To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many established civil servants there are in his Department dealing with regional financial assistance to industry; and what were the figures for the same period in 1987, showing separately in both cases the numbers on temporary transfer (a) from and (b) to that division.

On 1 July this year there were 86 established civil servants dealing with regional financial assistance. This compares with 80 on 1 July 1987. In neither case were there any staff transferred temporarily from or to the division concerned.

Given the announcement about the future of the Rover car pressings factory at Llanelli this morning and the loss of 900 jobs there, does the Secretary of State agree that he has grossly underestimated the demand and the need for greater concentration on regional assistance to industry in Wales? Does he agree also that he must abandon all plans to start dispersing civil servants from the Welsh Office industry department later this year?

I have no such plans. All the staff at the industry department are fully employed and work a great deal of overtime as a result of the substantial number of applications for regional aid that they are processing. I am delighted to say that that will continue. I regret the announcement of any future closure. I hope that the positive approach to regional policy that we are pursuing will assist in finding many more new jobs.

With Wales becoming an increasingly attractive place in which to invest, does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of applications for regional assistance is likely to continue to increase? Will he assure me that he will continue to strive to reduce the time spent in processing each application?

Yes, Sir. Applications for regional development grant, for example, are being processed at twice the rate of a year ago. There has been a great improvement. We shall ensure that every endeavour is made to process all applications as quickly as possible.

May I say nuts to the Secretary of State—especially pistachio nuts? Does he know that the Firegreen company has applied to the Welsh Office for a grant, which may lead in the end to 300 jobs, and certainly over 100, in my constituency at Hawarden'? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to examine the application that has been made? Will he speed up the making of his decision so that the prospect of jobs might be realised?

The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will understand that I cannot comment in detail on a particular application. Queries and inquiries are taking place. I realise the importance of the application, and it is receiving careful consideration in my Department, which is in touch with the firm concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for business since he took office as Secretary of State for Wales.

Four.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his achievements in securing jobs for Wales and in projecting a virile and energetic profile of Wales throughout the world are universally admired throughout Wales, and that the admiration is shared by many Labour-controlled councils? There is universal admiration, with the possible exception of two or three unreconstructed Labour Members.

The progress is exceedingly good. Overseas investment this year is already more than the record which was set last year. I hope that this progress will continue. I am pleased to say that in the past few days a major new investment from Germany has been announced.

The House knows that whenever my right hon. Friend travels abroad he enhances the image of the Principality. Is he aware that he may be asked to reciprocate and to receive visitors? Will he guarantee that his officials will keep a welcome in the valleys for any visiting minor politician and ensure that he will not be held at gunpoint and sworn at?

I assure the House that the hospitality of the Welsh Office is total and that no such incidents will take place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the National Health Service in Wales in the light of the increasing average age of the population.

We shall continue our successful programme of improving the National Health Service to provide the people of Wales generally with the best care possible from the record levels of resources that we are making available.

Is the Minister aware that a twin crisis is approaching that will peak in 1991, when we shall see a 9 per cent. increase over 1986 in the numbers aged 65 years and over, combined with the lowest figure for those aged between 50 years and 65 years, who provide the majority of family and voluntary carers? Will the Minister promise that Welsh area health authorities will be adequately funded for that dual crisis? Will he give us, for a start, a guarantee that every health authority area will be adequately funded to enable it to meet the nurses' pay award? Will he confirm, or deny, the figures that have been quoted for the shortfall in Wales?

In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I assure him that the funding of the Health Service will continue to be at the correct and proper level, as we have assured since we came to power. In response to the question about nurses' pay, we will have to wait and see precisely what demands are made when the regrading structure has been carried out.

Is the Minister aware that the county with the projected greatest increase in the number of elderly people is Gynedd, not only because of a natural increase, but because of a movement of retired people into private homes who, as they get older, may well bring additional pressure on the hospitals? In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that any consideration of the future of the hospitals in Gwynedd, particularly in Portmadoc and Caernarfon, will be part of a coherent long-term strategy and not an ad hoc reaction to short-term cash shortages?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on the particular hospitals that he has named. However, the fact that Gwynedd has an aging population is appreciated and taken into consideration in the various formulae for health authorities. This of course rather begs the question that all of us here are likely to fall in the next century into the age groups that we are now discussing. We should bear that mind.

Leaving aside any invidious matters about age groups, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the latest proposals put forward by the Gwent area health authority will be subject to genuine consultation with all the parties concerned, that the Welsh Office will listen carefully to all the representations and that if those representations point to the fact that there should be a very considerable increase in funding in Wales, the Welsh Office will carry that message back to the Government?

I guarantee that all consultations carried out by the Welsh Office are carried out in a genuine, full and open fashion.

If a patient were to present himself to the Health Service in Wales with steam coming out of his ears, could my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that there would be facilities for dealing with that complaint? Also, if anybody aspiring for a position of leadership in Wales or outside Wales were unable to control his temper, can my hon. Friend confirm that facilities exist where that person could get the necessary treatment?

Order. I call Mr. Paul Murphy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any representations from Welsh businesses in connection with the implementation of the proposed unified business rate.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the deep unpopularity of the proposed business rate in Wales is due largely to the fact that it will mean an increase in the commercial rate and because it threatens the vital link between local authorities and local industries, which is a major factor in determining industrial investment in Wales.

I am delighted to say that of the 11 business organisations consulted, nine were in favour and only two against.

The result of the changes will be less accountability to Welsh councils, because up to 80 per cent. of the money received by Welsh councils will be determined centrally. How does that make Welsh local authorities more accountable?

If the hon. Gentleman would like less given centrally and more taken locally, I note his proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals in Wales have (a) been closed and (b) been opened since 1979; and what is the net loss of hospital beds in that period.

