the lesser centres—if I may describe them in that way—there is an obligation to include an element of technological instruction.

My Lords, taking into account the Government's recently published White Paper on youth training, can the noble Lord state, when the centralisation proposed in the White Paper takes place, who will have the final say in the dimension and variety of this type of training course? Will it be the commission itself or will it be the Minister?

My Lords, that is not directly related to the Question and I cannot give the noble Lord an answer at this time. I shall however undertake to make myself fully conversant with that point and will write to the noble Lord in due course.

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that the youth training scheme is not, or should not be, only about the acquisition of skills and technologies relating to the competence to get jobs and work? Should it not include the development of other qualities which have to do with responsible citizenship? Does the noble Lord not agree that that aspect is not sufficiently represented in the scheme at present, and do the Government have it in mind to look at this again after a period of trial?

My Lords, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, makes is a valid one. At the present time, youth training schemes cover a fairly wide range but we are never satisfied that they are perfect. The Government are always prepared to review the syllabus so far as they are concerned.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the figure of 175 centres covers Scotland, England and Wales? Secondly, how many of the Mode B schemes have been closed down? I understand that the Manpower Services Commission is closing down a number of those schemes.

My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that the figure of 175 centres which I gave is a United Kingdom figure. I can confirm also that some 6,000 young people will be training in those technology centres in 1984. The Government are committed to opening at least 150 centres, and 122 have so far been established, with a further 22 centres at an advanced stage of development. But the ultimate figure at which we are aiming is 175 centres.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the purpose of the youth training scheme was to get its target this year and that the MSC is committed to raising quality as its top priority next year? The very points which have been made will surely be taken up in the commission's pursuit of quality.

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness has said; that is a fact.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any monitoring of the take-up of these schemes at the technology centres as far as the ethnic minorities are concerned? If not, how will the Government measure the degree of help which is being given to young people from the ethnic minorities by the technology schemes?

My Lords, the schemes are open to everybody. It is the Government's hope that individuals from those groups will participate.

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that those youngsters who are on community-based training schemes, which cater in the main for those youngsters who are not so well endowed as others, will also be able to benefit from the new technology schemes? Many of them are youngsters who really need help with literacy.

My Lords, so far as training workshops are concerned, about 40 per cent. of the existing network of 314 training workshops have some microcomputer training facilities. The MSC, with some financial assistance from the Department of Trade and Industry, is planning to equip workshops with a range of information technology facilities in the near future.

My Lords, has not the introduction of the youth training scheme brought about an end to the scheme under which 2,000 craft and technician trainees were previously funded directly by the Manpower Services Commission? Can the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that under the new arrangements there will be no reduction in the number of young people undergoing effective training to become engineers, craftsment or technicians?

My Lords, that is certainly the intention of the Government.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his answer to my first question, but will he give an undertaking that the type of schemes we are now discussing will not be funded at the expense of the more mundane schemes? Some schemes which employ a considerable number of youths at present are unfortunately being closed down at this moment because of the withdrawal of Government support.

My Lords, I believe I made it clear earlier that the technology centres are to a large extent sponsored, and there is no scarcity of sponsorship. Industry is very anxious to play its full part in the furtherance of the excellence of those centres, and there seems no reason why any of the lesser schemes should suffer in any way.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer that is to be given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the flood disaster in South Mozambique.

This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Sellafield discharges.

Dinner will be available at the usual time of 7.30 p.m. this evening, although it is not expected that there will be an adjournment for this.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved.

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation. Let me say straight away on behalf of these Benches that we support the Government in the decision they have taken to bring within the scope of control under the Medicines Act substances that are not now controlled and which, though they can be bought over the pharmacist's counter, contain chemicals which can be very harmful to health. As the noble Lord said, we are dealing mainly with amygdalin, though also with one or two other substances. He has explained—which I certainly had not realised until I looked at the order—the way in which amygdalin can become a dangerous product, found naturally in the kernels of various types of fruit, which can be converted by enzymes into something that is dangerous to the human body. There have been a number of deaths in the United States due to cyanide poisoning which have been attributed to amygdalin. I know that in the United States it has been widely publicised as a cure for cancer.

These substances, as the noble Lord said, can be obtained in Britain without prescription, without the containers carrying any warnings, and quite clearly action had to be taken quickly. I am certain the Government were right in acting on the advice of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, for which I have very great respect, though of course doctors will be free to prescribe within certain very strict limits the material itself if it falls within their clinical judgment.

There are only two points that I should like to raise with the Minister. First, what action will be taken to alert the public in Britain to the dangers which at present exist until the order comes into effect? Secondly, what provision will there be for warnings on the packagings of these substances which are at present sold over the counter?

Before the noble Lord the Minister replies. I wonder whether he can tell me whether there is any relationship between these cyanogenetic substances and hydrocyanic acid, which we all know as prussic acid?

My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, first of all by saying, yes, they are exactly the same substance. If I can explain a little bit further, the kernels of these various fruits contain substances which, when extracted, are dangerous. If you were to eat the equivalent of about 50 apricot stones I believe you would probably be taking a fatal dose, or it might well be a fatal dose especially if eaten in conjunction with certain other foods. It is as bad as that. That is why it is necessary to make this order. People are extracting the substance, putting it into pill form and selling it over the counter.

As regards the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about action to alert the public and packaging, some publicity will be given to the making of a prescription only order, and I hope that that will meet the very real fears expressed by the noble Lord. We will of course bear in mind the difficulty of trying to put this over to the public and will be keeping it under review at all times.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 9, at end insert—(", which shall be additional to, and shall not affect the total of, Rate Support Grants payable to local authorities under Part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.")

I rise to oppose this amendment. I was refreshing my memory this morning by reading a little book which was published in 1957 entitled, The Threat to Education. That threat was the introduction of block grant, and there is overwhelming evidence that the threat has been fulfilled over the years. As to the use of new money, may I remind your Lordships of what I said on Second Reading. When I managed to get the agreement of the then Secretary of State to put money into the rate support grant for the in-service training of teachers the money was not spent on the in-service training of teachers. As a result, because this was a matter of importance, the Government had to produce grant additional to that put into the rate support grant to provide for the in-service training of teachers.

