Commons Sitting of 29 January 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 4) BILL
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.
GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LEEDS SUPERTRAM BILL
Read a Second time, and committed.
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)
(No. 2) BILL
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.
MIDLAND METRO (No. 3) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Ravenscraig
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further action he intends to take in connection with the announced closure of Ravenscraig.
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise the assistance offered to north Lanarkshire since June 1991.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): We have already taken action to strengthen and diversify the Lanarkshire economy. I have announced very substantial additional resources, through Scottish Enterprise, for the Lanarkshire development agency. Those resources are being deployed on a wide range of infrastructure projects, major environmental works and training and business development schemes, following the recommendations of the Lanarkshire working group. I have also announced that, subject to the agreement of the European Commission, the Government intend to set up an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire.
    Dr. Reid: It was obvious from that answer that the Secretary of State has nothing whatsoever to say about steel. Is he aware that next week my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) will visit the United States to look at the latest technological developments in steel production—thin slab casting? Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the fact—however small the step may be—that, with the approval of the Scottish Office, representatives of Scottish Enterprise will accompany my hon. Friend? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we need much more than that? We need a public commitment today from the Government that they will be prepared to give technical and financial assistance to any buyer that wished to develop thin slab technology at Ravenscraig. The Labour party has already given that pledge on behalf of a future Labour Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman publicly give that pledge?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Scottish Enterprise has already investigated thin slab casting in the United States of America. It would be naive of any Opposition Member to think that British Steel had not carefully considered the possibilities of that type of development, which requires a plentiful scrap supply and low energy costs. I am quite sure that British Steel will have considered that and will weigh it up as well as any other possible developments. British Steel must decide whether it is a sensible project on which to embark.
    Mr. Robertson: I warn the Secretary of State for Scotland that, when it comes to the urgent task of providing resources for the regeneration of the Lanarkshire economy, he will not be able to hide behind the arrogant and imperious people who run British Steel. During the last couple of months that he holds that office, he will be judged harshly on what he does.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman stop juggling and manipulating figures and pretending that large-scale

    931
    assistance has already been given to Lanarkshire? Will he exclude hospitals and existing road-building programmes from the calculations? Will he turn his mind to the serious short-term problems: first, the problem that will be caused for the existing development project by the delayed decision on an enterprise zone and, secondly, the problem that the Lanarkshire development agency and Scottish Enterprise will have because of the Government's obsession with annuality in the money that they give. If the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to those problems, that would be a constructive contribution.
    Mr. Lang: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not think that there is a vast amount of economic development going on in Lanarkshire as a result of Government initiatives. It is time that he visited his constituency and had a look around. No fewer than 13 of the 16 sites identified by the Lanarkshire working group for development as locations for new industrial activity are already being developed as a result of the extra resources and the extra commitment of the Government. We are determined to help Lanarkshire to diversify to attract new jobs all the time.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that general anger was expressed in the House last week at British Steel's decision to close Ravenscraig? I welcome the many offers of support and the money available to various agencies in Scotland, as well as the fact that it is hoped to establish an enterprise zone in Lanarkshire. Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing a supremo to co-ordinate all those opportunities, to bring new jobs as quickly as possible to Scotland later this year?
    Mr. Lang: As my hon. Friend knows, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—has co-ordinated the work of the Lanarkshire working group, which has brought together many local authorities, public bodies and private sector bodies. They produced an extremely effective report, which identified a large number of projects which could usefully be established to help Lanarkshire. Some 60 of those projects have now been implemented. Lanarkshire development agency now fulfils the co-ordinating role to which my hon. Friend referred. Of course, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is keeping in close contact with the agency, as is Scottish Enterprise.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What action has the Secretary of State taken to find a buyer for Ravenscraig? What assurances can be given about the future of Hunterston? Its existing responsibilities are somewhat in doubt, but it should be remembered that it will be a crucial strategic site for the steel industry of the next century. What action has been taken to ensure its survival?
    Mr. Lang: As for the possible sale of Ravenscraig, the chairman of British Steel has confirmed that the provision contained in the prospectus with regard to disposal has been triggered. I have commissioned a report on the long-term implications of the economic potential of the Hunterston site. It is an important one which we would not want to see wasted.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that concern has been expressed throughout the country about the closure of Ravenscraig. Is he also aware that the
    932
    regional development aid available to Lanarkshire and the rest of Scotland is equivalent to £28.40 per head compared with £5.55 per head in England? That demonstrates the Government's commitment to redevelop and improve Scottish industry and commerce.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government do identify need and direct resources towards it. Those needs in Scotland have been clearly identified and are fully met from the United Kingdom Exchequer. It may be that because of the Government's sustained commitment unemployment fell in the past four years by almost 9,000 in the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr.Reid) shows that he does not understand the proposal for the new technology at Ravenscraig? It is not a proposal for an electric arc furnace, which would lead to scrap and high energy costs, but a proposal to put the new technology on at the end of the BOS—basic oxygen steel—route. Is the right hon Gentleman further aware that practical questions about the continued use of the plant, reclamation and redevelopment must be settled by September? In particular, is the right hon, Gentleman clear that a new operator would have to be indemnified well before September against reclamation costs, which fall to be settled between the Government and British Steel?
    Mr. Lang: On the question of possible contamination at the British Steel site, I have already asked Sir Robert Scholey to contribute in terms of resources and making the site available for visits so that the extent of contamination can he properly examined. The legislative position is much the same as it has been in past decades. No local authority planning requirements were imposed at the time of the planning consent. We wish to ensure that the site is restored to such a level, as has happened at all other British Steel sites, that it can be used for further industry.

    Ferranti Dalkeith
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification he received about the contraction of the work force in Ferranti Dalkeith; and what was his response.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend received no notification of the recent job losses in Ferranti Dalkeith.
    Mr. Eadie: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the proposal to shed to two thirds of the work force in Ferranti Dalkeith is a severe blow to the 146 employees involved. It is all the more deplorable when one considers that it is high-tech industry with a very skilled work force whom we should wish to retain in the economy. Midlothian has lost far too many jobs through closures and contractions. I understand —the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—that an arrangement has been made for him to meet the firm next Monday. If that is true. I welcome the initiative What hope will the Minister give to the work force in Dalkeith and Midlothian as a result of that initiative?
    Mr. Stewart: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the difficulties that the firm faces. It has attributed its problems to the International Signal and Control fraud

    933
    case and world trading conditions. On Monday I shall not meet the company but I shall meet representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join the meeting, he will be welcome. It will take place in Alhambra house, Glasgow, on Monday at 8.30 am.