Twenty-three National Health Service hospitals in Wales closed between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1987 and nine opened. The net loss of hospital beds in that period was 2,544, of which almost two thirds—1,690—were for people with a mental handicap or mental illness, in line with our policy that services should be developed in the community so that such people may lead as normal a life as possible.

Is the Minister not ashamed of those figures, of 2,500 beds lost, and of fewer hospital beds in Wales today than when the National Health Service was formed in 1947? May I ask him about Mynydd Mawr hospital, which is just outside my constituency? Part of East Dyfed health authority's proposals for modernising Llanelli hospital include closing Mynydd Mawr hospital, with a loss of 58 beds for elderly people. Does the Minister not realise that cottage hospitals are much needed and wanted? Why is it that when it comes to hospital modernisation, the Government are willing to put up with certain losses of hospital beds?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal he mentioned is purely the responsibility of the local health authority at the moment, which sees it in connection with the proposed expansion of phase 2 of the new Llanelli hospital. Clearly, that is not something on which I can comment at present. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, since 1967—for the past 20 years—there has been a fall in the number of staffed beds in Wales, as the policy of closing beds to keep people in the community has been common to both sides of the House.

Does the Minister not realise that the nine area health authorities have already said that if he is unable to fund the nurses' pay award in full they will be between £8 million and £10 million short? Where does the Minister expect them to find that money? Where are they to get it? Will that shortfall mean further ward closures and longer waiting lists? Will he tell the House?

The hon. Lady mistook what I first said. I said nothing to the effect that we are not going to fund the nurses' pay award.

Is the Minister aware that there are 580 people waiting for ENT operations in Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr, alone, and that 80 per cent. of them are children? Is he aware of the distress caused to both children and their parents, who are now being driven to pay for private treatment—often to the consultants who are at the hospital? Does he not think that that is scandalous? Is it not time that he took action?

If the hon. Gentleman is speaking of his own particular hospital, he will be aware that matters there are under investigation by the hospital's own authorities. My Department is keeping a close eye on those investigations.

Is it not a fact that, as I have said on a number of occasions, each advance in medical science may increase the length of some waiting lists by enhancing the demand?

That is true. Fifteen years ago one would not have had a waiting list for hip operations, because the operating method was unknown them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of mentally-ill patients in Wales who have spent more than three months in (a) mental hospitals and (b) psychiatric wards in general hospitals.

On 5 April 1987, the latest date for which this information is available, there were 2,680 patients in mental illness hospitals and units in Wales who had been resident for more then three months. Equivalent information is not available centrally in respect of patients cared for in general hospitals.

Does the Minister accept that Wales has one of the worst statistical records for the percentage of mentally-ill patients who are treated in general hospitals' psychiatric wards, as opposed to hospitals for the mentally ill in the Principality? The World Health Organisation has clearly pointed out that fact. What measures is the Minister taking to correct that imbalance and to remove the stigma that so many of our people suffer by being treated in mental] illness hospitals? For example, in West Glamorgan there is not a single bed in a psychiatric general hospital for the treatment of the mentally ill.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, unfortuntely, mental illness still carries with it considerable stigma. That must change if we are to make a success of developing those locally based services of which I spoke earlier. That is our determination, and I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Does the Minister share our concern that the poll tax may be the deciding factor in forcing families no longer to accommodate mentally-ill members of their own family, thus not only breaking up families, but increasing the burden on our psychiatric hospitals? How does the Minister reconcile the increased burden of the poll tax with the Government's professed aim of keeping mentally-ill people in the community?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the sort of people of whom he speaks will be disabled and therefore will not pay the poll tax.

Does the Minister recognise that we all share the desire for a number of people in mental hospitals to be discharged into the community, but that that is not a cheap option? Can he tell me how much has been paid for the care and support of such people within the community following the Government's initiative, and how many places have been created within the community as a result of that initiative?

I am not able to give the exact figures, but the hon. Gentleman is right: it is not a cheap option. According to the figures that I have, we are spending some £110 million a year on mental illness services, £65 million of which goes on the nine large hospitals in Wales.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for private management of sports grounds, leisure and recreation facilities, in so far as they affect (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 1 July.

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Is he aware that the average deficit for a swimming pool in the Principality is £200,000? Attempting to make a profit in those circumstances is likely to mean having to cut staff or otherwise risk the safety of the pool's users. Has the Minister taken that into account?

Certainly. All safety measures will have to be maintained by anyone who takes on a contract to run a swimming pool. That is absolute an in law.

Will my hon. Friend watch the position with some care? Is he aware that there is legitimate concern in many quarters about the possible consequences of privatising the sports centres, which could result in the introduction of fruit machines and other such undesirable intrusions into what should be a public amenity?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the management of these facilities will be under the control of the local authorities. People have not understood that, for instance, pricing and admission policies will also be something that the local authorities can lay down at the outset.

Does the Minister recognise that we are probably unanimous in the House in our deep concern at the exessive drinking, drug taking, vandalism and hooliganism among the young? Does he agree that there are enormous social gains to be made if, by providing positive activities for the young, we can reduce any of those crucial problems?

Does the Minister accept in this context that merely fiddling with the management of existing facilities is irrelevant to, and a diversion from, the real problem, which is the need to provide more resources and facilities that are directly relevant to the needs of the young? What meaningful proposals has he to make?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice, for instance, the sprouting around Wales of enormous numbers of leisure centres, which are a very new development. They will remain available, and the pricing and admission policies will remain in the hands of the local authorities when they lay down the contracts. Those who run such facilities will have an absolute incentive to persuade as many people as possible to take advantage of them, whereas at present they have no such incentive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to improve the quality and quantity of housing for rent in Wales at affordable prices; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are seeking to improve the quantity and quality of housing available for rent principally by taking action to stimulate the development of the private sector, and by increasing the investment in housing association schemes.

We are also taking steps to improve the management of rented accommodation in the public sector and providing new safeguards for private sector tenants against harassment.