What is now proposed is merely the repetition of a very old story. Whether or not all monies in rate support grant are put in that grant for the purposes of education, the local authority must have the right to decide whether or not to bother spending it on education. In my opinion, this amendment, together with the whole concept of block support grant, is virtually the tearing up of the Education Act of 1944.

I should like to oppose this amendment because it runs contrary to a central feature of the Bill, which is precisely, as has been admitted, not to increase expenditure on education by making new money available but by redeployment at the margin. I for a number of reasons suggest that it is entirely justifiable not to make new money available. First, I should like to remind your Lordships that in real terms more is being spent now on education than ever before in the history of this country. More is being spent on a per capita basis in education, and other indices of provision such as pupil-teacher ratio are more favourable, if one calls it favourable, as the recent DES statistical bulletin of 1984 has pointed out. So education is faring fairly well from the point of view of resource provision, and although one would always like to see more money being made available for those issues on which one cares very deeply, education is one area where, in terms of demographic trends, demand is going to be diminishing over the coming years.

For example, of the number of pupils entering secondary education, 700,000 came into secondary schools at the beginning of the last school year. That number is going to drop to 500,000 during the 1980s. If one thinks of competition for scarce resources from the gross national product, education in demographic terms is in sharp contrast to, say, health care, where the demographic trends are such that inevitably there is going to be a real increase in demand for resources.

I should like to make one additional point concerning the thinking behind the Bill. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the Government could have behaved differently and presented their case in a different way. For example, they could have set the rate support grant at a very slightly lower level. After all, we are talking about only one-half of 1 per cent. It could have been imperceptible. Then the Government could have announced as a bonus this extra money in the form of education support grants. Presumably that would have been received with wide acclaim and would not have caused the opposition which we are hearing today. But the Government chose to be more honest. They chose to put their thinking in the open for debate, and I think that that principle of honesty is to be commended.

I put my name to this amendment and I should like on behalf of the Association of the County Councils to support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said. They feel strongly on these matters. I said all that I have to say on Second Reading. I spoke then about the thin end of the wedge, but we have now seen a thicker end of the wedge in the White Paper called Training Pr Jobs, which is what we forecast.

I hope the noble Baroness will not be tempted to lead us into the lobbies against the Government on this occasion. The real reason for that is that an amendment of this kind is almost meaningless. The rate support grant is calculated on quite a different basis every year. Nothing is the same from one year to the next, and I feel that all one can reasonably ask is that the Government, in calculating next year's rate support grant, should take note of the feeling that this Bill is taking away a certain amount of resources—whatever the noble Baroness may have said, that is a fact—from the less enterprising authorities and giving it to perhaps the most enterprising. I do not think this should be done without much more consultation with education authorities than has happened so far. I hope very much that the Government will consider how they can meet the local education authorities and their genuine criticisms and fears under this Bill.

I rise to support the noble Baroness. Perhaps I should explain that I added my name to her amendment after I had put down a similar amendment which is included on the Marshalled List at No. 6. I understand from the instruction we have had from the Government that we may debate these two amendments together. I am inclined to prefer the amendment which the noble Baroness and her friends have put down to that put down in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and myself, because it is slightly more specific.

I am afraid I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. One understands the point about the demographic trend among the younger generation as opposed to the demographic trend among older people. At the same time, one has to take account of the extreme difficulty some local authorities are having at the moment in maintaining their buildings, in providing books for some of their classes, in keeping up their remedial teaching and in a great number of other activities which they are legally required to carry out under the 1944 Act. I think it is a little too simple to say that there are more and more older people in our society and temporarily we have got a slight dip in the younger generation. Incidentally, I believe that people who have studied these statistics see a demographic surge in primary school attendance somewhere towards the middle of this decade, which is not very far off.

A local authority which is in penalty could be severely penalised should it apply for and receive an education support grant and attempt to find the extra 30 per cent. of the expenditure. It seems to me that this amendment seeks to remove this threat and a similar threat facing authorities on the borders of penalty. It is a modest measure which was supported on Second Reading in another place by Mr. David Madel, a Tory Back-Bencher. It would cost the Government very little and it would introduce a greater element of fairness into the system, allowing LEAs to apply for grants on the merit of their ideas and untrammelled by the very obscure mechanics of local government finance. To see the obscurity of these mechanics, one has only got to look at Section 6 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act to get some idea of what they are.

At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and I supported the idea of new money. It is not a great deal of new money, but I think I can speak for him in saying that we are still of that opinion. If he disagrees, he will tell your Lordships so. On those grounds I support the amendment. I also support it because my noble kinsman Lord Ridley has put his name to it. He raised a technical point about whether it was strictly applicable in the form in which it stands, but I do not think that that really affects the principle. Therefore on these Benches we support this amendment, and when we come to Amendment No. 6 I shall not move it.

I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady David. Regarding the comments made by Lord Alexander of Potterhill, it seems to me that the argument as between specific grant and block grant is not in issue here. It has been in issue in other matters. We are all agreed—at least, we on this side are prepared to accept—that there should be the specific grant that the Government propose to make for certain educational purposes, though we could wish the Government were more precise in their own mind as to which particular educational purposes they propose to help. What is in issue is whether that help should be given by the Government, who claim that these purposes are so important, or whether it should be obtained by a general whip-round among the other local authorities. We object to that because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has pointed out, at present a number of local authorities—whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, may say—are very hard up.

One can be a bit deceived by the demographic argument about education. When the total number of persons in the schools diminishes, it does not immediately and proportionately reduce the cost of running a school. Indeed, in the first instance it can create a considerable number of problems, and that is what many local authorities are facing at the moment. What we object to is that at a time when they are already hard up many local education authorities should be required to pay into the pool for the particular purposes favoured by the Government, when the Government are still not very clear in their minds as to what are the purposes.

We have a number of amendments to be dealt with later suggesting what the purposes might be. Those amendments are necessary because the Government themselves have been so uncertain and at times so vague as to the purposes for which they want the money. What we say is that if the Government really believe that this kind of specific grant is of value they should do two things: they should be a little more specific about the purposes, and they should themselves be prepared to provide the money and not scrape it off the local authorities.

