To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he now has any proposals to amend the payment deferment arrangements for student top-up loans to include suitable categories of disablement.

Under the arrangements we propose, deferment of repayment will depend on graduates' incomes. Disabled graduates will benefit from those arrangements in the same way as other graduates.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that disabled students will have full access to social security benefit? Will he re-examine the scheme to see whether he can provide disabled students with larger top-up loans and longer terms for repayment?

I certainly confirm that, as the White Paper makes clear, disabled students will continue to be able to claim social security benefits and disability allowance, where appropriate. When we set the level of grants that will operate from September 1990, the question will have to be resolved of what to do about the existing allowances in the grant for disabled students. The Government will certainly consider the position sympathetically.

Does the Minister recognise that additional costs for disabled students are very high and that the jobs that they will take up will not pay enough to allow them to repay loans? Therefore, instead of minor adjustments to student top-up loans, is not a complete reappraisal of the grants for disabled students required?

Support for disabled people in general is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that he has considered the matter sympathetically and that there have been considerable improvements in recent years. I do not believe, however, that there is a case for substantial additions beyond the deferment of the obligation to repay that we propose for disabled people who have had the benefit of higher education. One has to think in terms of a category of disablement which is taken care of, dealing in general with people who are disabled and then the concessions that will be available to disabled students in terms of access to social security and additional allowances.

I was slightly reassured by what my hon. Friend said about reconsidering grants to disabled students. In view of the representations that I and many hon. Members have received from deaf and blind students, we appreciate the excessive obstacles that they must overcome to take advantage of higher education in the same way as sighted and hearing students. Is there not a case for considering an entire reappraisal of the grant allocation to such students rather than the top-up loan scheme?

There are already allowances for disabled students in the grant. We shall consider their future in the context of the overall review of the grant that will have to be made before the new regulations come into operation in September 1990. We shall certainly be looking at that sympathetically.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since his recent statement on student top-up loans.

Since my statement on 19 June, I have received 63 representations.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that this policy is absolute folly and that it will reduce educational opportunities? Does he recognise, too, that it will go counter to the intention of the Secretary of State for Health to increase degree opportunities for nurses and that it will force more nurses out of higher education and back into traditional training, which will be worse for both the National Health Service and for nurses?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said on many occasions, we are the only developed country that does not have a system of top-up loans alongside grants. In all those other countries a higher proportion of the relevant age band goes into higher education. It has not acted as a disincentive in other countries, and I do not believe that it will here.

When my right hon. Friend responds to those representations, will he make a particular point of stressing that the top-up loan scheme will enable substantial additional numbers of students to go into higher education? Will he further make the point that there must be a limit to the amount of taxpayers' support available to students and that, therefore, we are finding a new form of funding? Will my right hon. Friend refer to the three access funds and, if it is at all possible, will he consider increasing them to more than the proposed £5 million each, totalling £15 million?

On the latter point, I note what my hon. Friend has said and I am sure that he appreciates that that will be a matter for discussion later in the year in the public expenditure survey round. I also note what my hon. Friend said about the level of access funds. On the other point that my hon. Friend made, I remind the House that the disentitlement to benefit next year for students will amount to about £65 million, but the extra resources available through top-up loans will amount to £167 million. That is a substantial increase and it means more money for more students.

Why was the Secretary of State economical with the truth when he answered questions on his statement of 17 June about the cost of top-up loans? Why did he talk about the start-up and administrative costs only and not include inflation, the cost to the Department of Education and Science and the ongoing running costs? Surely the reality is that with every additional student there will be additional costs far in excess of what he estimated. If the right hon. Gentleman does not come clean he will be shuffling off the coils of his office with the words of Sir Walter Scott ringing in his ears:

"O what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!"

The hon. Gentleman's contribution makes one thankful that the leadership of his party is in the hands that it is—and that is saying a great deal.

The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. I made my statement on 19 June, not on 17 June; that was the first fact that he got wrong. The costs of the scheme are set out clearly in the White Paper, under the heading "Costs and Savings". Inflation is allowed for and the costs that I gave to the House are contained in the Price Waterhouse report on the recurrent and running costs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to engage in a serious debate on the matter he must first educate himself in the facts.

I think I am right—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that higher education does not come free. Somebody must pay for it. As it is inappropriate that parents should be responsible for their adult children and also totally inappropriate that the vast majority of taxpayers, who do not enjoy and are unlikely to enjoy the benefits and privileges of higher education, should pay more than a certain amount for higher education, is it not right that those who are to receive the benefits and privileges of higher education should find some of the money for their own benefit and education?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. The White Paper said that in 1984 student support for living costs per year was about £700 a student in Britain, £70 in Germany and £30 in Japan. We have a generous system of support for students. We believe that it is reasonable for the costs of the living expenses of students to be borne by three parties: the state—the grants will continue—their parents, whom we assess for contributions, and the students themselves through what will be a generous top-up loan scheme.

Does the Minister recognise that there is concern in education circles about the scheme, which was notably expressed yesterday by the chancellor of the university of Ulster? Last week two leading academics said that they would welcome the interest-free loan for themselves because it was tax free, but were worried that poorer families would not wish to put themselves into debt.

Protections are built into the scheme, one of which is that the obligation to repay the top-up loan will not start for nine months until after a student has left university. There will be no obligation to repay until the salary of the graduate is at least 85 per cent. of the average national wage. At the moment there is almost no graduate unemployment and those graduates who are unemployed are so by choice. Most graduates have salaries a third to a half higher than the national average wage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many taxpayers who have not had the benefit of further education and, as a consequence, are unlikely to have the same salary expectations as graduates, would see the top-up loan as a useful personal investment for students? They would resent paying the entire bill, as at present, for further education.

That is a very fair point. The Opposition want more generous and higher grants, but they must come out of taxable income, which is paid by many people who, as my hon. Friend said, have never been or are never likely to go to university or polytechnic. It is also unlikely that their families will do so. It is reasonable to say that people who attend higher education institutions should make a substantial investment in their own future. The Economist estimates that that investment has a pay off of about 24 per cent. It is entirely reasonable that students should be expected to make some contribution on terms that are the most generous of any top-up loan scheme that I have seen in the western world. I believe that our scheme will be very popular.

The Secretary of State is deliberately confusing his Back-Bench Members—[Interruption.] Perhaps they are confused already. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the taxpayer will pay more for the new scheme than he currently pays for the student grant scheme, but the student will get less. It is another example of the shambles of the scheme.

If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident about the costings of the scheme, why does he not publish the Price Waterhouse report? Why does he not publish the detailed costings done by his Department, including debt collecting, set-up, depreciation, central Government and college costs? He knows that the costings in the White Paper are both selective and defective. Why does he not publish the costs of the indemnity which, according to last Saturday's Financial Times, is being demanded by the banks not only against a change of Government, but against a change of Government policy? What is the premium on that indemnity, or is the risk so great that no one will take it?

The risk of this Government changing and giving way to a Government who would be damaging to the country is not very substantial and would be an insurable risk.

The Price Waterhouse report was commissioned by the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers. I shall be having a word with the committee's chairman later. My preference is to publish the report and I hope to place copies of it in the Library later this week.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statistics in the White Paper which set out the costings of the scheme. He must realise that the scheme will be welcomed by many hundreds of thousands of students, such as the 120,000 students who currently do not receive any grant because they are means-tested out of it; the 160,000 students whose grants are reduced by the means test; and the 50,000 students who do not receive mandatory awards. All those people will benefit substantially from the top-up loan scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the minimum and maximum qualifications required to enable individuals to qualify for licensed teacher status; and if he will make a statement.

Candidates for licensed teacher status must have successfully completed at least two years full-time higher education or the part-time equivalent; have attained a standard in English and mathematics equivalent to GCSE grade C; and have reached the age of 26 before they take up their post as a licensed teacher.

How many teachers does my hon. Friend expect to recruit into the classrooms through the device of licensed teachers? Will he expand upon his answer and give the House and the country an assurance that those taken into the scheme will be thoroughly and satisfactorily qualified to teach at the level to which they are assigned?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The beauty of the licensed teachers scheme is that there will be two years of training which will be assessed and, if satisfactorily completed, will permit that teacher to go into the classroom on a qualified and professional basis. That contrasts with the current position of no requirement for formal training. Indeed, a number of teachers who do not have formal training are already in the classrooms, although that is not to suggest that they are not very good teachers. Our objective is to broaden the catchment without eroding professional standards in the classroom.