Does the Minister accept that the private rented sector now deals with only about 6 per cent. of households in Cardiff, and that there has been an increase of well over one third in the number of homelessness presentations in the capital city? Does he accept that there is a desperate need for the Government to give positive support to the council house sector if those homelessness figures are not to continue to escalate and the council house waiting list is not to continue to lengthen? Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to assure us that finances will be made available, not only for management, but for an increase in the number of houses in the public sector to meet that desperate need?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the provision of private rented accommodation is too low. It has been sat on and harried for many years. We wish to bring that to an end and to expand both the private sector and the housing association movement. Local authorities ought to look after their stock and keep it in good repair. A great deal of publicly owned housing has fallen into serious disrepair and we have urged local councils to spend money on repairing it. Local councils are free to build, and they are doing so.

The Minister failed to answer the key question, which is how much housing there will be for rent in Wales at affordable prices. Does the Housing Bill provide a guarantee to tenants that rented accommodation will cost no more than 20 per cent. of their income? If the Minister cannot say that it does, the promises in the Housing Bill are as nothing and will not meet the demand all over Wales for cheap, decent rented housing.

We believe that social housing, or affordable rents, will be available through the housing association movement in particular. Housing benefit will be available to all who are paying rents at or below the market level.

The Minister has referred several times to housing associations, but in areas such as Gwynedd and Dyfed house prices are escalating so rapidly that housing associations are finding it next to impossible, given the bureaucratic procedures, to compete in the market place and acquire housing. What additional provision does the Welsh Office intend to make available to housing associations to enable them to undertake the vital role to which the Minister referred?

That is why we are making £60 million available this year to the Housing Corporation in Wales. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the establishment of Housing for Wales, a body which will be able to take into account the factors to which he referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals he has visited in Wales since 1 January.

I have visited two hospitals and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has visited four.

When the Minister makes his visits, is he apprised of the serious national shortage of speech therapists and physiotherapists? Will he dwell on the distress and upset in many homes that shelter within them children who, when in language units at school, do not have sufficient time devoted to their speech defects? I ask the Minister to call an all-Wales conference, to give extra money to the health authorities and to give a lead in helping very distressed families.

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have increased the number of speech therapists in Wales and the money that is being spent on speech therapy. However, I recognise that this is an important area and that parents feel anxious and aggrieved. I should like the improvement to be continued.

When does the Minister intend to keep the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that by last spring nobody in Wales should have to wait more than a month for an urgent operation?

I am glad to say that there has been a substantial improvement, unlike the sharp deterioration that occurred in the year before this Government took office.

On the Secretary of State's visits to various hospitals he will no doubt have noticed the shortage of nurses. Since the recent review exercise had, as part of its purpose, giving proper pay to nurses to ensure that they no longer left the profession and—equally important—to ensure that recruitment was improved to make up for shortages, has any provision been made to meet the costs of filling vacant nursing posts and, if so, precisely how much?

That will vary from one district health authority to another, but the right hon. Gentleman must be very pleased that there are at least 13 per cent. more nurses today than there were when we took office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the sporting leisure and recreational facilities available to the people of (a) Rhondda, (b) the valleys of South Wales and (c) Wales as a whole.

Central Government support to sporting, leisure and recreational facilities is provided primarily through the Sports Council for Wales, the Welsh Arts Council and the Wales Tourist Board. Urban programme support will also be available for worthwhile projects. Developments in the Rhondda and other South Wales valleys will be given added impetus by the recently announced specific programmes announced in the Valleys programme.

Last week, in the debate on sport, the Minister drew attention to the enormous increase in the use of sporting and leisure activities in the past 10 years. After an intervention, and with some bad grace, he acknowledged that that was due to the efforts of local authorities. Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge the enormous contribution made by local authorities in the development of leisure and recreational activities? Will he give an assurance that the facilities in Wales will remain in public hands and not he ripped off for private profits?

They will certainly remain in public hands. I am delighted that the various organisations and the servicing of them will be compared with private tenders, but they will remain in public hands. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted at the announcement of the £8·26 million of capital grant in the next three financial years for various leisure and sporting facilities, which will make quite an impact. Of course, local authorities make a major contribution. I am sure that local authorities in Wales are relieved that in recent years 66 per cent. of that contribution was financed by central Government.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to welcome the new pub hours due to be introduced in Wales by 1 September? Does he acknowledge that the introduction of the Licensing Act will not only add greatly to the facilities available for recreation and leisure in Wales but will enable the courts to crack down on under-age drinking?

I certainly welcome any proposals that enable the courts to crack down on under-age drinking.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of enterprise education in Wales.

The "Survey of Enterprise Education and School Industry Links," by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, which was published earlier this month, confirms that the enterprise culture is taking hold in Wales. Nearly 90 per cent. of all Welsh secondary schools are now involved in some form of enterprise education, with more than 70 per cent. specifically involved in mini-enterprise activities.

The HMI report suggests that in the best schemes enterprise education has helped to relate the curriculum to industrial and commercial activities and to the local community. Pupils acquire an awareness of the world of business through practical experience and develop personal abilities and initiative.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he satisfied that the business community is now ready to play its new full role in the governance of schools and colleges?

Certainly the business community has reacted extremely well to the industry-schools initiative of 1986. There is a very prominent role for the business community in the governance of schools. Some 25 per cent. of the governors of local authority colleges are required to be representatives of the business community for the future.