    Ravenscraig
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the permission of the European Commission to establish an enterprise zone in the Ravenscraig area of Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The Government gave formal notification, on 23 January, to the European Commission of our intention to create an enterprise zone for north Lanarkshire. We have stressed the importance of that proposal and must now await the Commission's agreement, which I hope will be forthcoming.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government reacted swiftly and precisely to the tragedy of Ravenscraig and, as they want to proceed right away with their plans, which might involve 17,000 extra jobs and £50 million expenditure, is not it an insult to Scotland that Commissioner Millan, who knows all the facts, has not been prepared to give his approval and appears likely to wait for several months before doing so? As that is the same Commissioner who is damaging districts throughout Britain by withholding hundreds of millions of pounds of necessary aid for which our taxpayers have paid at least twice, will my right hon. Friend urge Commissioner Millan to cut the red tape and for once do something to help Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the apparent reluctance of Commissioner Millan to release to the United Kingdom funds that should come to us to help areas of particular deprivation where we have indentified need. As for Lanarkshire and the problems of the steel industry, only three wards in Motherwell would be eligible for RECHAR resources. Nevertheless, that would be useful. I am sure that Commissioner Brittan will consider the issue of the enterprise zone application promptly and, I hope, in a fair-minded and effective way.
    Mr. McMaster: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the fact that the Conservatives have committed industrial genocide against Scotland since they have been in office? The closures affect not only Ravenscraig and Lanarkshire but have a domino effect in constituencies such as mine where, on the admission of the Minister with responsibility for Scottish industry—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs disappeared between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 have been lost since. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that urgent action is needed, not only to save jobs but to create them, or does he agree with the Prime Minister who, in a pathetic and complacent reply to me recently, said that he did not believe that economic initiatives were necessary?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is giving a selective exposition of the facts. For example, he seems to be overlooking the fact that unemployment fell in Lanarkshire during the four years to November 1991 by almost 9,000. Unemployment has fallen throughout
    934
    Scotland in four of the past five years. Employment has risen by substantial amounts and company registrations have increased dramatically. The Scottish economy is stronger and broader based than it has been for some time.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the option of an enterprise zone would not be available to an independent Scotland if Spain vetoed Scotland's part in Europe?
    Mr. Lang: I have not speculated on such extreme developments because I do not think that anyone in the United Kingdom, least of all in Scotland, could contemplate such dire consequences for Scotland.

    Scottish Steel Industry
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Dalzell plant and other Scottish steel plants.
    Mr. Lang: I met the chairman of British Steel on 6 January to discuss matters connected with the Scottish steel plants. Since then, I have written to him on a number of detailed points. I would expect to meet the chairman of British Steel again whenever appropriate.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Secretary of State take today's opinion poll to show to Bob Scholey and explain to him that when that is translated into a vote for independence, as it will be at the coming general election, we shall no longer have to write to him, bend the knee or go cap in hand asking for things for Scotland? Instead, all the power that we require will be in our hands and, as an independent country, we shall be able to build on the Dalzell option, save the Scottish steel industry and then expand it.
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his plans for saving the Scottish steel industry are the sort that, when translated into economic policy for an independent Scotland, will benefit that country, he must be living on the moon. His proposals are totally unrealistic. He is living in a fantasy world and it is time that he came to terms with reality.
    Mr. Hood: It would be helpful if the Secretary of State met the Scottish National party shop stewards at Dalzell and explained to them that the lies being told by the SNP leadership will not help to save jobs but will threaten jobs. When the Secretary of State meets the shop stewards, will he also remind them that the fantasy figure of the I million tonne production which is supposed to come from the new scheme will not be taken up by the markets? Only 71,000 tonnes of slate steel produced was used in the North sea last year, so there is no market for the scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has negotiated a 1 million tonne export contract with the Chinese in Hong Kong—that is the sort of fantasy that the SNP is talking about.
    Mr. Lang: I shall refrain from intervening in the internecine strife between the trade unions at Ravenscraig and those at Dalzell, as I regard that subject as the province of the Labour party. In terms of economic development, my responsibility is to look to the future and to help Lanarkshire develop new employment in industries

    935
    to create new prosperity for that region and Scotland. It is to that end that all our plans are directed, and they are beginning to yield results.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State still believe, as the Labour party does, that there is a strong case for investing in Dalzell and challenging the single plate mill strategy of British Steel. If so, what steps is he taking? Does he realise that Scotland cannot afford a Government who are determined to do nothing or a nationalist party that offers false hope to the steel industry on the basis of what one independent commentator in the Glasgow Herald today described as
    "a meaningless, misleading bunch of wrongly used statistics"?
    Mr. Lang: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was well aware that we have consistently supported the case for the Dalzell plate mill. We submitted a closely argued paper to British Rail a considerable time ago and I raised the matter with Robert Scholey when I last met him. I hope that the mill will survive for a long time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have had a number of meetings with trade union leaders during the past year or two and my hon. Friend remains willing to meet them again at their request.

    NHS Expenditure
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the proposed expenditure on the national health service for 1992–93; and what was the level of expenditure in 1978–79.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Next year we will spend £3,725 million on the national health service in Scotland. That compares with £893 million in the last year of the Labour Government. That represents an increase of four times in cash terms and one and a half times above inflation.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does not that massive increase in expenditure, accompanied by the great improvement in health care nail Opposition outbursts about cuts in the national health service? How much would it cost to give free eye and dental treatment in Scotland, as promised by the Labour party?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge increase in resources. The increased expenditure on the national health service in Scotland amounts to more than the entire receipts that the Government obtain from North sea oil in any one year and represents a huge increase in resources. It is true that the cost of eye tests and dental check-ups, the abolition of competitive tendering and the introduction of a minimum wage would add £125 million to the cost of the national health service in Scotland. The Labour party, which makes those proposals has not promised one single extra cent for the national health service to compensate for the cost of those policies.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will recall that when Scottish questions were last before the House I asked the last question on health matters and referred to the accident and emergency service at Ninewells hospital. We were slightly overtaken by subsequent events—I refer to the heat that was generated while we were waiting for an announcement. The Minister gave what I thought was a reasonable reply, but perhaps he was influenced by the
    936
    pressure that was on him. Has he had time to consider the request for funds to relocate the accident and emergency unit at the Dundee royal infirmary site to the Ninewells site? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received a request from Tayside health board about the relocation, and does he propose to accede to the request?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that he did not receive an entirely satisfactory answer because I was under pressure. I am never under pressure when it comes to the health service in Scotland because it is delivering a splendid result for the people of Scotland. The pattern of provision of service in a health board is a matter for that board. I am sure that the chairman of Tayside health board will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the proposals.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Will the Minister use some of the additional money about which he talked to expand the audiology service in Scotland? In a written answer last year, he told me that figures were not held centrally on waiting lists for hearing assessments and hearing aids for children and adults, including pensioners. Accordingly, the Minister will not be aware that in some parts of Scotland, especially in my constituency, it is difficult to have hearing aids serviced and batteries supplied. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the audiology service in Scotland will be examined at Scottish Office level?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to give the hon. Lady that undertaking. As part of the patients charter proposals, I have been examining several services, including the supply of wheelchairs, that have involved real difficulties in some parts of Scotland. I shall be happy to examine the services that are provided for those who suffer from deafness to one degree or another. The hon. Lady will be aware of the introduction and expansion of cochlea implants in Scotland as a result of work that was undertaken in Ayrshire. That is a step forward. The hon. Lady is getting a brand new hospital in her constituency, which is a considerable expansion of service.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how expenditure per capita on the health service in Scotland compares with that expenditure in England and Wales?
    Mr. Forsyth: Expenditure on the health service in Scotland per capita is 23 per cent. more than in England—£730 per person in Scotland and £595 per person in England. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us the reason."] Opposition Members ask me why that is so. They should tell us how a Scottish Parliament would find the money to pay those bills.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Minister gives us a false picture of what is happening in the health service. Did not waiting lists in Scotland increase by 4 per cent. last year? Is it not also the case that last year the number of nurses in Scotland was reduced by 500? Does the Minister accept that under the last Labour Government expenditure rose each year by more than 4 per cent. while under this Government it has fallen by 0.1 per cent? That is the reality. There have been cuts, cuts and more cuts, for which the Government will pay dearly at the next general election.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the 150,000 people who work in the health service, who

    937
    this year treated 1 million more patients than were being treated when the Labour Government left office. Record numbers of patients are being treated, there is a record number of staff in the health service and there is record investment in the health service. It does the health service no good when the hon. Gentleman makes cheap party points at its expense.
    As I said, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has a new hospital in her constituency. There are new hospitals throughout Scotland. When we had a Labour Government, the health service building programme was cut for the first time in its history. That was the Labour Government's record. That happened because of the way in which they ran the economy, and not because they did not want to help the health service. If the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) had his way with a Scottish Parliament, cuts would return to the health service and people employed in it would lose their jobs.