Perhaps I may first of all answer the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. The whole object of the consultations that are taking place and which it is hoped will take place under the Bill—and my right honourable friend has already had three meetings with the local authorities' associations—is to try to reach an agreement on the purposes for which the money should be used under the Bill. There are so many purposes. We shall later come to an amendment which, if approved, would commit all the money straight away. There is no shortage of purposes at all.

In support of my noble friend Lady Cox on the question of the Government's achievement in education generally, I should like to say that the age participation rate of those aged under five has risen from just over 37 per cent. in January 1979 to 40 per cent. in January 1983. Expenditure per pupil in real terms is at record levels, having risen between 1978–79 and 1983–84 by over 10 per cent. in primary schools and by 5 per cent. in secondary schools. The pupil/teacher ratio has improved from 18.9 to one in January 1979 to 18.1 to one in January 1983, and now stands at its best ever level. Despite the fall in overall pupil numbers, those staying on beyond compulsory school age have increased from 280,000 in January 1979 to 346,000 in January 1983—an increase in the age participation rate of nearly three percentage points. I could go on.

However, in answering this particular amendment, perhaps I may start with what might be rather a technical argument. It is one that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ridley, who I think spoke perhaps rather half-heartedly in support of the amendment. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that the Exchequer grants paid to local authorities fall into two broad categories—specific and supplementary grants, of which the proposed education support grant would be one, and rate support grants, chiefly the block grant. Each year the Government set a figure for the total of Exchequer grants; the accounts to be paid in specific grants are deducted from that total; and the balance represents the amount available for rate support grants.

The intention of this amendment would be that the total Exchequer grant would be increased to take account of education support grants, so that the sum remaining for rate support grants was unaltered. That implies that the total of Exchequer grant is built up piecemeal, adding a bit here for one grant, and a bit there for another. That is just not the way that the Exchequer grant is determined; nor, I imagine, has it ever been so in the past. The total amount of Exchequer grant is fixed by reference to the Government's plans for total local authority expenditure, and by reference to the Government's judgment of how much of that expenditure should be funded by the taxpayer in the year in question.

That is a matter of fact. It is not a question of, as it were, just collecting all the grants, putting them together, and saying that we are going to give a little more. As my noble friend Lady Cox so rightly said, we could have done that, but it would have been dishonest because it would simply not have been the way in which any other grants are handled.

These matters have not vet been settled for 1985–86—the first year in which education support grants might be paid if the present Bill is enacted. The Government's plans for expenditure by local authorities in 1985–86 will be set out in the public expenditure White Paper which will be published on Thursday. The decison about the proportion of that expenditure to be met by aggregate Exchequer grant for 1985–86 will not be made until next autumn. The Government will take into account a wide range of factors, including the expenditure to be supported by specific grants, before making a decision about the level of grant for 1985–86. In arriving at their plans for expenditure in 1985–86, the Government appreciate the need both for continuing restraint in public expenditure and for the plans for expenditure within different areas within education to be consistent with the Government's educational policies.

Much was made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about new money, and at one time I think that she even referred to it as Sir Keith Joseph spending his own money. I really must argue most strongly that this is not a question of the Government seeking to take away the local authorities' money: that is just not the case. We are not discussing new money as though we could produce new money. We are not discussing Sir Keith Joseph's own money as though either he was very rich himself and could provide a little from his own pocket, or he had somewhere in his office a little float which he could empty. We are discussing the payment of taxpayers' money, which I think means your Lordships' money and my money as much as anyone else's, voted in another place by the Secretary of State. I should remind the Committee that in the present case we are discussing grant of, at most £30 million to £35 million, compared with total specific grants of about £2,365 million.

I think that it was my noble friend Lady Cox who said that we could of course always do with some more money. I should be delighted to see more money. If we lived in a land flowing with milk and honey, we should all be able to have more money, but I suppose that we should then all have to go round wearing gumboots.

Having said all that, I must repeat the points which I made during the debate on the Second Reading. Education support grants in themselves would not be intended to lead to increased overall levels of expenditure. Their purpose is to provide a limited influence over the redeployment of resources, and consequently I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, have I think been answered very well by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Stewart. So far as the expenditure per pupil is concerned, I believe that this gives an unreal picture, because when there are falling rolls probably as many teachers have to remain, and so the pupil/teacher ratio is not really a fair judgment of the money that is being spent altogether.

The fact is that there is shortage of money in the education system; the HMI reports certainly bear that out. Mention has been made of the complaints from the local authorities about their inability to keep up buildings and to have remedial teachers, and those points, as well as many others, show that they are very short of money.

With regard to the argument as to whether or not the money is being taken from the local authorities, I would point out that Clause 2 quite clearly refers to 0.5 per cent. of the amount determined by the Secretary of State for the year in accordance with the clause. That has been worked out as a specific sum of money; and it will be £47 million this year.

What is absolutely clear is that local authorities are extremely resentful about the Bill, and it is they who have to work the education system. It seems to me excessively foolish that the Government should not be working in partnership, though they said that they are going to do that. The Government are making the local authorities angry and resentful and are making their task much more difficult. We want good will, but we are not getting it from the Bill. So, despite the noble Viscount wishing me not to press the amendment, I fear that I shall have to do so.

House do now resume.

My Lords, I beg to repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer being given in another place to a Private Notice Question:

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, and sympathise with those affected by the disaster in Mozambique and adjacent areas. I understand that in Mozambique 49,000 people have been made homeless and have also lost their possessions. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that it is important to bear in mind that the flooding follows the worst drought since records began. Some areas that are now flooded had had no rain for five years.

We welcome the action taken by the ODA. Although this contribution is very useful, can the noble Baroness say whether further assistance could be given in view of the enormous scale of the damage and the loss, both in Mozambique and in the other countries affected? Can the noble Baroness say whether more seeds will be sent, these being absolutely vital for survival?

I have noted that the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference has, as one of its first agricultural projects, a regional programme for improved drought-resistant varieties of two peasant staples, millet and sorghum. Is this something as regards which we could help, especially in view of the excellence of some of the agricultural research centres and institutes in this country? I understand also that the railway link between Maputo and Swaziland is very badly damaged, and that a vital bridge has been destroyed. Is it possible that we might be able to offer assistance there? Ironically, floods have damaged the waterworks in Mozambique; they have destroyed the pumping station and also the purification plant. Is there not a possibility that we might be able to offer assistance there in view of the expertise that exists in this country?