What will be the compulsory age for retirement for licensed teachers, and will it be the same for men as for women?

The retirement conditions that pertain for those who qualify through the traditional route will also pertain for those who come through the licensed teachers scheme. Our whole objective is that once licensed teachers are in the classroom, they should have equal opportunities, terms and conditions across the board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any representations concerning the pay of school secretaries and ancillary workers in schools; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend receives occasional letters on this subject.

Does the Minister agree that the current salary scale for school secretaries is lamentably low? Does he further agree that the role of school secretaries has changed enormously during the past few years, both in their administrative and in their financial responsibilities? A constituent of mine, Mrs. Jenny Mould, who lives in Thurnby Lodge, is a school secretary and has to perform no fewer than 53 separate functions every day. Will the Minister consider setting up a national review of the pay and conditions of school secretaries in the light of the great changes that have recently occurred?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of school secretaries. Head teachers and staff rely on them and the vast majority discharge their duties very well indeed. We have no plans to change the way in which their pay is negotiated. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done with the local authority associations and most local education authorities tend to go along with the pay and conditions so negotiated. As with many of those who supply education to our young people, their job is changing and that is why about £6 million of the £100 million training and equipment programme, which is part of local management for schools, will be for non-teaching staff, I hope that the secretaries will benefit from that.

As we move towards grant-maintained schools and more devolved management responsibility in schools, will not each school be able to make the necessary changes to its pay structure for ancillary staff to meet local circumstances and to match salaries to the job that is done?

My hon. Friend is right. We wish to push responsibility upstream to where it is most required—the chief executive, the head and the governing body. They can make decisions on salaries across a range of activities in the best interests and given the particular needs of their school. That is a major improvement and one of the major advantages of local management for schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to establish a new negotiating body for teachers' pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to restore negotiating rights to the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement.

I am inviting the employers and the teacher unions to further meetings this month to discuss new pay determination arrangements.

The Secretary of State will be aware that there is an acute shortage of Welsh language teachers. What advice will he be giving the Secretary of State for Wales on pay, status and the low morale within the profession?

I visited a Welsh-language school only a fortnight ago and there was no low morale there. I was impressed with the calibre of its teaching. All its teachers spoke Welsh and the language of instruction was Welsh. They did not tell me that there was any shortage of Welsh teachers in that part of Wales.

The Secretary of State will know that the Select Committee on Education, Arts and Science—not because it wants to but because it has to—is preparing a report on the growing shortage of teachers generally, not merely in the Welsh language. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the removal of the teaching profession's free negotiating rights contributed to the profession's low morale? Yet only now does he tell us that he will discuss it with the employers. Does he realise that the free trade unionism in a country such as Britain demands that negotiating rights be restored forthwith, which will in turn bring more teachers into the profession?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers, but I had a drink with him on the Terrace last night along with the new general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Doug McAvoy. I told Mr. McAvoy that this month we would meet him and other union leaders to try to find a new machinery. There has not been much agreement, but I shall be putting proposals, as no doubt will he, and I hope that a way forward can be found.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need a national negotiating body but rather regional pay, which will end the unfair treatment of many teachers in the south-east, particularly those who are beyond the reach of London weighting and the like? Should we not have regional pay and the regional funding to go with it?

My hon. Friend makes an important point which I shall discuss with the unions. Many local education authorities have already introduced incentives or inducements of one sort or another to help to recruit teachers, particularly in the south-east and in London. That recognises the regional and local differences in pay levels—which, as I said, is something that I shall discuss with the unions.

Given the enormous variations in demand and supply in the country and the move away from national pay negotiations throughout the economy, is there not a strong argument for saying that national wage negotiations are a failed anachronism which should be replaced by school-based bargaining, founded on local knowledge of the demand for, and availability of, teachers?

There is some advantage in having a national allowances structure—an important change which we secured in 1987—whereby there is a main professional grade and five allowances over it. I do not want any future machinery to endanger that arrangement, as it is seen as the way forward for the profession. As I said when replying to the previous question, the need for a new negotiating body is raised again and again, and I am clear that whatever may emerge, any machinery must have considerable flexibility to allow for variations as between local education authorities, and as between different parts of the country.

When the Secretary of State enters into negotiations on the new pay machinery, will he acknowledge that taking away from teachers the right to bargain had a greater impact on their morale than any other decision made by the Government and led to its collapse? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to drag out those negotiations, and will he confirm that next year's pay settlement will come not from the interim advisory committee but will be settled across the negotiating table, between the employers and the teachers' representatives?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall discuss all those matters with the unions and the employers in the next two or three weeks. I reject completely any suggestion that the teaching profession is suffering from low morale, on the evidence that each year 25,000 people enter the profession.

But how many leave it?

About the same number. If 25,000 people annually believe that teaching is an interesting and valuable profession, morale within it cannot be low. Since March 1986, teachers have enjoyed a 40 per cent. increase in pay, which is a major adjustment upwards. Many head teachers, for example, received a £2,000 per annum increase this year. That implies that the profession is better rewarded under this Government than it ever was under Labour.

When considering whether there should be regional negotiations, perhaps my right hon. Friend will take on board the remarks of the Nalgo official who has just negotiated a deal for his members with Northumbrian Water which he says is amicable, excellent and bodes well for the future?

That is very interesting, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the trade union leaders whom I meet during the next few weeks. I am sure that the way forward for teachers' pay is a large number of incentive allowances to reward good teaching in the classroom and those teachers who give of their best—which is the great proportion of them—coupled with the flexibility that not only my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) but other of my hon. Friends want to see.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the Inner London education authority about teacher shortages.

My right hon. Friend met a delegation from the ILEA, led by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), on 13 June. I held a meeting with leaders of the inner London councils on 19 June. On both occasions, practical solutions to the shortages of teachers in London were discussed.

Does the Minister realise that qualified teachers are leaving the profession in droves; that former colleagues who are devoted teachers repeatedly tell me that they feel that they are used as scapegoats and are under intolerable pressures; that in Tower Hamlets, where my constituency is located, 30 per cent. of the teaching staff —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—have handed in their resignations; that there are at least 300 children without school places that we know of, and many more that we do not know of; that the birth rate is increasing by 20 per cent.; that there are about 1,000 children who will not have school teachers when the next term comes; and that parents who are lucky enough to know that their children will have teachers are receiving letters from headteachers saying that they cannot guarantee—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Lady make it brief, please?

I shall make it as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker.

Their teachers say that they cannot guarantee to operate the national curriculum, and are telling parents that there are a series of unacceptable measures such as sending children home on a rota basis.

Order. I think that that is enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I think that the hon. Lady should do so, in fairness to others.

I know that the hon. Lady feels very strongly about these matters. I should tell her that the interim advisory committee, which studied teacher recruitment most recently, came up with exactly the same figures as it produced last year, and the evidence suggests that only 1 per cent. of the total teaching force leaves the profession.

When we discussed the matter with both ILEA and individual leaders of the inner London authorities that are taking over responsibility, we talked about methods of recruitment and retention. I remind the hon. Lady that recruiting teachers is a long-term planning matter, and I therefore rather regret that ILEA did not take it up earlier.

Has my hon. Friend suggested to teachers—and, indeed, parents—that life will be much better under the new education authorities, especially when they are Conservative controlled?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the new education authorities, which are working hard in planning both for teacher recruitment and for the delivery of education to children in their boroughs, will provide much better education, especially in the Conservative-controlled boroughs.

Is the Minister aware that last Thursday, when I asked the Secretary of State how many teachers had submitted their resignations by 31 May 1989, the right hon. Gentleman replied in a written answer that the information was not available, and that the latest data on teacher resignations related to the year ending March 1987? How can the Secretary of State and the Minister dare to evade blame for the major and growing teacher crisis in inner London and elsewhere when, on the Secretary of State's admission, the information that he and the Minister have obtained on resignations is more than two years old?

The information to which we referred was collected by ILEA. It is wrong to say that responsibility for the planning and recruitment of teacher numbers lies with the Government; the local education authorities are the managers of the education service within their areas, and they know perfectly well that it takes at least a term to plan recruitment. ILEA, along with every other local authority, should have looked at the problem much earlier.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the financial support available to local education authorities through the local education authority training grants scheme.