    Eastfield Rail Depot
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of ScotRail to discuss the planned closure of Eastfield railway depot.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The decision to close the Eastfield depot is an operational matter for British Rail. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet ScotRail to discuss this.
    Mr. Martin: The Minister will know that the Government, at Prime Minister level, gave a commitment that rail safety in this country would be improved, yet this closure decision will lead to 70 skilled railway maintenance workers being put on the dole. The Minister will also know that that means that heavy frieght repairs will have to go south of the border. May I ask the Minister to use his good offices to try to get Scot Rail to change its mind and to save this important depot? I hope that at a later stage the Minister will also be able to provide a commitment as to what British Rail intends to do with that land.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at this stage what will happen to the land. It is too early to say. The closure will lead to the loss of 120 jobs, but the hope is that there will be no compulsory redundancies and that many of the employees will be relocated at, for example, the depots at Motherwell, Ayr, Grangemouth and Inverness. The hon. Gentleman may be correct when he says that a proportion of the work for the heavier locomotives may go south of the border, but I hope that the bulk of it will stay in Scotland. The matter must be put into perspective. The decision to site a rail freight terminal at Mossend over the next 10 to 15 years is expected to lead to the creation of 8,000 jobs.
    I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that safety must be given the highest priority. The high levels of investment in British Rail would not be possible without Government support through the obligation grant, which is about £600 million for the current year.

    Labour Statistics
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest official count of (a) unemployed persons and (b) notified vacancies.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The number of unemployed people, seasonally adjusted, in Scotland in December 1991 was 227,300 and the number of notified vacancies at Scottish jobcentres was 21,200. Vacancies at jobcentres are thought, however, to represent only about one third of total vacancies in the economy at any one time.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister not realise that an unlucky 13 people are chasing every job notified? Does he not realise that in my Maryhill constituency alone, unemployment has risen during the last year by 450 to a total of more than 5,500, leading to an unemployment figure of 18 per cent? The last time I raised the issue at Scottish Question Time, the Secretary of State for Scotland replied that he did not believe that anything should be done, that the recession would finally work its way out and that market forces would provide the answer. If the Government believe in market forces, they will realise that their sell-by date is past. It is high time they realised that the dust is gathering on the wrappers and packed it up.
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Lady that unemployment is down 14 per cent. over the last three years and that long-term unemployment is down by 1,000 over the last three years in her Maryhill constituency. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like hearing about unemployment coming down. As for turnover in the labour market, 378,400 people left the unemployment count in 1991 and 211,000 people got jobs through jobcentres in 1991. Those are the facts, even if Opposition Members do not like them.
    Dr. Godman: Within the figures that the Minister has just related to the House are those concerning Greenock and Port Glasgow. I think that he will agree with me that the unemployment rate in my constituency is dismally and scandalously high. Were the west of Scotland headquarters of the Land Registry to be located at Cartsburn
    or the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow, that would help, if only marginally, to reduce the disgracefully high unemployment figures in Greenock and Port Glasgow. When is this outfit going to play the game by my constituents?
    Mr. Stewart: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, which was, of course, made by a delegation led by him from Inverclyde district council; my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will have heard what he said. Generally, I accept that there is a serious problem in Inverclyde. We are working on improving access to some of the enterprise zone sites there. That is one of the priorities for the area.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: If and when Scotland leaves the Union, that will cause further unnecessary unemployment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Westminster-based jobs carried out in Scotland, such as jobs in the Inland Revenue at East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, will have to be repatriated to English constituencies?
    Mr. Stewart rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I intend to answer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that if Scotland were to leave the Union there would be substantial economic dislocation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and fellow clansman is also right to emphasise the real benefits for Scotland in remaining a full part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Worthington: In the past, on unemployment questions, the Minister has justified the level of unemployment by saying that the Government have created more jobs than ever before. The Secretary of State has used the expression "historically high". Despite the fact that he counts part-time jobs as full-time jobs and puts employment training places in the jobs column, will the Minister admit that by his own Department's figures there are now fewer jobs in Scotland than there were when the Government came to power in 1979? Let us not have the Government misleading the House. According to the Government's figures, there are now fewer jobs in Scotlnd than in 1979. Is that not correct—yes or no?
    Mr. Stewart: That is a fairly typical contribution from the English academic who condescends to represent the working class of Clydebank. The hon. Gentleman has opposed every positive training measure put forward by the Government, and every Labour Government ended up with higher unemployment when they left office than when they took office.

    Industrial Policy
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of the Scottish CBI to discuss industrial policy and investment in west central Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My colleagues and I have continuing contacts with the Scottish CBI on matters affecting the economy, including that of west central Scotland. We hope to arrange a further meeting shortly.
    Mr. Hogg: Has the Secretary of State seen the Scottish chambers business survey for the last quarter of 1991, which concluded that confidence had fallen back in all principal sectors, that demand remained stagnant and was contracting in all major sectors, that manufacturers' stocks were running out, that investment was contracting, and that the worst hit areas were central Scotland and Edinburgh? How does the Secretary of State intend to talk that up into a success story?
    Mr. Lang: By selecting parts of the survey to suit his case, the hon. Gentleman seeks to talk down the economy of Scotland. Perhaps he should also consider what the CBI wants for the economy: it wants lower taxes which would encourage investment, but under Labour it would get not lower but higher taxes throughout the United Kingdom and there would be special higher taxes in Scotland under a Scottish assembly which would impose 3p on income tax.
    Mr. Favell: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Scottish CBI all the talk about an independent Scotland? I am appalled that Opposition Members should contemplate it after all that the United Kingdom has gone through in the past 300 years. We founded the British Commonwealth together. This nation is one of the most admired in the world. Opposition Members say that they
    940
    cannot make their voices heard here. What chance then would they have among the Italians, the Germans and the French? United we stand, divided we fall—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend was absolutely right to identify the dangers to the Scottish economy either from separation or from the Labour party's policy to set up tax-raising assemblies. The outgoing president of Glasgow chamber of commerce said earlier this week:
    "The concern of our members is that devolution would be bad for Scottish industry."
    In the CBI's most recent survey on the matter, more than 90 per cent. identified the same danger to the Scottish economy.