My Lords, we, too, thank the Minister of State for repeating the Answer given in the House of Commons. I have nothing to add to the extremely well-informed comments made by the Leader of the Labour Opposition. However, I should like to raise one question. It was not entirely clear from the wording of the Answer whether all of the help mentioned went to Mozambique and then something extra went to Swaziland. Was that the case, or was it divided between the two countries? If the latter, can the Minister of State give us some idea of the proportions?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their reception of this Answer. As far as concerns the help that has been given to both Mozambique and Swaziland, I should add that in fact there is also help coming in from the EEC, and in the case of Mozambique it is 500,000 ECUs and in the case of Swaziland it is 100,000 ECUs. It is worth bearing in mind that, of that, approximately 20 per cent. comes from Great Britain and that we have made it clear to Mozambique that we will consider further requests, if these become necessary, in due course.

On the second point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made, I will of course draw the attention of my right honourable friend Mr. Raison to the noble Lord's remarks about agricultural research and the need for more seeds. As far as the total numbers affected are concerned, I understand that there are still no reliable figures for the victims but 10,000 families are said to be homeless and destitute, 70,000 families are said to have lost all their crops, and one village is reported to have disappeared. Highways and bridges have been washed away, and the railway lines have been damaged. That confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said. Moreover, water supply pipes have been washed away, and in Maputo, the capital, water is being supplied by tanker. It is, of course, because of the danger to public water supplies that such a large part of the help goes in water purifying tablets.

As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I must point out that the figures that I gave are for Mozambique. The aid that will be going to Swaziland will be in addition to that.

My Lords, can the Minister of State say whether, in addition to the official aid which she has described, anything has been forthcoming from the voluntary agencies, such as Christian Aid, bearing in mind the splendid record of their Disasters Committee, which brings together the voluntary agencies for causes such as this? Have they been active? I noted what the noble Baroness said about the support to Oxfam, but I am wondering whether there has been a broader rallying of support in this case.

My Lords, I understand that there has been help from voluntary organisations. There has certainly been help from Oxfam, and, I believe, from other organisations. Perhaps I might let the noble Lord know which other organisations have in fact sent help, or have promised to send help.

My Lords, has the Minister of State any information which she could give the House about aid contributions made by other countries to Mozambique, and in particular Russia, East Germany and Eastern Europe generally?

My Lords, I have already indicated the aid that is coming from the European Community, and I understand that there will be aid from other Western countries. I have no information about any aid from the Soviet Union or any Eastern European countries.

My Lords, while everyone welcomes the immediate ready response to this case of emergency, would the Minister accept that to achieve some degree of recovery in this situation requires a greater contribution than is mentioned in the immediate package? Will the noble Baroness confirm or otherwise that the British contribution to the International Development Association is being reduced this year, and would not this particular case of emergency encourage the Minister to support the IDA to a greater extent?

My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that this is a terrible situation, and the figures and the latest reports indicate that to be the case. If I may say so, the position of the IDA is, in fact, outside the Question, but the noble Lord will recall that my right honourable friend Mr. Raison said in another place recently that of course we are concerned about the position of the IDA and are making a contribution so that there will be an increased amount in the IDA.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on the Sellafield discharges which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for repeating the Statement in this House. However, will he confirm that both the reports of the Department of the Environment and the nuclear installations inspectorate were severely critical of operation and management systems and noted the absence of suitable alarms and safety mechanisms to monitor radioactive materials going to the discharge tanks? Is the noble Lord aware that, although we welcome the short-term measures, including on-line monitors and automatic cut-offs for the pumps, we are deeply concerned that the need for these precautions was not foreseen before the incidents actually occurred? Therefore, can the noble Lord say whether the nuclear installations inspectorate has sufficient staff and resources to monitor Sellafield and other nuclear plants throughout the country?

With regard to the effects of the incident itself, first, can the noble Lord say for how long the beaches will remain closed? Will it be for two years, three years, or a few months? Secondly, is a high radioactive content still being found in flotsam on the beaches? Can the noble Lord also say what has been the impact on the environment of the radioactive slick itself? For example, what effect has it had on fishing boats and fishing nets using the area? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that the Opposition believe that the permitted level of radioactive discharge to the environment is too high and that the only satisfactory level is a zero discharge limit? That is a level, incidentally, towards which many other countries are working, although they already have lower permitted discharge levels than the United Kingdom.

My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. There are just a couple of questions that I want to ask. The first question is the same as the one I asked when the intermediate Statement was made, to which I did not receive a very satisfactory answer. What steps have been taken to alert the local population, and people entering the area, to the danger and to inform them what steps they should take if their children should stray onto the beaches or play on the beaches and so come into contact with these radioactive objects? Last time I received the impression that either nothing much had been done about alerting these people or the Government did not know what had been done, or both. I think that steps should definitely have been taken, and we should be told what they are.

Secondly, the whole tenor of this Statement is of course about stopping any further events such as this in the future—and a very good thing too. But there is nothing whatever in the Statement about the necessity for telling the public if unavoidably such events happen. It is very largely by chance and thanks to the activities of some public-spirited people that this whole story ever came out into the open at all. In future what do the Government intend to do to make absolutely certain that the public know something which they are entitled to know?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for responding to the Statement that I have just made on behalf of my right honourable friend. I would take up one point which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has just made about informing the public. At the first available opportunity after this incident occurred my right honourable friend reported to another place in the form of a Statement, and that Statement was repeated here by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. Since then we have had the interim Statement of 21st December and today's Statement. At all times the Government have been prompt and honest in their reporting to Parliament.

As regards informing the public, this has been picked up by the media, as it quite rightly should be. The noble Lord raised the matter of the local public being informed. The company itself contacted the local authority. I and my right honourable friend advised those people who thought that they might have been endangered from using the buildings to contact their doctor. BNFL itself is undertaking an on-demand monitoring service for those people who are worried that they might have suffered effects.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spoke about high radioactive content. It is not high radioactive content; it is higher than normal radioactive content. However, I am still informed that, for example, it is comparable with hospital wastes which are currently disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. The noble Lord asked whether the NII has sufficient resources and manpower to undertake proper surveillance of the site. It is the Government's belief that it has.