I announced our plans on 16 May, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). We propose to increase the expenditure which attracts the higher rate of grant by £36 million, or 43 per cent., and to reduce the expediture which attracts the lower rate of grant by £35 million, or 27 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that the total expenditure of the LEA training grant scheme between this year and next will be increased by only 1·4 per cent? That is a substantial cut in real terms. On top of that, the grant to LEAs for training schemes will be cut from 70 to 65 per cent., at a time when LEAs and teachers are being asked to do more and more training because of the national curriculum, local management systems and various schemes introduced by the Government. How will it help to expect them to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources, and how will that help teachers' morale?

The training grant scheme needs to be looked at together with the other main specific grant programme—education support grants. Many of the ESG programmes also support training, and in 1990–91 training grants and education support grants will together support the largest ever specific education grant programme, costing £355 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we had a review of all aspects of training and training grants? Does she agree that it is strange that we should have four great Departments of state all involved with training, when we should really have one Department for training, which should be called the Department of Education and Training?

I note my hon. Friend's views on the way in which departmental responsibilities for training should be organised. Bearing in mind the great sum that is spent on teacher training, it is vital that the money is well directed. It is a simple-minded illusion to suggest that more input means greater vaue. What really matters is the way in which the money is spent. We must ensure that training, including in-service training, is prepared and managed in such a way that it achieves the best possible results for teachers.

Does the Minister recognise that the question is about specific grants to local authorities for the training of teachers in service? Is he aware that at a time when local authorities are being asked to expand training for teachers—in view of the national curriculum, the new local financial management and other initiatives being taken by the Government for training teachers—rather than reducing expenditure in real terms, as is happening, and at the same time reducing the amount of money available to local authorities by way of direct support for other national priority areas, the Government should be massively increasing spending on teacher training, irrespective of Government spending in other areas?

The hon. Gentleman sadly misunderstands the situation. There has been a huge increase in the amount of money for in-service training. It is vital for local authorities to study the way in which that money is managed to ensure that the best possible value is given to the teachers who receive the training. If that is not done, there will be no point in adding further resources in this sphere, for the management of the money governs the way in which the teachers benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the increase in the number of students enrolled in universities and polytechnics since 1979.

Compared with 1979, provisional figures for 1988 show an increase of around 130,000 higher education students at universities in Great Britain and at English and Welsh polytechnics. The increase is over 200,000 across all higher education in Great Britain.

I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Does he agree that they contrast favourably with the situation when Labour was last in power? [Interruption.] Will he confirm that despite all the fine words we hear about the devotion of Labour Members to higher education, when they were in power between 1974 and 1979 the number of students in higher education fell?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are moving towards having 1 million students. Not only are the absolute numbers increasing—which could be explicable because of demographic change—but participation rates have increased. I refer to participation rates of students overall—of mature students, part-time students, women students—of every category of students one cares to name.

If, as the Minister says, participation rates have increased, may I ask him to give the participation rate in 1979, and the present rate, of those who are qualified to participate? Is he aware that the tragedy behind the figures that he has given is that the number of working-class youngsters going into higher education has not increased and that the real problem is that not enough working-class youngsters stay on after 16 years of age? What are the Government doing to encourage them to stay on? Is the Minister aware that the loan scheme will discourage working-class youngsters from staying on beyond 16?

Although there has been a slight increase in the participation rates from social classes 4 and 5 since 1979, the overall performance is extremely disappointing, in spite of 30 years of the most generous grants system in the world. That is one reason that leads the Government to believe that there is a case for the introduction of student loans.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State and the authorities the ever-popular view that every polytechnic must become a university? It is very much better to be a leading polytechnic, such as Rolle college and other colleges of that nature, than to be one of the lesser universities. Encouragement should be given to maximising the benefits of polytechnic education which can relieve the pressure on universities.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government and Parliament took the view in the Education Reform Act 1988 that there is a distinctive mission for the polytechnics, of which they are entitled to be very proud.

Can the Minister confirm that almost all the expansion to which he refers occurred in local authority polytechnics and colleges before the public expenditure cuts began to bite and before he became a Minister? If his Government's record is so good, why were there 5,000 fewer first degree students in universities in 1987 than there were in 1981, and why has the proportion of admissions from private schools over the last five years gone up while the proportion of admissions from comprehensives has gone down? Does he accept that the Government's shambles of a loans scheme makes these inequalities very much worse?

I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the polytechnics for the excellent work that they have done in expanding the number of their students. The Government do not determine how many students enter the universities. I have often referred to the fact that the unit cost of students at universities has increased since 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what weight he gives to the educational needs of children of those serving in the armed forces in making detailed arrangements for the national curriculum.

My right hon. Friend affords equal treatment to the educational needs of children who attend maintained schools, whatever the occupation of their parents.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Is she aware that about 30,000 children attend schools that are run by the Service Children education authority? Will she do her very best to ensure that they do not suffer from having access to fewer facilities and opportunities than are available to children in this country? Will she look in particular at the very difficult question of work experience and at the potential for learning foreign languages that is made available to those many children who live abroad, particularly in West Germany?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He will be interested to know that I had a discussion last week with some people from schools in Germany. I was able to reassure them that the national curriculum will go a long way towards ensuring continuity of education for those children. We also discussed the teaching of foreign languages, especially German to children who are living in Germany, and work experience. All those matters are being examined.

What does the hon. Lady mean by "continuity" in that context?

Continuity means studying according to the national curriculum, whether in a maintained school in this country or in a school that is maintained in Germany or in another foreign country by the British forces. It will ensure that children who live abroad study roughly the same curriculum as is studied by children in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers in the primary school sector have resigned in the last 12 months.

The latest available data are for the year ending March 1987, when 12,730 teachers left full-time service in the maintained nursery and primary sector in England. Of these, 1,320 transferred to full-time service elsewhere in the maintained sector in England and Wales and 1,300 to part-time service in the maintained sector. A further 4,300 retired and 200 died.

Even allowing for the fact that those figures are two years out of date, do they not suggest that there is a crisis in the primary school sector and that, even according to the Minister's own figures, 15,000 teachers a year will be leaving the profession by 1995? What does he intend to do about preventing primary school teachers from leaving their profession in droves?

The hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. A substantial proportion of those who leave the profession do so for maternity or retirement reasons. That is evidence of a remarkably stable teaching force. As the interim advisory committee has reported, those who leave teaching to go into other professions represent about 1 per cent. of the teaching force. That cannot be described in any way in the terms that the hon. Gentleman used.

Will my hon. Friend commend to other local authorities the excellent scheme run by West Sussex county council to stay in touch with teachers who have left the profession, so that when they have finished whatever duties they may have had away from teaching they can be brought back in at an early stage?

That is an excellent scheme. Through appropriate and imaginative measures, a large number of teachers can he persuaded to re-enter the profession. Their expertise will be greatly welcomed. I am sure that other local authorities are observing that experiment with great interest.

The Minister's answer confirms that the Government simply do not know what is going on in primary schools. Our evidence from local education authorities throughout the country is that the number of resignations this year is unprecedented. Britain has some of the best primary teaching in the world but the Government's policies are undermining it. What are the Government going to do to support and encourage primary teachers?

One of the great strengths of the British system is the primary sector. Having visited Germany recently I am confirmed in that belief and I pay tribute to our primary school teachers. The Opposition's assertions have more to do with propaganda than with fact. In the primary sector we have a stable work force and the teaching force is behaving professionally. The facts on recruitment into teacher training colleges and loss to other professions confirm that we have a well-motivated and stable primary work force.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the divided families campaign which is concerned with the plight of a very large number of immigrant families who for nearly two decades now have been refused permission for their spouses and families to join them in Britain? Now, through the new DNA fingerprint tests, they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that those people are their families, yet they are still being refused permission to join their families in Britain. Should not something be done by the right hon. Lady to right that injustice, or will she have a nasty taste in her mouth every time she speaks of her concern for family life in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that immigration into this country, including some of those people who have been waiting for a considerable time, is of the order of 40,000 to 50,000 a year. That is as many as we can possibly cope with.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend send a message of sympathy to the hard-pressed rail and tube travellers who will undergo yet another strike tomorrow? Will she join me in condemning the union leadership that has inflicted this inconvenience on the public? Does she agree that as in previous public sector disputes, the total and complete silence of the Leader of the Opposition makes him the strikers' friend?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The unions have given no thought to the general public. My hon. Friend is aware that the Government are taking practical steps to help the public get to work tomorrow. Of course the dispute is for the management and unions to resolve, but I believe that three points should be absolutely clear. First, the National Union of Railwaymen and not British Rail has broken the 1956 agreement by refusing to use the established negotiating machinery to settle the question of basic pay. I note that at least one other union has honoured that agreement. Secondly, the British Railways board has offered to meet the NUR at any time and any place to resolve the other outstanding issue—the negotiating machinery. Thirdly, despite the NUR's advertising, the small print makes it absolutely clear that it will not negotiate without pre-conditions.