    Defence Spending
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress being made by Scottish Enterprise in relation to its examination of the impact on the Scottish economy of the decline in defence spending.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Within the defence industries initiative, Scottish Enterprise has received a draft impact assessment from its consultants. Information from that study will be used to take forward work already in hand with local enterprise companies and defence companies to identify practical steps to help companies and communities to adapt to the changing demand for defence-related goods and services.
    Mr. Douglas: Notwithstanding that interesting reply and the orders that were given to Yarrow's last week for type 23 frigates, will the Minister concede that there is a serious problem in terms of the diminution of defence orders? That is especially aggravated in areas such as Fife and the west of Scotland. What funding will the Minister provide to ensure that the high technology skills embraced by companies such as Ferranti are not lost to Scotland? We need not a paper exercise, but actual funding to ensure that we keep those skills. The Government have that responsibility.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman personally—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is, after all, a rather splendid day for anti-devolutionists. He puts forward a perfectly valid point of which Scottish Enterprise is fully aware. However, an independent Scotland would not get frigate orders for Yarrow's. Moreover, there would be no Rosyth dockyard and no Rosyth naval base.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister accept that the defence industries initiative, which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last October, is utterly inadequate? It provides not a penny of new money towards research and development, investment or retraining. It is clear that the only way to make real progress is to elect a Labour Government and set up a defence diversification agency which will really tackle the problem and help our companies to expand into civil products.
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will check with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

    941
    Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to see whether there is any official Labour commitment for that amount of extra public expenditure, as I have never heard of one. I do not take the view that the problems of diversification from defence-related companies will be solved through state intervention. The initiative is right to assist the defence sector companies and subcontractors in commercial adjustments to new markets, to provide support—with other agencies and local authorities—to communities that may be heavily affected, and to support reskilling and retraining needs. That is a sensible and constructive approach. If the Labour party is making any massive public expenditure commitments for a different one, let us hear them.

    Industrial Policy
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on industrial policy for Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The central aim of the Government's industrial policy, in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom is to create the conditions for sustainable growth in the economy.
    I have today written to my hon. Friend elaborating on how my Department promotes that central aim. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that under the old hands-on, interventionist industrial policy that the Labour party is supposed to support, British Steel lost £15 billion and our steel trade was in massive deficit, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient in Europe and we run a healthy surplus on our steel trade? Does he agree that there is something spurious and deceitful about a party that criticises the Government's hands-off policy on steel and calls for a return to interventionism, but does not have the guts to commit itself to keep Ravenscraig open if Labour came to power?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the double thinking of the Labour party. It is significant that last Thursday a motion was tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition calling on the Government to use every possible means to intervene in the Scottish steel industry, while at the same time the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in The Financial Times as saying that
    "it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs".
    I do not think that the Labour party has any idea what any of its policies add up to.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State accept that the success or lack of success of his industrial policy will determine the level of mass unemployment in Scotland? Does he also accept that the only circumstances in which unemployment will be a "price worth paying" in Scotland is when it is paid in full by the Scottish Office Front Bench? Why do the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not do Scotland a favour, pack their collective bags and go now?
    Mr. Lang: The Conservative party needs no lessons from the Labour party about employment and unemployment. Every Labour Government increased unemployment. In four of the past five years unemployment has fallen, and it will fall further when the economy is moving, when investment is rising and when there is increased prosperity. All those things will be achieved by the Government's policies—they would never be achieved by the high taxation policies of the Labour party.
    Following is the information
    The central aim of the Government's Industrial policy is to create the conditions for sustainable growth in the economy.
    The Government believes that since it is the private sector which creates wealth, the Government must seek to create the environment in which companies are encouraged to establish, develop and expand, in order to create both wealth and employment. Good public services and living standards can be provided and maintained only in tandem with entreproneurial activity.
    Central to the creation of such an environment is the rigorous control of inflation. The Government's policies have resulted in the United Kingdom having inflation below that of the European Community average. Independent forecasters expect falls in the underlying rate of inflation in the months to come.
    The success of these policies, and of the work of my Department, can be shown through the progress Scotland has seen over the past 10 years.
    During the 1980s Scottish manufacturing productivity by an average 5.2 per cent. per annum, contrasting with a mere 2.0 per cent. in the 1970s and 4.1 per cent. in the 1900s. In this respect, Scotland's performance in the 1980s was stronger than any of the leading 7 OECD economies.
    Since 1981, Locate in Scotland has recorded planned inward investment by companies totalling £4.2 billion, associated with the intended creation or safeguarding of some 80,000 jobs. Even after appropriate discounting of total company forecasts of prospective employment, to around two-thirds of the initially planned figures, this is a record to proud of. It shows that inward investing companies see our economy as providing an environment in which they can operate successfully. Exports of manufactured goods from Scotland have also been buoyant, with an increase of 26 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
    Company and VAT registrations and the numbers of self-employed in Scotland have all increased substantially since 1979. The number of companies registered in Scotland rose by almost 70 per cent. from 1980 to 1991, while the number of VAT registered companies rose by 23 per cent. despite the significant real terms in the registration threshold.
    Self-employment in Scotland stands at a historically high level, having increased by almost 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1990 compared with no growth over the previous 3 decades.
    The privatisation of the two electricity companies in Scotland and of the Scottish Bus Group has led to greatly increased opportunities for employee-share ownership, and in the case of the electricity companies, to more individual shareholders in Scotland. Around half a million Scots applied for shares in the electricity companies and some 400,000 continue to hold their shares.
    There have also been a number of encouraging trends in the more recent period, particularly in the Scottish

    943
    labour market. The Scottish civilian workforce in employment, for example, has seen a growth of 137,000 or 6.5 per cent. over the period June 1987 to June 1991.
    In terms of unemployment, the seasonally adjusted total has fallen by over 98,000 in the 4½ year period to December 1991, a fall of some 30 per cent. This has resulted in the differential between Scottish and United Kingdom unemployment rates falling from 3.1 percentage points to just 0.2 percentage points over the same period, the lowest such differential since the war.
    Despite these major economic advances, Scotland has been affected by recessionary trends in the United Kingdom as a whole and in the rest of the world during 1990 and 1991. My aim is to minimise these effects, and those of necessary structural changes, and to make the Scottish economy more resilient to future economic downturns using the policy instruments outlined earlier. There are already clear indications from forecasters and official statistics that Scotland has outperformed the United Kingdom economy in each of the years since 1988.
    The Government are committed to removing the excess rates burden on Scottish business as quickly as possible. Good progress has been made; non-domestic rates were reduced by £80 million in 1990–91 and a further £100 million in the current year. They will be further reduced by £60 million in 1992–93. These large reductions have encouraged investment and employment, particularly in the service sector which does not benefit from derating.
    Another keynote of the Government's industrial policy has been the freeing of previously state-owned assets, allowing the more effective use of these resources under private sector management. This policy, which is increasingly being seen in countries throughout the world as essential to economic efficiency, has promoted efficiency and increased incentives as well as widening share ownership among the general public.
    My Department works within Scotland to promote these aims and to foster the development of an environment in which business can flourish. It aims to enhance the role of private enterprise in the economy; to maximise the value added by industry and commerce in Scotland through the modernisation and expansion of competitive industrial and commercial activity; and to encourage a broad and diverse economic base. It promotes the vital links that exist between business and education allowing each to understand better the needs of the other. Through its administration of regional support measures it assists the establishment of viable economic activity in less advantaged parts of Scotland. It promotes the progressive development of the roads and transport infrastructure and the maintenance and improvement of transport services; and it fosters general environmental and economic improvements, essentially through the recently established Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their associated networks of business-led local enterprise companies.
    In promoting enterprise in Scotland my Department, either directly or through publicly funded bodies:—
    —gives financial and advisory support for competitive
    firms, entrepreneurial activity, inward investment, the science and technology base, exporting and training;
    —encourages deregulation where the burdens imposed on business outweigh the potential advantage to the public interest;
    —seeks to identify gaps which the market is not able to address and seeks ways of filling those gaps;
    944
    —seeks to ensure that the markets in land and capital are meeting the needs of new or expanding enterprises;
    —supports urban regeneration, development in remote areas and tourism;
    —secures the building and maintenance of the trunk road network and allocates resources for local authority road and transport systems; and
    —secures assistance to appropriate areas from European funds.
    I will oversee continued development of the business environment in Scotland to ensure that the many major advances made in the 1980s and early 90s are continued in the future. In particular I will look to: the networks of local enterprise companies, together with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to capitalise further on the integration of economic development and training which they uniquely enjoy; the promotion of Scotland's links with the rest of Europe; the development of Scottish Trade International to further boost export performance; and the further development of the economic climate which will best allow firms to develop, expand and meet the challenges set by the completion of the Single European Market.