Does the Minister agree that in encouraging enterprise in education, which is very desirable, one must take the greatest care not to affect the public service ethic, which is the foundation of all proper education, including the conduct of all our public examinations at GCSE level? In particular, does he agree that the activities of academic racketeers, such as Mr. William Hoole, the principal at New college, Cardiff, who has shown a great deal of enterprise but not very much ethic, are thoroughly undesirable? Does he also agree that if he were to study the dossier of allegations of misconduct in GCSE, O and A-level examinations at that college he would see that students were being given tip-offs about which subjects were coming up in A and O-level practical examinations, that atlases were being taken into examinations when that was not allowed under Welsh Joint Education Committee rules, and other examples of ways in which the public service ethic would be very seriously affected if that kind of thing were continued?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing at least two matters. With regard to the situation at New college, Cardiff, he is well aware that I have asked him to submit to me any information that he has. The premises will be visited by Her Majesty's inspectors for the second time in the coming year.

On the hon. Gentleman's other point, of course education is a public service, whether it is provided by the private sector or the maintained sector. I am sure he will agree that an important part of education is that children should be introduced to the world of work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the establishment of a Welsh parliament since June 1987.

In the past year I have received only two letters specifically asking for a Welsh parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response by the people of Wales to Opposition Members' demands shows that they recognise the importance of being fully represented in this House and that they do not wish to see another tier of government added to the burden on the Welsh people? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the new-found interest of Opposition Members is merely a recognition of their impotence?

In fairness, my hon. Friend must specify which Opposition Members have one view and which have another. The last official view of the Opposition was in their manifesto, which said:

"Wales is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Labour rejects any proposals which would separate Wales in any way from the rest of Britain."

I trust that after his triumphant return from Zimbabwe the Leader of the Opposition will make clear the Labour party's position.

Does the Secretary of State accept that since 1979 thousands of people in Wales who voted no on that occasion have seen the potential merit of having a directly elected Welsh body, namely, that the responsibilities of the Welsh Office would come under the control of people elected in Wales who would answer to the people of Wales? If there were sufficient evidence from Wales that there was a strong desire for an elected tier of democracy there, would he for ever more pitch his heart against it?

I noted the result of the last referendum on the subject. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has remained consistent on the issue as has his party. Indeed, it is the main purpose of his party. The Conservative party has also remained consistent on the issue. The only party that changes its view from time to time is the Labour party.

Does my right hon. Friend propose to invite the Leader of the Opposition for discussions on this important matter on his return from Zimbabwe? Does he think that the Leader of the Opposition will have learnt anything of interest from his visit to Zimbabwe that will help the Welsh people, or does he believe that he will be so upset by what happened to him there that he will be incapable of any discussions on anything?

I do not wish to join my hon. Friend in that sort of allegation. I happen to be one of the leaders of the belief that we must preserve the present Leader of the Opposition at all costs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra finance is available for any new development in the Ogwr borough area from his Valleys initiative programme.

The level of expenditure in Ogwr will depend to a large extent on the number and quality of projects which come forward from local authorities, industrialists and others in the area over the three years of the Valleys programme. But, there is no doubt the area will benefit. For example, in 1988–89 expenditure on derelict land clearance in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is forecast to be some £400,000—over 50 per cent. up on last year; Welsh Development Agency expenditure on factory building will be about £500,000 compared with nothing at all last year; and urban programme allocations to Ogwr borough council in 1988–89 total some £1·2 million—about 20 per cent. more than last year. In addition, I shall shortly be announcing a new experimental scheme based in the Bridgend area which will aim to improve the link between small businesses and private investors.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the Welsh Institute of Directors' statement last Saturday? Clearly, they are appalled at his suggestion that the Valleys initiative will do anything without cash back-up? Can he explain to the House whether there is any new money for his new initiative? I remind him that in the Ogwr borough area the only new initiative announced is the refurbishment of the Blaengarw working men's hall. The other proposals offered for Ogwr were already on the books long before he announced his Valleys initiative.

The hon. Gentleman's constituency benefits massively from the enormous increase in factory building and derelict land clearance. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman is horrified at the substantial improvements taking place in the valleys.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for tenants' choice in Wales, in the light of the publication by the Secretary of State for the Environment of a document setting out the position in England.

Exactly the same principles will govern the implementation of tenants' choice in Wales as will govern it in England. Once Housing for Wales has been established, it will take over the functions of the Housing Corporation in this regard, as in others, but will continue to apply the same principles. I am today issuing similar guidance to that which has been issued in England. Copies of the guidance are available in the Vote Office.

What consultations did the Minister undertake with local authorities in Wales before publishing the guidelines? Will he explain how he foresees this initiative increasing the amount of housing available for people in Wales?

The initiative increases tenants' choice. Labour Members have always opposed people's right to buy their houses or to have the landlords of their choice. The Labour party is not the party of freedom and choice for the individual.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit the County Palatine on official duties.

I frequently visit the County Palatine, and I expect to make more visits in the autumn.

When the Chancellor next visits Lancashire, will he get away from the wining-and-dining circuit, visit north-east Lancashire, look at the difficulties of people being unable to get housing grants and of the problems that will arise as a result of the poll tax? If he meets ordinary Lancashire folk, he will find that the Government have been a disaster for Lancashire. Will he use his office to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to do something about the problems?

I wine and dine on quite a modest scale in Lancashire and meet many straightforward Lancashire folk. My experience of the county is that at present it is going through an extremely successful period. East Lancashire is experiencing one of the most sustained falls in unemployment that the area has known for a long time. That is likely to continue as long as the British economy is doing so well.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the people of Lancashire take a very positive view of life, as he does himself? They resent Labour Members' denigration of a county that is flourishing. The only fly in the ointment is the high level of rates that has been levied since the Labour party took control of the council. Rates have almost doubled since it took over. Apart from that, it is a super county.

I agree that Lancashire is proving especially successful in attracting new investment and jobs, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The Burnley and Pendle development corporation has been doing very good work over the past two years. The fly in the ointment in parts of Lancashire has been the excessive spending of councils, which has resulted in high rates for local industry. Even some of the councils are beginning to learn the lesson.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the publications for which the Church Commissioners are responsible.