Will the Prime Minister constructively and immediately assist in efforts to resolve the rail dispute—first, by strongly encouraging both sides to go hack to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to discuss all the matters in dispute and, secondly, by stopping those of her interventions that are intended, for obvious partisan reasons, to inflame conflict?

I note that the right hon. Gentleman has no thought whatsoever for the travelling public. [Interruption.] Had he listened to my previous reply, he might have found most of the answers to his question. This is a dispute for the management of British Rail and the unions to resolve. With regard to pay, there is a 1956 agreement under which, before industrial action is taken, there should be recourse to the railway staff national tribunal. The NUR has broken that agreement on pay. That tribunal will sit tomorrow and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association is going to it. With regard to negotiating machinery, British Rail has offered to meet the NUR at any time and any place, including ACAS, to try to resolve the other outstanding issues. The NUR is setting pre-conditions to meeting British Rail, which is totally contrary to the 1956 agreement. It should go to ACAS without pre-conditions.

If the Prime Minister really wants to help rail users, will she come back to the real world of the present and deal with the issue in hand? It must be clear, even to the Prime Minister, that this dispute can be urgently resolved if both parties go to ACAS to discuss all the issues. I urge both parties to do just that. Will she urge them to do that, in the national interest?

The National Union of Railwaymen—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a 1956 agreement—[Interruption.] Yes. Clearly, Labour does not believe in keeping its agreements. There is a 1956 agreement under which, before there is any—[Interruption.]

Order. We must be able to hear the Prime Minister.

Before there is any industrial dispute, there is a 1956 agreement under which pay should be resolved by using the established negotiating machinery to settle the question of basic pay. The National Union of Railwaymen has broken that agreement. Another union has accepted it and is going to the tribunal to use its services. British Rail has said that it will meet the NUR at any time and any place to try to resolve the outstanding issues on negotiating machinery, but not with preconditions such as that which the NUR has set.

If the Prime Minister will not act responsibly and do her duty as she should—[Interruption.]—will she at least stop being irresponsible and accept the common-sense argument put by The Daily Telegraph this morning that to "outlaw strikes" in public services

"would be an indefensible attack on the employee's liberty to withhold … labour and would be 'unBritish' and could have no place in a polity founded upon freedom"?

Or does the Prime Minister think that the civil right of free trade unionism should stop the other side of the Polish border?

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have a flash of responsibility for once, and condemn the strike? Why does he not ask the National Union of Railwaymen to go to arbitration, which is where they should go and to settle their claim that way, and support the travelling public for once?

To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit Yorkshire and Humberside.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend soon be able to visit the Yorkshire and Humberside region? She will see that the gross domestic product has doubled since 1979 and that 17,500 more companies have been established there since 1983. All of that was enhanced by the tremendous success of the urban development corporations of Leeds and Sheffield, which are presently celebrating their first anniversary. Does that not give the lie to the so-called north-south divide?

Yes. The creation of jobs, enterprise and a higher standard of living are spreading throughout the country because of the policies that we have pursued. As my hon. Friend knows, I was in Leeds last December, visiting Asda and seeing for myself the tremendous prosperity that exists there and also seeing that the many successful companies are not only creating jobs and raising the standard of living but have a very great community spirit. They presented a large cheque for about £650,000 to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Altogether an excellent record.

Yorkshire and Humberside are doing very well on the commercial front—we are all very proud of them—aided by Labour-controlled local authorities. However, manufacturing is in decline, and it has declined mainly since the right hon. Lady's Government came to office. Will she do anything about manufacturing, or is she concerned only about commerce?

The north is doing very well indeed because of the economic policies of this Government and because the people have the wit to take up opportunities and do well for themselves by their own efforts, because the enterprise and tax systems urge and encourage them to do so. That is the record of this Government, and may it long continue. The right hon. Gentleman will know that investment in manufacturing is at an all-time record, which augurs very well for the future.

Does my right hon. Friend remember the winter of 1978–79, when people were stranded on railway stations, could not bury their dead, and their children could not have a schools—

Order. The question should be about Yorkshire and Humberside.

In Yorkshire and in Humberside. Does she recall what the people did after the so-called strikers' friends did nothing about that? They voted in a Conservative Government.

Yes, I recall that the then Government were practically run by the unions. The people voted out the Labour Government, reversed the decline, and we have had unrivalled prosperity ever since.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In view of the Prime Minister's well-publicised role as a leader of the campaign against the dangers of the greenhouse effect, why do her Government not accept the amendment to the Electricity Bill, which was carried with all-party support in the other place? It would require electricity suppliers to prove that they are conducting energy efficient activities. Which is most important to the Prime Minister, making the electricity industry attractive to investors, or ensuring that it is genuinely energy efficient?

There is, of course, a duty of energy efficiency. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the figures he would know that we are now producing about 25 per cent. more goods than we were producing in 1973, but in 1973 we were using up more energy than we are now. That has been the very great achievement of energy efficiency. Naturally, people will go on trying to get better and better value for money.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

I welcome the recently announced 6 per cent. decrease in the crime figures, unprecedented in the past 25 years, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in making progress in this important matter, it is extremely important to ensure that parents are held more responsible for the actions of their children?

Yes, Sir. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the recent figures showing a reduction in recorded crime, although, like him, we are still very concerned about the amount of violent crime. I agree that, if parents do not teach children right and wrong and to abide by the law, no other substitute organisation can do so. It is best that children should know those things before they go to school so that teachers can reinforce what they have learnt at home.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Following her recent conversations on the subject, what prospect does the Prime Minister hold out for the early release of Nelson Mandela and the commutation of the mass death sentence on 14 people from the town of Upington in South Africa?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have constantly raised the question of the release of Nelson Mandela. I do not believe that any negotiations about the future of South Africa could start between all the peoples who make up that country until his release and the release of two other people there with him are brought about. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that will come about. I believe that there is a change in South Africa, and that the most important thing is to get the Namibian agreement well under way. I hope that after the next election there will be a movement towards genuine negotiations on the part of all peoples in South Africa, but they would have to be preceded by the release of Mr. Mandela.

With the leave of the House, I shall put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, at end, add

'with particular reference to any directions concerning the condition of each classification of controlled waters, including the quality of water.'

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 156.

This is the last parliamentary debate on the Government's water suicide Bill. Even before its implementation and the creation of 10 private monopolies, the Bill is unpopular.

The Government's proposals for water privatisation are unpopular before compulsory metering or a flat rate water poll tax have been introduced. They are unpopular even before the spectacle of a flotation fiasco doomed to partial or total failure despite the hidden write-off of £5·5 billion debt. They are unpopular even before the massive water price increases and the health-threatening increase in disconnections, which will be an inevitable consequence of a doctrinaire obsession with privatisation for its own sake.

The final arrogance of the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment was revealed in the Lobby last night when they voted to destroy any pretence they had to being concerned about cleaning up our water environment. Never mind the polls that have revealed the general public's and the informed public's opinion of water privatisation and their opposition to it. Never mind the by-election and Euro-election results. The Government have dealt with the green vote—an expression of concern about the environment—by ridiculing the Green party and its policies. The Government are making a great mistake by pushing the Bill through and by disregarding public opinion and our water environment.

The creation of 10 private water monopolies will never be acceptable to the British people. Last night, the Government rejected implementing European Community standards of drinking water by 1993. Proper public consultation on land disposal was also rejected by the Government. In Committee and elsewhere they have rejected proposals for land to pass to the National Rivers Authority. They have also rejected our proposals for guarantees of access to the land owned by the water authorities.

The Government have agreed to the disposal of land, especially that of natural beauty and in sensitive areas. They have put a moratorium on sewage discharge prose—cutions and they have rejected proposals for the adequate sampling and controlling of river quality. They have rejected our opposition to sub-contracting and the contracting out of NRA functions. The gamekeeper-poacher relationship will therefore remain. They have also rejected our proposals for information on pollution and the integrated water cycle to be made available. They have also rejected amendments that we have tabled for access to other information.

It is outrageous for the Government to pretend that the Bill is an environmental step forward. They do so in total disregard of the facts. To justify that claim, they hold up the creation of the NRA. Today let us test how sincere the Government are in wanting the NRA to be able to do an effective and worthwhile job and in wanting to give it the staff, resources and powers necessary to do so. Once again, the Bill, the Government—and, I am afraid, the National Rivers Authority—will be found wanting. If the Government are serious about the NRA, they will accept amendment (a), which would strengthen its reporting duties.