    School Boards
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish schools currently have school boards; what has been the total cost of school boards to date; and if he will make a statement about the future of school boards.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Around 75 per cent. of schools in Scotland have school boards.
    The revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90 took into account the additional costs—estimated at £10 million per year—to be incurred by education authorities in introducing school boards. Education authorities budgeted to spend just over £6 million on school boards in 1991–92.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister now acknowledge that the school boards legislation that he imposed on Scotland against the clearly expressed views of the majority of parents has not been quite the success that he claimed? His figures today indicate that a quarter of schools in Scotland cannot even muster a school board, and the number is growing as parents become increasingly frustrated at the Government's failure to provide the resources needed in education. Does the Minister agree that the £10 million allocated to school boards would have been much better invested in books and teaching materials?
    Mr. Forsyth: I published a survey of school boards today which shows that they have been remarkably successful—[Horn. MEMBERS: "It would."]—an independent survey which shows that school boards have been remarkably successful. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has a cheek coming here and criticising me because a quarter of the schools have no school board. That is a matter for the schools themselves. Many of them are small. It was as a result of pressure from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that I accepted an amendment to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill 1987, changing our original proposal that schools with fewer than 100 pupils would not be eligible to have boards and enabling them to do so. The hon. Member for Gordon was among those who

    945
    lobbied that small schools should have the opportunity and that it was a matter for them if they did not want a board. Yet now he comes to the House and criticises the Government for the consequences of his own policy.
    Mr. Bill Walker: In the rural areas, where people care very much about the education of their children and where the school boards are functioning extremely well, proposals have been put to me which suggest—this does not contradict what my hon. Friend said in his answer just now—that small country schools, particularly primary feeders, might be better looked after if they were part of the school board system of the secondary school into which they feed, so that the school board would supervise both the secondary school and the primary schools feeding into it. Might that not help the situation in the rural areas, and will my hon. Friend consider the idea?
    Mr. Forsyth: There are many small schools where school boards run very effectively and there are others where people have chosen not to have school boards. The point is clear. The Government have given parents a choice and a voice in education. I hope that the whole of Scotland will recognise that Labour Members have opposed us every inch of the way while we have sought to enfranchise parents and to give them more say in the education of their children. I do not believe that the proposal put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is the way forward. The way forward is to give school boards a greater role in education in Scotland.

    Germany
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his visit to Germany.
    Mr. Lang: I had a successful visit to Bavaria in September last year when I led a trade mission organised by Scottish Financial Enterprise. The mission has assisted in establishing stronger financial and commercial links between Scotland and that part of Germany.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the reasons for Germany's outstanding economic success is its decentralised form of government? Does he not also accept that Scotland would gain by having its own Parliament with control over key decisions while at the same time using the clout of United Kingdom partnership in a Europe dominated by large countries? The Secretary of State's policy of doing nothing and of stagnation, and the nationalist policy of taking Scotland into Europe's second division, would both be disastrous for the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The thing that struck me most on constitutional matters during my visit to Bavaria was the complete incomprehension of my Bavarian hosts that anyone should take the view taken by Opposition parties in this country that constitutional mechanisms can be the key to economic success. In Germany, the Länder compete with one another to keep taxation down. Labour is seeking to raise taxes exclusively in Scotland, which would be more damaging for Scotland's economic future than almost any other proposal.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Bavarians would be just as baffled by his own view that the constitutional mechanism would lead to economic ruin? I am sure that he did not explain that to the Bavarians. When the Secretary of State went to Germany, did he find any part of Germany which had suffered as a result of the devolved system of government? The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was present at a press conference about recent inward investment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Did the Under-Secretary feel uncomfortable when the owner of the company bringing the investment to East Kilbride said that he would still have made that investment against the background of a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Lang: I could quote many business men who have said the direct opposite. If the hon. Gentleman cared to read the Scotland on Sunday business view survey of 200 company directors last december, he would see that 86 per cent. said that a Scottish assembly would not help the Scottish economy, 78 per cent. said that it would deter inward investment, and 64 per cent. said that they would rethink investment strategy and levels of employment. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the damage that a tax-raising assembly would do to Scotland's economy, and what the raising of a tax border across the frontier between Carlisle and Berwick would do to the people of Scotland, he had better have another look at his plans.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Hon. Members: Speak for England!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is about Germany.
    Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a devolved system of government in the Federal Republic of Germany. If there were a devolved system of government in the United Kingdom, and if Scotland had its own Parliament, would it not be democratically improper and immoral for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to harbour ambitions to govern England? Is not devolution a fraud?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend identifies a very important issue which the Labour party has completely failed to address. Labour has failed to recognise that if there is a measure of devolution of the kind that Labour identifies, it is not just some bolt-on extra but brings costs and a down side as well as the benefits that Labour perceives. That is the kind of issue that would have to be addressed. I can see the strength of my hon. Friend's view that it would be very difficult to sustain morally the position that the Labour party advocates.
    Mr. Dewar: Reverting to the Secretary of State's foreign travels, does he accept that, by continuing to pretend that there can be no change, that the German option, the Spanish option and the Italian option can never be the British option or the Scottish option, he is in danger of destroying the Union to which he pays lip service?
    Mr. Lang: The German option, the Spanish option and the other option that the hon. Gentleman identifies are not

    947
    the option that his party is offering the people of Scotland. If he does not understand that, he really should go back to the drawing board.