The commissioners' publications include their annual report and accounts, their report as the central stipends authority and, in partnership with the Central Board of Finance, "Crockford's Directory", and a three-yearly report on the Church's finances. The commissioners also publish a variety of material for information on such matters as parochial fees, the parochial expenses of the clergy and other matters for which they have some responsibility.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his courteous reply. In considering the publications programme, will the Church Commissioners bear in mind the yearning of the British people for a moral lead? When they consider whether to publish the works of the Bishop of Durham, will they bear in mind that many of us would be reluctant to see my right hon. Friend charged with the once capital crime of heresy?

I note carefully what my hon. Friend says. The utterances of the Bishop of Durham are as likely to find themselves recorded in the columns of Hansard as in any Church Commissioners' report. The utterances, teachings and moral exhortations of bishops and other clergy occur regularly at parish and diocesan level, where they are most valued and most effective.

Is it true that sentences of consecration must be issued on cemetary land and that such sentences were issued on the three cemetaries sold by Westminster city council? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those sentences of consecration prevent the sale of such land to property speculators? Will he confirm that the consistory court of the diocese—

Order. The question must be related to publications.

Will the right hon. Gentleman instigate an inquiry into these matters?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which, although profoundly relevant to many aspects of life and death, is outside my remit.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners will be asked to contribute per head, in lump sums and in pension payments, to bishops and clergymen who opt out of holy orders in the event of the ordination of women; how many bishops and clergy are expected to be involved; at what estimated total cost; and if he will make a statement.

The draft legislation concerning the ordination of women and the related financial provisions is now awaiting consideration by a revision committee. I shall arrange for details of the payment provisions, as the legislation is at present drafted, to be published in the Official Report, but I can say that the cost per 100 men is estimated at some £3 million spread over five years. No reliable estimate can be made of the numbers who might resign.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a substantial number of men have said that they will leave holy orders in the Church of England in the event of the ordination of women, thereby creating a major schism within the Church? Will my right hon. Friend seek talks with the Church Commissioners to ensure that any men who exercise their right to leave holy orders are thoroughly compensated, as they should be?

The details of possible compensation are already under scrutiny, as my answer revealed. My hon. Friend must bear in mind that there must be another election of the General Synod in 1990 before any irrevocable decision can be taken on the ordination of women. Such a decision is a long way off and far from certain at this stage.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the total sum paid to outside auditors by the National Audit Office for each of the last five years; and how many private sector audit practices were in receipt of such payments.

The main National Audit Office contracts for audit work placed with firms engaged in private sector audit practice amounted to £53,000—including VAT—in 1984–85 involving two firms. The figure for 1988–89 is estimated at £139,000. The number of firms involved this year is three. I have arranged for full details for the five years covered by the question to appear in the Official Report.

Can my hon. Friend really be satisfied with those figures, given the substantial size of the National Audit Office? Should we not look for a much greater proportion of the audit work being put out to the private sector?

It is open to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has complete authority in these matters, to decide just how much work should be put out to the private sector. The Comptroller and Auditor General recognises the importance of the work being carried out in the private sector to help his auditors gain experience of the private sector market, as is happening increasingly.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what matters were discussed.

The Commission's last meeting was held on Tuesday 12 July, when the subjects discussed included the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the salary of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. The Commission also agreed a report on its recent activities. The report was published this morning.

Does the hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on the respective salary levels that obtain within the Public Accounts Commission, especially for Northern Ireland, where the situation is difficult?

I have to report to the House that the Commission is not satisfied with the Government's attitude towards the salary of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General, which has been both obstructive and negative. Ministers must understand that the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether here or in Northern Ireland, is vital to the proper execution of his duties. When I tell the House that it was seriously suggested that the Northern Ireland Civil Service should help to assess what the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General should be paid by way of salary, I think the House will appreciate how unsatisfactory the present position is.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General did absolutely invaluable work in bringing forward the facts of the De Lorean scandal and making them known to the House? Is it not disgraceful that Ministers have left matters as they are? I know that my hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission have made a personal approach to Ministers, but will my hon. Friend go back to them again and insist that they take early action?

Yes, we shall do that.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and of the Comptroller and Auditor General seem to be largely determined by the views of the Civil Service? As their function is to monitor and control expenditure by civil servants, that is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Will the hon. Gentleman accept the strong support of the House for the action that he is taking?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. What is particularly sad about the present impasse is that the common purpose that has existed for more than 100 years between this House and the National Audit Office has now been called into question. It is absolutely essential that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be seen to be independent of the Government and that his salary should not be directly related to any particular service or grade in the Civil Service. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we hope to have further discussions with the Government.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the general view of the House on this matter, which is clearly in support of the strong, but wholly appropriate, language that my hon. Friend used about the Government's attitude to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland? It is very important, and I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that he makes the strongest renewed representations to Ministers asking them to think again.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I shall certainly do that. The trouble is that the affairs of the Public Accounts Commission are not widely known, and I would therefore commend to the House the report of the Commission, which appeared today.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the medical facilities open to Members and staff of the House.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the work of the nursing sister. The medical facilities of the House are kept under continuous review, with improvements being made from time to time on the advice of medical experts. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, I suggest that in the first instance he should contact either my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Sir G. Vaughan) or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).

Does the Lord President of the Council realise that, notwithstanding the marvellous work done by the nursing sister, no other medical staff are available on a full-time basis either to the House of Commons or to Members of the other place? Should there not be medical staff, and should we not make provision for them to consider the health hazards and problems of Members and staff who work in this place? Heaven knows, with this Government introducing so much legislation, it is a wonder that there are still so many well people in this place.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that—[Interruption.]

Order. It only adds to the time.

It is ludicrous that it should be the will of the electorate that determines how many members of the medical profession we have in this place. At the moment we happen to have one hon. Member on either side of the House who is a medical practitioner. Should there not be a more permanent arrangement than that?

I agree that there could be a case for the review of a medical surveillance scheme for hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least discuss his ideas with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.