Lords amendment No. 155 requires the NRA's annual report, which is an obligation under clause 146, to contain details of directions given to the NRA by the Secretary of State under clause 142. The position needs clarifying because of the somewhat clouded statement in the Bill that the Secretary of State will make directions. The amendments highlight the need for an open and accountable NRA with sufficient resources to carry out its work and a clear statutory framework in which to ensure the reduction of pollution and the improvement of the environment. The Government gave only limited ground on the accountability of the NRA during discussions on the Bill in another place. They gave more ground, we admit, on the NRA's advisory committees, but they do not have any power. What will the environmental programme consist of during the next five to 10 years? How will it prevent a go-slow in the improvement of sewage treatment works and other pollutants?

The Government have given no ground on securing a broad representation of interests to serve on the NRA, or on making its proceedings publicly accountable. It is clear that the NRA advisory committee, headed by Lord Crickhowell, is not entirely happy with the Government's proposals for the NRA, especially on staffing and on the amendment, slipped into the Bill during its last stage in another place, relating to a moratorium on prosecutions for pollution from sewage. Indeed, Lord Crickhowell has made it clear that the proposed staffing and resources will be inadequate for the NRA's functions.

It was interesting to note two advertisements in the same edition of the New Scientist on 24 June 1989. The first said:

"Influence the Environment; Enjoy the Rewards. Tales of the River Bank. National Rivers Authority. Pollution Officers £9,500 rising to £13,000."

On the next page another advertisement stated:

"Scientists/Engineers. Senior Investigations Scientist/ Engineer. Thames Water. £16,000 to £18,000, plus car allowance."

Someone can earn £9,500 rising to £13,000 as a controller of pollution, but £16,000 to £18,000 as an avoider of the controllers of pollution. The NRA is allowed only to offer that salary scale, so it will not recruit staff of the quality and scientific experience needed. The water companies are offering a great deal more money and many more perks.

Why was the NRA established? The Government wanted a successful flotation and they needed to take away as many of the non-profit-making functions of the water authorities as possible, despite destroying the concept of river management. They are giving those functions, through an act of nationalisation—which it is—to the National Rivers Authority. Water resource planning and licensing of abstraction, monitoring of licences, environmental quality and pollution control, land drainage and flood protection, the maintenance, improvement and development of fisheries in inland waters, conservation and recreation and the navigation responsibilities of three water authorities are all to be given to the NRA so that, on privatisation, people will not be deterred from buying into the water companies.

Having given all those environmental functions to the NRA, with its inadequate resources and staffing, there remains a list of environmental problems for which anyone buying into the privatised water companies will be responsible, and that will be the Government's downfall. Such people will be buying responsibility for the breakdown of the sewage storm overflows, recently reported in the press, which is polluting our rivers and water courses, and for the 20 per cent. of sewage works which have failed consent levels.

Those people will be buying responsibility for the 300 beaches that the Government have designated as bathing beaches. The royal commission on environmental pollution identified 600 beaches in Britain as bathing beaches, but 33 per cent. of the 300 beaches, let alone the 600, breached EEC standards. They are buying responsibility for declining river quality. In the 1980s, river quality has declined alarmingly, and after 10 years of a Tory Government, it has worsened. The 1985 river quality survey showed a net deterioration of 803 km, or 2·5 per cent. of total river length in England and Wales. That decline has continued with the net deterioriation of 514 km in 1985. The people buying the private water companies will be buying responsibility for cleaning up our rivers.

4 pm

The Government herald the Mersey clean-up as the great feather in their environmentalist cap. During questions on the environment, Conservative Back Benchers plant questions about how much the Rhine pollutes the North sea, because it pollutes it more than the Thames does. But such questions ignore the fact that the River Mersey pollutes the Irish sea, one of the most polluted seas in the world, with sewage sludge dumping and the rest, for which the Government are directly responsible.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is not a planted intervention, and that I am simply trying to follow what he says. If, over the past 10 years under the existing structure, the Government have failed in their responsibility to ensure the environmental purity and supply of water in the way that he has described, may there not be a case for changing the system?

I suggest a change in the Government. We have had 10 years of Tory Government and 10 years of neglect and pollution, and now their answer to the problem is doctrinaire privatisation, to which the majority of the British public are opposed. It would be good to have a change in Government, in attitude and in the financial regime under which public sector water authorities function, leading to their democratisation.

The hon. Gentleman is not helping his own case. During the early stages of the Bill, I voted against the Government on the powers of the NRA. Cannot the hon. Gentleman comprehend that his doctrinaire comments do not add to an intelligent discussion of some of the important points at issue?

The hon. Gentleman started this by his provocative intervention, which needed a provocative answer. We require a Government who are not committed to privatising our water industry for doctrinaire reasons, but who are committed to the public expenditure and borrowing necessary to put our water environment in order. That is a reasonable point to make in a political chamber of this nature.

I was describing the responsibilities that the people to whom the Government are trying to sell the water industry will be buying, and I was talking about the so-called Mersey clean-up.

A new definition of river quality is needed, for we must be able not only to measure dissolved oxygen as an indicator of sewage pollution, but to use other techniques agreed throughout Europe and in this country to measure chemical pollution. That would alter the whole picture in terms of what is considered to be a clean or dirty river.

The proposal to take raw sewage from the Mersey and pipe it to Sanden dock in my constituency, and there turn it into sewage sludge after only primary treatment, before dumping it back whence it came, in the Irish sea, in the form of polluted, poisonous sludge, leaves much to be desired—especially in the light of claims that the Mersey will be cleaned up, when in fact it is full of heavy metals, printed circuit boards and many other pollutants.

Sewage sludge dumping is a major environmental problem and one that the North sea convention, to which the Secretary of State for the Environment is a signatory, intends to end, yet the people buying into privatised water will be buying the dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea. If the Government force the implementation of the North sea convention, as they should, shareholders will also be buying the responsibility for finding alternative ways of disposing of sewage sludge, other than by dumping it in the Irish sea and the North sea.

Responsibility for doing something about the water industry's aging infrastructure will also be purchased by those buying into water authorities. There is massive underground dereliction. Of the 150,000 miles of sewers, 10 per cent. are more than 100 years old. In 1986, there were 3,500 collapses and 15,000 blockages requiring excavation. In addition, 20 to 30 per cent. of the water leaving reservoirs is, to use the industry's euphemism, unaccounted for. In other words, it leaks out of an aging system. All those problems will be the responsibility of the private sector.

The Government try to convince the House and the public that the private sector—and the free market, with its profit motive—will deal with all the problems that exist, and that the National Rivers Authority will ensure that they will be dealt with. If the Government are serious about caring for our water environment they will leave the NRA to determine its own pay and staffing levels, which it is not free to do under the current proposals. We should explore the N RA's scope to undertake capital works and the right to borrow both in providing flood defences and making environmental improvements—a power which the Government constantly rejected in Committee.

The Government argue fallaciously that the Bill is an environmental measure because it will release the water industry from the controls of the public sector borrowing requirement, and that the private sector will be able to borrow all the money that it needs to deal with the problems I have outlined. That is nonsense. How can there be any return on money borrowed in the private sector to undertake environmental improvements on which there will be no profit?

The truth is that, as the Government admitted, privatisation will cost the consumer. Nothing will come from the Exchequer, and there will be no cushion for the poor, who will face massive increases in water charges. The Government could at a stroke release water authorities from PSBR restrictions that have been imposed for many years, to allow them to borrow the same money from the same source as under privatisation, to be spent on the same environmental projects. It is economic nonsense to say that it is wrong for the public sector to do that, but right for the private sector.

It may be argued that no public sector operation would be allowed by any Treasury to breach the public sector borrowing requirement. Why, then, does BNFL suffer from no such restrictions? It is set up in such a way that it does not have to suffer from them, despite being in the public sector; so the Government must not tell us that the same cannot apply to the water industry.

On Second Reading in the other place Lord Crickhowell, whom the Government have just appointed so-called independent chairman of the National Rivers Authority and who used to be a Tory Cabinet Minister, said that he hoped that the Government would, in the financial arrangements made with the National Rivers Authority outside the terms of the Bill, allow the maximum freedom in management terms. There is no likelihood of that happening.