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase expenditure on advertising aimed to encourage electoral registration in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am satisfied that the current level of expenditure on advertising for electoral registration in Scotland represents good value for money and is highly effective.
    Mr. Barnes: The new electoral registers for Scotland show a fall of 85,000 since 1987. That includes a fall of 16,000 among 18-year-olds. The position relating to the number of 18-year-olds and older is far worse, in that there is a shortfall of 140,000 on the electoral register, which averages 2,000 per constituency. In those circumstances, emergency action should be taken. Is the only way that the Tories can win seats in Scotland by fiddling the franchises?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are spending considerable sums on advertising—£47,000 next year and £46,000 this year. We strongly encourage everybody who is entitled to register to do so and to use their democratic right to vote. There are many reasons why the numbers have been decreasing. There have been changes in registration practices, there have been changes in legitimate dual registration—for example, in the case of students—and there have been people moving from house to house and not registering. There is a greater inclination to register near an election. There are also demographic changes. It is virtually impossible to state a single cause without an enormous amount of research, which we believe would not involve value for money.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that even a substantial increase in the number of those registered to vote in Scotland would do nothing to alter the tremendous imbalance in this House between representatives from Scotland and those from England?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend touches on a very sensitive point. The one part of Britain which was devolved was Northern Ireland, with Stormont. Of course, the number of hon. Members per capita was very much lower in relation to that part of Britain than it is today. It is well worth the House bearing that in mind.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), the number of young people registered in 1991 is substantially up on the 1979 figure. It was 62.1 per cent. in 1979, and it is now 69.3 per cent. We want the figure to be greatly increased; that is why we are advertising.
    Mr. Doran: May I make a special plea to the Minister for the case of offshore workers? There are 35,000 offshore workers. So far as I am aware, there is no special advertising targeted at them. That is a serious point because they make a major contribution to the economy. From my contacts with them, I know that there is great uncertainty about their right to a postal vote. Given that
    948
    they travel to Aberdeen from all parts of the country, it is a central Government issue. Will the Minister take that on board?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into that point and write to the hon. Gentleman because it is extremely important that all of them should have the opportunity to exercise their rights.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister may be complacent about the electoral registration figures, but we know that many of his ministerial colleagues are very cynical about this, and see it a last benefit to be obtained from the poll tax in its dying days. Whatever other factors there may be, the Minister knows that tens of thousands of youngsters have been frightened off the electoral register, however misguidedly, by the belief that it would help them to avoid the poll tax.
    In the dying days of the poll tax, having had to surrender on every other front, will the Government at least have the decency to go to those young people, to advertise and to use some resources to try to get them back on to the electoral register? The Government have taken everything else off those people. They have taken jobs and decent training off them. Will they at least leave them the right to vote, so that they can exercise their democratic right to change the Government of this country?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The fundamental principle is that where electors are entitled to register they should do so, but the hon. Gentleman should examine his own record. He supported the Stop It campaign and discouraged people from paying, and there were payment delays. Indeed, a number of Opposition Members delayed their payments, and at least one has not paid.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people under 24 years of age are unemployed in Scotland; how many of them are long-term unemployed; what plans he has to reduce these figures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The information requested is available for the 16 to 24 age group only. In October 1991 there were 68,674 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in Scotland, of whom 13,589 had been unemployed for more than a year.
    The Government have introduced the most comprehensive range of measures ever in this country to help unemployed people back to work. The measures include a wide range of assistance from the employment service, youth training, employment training and employment action. However, in the final analysis it is a productive economy which provides new jobs, and we are vigorously removing barriers to economic growth.
    Mr. Marshall: The Minister must be thoroughly ashamed of those figures. They are not numbers in a balance sheet; they represent real people trapped in the misery and poverty of unemployment. Many of those people are denied benefits by the Government. Has the Minister not even begun to realise the frustrations of young people in Scotland who see their future and their hopes being destroyed by his party? When will he realise

    949
    that the only unemployment that we in Scotland want to see is that of Tory MPs after the next election, when a Labour Government will be elected?
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the most recent opinion polls. He represents a party which, when in government, has always increased unemployment. On the question of youth unemployment, the present Government have given school leavers a guarantee of youth training—a guarantee that was never given by the last Labour Government and is unique in Europe. The present Government have brought in employment action as an extra weapon in the battle against unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman really cared
    950
    about unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds he would dissociate himself from his party's policy of a national minimum wage. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh. Did not they see the report in the Sunday newspapers that Coats Viyella, a major employer in my constituency, is expressing concern about the effects of a national minimum wage?
    Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This behaviour is very unseemly. I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not rising because he was not called. I think that I shall call a lady Member first.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Education and Science given you notice that he will this afternoon make an urgent statement about the state of our schools? In a school in my constituency, a three-storey wall has collapsed into a classroom. Because of the danger to the children, the school is now closed. An urgent statement about the state of our schools and about what the Government intend to do about it would be appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Government Whip will have heard the hon. Lady's remarks, but she will have an opportunity tomorrow to put the matter to the Leader of the House at business questions.
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just made a statement about Coats Viyella—a very well known public company—in relation to the Labour party's policy on a minimum wage. I understand that the press report has been commented on by Coats Viyella itself. The company has made it very clear that it wishes to be dissociated from the misreporting and the travesty of its views. I fear that this Minister of the Crown must have been aware of that fact as he continued to spread the inaccuracy. Does not he owe us an apology?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for what is said.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Scottish questions. With respect, every time that you, Mr. Speaker, call an English Tory when a large number of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament stand in their places to be called during Scottish questions, it fuels my suspicion that you, Mr. Speaker, and some of your English Tory friends are in a—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that at once.
Mr. Foulkes: Some of your English Tory friends—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have no friends.
Mr. Foulkes: I suspect that some English Tory Members—whether or not you, Mr. Speaker, are friendly with them—are in an unholy alliance with the Scottish National party, to help the break-up of the United Kingdom. That suspicion is growing very strongly.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard many extraordinary allegations in this Chamber, but never anything quite as wild as that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. English Members of this United Kingdom Parliament do not complain when Scots come over the border and sit in English seats. Nor do we complain when Scottish Members join in English questions. They should exhibit a little reciprocity.
Mr. Speaker: I think that all Scottish right hon. and hon. Members understand this—we seem to have this at
952
every Scottish Office Question Time. English Members of Parliament are called during questions on subjects that concern the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will read Hansard tomorrow, he will find that there were questions today about Germany, electoral registration, and so on. I do not propose to allow a debate on how I decide which right hon. or hon. Member to call.
Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of the exchanges during Scottish questions this afternoon—when the allegation was made by some that lies were told, and others were called traitors—will you, Mr. Speaker, recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he arrange talks between Conservative Members, Scottish Labour Members, and Scottish National party Members before we next have Scottish questions, so that it may be more seemly?
Mr. Speaker: If Scottish questions were more like Ulster questions, it would probably be a happier occasion.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that we assume that you, are a friend to all Back Benchers; we acknowledge that. As a Welsh-born Scottish Member of Parliament who looks after the interests of an English constituency, I acknowledge that you do your best—even though you did not call me during Scottish questions today.
In response to an earlier point of order, you said, Mr. Speaker, that you try to ensure that questions are relevant to the United Kingdom when you call English Members. Every question on the Order Paper for Scottish Question Time is relevant to the whole United Kingdom and the love that every United Kingdom Member of Parliament has for our cousins in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I will let this blow out.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) raised his point of order, you, were smiling.
Mr. Speaker: I try to smile.
Mr. Foulkes: Smirking, in fact—as usual.
Mr. Home Robertson: You felt, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was making an outrageous point. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the conduct that we see from many English Members during Scottish Office Question Time is helping to bring not only the Government but the House into contempt in Scotland. That matter is of great concern to those of us who want to represent responsibly all the people in Scotland. There is a constitutional crisis, which it is up to hon. Members in all parts of the House to address seriously.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one at a time. I say to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that I do not smirk. What I was trying to say—I hope that the whole House accepts this—was that I have no special friends. I think that that was what the hon. Gentleman was alleging.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have already spoken about the allegations made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). As an English Member of Parliament, I take great exception to the suggestion that English Members seek to undermine the Union—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what the hon. Member was trying to say in Question time. But he said it then, and it is not a point of order for me now.
Mr. Favell: The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. English Members have just the same interest in preserving the union between England and Scotland as Scottish Members. Whenever the matter is raised, English Members should have the opportunity to put that point, as should Scottish Members who believe in the Act of Union between our two great countries which has existed for 300 years.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland is on record in Scotland as saying that, after the election, everyone who votes Labour will be counted as a Tory voter. May I have your assurance that you still make a distinction between the unionist Labour party and the unionist Tory party in the House?
Mr. Speaker: I shall not be here after the election, so it will not arise.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the narrow, intolerant attitude espoused by the Scottish National party that we find ourselves in this position. We have important business to deal with in the House. I rose on four or five questions but was not called. I accept that; but I take exception to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) ranting and raving but saying nothing about Scottish issues. When people in Scotland see such episodes, they feel that their considerations are not taken care of in Westminster. If one session of Scottish Questions is not enough, I ask you to think again and do something so that the views of Scottish Members of Parliament can be taken into consideration.
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to have a debate on how I call hon. Members at Question Time, because it might be painful in subsequent Question Times. May I
954
repeat that Scottish questions—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members who were called during the previous Scottish questions on 12 December—as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was—did not stand quite such a good chance of being called today. I try to call all hon. Members from Scotland fairly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not have a debate about devolution now.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us in the House do not mind the disproportionate amount of time given to Scots, Welsh and Irish questions, but hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Ireland should recognise that many of us come from areas of Britain such as the west midlands which would welcome even once a year a west midlands question time. We are the ones who provide the fuel that they consume. We are tired of the Scots being so sensitive about this being their Parliament. It is our Parliament too, and if we are to have question times for minority groups, why not the west midlands, too?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unsatisfactory that, in Scottish Question Time, we no longer have the 10 minutes that were given to the Lord Advocate? In those circumstances, have you had a request from the Minister to answer Question 38, which could explain why the views of the Scottish police, and, I believe, the Lord Advocate, about Lockerbie are materially different from the stated public view of the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Speaker: I have not received such a request, but no doubt the hon. Member will receive an answer to his question in the normal way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With friendly respect, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the gentle reprimands that you have issued to Members on both Front Benches during Scottish Question Time about what I can only describe as verbose answers—I think that you described them as "lengthy"? If you were to check tomorrow on the number of column inches in Hansard devoted to answers given by Scottish Office Ministers, you would realise that a number of Scottish Members were prevented from being called today.
Mr. Speaker: I might.