I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to Dr. Snashall, who operates the present service, and to his predecessor Dr. Gage. Provisions for dealing with emergencies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind have been made on the advice of the Civil Service medical adviser and have included the training of a number of qualified first-aiders among the staff. In addition, we are fortunate in having a number of excellent hospitals nearby.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is to be a tug-of-war this evening between Members of the House and Members of the other place in aid of the Macmillan fund, which is an excellent charity? What arrangements has my right hon. Friend made to ensure that medical facilities are on hand in case of accidents in this perilous venture?

I sincerely hope that no special arrangements will be required. I have seen some of the hon. Members who are taking part in the tug-of-war and they look pretty fit to me.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the number of passes issued to gain access to the Palace of Westminster, about the case for the numbers to be limited and about the feasibility of limiting pass holders to more restricted areas of the Palace.

Since 10 November 1987, when the House resolved that the Services Committee should consider the control of access to the precincts of the House, I have received one letter from an hon. Member and answered 10 parliamentary questions on matters relating to the number of passes issued.

In addition to that, during the course of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee's inquiry into access to the precincts of the House the Sub-Committee took oral evidence on four occasions and received some 35 memoranda. The Sub-Committee has just completed that inquiry and intends to publish the report, which encompasses, among other issues, numbers of passes, their limitation and the question of controlled areas, on Monday 25 July.

In view of my right hon. Friend's reply, I shall wait to read with interest the report of the Select Committee. In the meantime, could my right hon. Friend assure the House that the deliberations and proposals of this Committee will be based not only on grounds of security but on the simple fact that the Palace has limited facilities for a limited number of people and that, on the space factor alone, more restrictions will be necessary?

I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's point. However, I recommend that he awaits publication of the report.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are no fewer than 140 Government press officers with passes to this building which give them access to the Press Gallery, and that that means that there is one Government press officer for every three journalists entitled to get into the Press Gallery? Is that because Ministers are incapable of explaining the Government's policies?

It is because they are capable of explaining their good policies and because they have plenty to say that, from time to time, press officers are required in the House. The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous if he thinks that the 140 are here together at any one time, because there are many Government Departments. The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of these matters. I suggest that he awaits publication of the report, which he played some part in preparing.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many pieces of (a) china and (b) cutlery are estimated to have been removed without authority from House of Commons Dining Rooms in each of the past five years; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

The average cost per annum over the last five-year period of purchases of tableware amounted to £43,000, which represents approximately 2 per cent. of the Refreshment Department's annual turnover. These purchases were substantially to cover general wear and tear. It is not possible to give a breakdown.

It is annoying that we cannot have a breakdown of the figures for china. In view of the high cost of the replacement of china and cutlery—items of which are usually taken as souvenirs—will my right hon. Friend save the taxpayers' money by electronically tagging all china and cutlery? Will he consider issuing plastic knives, forks and spoons stamped with the House of Commons crest to all visitors, so that they can take them away with them?

As usual, my right hon. Friend comes up with novel and interesting suggestions. I am not sure that the losses that we incur, although we want to keep them down to a minimum, are out of line with those for a busy Department. I shall refer my hon. Friend's suggestion to the General Manager of the Refreshment Department.

Will the Leader of the House take account of what is done in one of the most expensive restaurants in London? As so much expensive cutlery is stolen, the men who attend the table now add the cost of it to the bill and, because the people who steal it are so ashamed, the issue is not raised? The owner of the restaurant says that he covers his account every year in that way.

I do not know whether the 2 per cent. is added to the bill anyway, but I do not agree with that suggestion. The 2 per cent. is not an unreasonable figure. Again, I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the head of the Refreshment Department.

Will my right hon. Friend accept a little advice from me? If he were to send a runner round the offices of Members of Parliament in this and other buildings, he would find any number of cups, saucers, knives, spoons and forks, which have not been permanently removed, but have been taken, as a matter of convenience, when hon. Members have been sitting late through the night, and have then been left there. Rather than cast aspersions on the integrity of visitors to the House, he might follow that suggestion. I have two items in my office.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he returns them forthwith; and, if other hon. Members have any, perhaps they could return them, too.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reviewing the work of the Select Committees.

I have no present proposals for any such review.

If a Government want to bury an inconvenient Select Committee report, what better than to have it published in the fourth week of July, preferably to coincide with a royal wedding or tercentencary celebrations? Now that we have a 10-minute rule for speeches, would it not be a good idea to debate each Select Committee report for at least half a day on the 10-minute basis for speeches? Would that not give some added point to the hard work that colleagues of all parties do in Select Committees?

I do not accept that any Select Committee report that the hon. Gentleman finds interesting has been buried as a result of any Government activities. He should know that that is not the case. All Select Committee reports are available for comment. It is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, in the first instance, to consider whether arrangements for debating Select Committee reports could be changed.

rose—

Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Training Commission's TVEI proposals for the curriculum, which are 30 per cent. of the 70 per cent. of time that the right hon. Gentleman says should be given to the national curriculum, would be taken up by technology and sciences? The result is that the rest of the national curriculum has to be included in that 40 per cent. period. That means that single subjects such as history and geography could be pushed out completely from any GCSE programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the situation for us?

The hon. Gentleman has come late to the debate. What he says is rubbish. The foundation subjects are laid down clearly in the Bill. That issue will be debated on two occasions later this evening. We want to ensure that the successful work of the technical vocational education initiative since 1983 is implemented in the full curriculum. I made that clear.

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has discovered consultation. I wish him success in the consultation that will take place. Would it not have been better to have had a longer period of consultation last summer? If that had been done, we would not have 569 amendments before us, the purpose of which is to try to make the Bill reasonable.

There was a long process of consultation before the Bill was introduced, which was continued during its consideration in both Houses. Many of the amendments that were accepted in another place reflect the result of that consultation.