Various Government statements about the likely contents of the financial memorandum between the Government and the NRA fell somewhat short of the advisory committee's demands, although one concession was made: the control by the Secretary of State and the Treasury over staffing numbers was removed, although detailed control remains over the terms and conditions of staff, once appointed. That is ludicrous. Overall control of the budget has clearly been ceded to the NRA, leaving central Government with a right of veto over comparatively detailed matters only. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 190 would have given the NRA some opportunity to take the initiative in setting out a likely management structure for its staff, once appointed, with the overall package rather than the individual elements then being effectively subject to the decision of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.

In regard to borrowing, it quickly became clear in the other place that the Government's real view of the NRA was very different from that which it is trying to portray in public debates. The NRA will have, in the Government's view, only a very limited need for capital resources: that is what they said. Such capital spending as it undertakes will generally be financed from its income through fees and charges. The water undertakers, private landowners and industrial concerns, rather than the NRA, will carry the main responsibility for reducing pollution and cleaning up the country's waterways. Some hope. The myth of the release from the public sector borrowing requirement is clearly illustrated here: all the essential environmental functions of the NRA remain in the public sector, and have not been released from PSBR control.

The NRA will be placed essentially in a monitoring and sampling role, providing evidence of breaches of discharge consents for the purposes of prosecutions. It will not have much joy under the present Government, because they will not allow the prosecutions. It will also issue licences relating to levels of consents. Breaches of those will be allowed in any event. Apart from flood defence, in which respect the NRA will inherit a substantial responsibility to be exercised with the input of the regional flood defence committees—with the majority of local authority members—the direct impact of the N RA's capital works for environmental improvement will be very small.

Several questions remain to be answered by the Government. To what degree can the NRA be considered an environmental agency, when it can do so little itself? The Government say that the existing position, whereby the water authorities police themselves for pollution, is wrong, and then go on to say that the Bill will separate the poacher from the gamekeeper. They neglect to emphasise that the NRA can—the Government admit that it will, and that they will encourage it to do so—contract back many of its functions, including regulatory functions, to the private water companies. Thus gamekeeper and poacher will again be one and the same—this time in the private sector, where profit is the motive rather than the environment and the provision of service to the consumer.

How will the Government guarantee, contrary to all the evidence of recent years, that the private sector will clean up its act? The private sector, the profit motive, has created pollution. It has never willingly cleaned it up, not without Government intervention and strong regulation. The National Rivers Authority will not have the staff, resources or powers to perform that task.

4.15 pm

Writing in The Guardian last week, Michael Carney of the Water Authorities Association said, in effect, that money spent on improving the quality of drinking water diverted money away from the improvement of the environment. What does the Secretary of State consider the environmental programme to consist of over the next five to 10 years? How can it help the environment to go slow on improving sewage treatment works and other pollutants which affect the quality of drinking water as well as river water?

It is interesting to note the way in which the Water Authorities Association comes to the aid of the Government. That organisation is quoted in support of privatisation and in support of the Government's decision not to accept the Lords amendments. We have statements signed by the chair of the association. Such statements are issued as though they were independent and non-political.

We are talking of 10 water authorities, the 10 chairs of which are appointed by a Tory Secretary of State for the Environment. Indeed, some of them are card-carrying members of the Conservative party and all of them are likely to receive a fourfold increase in salaries when their authorities are privatised. It is hardly surprising that this so-called independent source is in favour of the Government's proposals. It represents about the only set of people—apart from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—who are in favour of them.

What claim can the National Rivers Authority have to be a vigorous environmental agency, when its meetings are closed to the public and its members consist of appointees of the Secretary of State, of the same ilk as the 10 chairs of the existing water authorities?

We have just witnessed the appointment of Julian Taylor and Wyndham Rogers Coltman to the National Rivers Authority. I accept that Mr. Taylor is famous—famous as the former chairman of the Manchester Ship Canal Company which, it may be recalled, began to initiate the import of waste from America, to be dumped on Manchester Ship Canal Company land and disposed of as a profit-making venture. The ship canal company is not famous for its record in cleaning up pollution. It is famous for contributing significantly to the pollution of the Mersey and the Irish sea. Those are the sort of political appointments that the Government have been making to the National Rivers Authority.

There was considerable disquiet in the National Rivers Authority about the implications of the transitional measure introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, whereby samples of river water taken by the transfer date were inapplicable to prosecutions mounted after that date. The Government thereby announced, in effect, a one-year moratorium for water undertakers and their sewage treatment works, since non-compliance over a year in 95 per cent. of cases must be demonstrated in relation to each parameter before a case can be founded. It has been obvious to public observers that the Government have cut the ground from under the feet of the National Rivers Authority at the beginning of its activities.

It will be recalled that Opposition Members argued at the outset of the Committee stage, and again in the other place, that the authority should be established for a year to enable it to commence its work, before the handover to the private sector took place. The Government attacked that proposal, describing it as a delaying measure. The wisdom of our proposal is now clear to see.

If the Government will not concede that dirty water remains dirty irrespective of the transfer date, they should at least concede that giving the National Rivers Authority a year in which to establish itself—before facing it with privatised organisations which have the prime motivation of circumventing its findings and making a profit—would be the better course.

The truth is that the Government do not want to allow the National Rivers Authority to establish itself as a real policing and monitoring power in the land, for that would be another deterrent to those whom the Government hope might wish to buy into the privatised water industry.

We need a body similar to the National Rivers Authority that is provided with the resources, staff and powers to deal not just with the water environment but with the environment generally—air, land and water. They are all related. A strong environmental protection agency must be established in this country. That is Labour party policy. That agency will be established by the next Labour Government and the National Rivers Authority will be part of it.

Strong regional environmental protection agencies are also needed to look after the water environment as well as the environment generally, and strong staffing at regional level must be provided. Social ownership of the water industry is needed, controlled and run by elected tiers of regional government. Employees and consumers must play a part in its management. That smacks of democracy and causes the Secretary of State for the Environment to groan.

The British public do not want privatised water companies. They are not expected to be successful. The British public fear the worst. All the evidence is that their fears are well founded. The National Rivers Authority will be inadequate, because it is to be provided with inadequate powers, inadequate resources and insufficient staff. The success of the privatisation of the water industry depends upon there being an inadequate National Rivers Authority. Nobody in his right mind would buy shares in a privatised water industry if he knew that he would have to take on responsibility for cleaning up our water. All he wants to do is make a profit out of his investment.

One might have supposed that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, would be seeking support from other quarters of the House, apart from his own party, but he has made a pretty poor fist of it.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman should take a leson from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who recognises from time to time that if he wants to draw support from beyond the ranks of his own party there are ways of going about it.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene before I have even started.

I rise just to make the point that so far support for our policies by Conservative Members has not changed the Bill one little bit.

With respect, this is a parliamentary democracy. If it were the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to change the electoral system, that might be an opportunity for a different debate on a different day—[Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) waving his arms around. I propose to make a short speech, but the hon. Member for Bootle and his hon. Friends are doing their utmost to prevent some of us from trying to support these amendments.

I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, during this brief debate, he can reassure me that I should go into the Lobby with him later this evening. Having been a Member of Parliament for a few years and having seen the state into which the Labour party managed to drag our economy, I have very little confidence that all the grandiose plans that the hon. Member for Bootle described a few moments ago will ever come to fruition. The three initials that live in the memory from the years of Labour Government are not NRA but IMF. Before contemplating the future of the water industry or any other industry, we should contemplate the way in which any Government can influence the economic progress of the country.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that there is a conflict between the environmental disciplines placed in the hands of the National Rivers Authority and the effect that those disciplines may have on the sale price of the water companies. I hope that he can convince me that the Government have got the balance right. I certainly look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say.

I was happy to vote for the Bill on Second Reading because I believe that the National Rivers Authority represents an important step forward, as I said in my first intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle. The separation of functions is important. It is only a pity that the hon. Gentleman was so churlish as not to be prepared to recognise the advantages that that proposal could mean for water supply and environmental pollution improvements in Britain.

I do not go along with the proposition that privatisation is a panacea for all the industry's ills or that it is a diabolical plot to poison our constituents. However, the number of public telephone boxes now in operation that were formerly out of action and vandalised when British Telecom was in the public sector does not lead me to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Bootle —that there is a dichotomy between private sector operation and good public service. There are plenty of examples in the privatisations of the past few years to show that good private sector management can provide as good, if not better, service to the consumer at just as acceptable a cost as it was provided in the public sector.

Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can convince me that the Government have got the right balance between sales price and environmental discipline.