He referred to the report of the DoE (by which I think he means the radiological protection board) and the NII being critical of the management systems. Yes, certainly they are critical. That is exactly what one expects that sort of report to bring out, and I am glad that it has. It is always easy to be wise after the event. The noble Lord said—I think I noted his words correctly—that the need had not been foreseen before the incident occurred, and that it jolly well should have been. Honestly, with the best will in the world, I do not know whether it was possible to forecast that need, but the important point is that changes are being made to both the management and the engineering of the plant to make absolutely certain that this does not happen again.

My Lords, might I just return to the question of the nuclear installations inspectorate? I hope the Minister will accept that the point I was trying to make was that the public are assured of nuclear safety, or they have been assured that there is no danger from nuclear installations, because we have a nuclear installations inspectorate which is monitoring nuclear installations. Therefore one would have expected that the nuclear installations inspectorate would have seen the deficiencies in the plant which allowed the discharges to be made to the sea—higher discharges than should have been permitted. That is the point I was trying to make, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is a very serious point indeed and that the public will need further reassurance about it. That is why I wanted to know whether the NII are properly resourced and properly staffed, because when they came before the Select Committee on Energy during one of its examinations, we found that they were under-staffed and under-resourced.

My Lords, as I said, my information, as I stand here this afternoon, is that they are not under-staffed or under-resourced. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the seriousness of this matter. However, what we have to ask ourselves is: would it have happened had the NII possessed more resources both of staff and of cash? My understanding is that it still would have happened. Therefore, I do not blame the monitoring of the NII in this case.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 15, after ("him") insert ("and to bodies referred to in section 3(5) of this Act").

May I suggest that this amendment could cause more problems than it solves? I appreciate, of course, that the local authorities have every right to be consulted, and they will indeed be consulted. The Secretary of State has ensured a position for them in the consultation process. Indeed, they will be partners in any decisions that are made. More fundamentally, the whole purpose of this Bill is precisely to give the Secretary of State some money to use at his own discretion. This is indeed desirable, because in Britain our education system has such a high degree of local autonomy that it is among the highest in the world in terms of the local autonomy enjoyed. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has herself acknowledged on a previous occasion the advantages of this high degree of local autonomy in meeting local needs, but she also acknowledged some concomitant disadvantages, in that sometimes the local education authorities may overlook the country's national economic and industrial needs.

The purpose of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State precisely those powers to encourage initiatives not currently being met by the present dispensation. However, this amendment as it stands, with its veto, would shift that balance back again towards the local authorities. It would also possibly cause considerable delay in setting up initiatives when time is of the essence.

May I say just a final word by way of reassurance to those who are concerned about consultation with the local authorities and their associations? The Government are concerned about that consultation to such an extent that the journal of the local education world, Education, which is not always known for its eulogistic appreciation of the Government, has actually described the Government in this case and in this Bill—and I quote—as "bending over backwards" to allay local authority sensibilities. I am not sure how a Bill bends over backwards, but I hope that the journal's response may reassure those who share the concern underpinning this amendment.

I am most grateful to my noble friend for what she has just said. One of the dangers of leaning over backwards is that you can get a kick on the backside from time to time, and I think that perhaps that is what is happening here. This amendment seeks to extend the involvement of the local authority associations in the process of defining what activities will attract education support grant.

This Bill already provides a far greater protection of local authority interests than does the legislation governing the urban programme which was passed when the party of the noble Baroness, who introduced the amendment, was in power. Not only is there a statutory limit on the level of expenditure which can be supported by ESGs, but Clause 3(5) provides that before making any regulations the Secretary of State,

"shall consult such bodies representing local education authorities as appear to him to be appropriate".

This amendment, as proposed, would give the local authority associations not simply a right of consultation but, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, a power of veto over the activities to be eligible for support by ESGs.

Regulations setting out activities to be supported by ESGs will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure both here and in another place. Therefore, Parliament will have the final say. But the amendment would unreasonably restrict the Secretary of State's freedom to make his proposals to Parliament regarding the content of the regulations.

I believe that the amendment goes far too far in trying to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State. The regulations wil be laid by the Secretary of State, and the final decision regarding their contents must be his. Of course, in deciding what activities are to be included in the regulations he will have careful regard to the views expressed during his consultations with the associations. No doubt their views may find further expression during the debates on the regulations both here and in another place. There is no danger whatsoever of local authorities' views being ignored. But I believe to give the local authority associations the right of veto over the contents of regulations is constitutionally wrong, and therefore this amendment should be rejected. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

To respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said about delay, I hope there will be some delay because some delay is written into Clause 3(5). I think the comments in Education about the Secretary of State falling over backwards probably referred to the changes made in the Bill after the first suggestion was made. For instance, I believe that the 0 5 per cent. figure was put into the Bill, and that figure could only be changed by primary legislation. I suspect that those were the sort of things to which Education was referring in that article, which I read.

Having listened to the noble Earl, I shall withdraw the amendment and rely on our later Amendment No. 18 to strengthen the position of the local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 8, leave out ("exceeding 70") and insert ("less than 75").

May I introduce and move the amendment in this group that stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn—that is, on page 2, line 8 to leave out—

I think the noble Lord cannot move the amendment at this stage but he may speak to it.

Not having moved the amendment, I now wish to speak to it. I think that my noble friend Lady Lockwood made it quite clear that it is acceptable to the Committee that we are debating a number of related topics. We are arguing about—and, certainly, I want to argue about—the premise upon which this particular part of the Bill is built. That premise is that, having lost the ½ per cent. of the rate support grant element which is given for education, authorities (if they are lucky or successful) will get hack a proportion of the costs of their bid. I am in the business of trying to minimise costs to the local authorities. It is wrapped up in these arguments in the percentage that is going to go towards the project but, at the end of the day, a London borough like Enfield—and it is not the worst though certainly not the best endowed; it may be typical; I just do not know, but it has its problems—certainly cannot afford to lose a penny of the monies that it gets either from the ratepayer or from the taxpayer.