If the passage of the Bill is delayed until the autumn, the national curriculum will be delayed for at least a year and our policy on school admissions will also be delayed. We want parents to be able as soon as possible to take advantage of the improved arrangements that are set out in the Bill. It is clear that the arrangements cannot begin to operate for secondary schools until September 1990. If the Bill is delayed until the autumn, it is likely that those arrangements will be delayed for a further year.

Why?

There is a process of consultation locally on the standard number. The hon. Gentleman should know the Bill by now. We have already issued draft guidance and we must issue final guidance. If the Bill is delayed, final guidance will not be issued until Christmas or beyond.

There are measures on financial delegation to schools and colleges. Nearly everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agrees with that part of the Bill. We want to see budgets handed down to the schools as soon as possible. However, that would be delayed. We have set a timetable and I have issued draft guidance. The guidance remains draft until the Bill reaches the statute book. If it is delayed, LEAs' proposals will be delayed for at least a year and that would delay implementation for another year.

Finally, there are amendments relating to the reorganisation of education in inner London. If the Bill was delayed for enactment in the autumn, the transfer of powers to individual boroughs in London would certainly be delayed for another year. That would cause grave concern among Conservative-controlled boroughs. Having met representatives of the Labour-controlled boroughs in London, I am aware that they are very enthusiastic to see the end of the Inner London education authority and to take over its responsibilities. Any delay would spite the Labour party's supporters.

The Secretary of State should not deceive himself by suggesting that the Labour-controlled boroughs in London are enthusiastic about the abolition of ILEA. Like any responsible boroughs, if they are forced to confront the abolition of ILEA, they will be responsible for making adequate educational provision for their children. That is a big difference.

I met leaders of the eight Labour-controlled boroughs in London a week or 10 days ago, and they convinced me that they will enjoy and use the powers to run their own education authorities—powers like those enjoyed by the local authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

I now want to refer to the number of amendments tabled in the House of Lords. Some 569 amendments were approved—

This point relates to the whole principle of consultation with which the Opposition would agree, particularly if it had been pre-legislative and not just post-legislative. Does the Secretary of State agree that the important Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 16, relating to religious education, are of great significance? However, does he also agree that due to the timing of this—their being passed very recently—it has been impossible for the Secretary of State or hon. Members to consult with those most concerned in the execution of any law that the House may approve?

The hon. Gentleman will remember the final stages of the Bill before it went to their Lordships, House when there was a debate on religious education. I mentioned several amendments that we were moving then as a result of a debate in this House. Further debates have taken place in the House of Lords on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in which further changes have been made and voted upon by their Lordships. The first debate after this guillotine motion is agreed will be on those measures and the House will have an opportunity to express its views both corporately and individually, as I recognise that on these matters hon. Members have very strong and possibly different views.

Nearly 500 of the 569 amendments approved by the other place are technical or consequential—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but they need only read through the Amendment Paper—a rather unfamiliar process for many of them—and they will learn that only 75 of the Government amendments can be described as amendments of substance. Of those, 18 were commitments given while the Bill was before this House. Of the remainder, 27 represent Government responses to debates in the other place. That leaves just 30 substantive amendments, not all by any means of great moment introduced solely on the Government's initiative. Some of those respond to concerns voiced during our continuing consultations. As we have said all along, we proposed to respond to those concerns as Opposition Members would know if they had listened to the arguments in Parliament and elsewhere.

My Department has received more than 25,000 letters from an enormously wide range of people about our proposals. As the principles of the Bill become better known, people have been concentrating increasingly on the detailed way in which it is to be implemented. We have been willing at every stage to amend the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. I cite as evidence the fact that the Government accepted more than 40 amendments from members of the other place, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) concerning religious education.

I noted that over the weekend the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) claimed that many of the amendments increased the Secretary of State for Education and Science's centralising powers. The Opposition have claimed all along that this is a centralising Bill. The truth is the reverse. The fact is that the Opposition dislike many of the measures that will give greater power to parents, governors and head teachers. Above all, they dislike grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, because they will break the LEA monopoly of free education.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are 415 new central powers in the Bill?

We have had this debate many times, and I say to the hon. Gentleman that many of the powers I have taken are designed to give institutions greater independence and authority. In order to free the polytechnics from local education authorities, I must have powers to free those polytechnics from the LEAs. In order to have grant-maintained schools, I must take powers to provide for a system ensuring that grant-maintained schools will come about. In order to give greater power to parents and parental choice, must take powers to ensure that parental choice will exist.

rose—

In a moment. I have given way a great deal. The more that I give way, the less time there will be in this hour for anybody else. I feel that I should not give way again.

The hon. Member for Blackburn specifically asked about the powers that the Lords amendments give the Secretary of State. I can give the House examples of some of the amendments that give me extra powers. In financial delegation, we have strengthened the role of the head teacher. That is not increasing the Secretary of State's central power. In religious education, we have established the responsibility of the individual local authority's standing advisory committee on religious education. That is not giving the Secretary of State the power to impose a religious curriculum upon schools. The governors are being given greater control over the timing of the school day. The complaints machinery has been extended to all curriculum powers and duties, including religious education and collective worship. Parents are given a right of appeal against amendment of a statement of special educational need. Those cannot remotely—

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must say no, because this debate is restricted to one hour.

I believe that a great deal of the opposition to the guillotine motion is synthetic. All through the debates in Committee the SLD has been making the running in opposition and not the Labour party. If Labour really feels strongly about this measure, where is the Leader of the Opposition? Why is he not leading the campaign against the Bill? We all know where he is—he is on the banks of the Limpopo. That is where he is conducting his campaign—on the dark, grey-green, greasy banks of the Limpopo, surrounded by fever-trees.

rose—

Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I hope that it is to tell me that the Leader of the Opposition is at this very moment rushing back to this country to attend this debate. Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us at which airport the Leader of the Opposition is landing, and whether we may be sure that he will come here?