The debate about the ability of the NRA to publish more facts than is provided for in the Bill is essential. The problem is that when the NRA was mooted and debated thoroughly in Committee, it was widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides as an essential body for environmental protection in the water industry. It was felt that the NRA would be effective. When we examined the record of our rivers and water policy of the past 15 years, we all welcomed the introduction of the NRA. During the passage of the Bill through the House, the NRA appears to have become less effective. We know that it will not be adequately funded to carry out its duties in the way that we would wish. That is regrettable as apparently the NRA will not be able to publish sufficient information by which we can judge its effectiveness.

We should support the amendment which would enable the NRA to report on water quality and the status of our rivers and to run from one year to the next in saying what progress it is making in cleaning up the water environment. But it looks as though that will not happen. If the amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State will have a free hand, and the NRA will be able to publish the minimum amount of information by which to judge its effectiveness. I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me if that is not the case, but it appears that that will happen under the Bill.

The amendment highlights the need for an open and accountable National Rivers Authority and will ensure that sufficient resources are available to enable it to function properly. The problem is that the Treasury will have to fund the NRA in part. As has already been mentioned, given the salaries of staff in the NRA, it will be unable adequately to compete with the powerful water plcs. It is wrong that the water plcs should have everything loaded in their favour while the environmental protection agency—the NRA—will be unable to protect the environment adequately. Any pretensions that the Government have to protecting the environment are being thrown away by diluting the effectiveness of the NRA. The fact that Lord Crickhowell is unhappy about the NRA does not augur well for the future.

The Government would be wise to listen to the arguments that the NRA should be more effective and better financed and have the high-quality staff that are necessary to monitor water effectively. The danger is that, in the first years of operation, the water plcs will have all the resources necessary to test water quality yet the NRA will be scraping around looking for laboratory facilities to do that testing.

4.30pm

There was considerable debate on these matters in the other place. There is a case for freeing the NRA in terms of pay and staff structure. There is a case, too, for giving it more freedom to undertake capital works and extending its right to borrow for flood protection schemes and so on. That information should be published annually, as the Lords amendment requires. The NRA should have maximum freedom to manage.

The Government's view is very different. They wish to limit the NRA's capital resources. They cannot say that they are producing an effective gamekeeper and then proceed to neuter its effectiveness. I fear for the future unless the NRA can publish the requisite information by which the public can judge its effectiveness and unless the Government are prepared to provide it with the staff and facilities to ensure that it is a proper environmental agency. I hope that the Secretary of State can reassure me, but I fear that he faces an uphill task.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I am one of those Conservative Members who, since Second Reading, have consistently opposed the Bill as being unwanted and unnecessary. I associate myself, however, with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). If the Opposition were seeking to maintain cross-party support in these debates, I regret to say that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) did their cause no good.

There has been cross-party support. There have been a few "rebels", as the Conservative party likes to portray them in the press. Conservative Members have made no significant attempt to alter or defeat any part of the Bill.

That is hardly an appropriate intervention. I should have thought that voting in this place showed an intention to defeat a particular measure, and perhaps that is the only truly democratic way of going about it. If the hon. Member for Bootle looks at the political position of those who oppose the measure, he will see that there was support across the spectrum of the broad church of the Tory party. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is traditionally put on the Left of the Tory party whereas I am traditionally put on its Right. There are others in between. There was a broad church of people—[Interruption] Indeed, it did not, but that has not prevented us from showing our feelings vocally and participating, when appropriate, in debates.

Because the NRA is perhaps the only true safeguard in the Bill for the consumer, the amendments are relevant. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make some concessions. If the National Rivers Authority has inadequate funds and powers to do its job, the Bill will be a fraud. There will be no protection for the consumer or the environment.

One reason why I have consistently opposed the Bill in recent times is that I do not believe that a private monopoly is more efficient or beneficial to the country than a public monopoly. A monopoly exists. Therefore, the National Rivers Authority is the one and only safeguard. If it cannot match the remuneration that will be offered to the staff of the new private water undertakers and if it has inadequate resources for capital expenditure, it cannot fulfil the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends for it in the provision of water and sewerage facilities.

If matters are to improve after the Bill, will the National Rivers Authority be able to assist my constituents in the Wildboarclough valley, who were recently devastated by a flash flood? I am ready to be persuaded to the contrary by my right hon. Friend, but the North West water authority is not prepared to take any responsibility for what happened. It will undertake no remedial works—not even restore the Clough brook, which flows into the Dane, to its original course. It will be the responsibility of the county council, as the highway authority, and local farmers and riparian owners.

Will the Bill improve matters? Will the National Rivers Authority be prepared to spend some money on flood protection in the Wildboarclough valley and the surrounding areas and try to ensure that another flood such as the one that affected my constituency on 24 May will not occur again and that the devastation will be reduced?

It is extraordinary how the river authorities and, I suppose, the new private undertakings will ensure that people who extract water in any place throughout the United Kingdom will have to pay a fee. They currently pay a fee to the North West water authority and other water authorities. The North West water authority currently takes no responsibility for, and is not even prepared to assist in repairing, the dreadful damage that occurred.

My hon. Friend is clearly approaching his peroration. He said that the only protection for the consumer will be through the National Rivers Authority, though that ignores the role of the Director General of Water Services. First, will he explain how, but for privatisation, the NRA would ever have been set up by any Government? Secondly, what protection is given to the consumer under present arrangements by which water authorities set standards and also police themselves?

Those matters have been covered extremely adequately. The tragedy is that they could have been dealt with without privatising the water undertakings.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's case, which he is making most persuasively. To aid his argument, may I point out that the North West water authority has given deemed consent under the existing arrangements to 200 companies to pollute the River Mersey. Is that not an example of irresponsibility—the very point that the hon. Gentleman is making? There have been paltry fines of £600 or so on average in the past few years when massive pollution has been taking place. Will the position be made worse by the new regulations?

I am tempted to go back over the many hours of debate that have taken place in the House and elsewhere, but that would be inappropriate because we are considering specific amendments that have been passed in another place. We should be directing our remarks to the role and responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and the resources that it will have available to fulfil its vital duties on behalf of the consumer.

Unless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can meet some of the opinions and concerns expressed in this short debate and articulated clearly here and in another place, I shall have no alternative but to support the Opposition's amendments. Having said that, I point out to the hon. Member for Bootle that any Government would use all the powers of the establishment that they could muster in such circumstances. A Labour Government would do precisely the same: they would muster their votes to ensure that any opposition—even from their own supporters—was crushed and brushed out of the way. That does not stop hon. Members who sincerely believe what they are saying standing up and telling their Government, "I think that you should think again."

I am addressing my remarks to the amendments, but I should love to crush the Bill altogether. Even at this late stage I emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it would be beneficial to the party and the country if the Bill were dropped. I have not met a single Tory who wants it. It is an electoral disaster and it will not achieve any of the objectives that the Government have set for it.

I shall pass over the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts)—

Why? It had some questions in it.

—until the end of my brief remarks.

Does that mean that the Secretary of State will answer the questions?

I shall answer my two hon. Friends, the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who even expressed a tiny bit of reservation about some aspects of the Bill, surprising though that is. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said that he has never met a Tory who was in favour of the Bill; I should love to have a cup of tea with him. He asked about flood protection. I can tell him that that will become a responsibility of the National Rivers Authority, which will have the full powers and finance to deal with it. I hope that that reassures him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch sees a conflict in theory between the environmental duties of the water companies, as they will become, and the need of investors to invest viably and not at a loss. The Conservative party has always resolved that conflict through regulation—whether for health and safety matters, for fire precautions or to prevent child labour. That was so in the 19th century; it has been so for pollution control in recent years and it is so in this Bill, which vests the power to regulate in the NRA. The Bill also provides for account to be taken of the economic consequences of the standards that have to be met—first, in the setting of the K factor, which is the amount that the companies can charge their customers in the pricing formula, and secondly by allowing unforeseen investment arising from an unforeseen development, such as, for example, a higher European Community standard, to be met by the companies through the cost pass-through mechanism.

The Bill thus squares the dilemma in a way that it has not been squared under public ownership. As we have learnt from the Labour party—and as has been the experience of this Government—the only way of squaring it under public ownership was to bargain behind the closed doors of the Treasury for as much cash as one could get and then to adjust the standards to suit the cash. That is the wrong way round, and that point is crucial to the Bill.