I am also in the business of trying to persuade the Minister of the inequity of this particular part of the Bill. I can tell the Minister that there is great resentment in the London borough of Enfield—in the very limited quarter in which these matters are discussed; certainly in the Education Office, in the Education Committee and among others—because any hurt to the education budget is seen to have possible consequences. I indicated to the House at Second Reading that the figure involved at Enfield is £180,000. A ½ per cent. of the education element within the rate support grant at Enfield is £180,000. Enfield resents losing a penny of that, even though the Minister will profess that, if they are lucky, they might get back 70 per cent. of anything they have lost, providing that Enfield does something that it may not want to do but which the Minister says he is prepared to grant-aid.

Let me take the Minister very carefully through the policy of authorities who pay 30 per cent. towards the cost of a project. In Enfield, ½per cent. of the education element within the rate support grant is £180,000; and, whether we like it or not, that is £180,000 denied to the managers of education in Enfield. They have lost that money. Let us assume that they make a bid for one of the projects or in one of the spheres which the Minister says he is prepared to entertain. Let us assume that they are successful in their bid and that it is for £500,000—a not inconsiderable sum of money but not an unreasonable sum to talk of in terms of a major element. If one gets 70 per cent. towards the £500,000, Enfield will get £350,000,

The situation is that, in Enfield, they will have already lost £180,000, They will have to spend £500,000. That makes £680,000, and the grant they get is £350,000. So the net cost to Enfield in spending £500,000 is £330,000; that is, £180,000 that they have lost to begin with and £150,000 that they have to put in, besides the figure which, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood has pointed out, they may have incurred in preparing themselves for the project. If you spend £500,000 and it has cost you £330,000 then the cost to the Enfield ratepayers is 66 per cent. So 66 per cent. of £500,000 has to be funded by Enfield.

Surely the Minister ought at least to acknowledge that, when one talks in terms of being given a 70 per cent. grant, what Enfield is given is a 33⅓ per cent. grant towards an expenditure of £500,000. Even if what I am asking for—which is 90 per cent.—is reduced; if, in fact, it was reduced to any element (for example, down to 90 per cent.) and the grant was towards £450,000 and not £500,000, then the net cost to Enfield would be £230,000 and the percentage would be 46.

I can assure the Minister that there is a sense of rank unjustice not merely in Enfield but in many other places. There has been no quibble in this House and on this side at the concept of specific grants for specific purposes. What we object to is the fact that no new money is being provided. I feel that the Secretary of State really ought to address himself, and the Minister tonight ought to address himself, to the position facing councils. Can any authority afford to lose ½ per cent. of the education element within the rate support grant? I very much doubt whether any of them can. Any fat that was on the bone before now has been trimmed off a long time ago. Many authorities will actually lose the money because many of them will not make a bid since they resent the fact that they have got to make a bid for a project that they do not really want. Many of those who make a bid will not be successful. There will be some authorities who actually lose the whole of their ½ per cent., and I think that that is very wrong.

I certainly want the Minister, again on this matter, to address himself to the question about who makes local decisions. I take the view, regardless of the political complexion of the council of the London borough of Enfield, that those who are elected by the local people have a better knowledge than those in the centre—and certainly those in Elizabeth House—as to the priorities that need to be exercised by the elected people in Enfield in these matters. The Minister is going to tell the education committee at Enfield, "If you want some of your money back, then you have got to look at a fairly narrow range of options"—and of course we can look at those options and we can criticise them. But I wonder whether the Minister is prepared—and this may not be the appropriate time—to look at the other options for money to be spent upon to which no reference has been made: for instance, further education. Why is that not something for which bids can be made? Why not include special education, or primary education? What we object to in Enfield is that the Minister is using our own money to tell us what we should do and what priorities the education commttee of the London borough of Enfield should have. What I am trying to seek is the maximum support from the Government with our own money by making sure that Enfield spends the minimum amount towards the cost of a project. I beg to move.

I support my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton on this, but I am looking at it from the broader point of view and not just from the point of view of a London authority. I am looking at it throughout the country and from the point of view especially of the shire counties—for the same applies there. Some time ago the watchword of most political parties was, "Make government local" and "Bring in the local people, who know what is required in their districts!" This, again, is taking it away from the local people. My noble friend and colleague used the expression, "The fat going away from the bone and the meat". I use another expression: "The jam went away some time ago; the butter is gone and now you are taking away half the bread, too".

It is absolutely wrong for this to be carried out in this way. The only thing that we are asking for, repeatedly, and will go on asking for, is more money to the local authorities, more money for them, not the people in Elizabeth House, to decide what is best. They know something of the national situation throughout, but we know what is happening locally.

Before the noble Lord sits down I think I must just clarify; for when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, finished his speech he said, "I beg to move"—although we had already gone into that and when the next noble Lord got up, he said "I beg to second".

I beg to support.

I beg to unmoved!

I find this discussion very difficult to follow. At one stage, I took a degree in mathematics but I found the arithmetic somewhat confusing. It seemed to me that what we were discussing was a much simpler issue. Having lost the first amendment seeking that it would all be additional money, we are now discussing how close we can get to its being all additional money.

If I may add one word about this group of amendments, there seems to be a great deal to be said for certainty in the amount of grant, and that is what this group of amendments aims at. When I asked at Second Reading into what proportions the amount could be divided—whether it might be 60/40, 50/50 et cetera—the Minister said that it would not go below 50 per cent. But that means that a local authority has to find a great deal. So what we are aiming at is certainty, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood and I chose 75 per cent. as being in line with the urban programme. That should be both the maximum and the minimum provided, so that the local authority would be left with 25 per cent. The amount that they would have to produce would, in any case, be reduced by 5 per cent., so that that would be 25 per cent. instead of 30 per cent.

I believe, having looked at the report of the Committee stage in another place, that the excuse which the Minister gave there for reducing the figure to 70 per cent. from 75 per cent., when the urban programme and the Commonwealth immigrants scheme both stand at 75 per cent., was that the overall rate of grant paid in support of local authority expenditure as a whole has been reduced. That is a very weak reason. Is there an intention to lower the figure of 75 per cent. for the urban programme to 70 per cent., too? This excuse seems very poor to me and I hope that the Government will think again about these figures. I should like them to think in the direction of my noble friend's 90 per cent., rather than our 75 per cent.