I was going to ask the Secretary of State why the Prime Minister is not here to support him.

The Prime Minister will be in the Lobby supporting this Bill today—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who will still be returning from the Limpopo.

I have explained why the motion is both necessary and reasonable. It ushers in the final phase of what is undeniably one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation ever put before Parliament. I commend the motion to the House.

The guillotine motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House. It is an example of the elective dictatorship that has become a hallmark of the present Administration. We must deal with 569 Lords amendments today and tomorrow at a rate of 70 seconds per amendment, and with 49 new state powers at a rate of 11 minutes for each power.

I have heard some poor speeches, but few to match the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon. It was tawdry, specious and inconsequential. The right hon. Gentleman could come up with hardly any argument for not delaying consideration of the Bill and Royal Assent until the autumn Session. He says that we need to obtain Royal Assent in the next week because the national curriculum will be coming into force. He knows very well, however, that, owing to the shortage of teachers, the fact that the curriculum is so ill-prepared and the problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has spoken, the curriculum's implementation will in any case be delayed until well into the next decade—long after the right hon. Gentleman has left his present office.

The right hon. Gentleman talked of the need to get ahead because, he claimed, London borough leaders are enthusiastic for the reorganisation of ILEA. That is simply an untruth for which the right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House. If that is their view, why did those London borough leaders urge us in March when the Bill was on Report to move an amendment—which was moved—seeking a delay in the implementation of the transfer of ILEA from April 1990 until 1991? It is the borough leaders—of whom, if I may say so, I have rather more knowledge than the Secretary of State—who have been telling us how difficult it would be to secure an effective transfer. They care about the children who will be in their charge, and they will work to do their best whatever circumstances are imposed on them. The simple reality is, however, that they wanted far more time than the Secretary of State has been willing to give them.

We all acknowledge that in any parliamentary system the side that commands a majority will ultimately see its will carried through, but any effective parliamentary system requires that proposals for legislation be fully and properly discussed so that the nation's elected representatives have a chance to consider Bills carefully and to cross-examine Ministers. The very notion of the rule of law depends on that. Yet this afternoon government by the process of law is being replaced by government by edict.

Many of the issues raised in the amendments have never been debated here in detail. For example, the carefully constructed bipartisan approach to religious education and worship is to be replaced, through a string of amendments, by a wholly new edifice that many believe is retrograde and will unsettle the 1944 settlement that has kept religious intolerance out of schools for 50 years. Whatever the merits of the amendments—and they will be discussed in the next debate—surely no one can deny that they deserve much more time than two hours when they propose to overturn a settlement that has stood the test of time for 46 years. The unelected representatives in the other place spent days discussing religious education and worship. We are expected to do so for two hours and literally to take it or leave it, with no chance of any serious line-by-line examination.

Significant changes in the conception of the national curriculum and of testing are written into the Bill. Some are welcome: they show that the Secretary of State has at last understood, however dimly, that his idea of imposing a state syllabus for 90 per cent. of a school's time—as he proposed in the consultative document on 20 July—was based on profound ignorance of how our state education system works or could ever work. However, other aspects of the national curriculum still arouse great controversy and need debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, in an intervention, drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Manpower Services Commission—or the Training Commission—has proposed new guidelines for schools that are to take the TVEI extension. It is proposed that 30 per cent. of the curriculum in respect of 14-to-16-year-olds should be devoted to technology and to what is described as balanced science. If a school's acceptance of TVEI extension depends on its acceptance of that condition, that leaves only 70 per cent. for all the other core and foundation subjects, for religious education and worship and for all the non-national curriculum subjects. Those who have written to my hon. Friend fear that that could seriously endanger the teaching of history and geography as separate subjects at GCSE level.

This is a serious issue which needs proper debate, yet we are to have a total of an hour and a quarter to debate the whole of the national curriculum and assessment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point.

It is rubbish.

I hope that the Secretary of State's judgment that it is rubbish is right, because we do not want it to happen.

Given the Secretary of State's assurance that only 70 per cent. will cover the national curriculum core subjects, is it not likely that 14-to-16-year-olds will not be given enough time to study subjects such as English literature, geography and history properly? That will jeopardise GCSE subjects, certainly as potential A-level subjects.

I agree. That underlines the fact that there should be more consultation and discussion over the summer before the Bill becomes law, rather than afterwards.

When the original guillotine motion was debated on 1 February, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Bill on the future of ILEA was wholly different from their present policy. When we cross-examined the Leader of the House on that occasion, he refused point-blank to admit even that a change of policy was being contemplated, let alone what it was. At that time, the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had yet to work their poison on the Secretary of State. Then, individual boroughs were going to opt out where entire councils agreed. Now, ILEA is to be broken up altogether.

Major changes in the arrangements for ILEA were made in the Lords. The Secretary of State has taken new powers to control education in individual boroughs, and unprecedented powers to veto not only appointments of chief education officers but appointments—I quote from Lords amendment No. 359—

"to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council".

For the first time the Secretary of State—who has told us that he is not centralising power—is taking the power to veto appointments. That applies not just to chief education officers—there was some precedent for that before 1974—but to every other level of the management of an inner London education authority that he so designates.

We have just half an hour to debate those new powers, and an hour and a half to debate changes in the balloting arrangements for opt-out schools. We have two hours to discuss academic freedom and the funding of universities. To debate city technology colleges, on which there has never been a debate in the House, because the Secretary of State is frit—afraid to discuss his policy—we have just two hours, two years after the policy was first announced.

I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say earlier that it was wrong of unelected Members of the other place to tamper with the will of this Chamber in regard to religious education. I take it, therefore, that he will be equally opposed to their tampering with the will of the House in regard to opting-out schools. May I take it that he will support the Government's counter-amendment on those schools?