Pre-wired Plugs
3.44 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 to require pre-wired plugs to be fitted to all domestic appliances by the manufacturer.
On Friday, the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill which will save lives on the roads. Today, I beg leave to introduce a Bill which will save lives in the home and at work, a Bill which will make it necessary for a plug to be attached to an electrical appliance before it is sold to the general public.
I am grateful to the Consumers Association, the National Association of Women's Clubs and other organisations and to the many people who have written to me in support of the Bill. I am especially grateful to LBC Radio, to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for York (Mr. Gregory) and to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for their help. Above all, I am grateful to the BBC's "Watchdog" programme, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and to The Mail on Sunday for campaigning over a long period to ensure that this necessary safety measure is introduced.
The campaign has been necessary for two reasons. First, every year there are approximately 2,000 non-fatal accidents involving plugs which necessitate medical treatment. Sadly, there are also fatal accidents. Earlier this year, Mrs. Julie O'Toole, a 26-year-old mother from Walsall, was electrocuted when a wire came loose in a plug, making her washing machine live. That is just one of the tragedies which might have been avoided if the Bill had been law. Last year, 28 people lost their lives in similar accidents. That is a sad and horrific waste of life, which could so easily be avoided by adopting these proposals.
Research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents shows that every household has at least one potentially lethal plug. A survey of 20,000 homes discovered wrong fuses fitted, live and neutral wires reversed, earth conductors unconnected, terminal screws loose and damaged insulation. A survey of 1,000 homes by the BBC's "Watchdog" programme revealed that as many as seven plugs in each house may be faulty, often because people do not know how to fit them. The Consumers Association's home inspection survey found that one in 23 plugs are dangerous, one in nine had to be replaced because of a fault, and one in four were inadequately wired internally.
When those findings are weighed against the minor cost of pre-fitted plugs—the consumer would have to buy a plug in any case—and consideration is given to the savings in time and frustration to the elderly, the infirm, the poorly sighted and the plain clumsy, like me, who find wiring plugs a difficult exercise, the case for the Bill is overwhelming.
The Government sought to improve safety by introducing the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations in 1987, which required all 13 amp plugs supplied in Britain to be approved by an authorised body. That was a major advance. Despite those regulations, a survey by the Consumers Association some time after their introduction showed that 65 of 153 plugs bought were non-approved and should not have been on sale.
956
The regulations do nothing to cover the problem of faulty wiring of a plug by the customer. The Government have sought to ensure that all plugs sold are safe, but that is no help if a plug is wired incorrectly. We need safe wiring of plugs as well as safe plugs. That can be achieved by compelling manufacturers to fit moulded-on plugs to all domestic electrical appliances. That simple method would make it certain that plugs were fitted correctly and safely and were equipped with the correct fuse.
I said earlier that The Mail on Sunday campaign was necessary for two reasons: first, because of safety, and, secondly, because the Government were not minded to
improve the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South raised this important subject in an Adjournment debate in 1989 to voice his concern about it. He was told by the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs:
"Any proposal of the sort he has made would result in the introduction of new legislative burdens on industry and would fly in the face of one of the Government's prime vehicles for the creation of wealth…deregulation."—[Official Report, 23 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 1273.]
The Minister went on to list the improvements that had already been made and he said that any further legislation would therefore be unnecessary. He reaffirmed that the Government's objective was to stimulate enterprise through individual initiatives to meet the demands of the market by removing unnecessary controls on the trading
environment. He conceded that, in exceptional circumstances, one could depart from that stance, for example, because of safety considerations.
Since that Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and many others have sought to convince the Government that safety is paramount. There have been many discussions and meetings with those concerned in the past two years. The Bill is designed to bring this country into line with all the other countries in the western world.
From those discussions it has become clear that the current Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is sympathetic to the need to introduce changes to make electrical appliances safer. He has accepted the arguments put forward, and I welcome that and thank him for the work that he has done. The Minister could short-circuit the system if he sought to introduce proposals to amend the present plugs and sockets regulations. I would encourage him to do so because even if leave is given to introduce the Bill it could fall if an early general election were called.
I was encouraged when I read the latest edition of The Mail on Sunday—I do not believe everything that I read in that newspaper, apart from the opinion polls—which said that the Minister might even implement changes to the regulations this week. It reported that the change would mean that, in future, all electrical goods sold in Britain would have to have pre-fitted plugs. I would welcome such a change.
The thought that my Bill may have influenced the Minister is a satisfying one. It might even tempt me to introduce another ten-minute Bill, perhaps to reduce the pension age for men from 65 to 60 in the hope that that met with similar success. However, the measures referred to by The Mail on Sunday have not been revealed by the Minister, so I have decided to introduce my Bill.