These amendments would alter the provision in the Bill regarding the rate at which education support grants would be paid. It may be helpful if I explained the thinking behind the present provision. The Bill provides that grants shall be payable at such a rate not exceeding 70 per cent. of approved expenditure as may be specified in regulations. The Bill sets no lower limit on the rate, but during the debate on Second Reading I indicated that the rate is unlikely to be set below 50 per cent. So, in practice, the rate of grant is likely to be in the range between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the expenditure to be supported. The Bill allows for the possibility that different rates of grant may be paid on different activities.

I do not believe that there is any single rate of grant which is necessarily right for all circumstances; it is a question of judgment and of striking a balance. The rates paid on existing grants vary widely. The police grant is paid at 50 per cent., the transport grant is in 1984–85 being paid at approximately 55 per cent. and the urban programme grant is paid at 75 per cent. This is quite an interesting point because the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that she wanted certainty, as did her noble friend Lady Lockwood. In fact, there is no sum laid down in the Act covering the urban programme grant, which was produced by the party opposite, and it is only by custom that it is paid at 75 per cent. Grants towards the cost of mandatory student awards are paid at 90 per cent.

On the one hand, the rate of grant should be sufficiently high to attract bids from local authorities. On the other hand, it should not be so high as to eliminate the authority's own contribution to the expenditure. The purpose of education support grants is to encourage local authorities to redirect their expenditure at the margin into areas of national priority. But the final decision will remain with the authorities themselves. They will have to decide whether they wish to put up some of their own money for activities which should serve to improve the quality of their education. If they are ready to do so, the Government will help them meet the cost.

There is another point which I should ask noble Lords to bear in mind. The higher the rate of grant, the more grant will be paid and the less will remain for distribution as block grant. This will be true of education support grants, as of virtually all other local authority grants. Of course, we are talking about relatively small sums in the case of education support grants. Nonetheless, a higher rate would reduce the total of block grant.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and his noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned the difficulties facing the LEAs. One point which has not come out so far and which I must make clear—because it is a very important one—is that the balance of expenditure which is not met by an education support grant will attract block grant. Hence, if the rate of grant for an activity was 70 per cent., the 30 per cent. contributed by the authority would itself be supported by a block grant, except for any authority who received no block grant. I cannot say whether or not this would be true of Enfield. I imagine that it would certainly be true of some of the shire counties to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred. So that that probably plays havoc with the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I shall not go into them from this Dispatch Box. In fact, if some authorities redeploy their current expenditure to a scheme which is supported by ESGs, they may find themselves a great deal better off under this Bill.

These considerations have led the Government to specify an upper limit of 70 per cent. on the rate of grant in aiming to provide a balance between providing grants aimed at encouraging local education authorities to seek education support grants and contributing to them from their own resources. Indeed, there may be circumstances where a lower rate of grant than 70 per cent. would be appropriate; for example, where in the past a lower rate has been paid by another government body for a similar activity. In answer to the question, "Why 70 per cent. and not 75 per cent. as in the urban programme?", I have to repeat that the upper limit is a matter of judgment. I must say that the rate of 90 per cent., as suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Taylor, is far too high for this type of grant where a shared commitment by both partners is so important. So I urge the noble Baroness and her noble friends to withdraw these amendments.

Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he could clarify a point. It seems at the moment, when the Committee is being asked to approve the legislation, that the Government are not forthcoming as to what they intend to pay by way of grant. Yet they are shortly, presumably, if it will mean anything, to issue regulations. If they can specify a figure in the regulations, which is what I understand the Bill will require them to do, why cannot they tell us now?

I thought I made it clear in my speech that there will be different rates envisaged for different projects under the regulations.

I am even more disturbed by the remarks of the Minister. If, in practice, 70 can mean 50, which is what the Minister said—it could be between 50 and 70—and if by asking for 90 one assumes that it could be 50, then one has the following situation. If, in the illustration that I gave, expenditure on a project in Enfield was £500,000, and having gainsaid £180,000 in grant and obtained 50 per cent. towards it, which is £250,000, they have to pay £250,000 plus the £180,000 which they lost, they are paying £430,000 towards a project that cost £500,000, which is 86 per cent.

The Minister might say. "It is up to Enfield. The Ministry is trying to guide Enfield into spending money on projects which the Minister thinks it ought to be spent upon". Our case is quite simple. Enfield has a very good record of knowing what is best for the people of Enfield and the Minister has made a very poor and arrogant case. He believes that the people in Whitehall know better than the people in Enfield what is best for the children of the people in Enfield, and how to spend the money which has been given to them with one hand and taken back by the Minister with the other.

I am sorry that the Minister has not been more sympathetic towards this group of amendments. He said that we were talking about grants for areas of national priority. The Bill says nothing about areas of national priority and we do not know what those areas will be. We shall not know until the Bill has been passed. Therefore we are discussing matters in the dark. A number of projects have been suggested: in the consultative document, in the discussions in another place and in our discussions on Second Reading, but we do not yet know what the projects will be. Therefore nobody at this stage can judge how much priority to attach to them.

We accept that the urban grant is very important. The noble Earl said that no specific figure has been laid down for the urban grant and that it is by virtue of practice that the figure of 75 per cent. has been awarded. There is no likelihood that we shall arrive by consensus at a particular sum. The Government have chosen 70 per cent., but I am not convinced by the arguments of the noble Earl that any real thought has been given to that figure. As the noble Earl said, the figure could vary between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. When the regulations are published, the authorities will presumably know what grants the projects in the different areas will attract, but they will not always know sufficiently in advance for planning purposes. Authorities make long-term plans; they do not think just about what they are going to put into next year's budget. They have in mind a much longer time span when planning their programmes. They will therefore be in some difficulty.

To be realistic, the figure ought to be at least 75 per cent., although I suspect that the agreed figure would be 75 per cent. In that case, local education authorities would know what to expect and they would be provided with more background information for planning purposes. We have to take into account the fact that local education authorities have their own priorities. If the Bill is passed in its present form, some of the projects will have to supersede the priorities of local education authorities. I believe that some of the areas to be covered by the Bill should be areas of national priority which ought to attract at least a 75 per cent. grant, which would encourage local education authorities to put forward their bids.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 42, leave out ("0.5") and insert ("0.25").