I do not believe that the Lords amendment is a touchstone of the virility of the NRA, as the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and for Bootle seem to think. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 155 would require directions under clause 102 on the classification of controlled waters to be set out in the NRA's annual report. There is no need for that, as the clause makes quite clear the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the NRA. I shall have responsibility to publish a great deal of information and it is to be hoped that the NRA will add to the matters that it is already required to publish. It will be free to supplement that information as it wishes in its annual report. Only where the role of Ministers is less specifically defined is there a case for requiring the NRA's annual report to spell out the fact that the authority has received a ministerial direction. In respect of water quality objectives, the Bill makes Ministers' role absolutely explicit. The House will not therefore wish to accept the Opposition's amendment.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a problem of over-abstraction in chalk streams, rivers and waterways throughout the country? Many feel that the Lords amendment is missing a requirement on the NRA to report on abstraction licences and the control of water abstraction. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that should be dealt with? Can he give us assurances that that question will be considered in relation to the NRA's report?

I am sure that that is an important matter, and I agree that it should be made public. I see no reason why the NRA would not want to make it public. If hon. Members wrote to the NRA, no doubt the body would give them a full explanation of the situation in their area. There is no secrecy involved; we are talking not about the freedom and flexibility that we give the NRA but about the duties we place upon it.

Hon. Members may know that we have included in the Bill a power for the NRA to borrow in cases of emergency—for example, when serious flooding or erosion of the sea wall requires extra special work in a short period and extra special cost beyond what it is reasonable to precept on the local authorities in one year. The NRA's finance will be from Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grant and precepts on the local authority for flood protection and sea defence. To the extent that the NRA might be involved in capital works, the necessary powers already exist in the Bill. In the normal course of replacing flood defences and sea walls, however, the NRA will have a programme for which it can precept annually and will not, therefore, need to borrow. I do not believe that there is a problem.

The gross error of thinking revealed by the hon. Member for Bootle was that the NRA would become an environmental investor. After listening for 200 hours to our debates on the Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a classic mistake. He said that we were removing from the water companies the non-commercial operations so that the companies would become more profitable. We are not doing that at all. We are removing the regulatory function from the water companies, so that the NRA can discharge its responsibilities to the House and the public, and control standards. The investment in environmental improvements—in drinking water, treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, new pipes and so on—which are the major investments, will be undertaken by the companies. The NRA will set the standards that the companies must reach by a certain period, monitor their activities and enforce standards if the companies do not reach them of their own accord. Nowhere in that model system of regulation is there a need for the NRA to invest in works of environmental improvement—except in flood defences and sea protection. So the hon. Member for Bootle has it wrong.

The more that the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bootle continue to damn, inaccurately and misleadingly, the present water environment—I admit that there are blemishes, although nothing like to the extent that the hon. Gentleman says—the more they make the case for the Bill and the case for separating the functions of regulation and investment to achieve the required standards. The hon. Gentleman has never been able to get it right whether he is opposing the Bill because the water industry is in a fine state under public ownership, or whether he is speaking in favour of the Bill because the water environment is in a mess.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor asked whether the National Rivers Authority would have the necessary funding to carry out its operations. I have given the answer many times before, as is true of all the arguments on the Bill. The sources of the NRA's funding for flood defence are local authority precepts and grants from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is separate from any other of its activities and in no sense will the Government influence what it decides it wants to do on precepts. It will have borrowing powers in relation to that.

The authority's water resources functions, which are the important river basin management functions, will be funded entirely from charges on abstractions including the new water plcs, and there will be a new charge in accordance with the principle, to which I think that the hon. Member for Bootle subscribes, that the polluter pays. The dischargers—the water plcs in relation to sewage and the industrialists in relation to industrial waste—will contribute towards the cost of pollution control through a charge for discharge consents.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I have nearly finished.

The remaining quarter of NRA expenditure, which on present figures will be about £70 million, will be met by Exchequer grant. There is no question of starving the authority. The Government accept the argument of the House that it is necessary to fund the NRA properly so that it can discharge its important functions fully and properly.

If we are to fund it in that way, as we must, the House, especially through the Select Committee on Public Accounts, will rightly insist that we ensure that the £70 million is spent properly on the functions for which the NRA is designed. As is the case with all public servants, we must ensure that the funds are not used for profligate over-spending on the salaries and expenses of members of staff. There must be proper accountability to the House, just as there is for the staff of the House of Commons, for the staff of my own Department and for the staff of all nationalised industries. There must be proper accountability for public money.

I repeat that the worry the Opposition have tried to instill in the public—although they concede that the NRA is highly necessary and long overdue—that we are trying to muck the NRA for a ha'porth of tar is typical of the hon. Member for Bootle and his hon. Friends. So deep is their ignorance and antipathy that they can never bring themselves to admit for once that the Government have got it right. On this occasion, they have.

If the Secretary of State believes for one moment that the Government have got it right on the functions of the NRA he shows, once again, how mistaken he is. The Opposition have repeatedly made it clear that we support the establishment of the NRA. However, we are most concerned that it should have the necessary funding and powers to carry out its duties satifactorily. I am sure that at least the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) agree with that point, as do those whose concerns they were expressing.

We believe that the regulatory function should be separate from investment. The Secretary of State said earlier that we did not agree with that principle, but he was wrong. We agree that the gamekeeper and poacher aspects should be separate and, therefore, that the regulatory and investment functions should be separate. But there is no reason why that cannot be done with the industry left in the public sector and with investment made by the public sector to deal with the problems facing the water industry. The problems, whether river pollution, sewage treatment works, water quality or river quality, could and should be solved in the public sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred in an intervention to a problem that we are unable to discuss today—overabstraction. He will recognise that, because of the very nature of our debates yesterday and today, and the imposition of a guillotine, there are many important issues that we shall be unable to debate at all, including the most important aspect of the Bill—the regulatory authority—to which this House and the public look to ensure a proper quality of supplies and sewage treatment in future. We are unable to debate that sufficiently because the Government have seen fit to impose a guillotine and have provided insufficient time for that aspect of the Bill to be debated properly. The Secretary of State—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I have only four minutes in which to speak.

The Secretary of State is well aware that, in its third report, the Select Committee on the Environment, when proposing that the gamekeeper and poacher functions should be separate, said:

"It would give us cause for very real alarm if the present water pollution inspectorate (or a new unified and independent regulatory body)—

that is, the National Rivers Authority—

"were not given adequate staffing, resources and the necessary powers to oversee the activities of a privatised water industry."

That is the position that we have now reached. We are establishing an independent body, the National Rivers Authority, but we are not giving it the powers, the functions or the ability to be seen openly to carry out its functions to the satisfaction of the public. I stress the word "public". It is not only the Government and the House but the public who have a right to be satisfied that these matters are being dealt with properly.

I received today a letter from the Prime Minister's office, which said:

"An independent regulator is being given legislative teeth to impose high standards in the public interest."

Clearly, the Prime Minister herself does not know that the Government are removing the teeth from the National Rivers Authority and ensuring that it cannot carry out its functions.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that if the National Rivers Authority is unable to offer the salaries to attract the right staff, that will weaken its basis from the start. In addition, the concession that the authority cannot take action against the water companies as a result of what has happened in the interim period is an outrage and shows the direction in which the Government intend to go.

There is a danger that, once the industry is in the private sector, profit will become more important than dealing with pollution and ensuring that we have a satisfactory quality of supply. The Government are dedicated above all to profit and pay only lip-service to green issues. They have put a veneer on the Bill and pretend that it is a green Bill. They will allow relaxation after relaxation to ensure that the privatised industry can make the profits they want it to make to attract people to invest in it.

I have a letter from North West Water which says:

"The input of these pollutional loads to the River Brun and hence to Rowley Lake is now considered unacceptable".

The discharge of treated sewage effluent from Worsthorne sewage treatment works does not comply with the conditions of consent. However, action cannot be taken against those polluters because of the power to exclude the present one-year moratorium. The letter continues:

"There is also a storm sewage overflow upstream of the sewage works which does and is designed to release the flow of sewage arriving at the works in extreme weather conditions."

Those are the problems facing the industry. Hon. Member after hon. Member could itemise the different sewage works which do not meet the consent levels but which will be allowed to get away with it.

The Government are not really in favour of ensuring that the National Rivers Authority can carry out its functions. Although the principle may be right, the Government are not giving the N RA the teeth, the staffing or the resources to carry out its functions properly. However, they are not prepared to be seen to be doing that in the open. Once again, the Government will fail to ensure that our water quality is brought up to standard, even though the public are entitled to that. I hope that the amendment will be carried.