I am a little surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, arguing for a reduction in the size of the education support grants, because she, together with her noble friend Lady David, are among those who have very clear ideas of very good purposes to which these grants should be put. In later amendments they are each advocating earmarking at least 20 per cent. of amounts available for specific and indeed very worthwhile purposes. So I suspect that there must be some ambivalence in their position if they are simultaneously advocating earmarking money for eminently good causes and at the same time recommending a reduction in the overall amount, which might mean that such money might not be available to fund those very worthwhile causes.

However, I think their enthusiasm does suggest that there will be no shortage of good and worthwhile causes meriting support from these grants, and that the amount to be made available should therefore not be reduced but should remain at 0.5 per cent.

I am grateful to my noble friend once again for pointing that out. I must say I was rather intrigued when the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, spoke about a blank cheque of 0.5 per cent. If I was offered a blank cheque of half of one per cent. I would not think it was a very good blank cheque. I certainly would therefore totally refute the idea that this is a blank cheque.

The effect of this amendment would be to reduce by half the upper limit on expenditure approved for the purposes of ESGs. If we take 1983–84 as an example, the upper limit for expenditure by LEAs in England would have been around £23 million instead of £46 million. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that this Bill is concerned with a limited redeployment of expenditure. That is why the Government decided to include an upper limit in the Bill. I can indeed confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, that my right honourable friend stressed during the Second Reading debate in another place that he did not envisage reaching the upper limit at the outset. It is our intention that the level of expenditure supported by these grants should build up over a period of years. At the same time, it is important that the limit placed on the grants is not so restrictive as to make the whole exercise less worthwhile.

Let me put the figure of £46 million in perspective. Estimated specific and supplementary grants in 1983–84 total approximately £2.4 billion. They include grants totalling £65 million under the Commonwealth Immigrants Scheme and £150 million under the urban programme. Incidentally, that, by my calculations, is about three times as much as this present scheme, and both these measures were introduced by Labour Administrations.

Reference has been made to local authorities' fixed costs. These limit the scope for redeployment and, the argument runs, make the proportion of one half of one per cent. bigger in effect than it sounds. I see the argument about fixed costs, but I do not believe that the comparatively modest redeployment implied by the grant proposals is unobtainable. It would, of course, be for an authority to decide whether it felt able to redeploy its expenditure and bid for ESG funds for a particular activity. There continues to be scope for further savings within local authority budgets—especially in the higher spending authorities—in areas such as caretaking and cleaning costs, school meals and the removal from use of surplus school places.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned the important point about expenditure on teachers' salaries. I would confirm that these do in fact account for about 70 per cent. of total schools' expenditure. But even here some flexibility is provided through staff turnover. About 7½ per cent. of school teachers leave the service each year. Others change jobs or are assigned to new work by their employers. Turnover of this scale would permit LEAs some flexibility to redeploy their existing expenditure in line with the new grants, if they wished to do so.

I believe, therefore, that an upper limit of one half of one per cent. strikes the right balance between a sum which is too low to permit the range of important initiatives identified by my right honourable friend—and here I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned the fact that even noble Lords opposite think that there are some things which could benefit from this grant—and a sum which is so high as to represent an unacceptable increase in the total of specific grant.

This House has endorsed the principle of the Bill. I really think that if we get down to one quarter of one per cent. we are really very nearly talking about peanuts. I hope therefore that this amendment, which would severely restrict the Bill's practical benefits, will be withdrawn.

I wonder if the noble Earl could say something more about the slow build-up he mentioned. If the Secretary of State is so keen on innovation in the curriculum and experiment, why is he taking these powers to himself in this Bill and then deciding not to use them for several years? I gather that in the debates in Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Dunn, said perhaps there might be only one scheme at first. It does seem to me the most extraordinary behaviour to take the power and then do nothing with it. If he is really not going to do anything with it, why not reduce the figure which he is going to take out of the rate support grant, as we are suggesting in the amendment?

So far as concerns the savings the local authorities are said still to be able to make, I really am very doubtful about this, particularly when caretaking and cleaning costs are mentioned. I know that in my authority they have gone over to private cleaning and there has been absolute uproar in the schools; in fact two schools had to be closed because the lavatories and cloakrooms were so filthy. I do not believe there is quite so much possible in the way of further savings in a great many authorities which have tried very hard and are very hard-pressed indeed. I would hope that the Minister can say something about this slow buildup of one or two schemes to start with.

It seems common sense when embarking on a new scheme to go fairly softly at first. On the other hand, this is primary legislation, and if we did not have the whole one half of one per cent. it would obviously mean coming back with further legislation when the scheme is fully operational. I do not see any harm at all in the "softly softly catchee monkee" approach.

I wonder if I might first of all reply to Lady Cox, who expressed surprise at my noble friend and I supporting this particular amendment in view of our later amendments; she suggested we were ambivalent. I do not think we are at all ambivalent. I think it is the Government that are being ambivalent. If the Government knew what they wanted to spend the money on then I think we could look at the situation objectively, but the Government at the present time do not know what the money is going to be spent on. The purpose of the later amendments is to try to identify what it should be spent on.

I am sorry, but I think that is rather unfair. The noble Baroness says that if we ask for consultation and say we want to find out what people want to spend the money on, then we have not got any definite plans. On the other hand, if we do not consult we are told that we are not consulting people and our minds are firmly fixed. I do not think the noble Baroness can have it both ways.

The process of consultation usually takes place before a Bill is placed before the House. Had there been proper consultation before the Bill was introduced we would all have known where we were. This is one of the difficulties local authorities are now faced with. They are being asked to consult after some of their power has been taken away from them. They may have been perfectly happy to give up some of their own powers had they known exactly what the money was going to be spent on. So I really do not think there is any ambivalence here.

I think the difficulty is the approach which the Government have taken to the whole of this Bill. On this side we recognise that there are some very important national priorities in our education system, and we would welcome an opportunity to discuss those national priorities. But we are not doing that under this Bill. We are taking away from local authorities a certain percentage—0.5 per cent.—of their income and it will be used at the discretion of the Secretary of State—"discretion of the Secretary of State" was a phrase used by noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite. It is in that context that we on this side of the Committee are saying that if we do not know what the money is to be spent on we would prefer that a smaller amount be taken away from the local education authorities in the first place.