957
My hon. Friend the Minister may move to higher office between now and the timing of any announcement. He may well be replaced by a Minister who is less sympathetic to my proposals. Therefore, the House should have the opportunity to enact this important legislation that would save lives and reduce injuries. Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. David Alton, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Sir Patrick Duffy, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

PRE-WIRED PLUGS
Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 to require pre-wired plugs to be fitted to all domestic appliances by the manufacturer: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Local Authority Finance
3.53 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been to the Board to collect an answer to a written question to the Department of the Environment. The answer affects tomorrow's debate on the rate support grant.
The question required a simple, but lengthy, calculation exercise relating to figures put before the House on 26 November in relation to the standard spending assessment report. I wanted to know what percentage of the poll tax comes from the business rate and what percentage comes from other avenues. The House should have such information and I should not have been told that the question would be answered shortly. We must have the answer immediately; that information should be before us. The only reason that the Department of the Environment can have for not answering the question is to deprive the House of that information.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must take it up with the Department concerned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It was not really a point of order.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just been to the Table Office and, at the end of the day, it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to adjudicate in arguments between the Table Office and an hon. Member. My hon. Friend is drawing attention to the laggardly way in which the Government are operating. Only the other day, the Prime Minister was rabbiting on about a citizens charter and answering letters on it, but the Government cannot even give my hon. Friend an answer to his question.
Mr. Speaker: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman was complaining about the content of an answer.

WAYS AND MEANS

  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS) BILL
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Schools) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Chief Inspector of Schools in England or the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales under the Act.—[Mr. Kenneth Clark.]

Orders of the Day
  Education (Schools) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES
  —(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the appropriate authority for every school in England and Wales to which section 9 applies to make available either generally or to prescribed persons, in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed, such information about arrangements for the consideration and disposal of any complaint which is to the effect that a report of an inspection under section 9(1) or (2) is seriously misleading.
  (2) In this section "appropriate authority" has the meaning given by section 9.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.57 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause seeks to make the Bill slightly more tolerable. We opposed the measure throughout the Committee stage because it will seriously damage standards in schools and the quality of information available to parents, local communities and members of staff. The progress that each school makes is to be monitored through inspections. The new clause relates particularly to the inspection part of the Bill.
  We are still confused and uncertain about why the Government suggest that form of inspection for schools. They make no such suggestion for other parts of the public services and certainly not for the private sector. The House has roundly rejected the suggestion that those parts of both the private and the public sector responsible for services used by the public should be responsible for their own inspections, yet that is what we are considering today for schools.
  There is a consensus that we need, above all, to tackle the quality of education available to all children, not just a few. That consensus should have led to improving the current inspection arrangements rather than dismantling them and bringing in private inspectors chosen by individual schools. That has been calculated to ensure that there is no national monitoring of standards in schools. No one is confident that that form of inspection will work.
  I confess that I have not had much time to read today's newspapers, but they contained a letter from more than 20 organisations, including all the parent organisations concerned with education, expressing their very deep concern about the inspection arrangement outlined in the Bill. Because those involved in those organisations, who give hours of their time voluntarily, want the highest standards available and the most impartial but expert inspections to ensure that those standards are maintained, they are outraged by the Government's proposals.
  New clause 1 is a modest proposal—some of the more exciting plans are put forward in later new clauses. The new clause largely arises from the experiences of those of us who have been involved in public sector organisations when trying to elicit information and ensure that the
  960
  people on the receiving end have the opportunity to find out when the information does not stand up. The clause deals specifically with the manner in which complaints can be made, and the fact that there must be clarity on complaints procedures.
  I know that many parents find it difficult to complain about what is happening in a school, even when they know the procedure for doing so, as they are anxious that they may affect—
  Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has much more information to give the House. My two youngest children go to Prescot primary school in my constituency.
  Mr. Jack Straw: It was named after our hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was it not?
  Mr. Howarth: Actually, Prescot is spelt with one "t", which is crossed—I do not know what happened to the "i".
  The excellent headmistress of that school, Nora Giubertoni, has found that the other so-called reforms for which she as headmistress is responsible, are difficult to manage. Although the school is still excellent, she spends much time messing about with budgets and tasks that she never envisaged having to undertake when she entered the teaching profession. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) give me an idea of the impact that the extra work will have on Mrs. Giubertoni and the governors who are already hard pressed?
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend has made an important point. There are various sick jokes circulating the teaching profession about the amount of "overload", "innovation fatigue" and other such phrases. The Government have seriously mismanaged change in education, and my hon. Friend has shown yet another example of that.
  People are not saying that they are resistant to change, but they want to be part of it, consulted about it and taken along with it. Most of all, teachers want to be able to do the job for which they were trained and for which I had always understood they were paid—teaching children well.
  The Government have some ideological problem—to put it politely—with other organisations, particularly what they call the educational establishment. That establishment is a difficult one to name, and sometimes the people involved in it are called "wise men", which somewhat disturbs me, given that most of those involved in primary teaching are women. The educational establishment has been trying to get the Government to think about change in a different way.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right: many teachers feel that the additional jobs that they have to do detract from the quality of teaching that the school is able to provide. I have talked to many governors who are concerned about that. They want to be involved in and consulted about inspection, but they do not feel that it is their role to choose their own inspectors.
  Mr. Derek Enright: My hon. Friend will not yet be aware that a report has been made by Her Majesty's inspectorate on Ackworth middle school in my constituency. The report was critical in some respects of what was happening but it was found by teachers,

  961
  governors and, above all, by parents to be extremely helpful in setting guidelines for the future of the school. I always found during my extensive teaching experience in secondary schools that the inspectorate was sensible, wise, forward looking and, above all, seeking to raise the standards of each and every pupil in the school that it was inspecting. I took that view even when I disagreed with it. Would it not be a disaster if the Bill in its entirety were to be enacted?
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. If the Bill is enacted, it will damage standards within schools. More particularly, it will destroy the credibility of inspection. Indeed, it has already done so. I know that the Secretary of State and the rest of us will be cautious when it comes to dealing with vested interests, but organisations representing parents and others that represent governors have expressed serious concern about the basic premise of the Bill, which is that governors should have overall control in determining who will undertake the inspection of a school.
  Governors do not want that responsibility. They want the credibility of independent inspection and not because they want to shirk responsibility. They want everyone to know that they are not partisan over inspections. We know that rumours spread quickly within communities, and more quickly in some than in others. That being so, governing bodies feel that it is irresponsible to expect them to select inspectors.
  Complaint procedures will overload governing bodies if the terms of the new clause are not included in the Bill, and the new clause is designed to ensure that the procedures are determined by the Secretary of State rather than by governors or complainants. We want to ensure that arrangements for the consideration and disposal of a complaint are clearly set down, understood and available. We had a useful debate in Committee on the importance of establishing a complaints procedure.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has not dealt at this stage with the role of head teachers. The governing body of Prescot county primary school will find itself in difficulties. The chairman of the governing body, Councillor Harold Campbell, who is the mayor-elect of Knowsley, will be considerably overburdened on account of his mayoral responsibilities next year and may therefore find that the additional work of chairing the governing body will cause him considerable problems. Can my hon. Friend say how much additional work Mrs. Giubertoni, the headmistress, will have to do? She, too, will be greatly concerned.
  Ms. Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about head teachers. We discussed this issue in Standing Committee when we considered the Bill and returned to it again and again. It will lead to additional work, which may detract from the teaching and overall management of the curriculum, for which the head teacher is responsible.
  In addition, the relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is very important. They must work well together. We take no pleasure in the enormous problems that are caused when a head teacher and the chair of the govening body hold completely different views about the direction that the school should take. That has led to tragic effects in Stratford school, which is having a detrimental effect on the children.
  Mr. Howarth: As far as I know, there are no differences of opinion between Councillor Campbell and Mrs. Giubertoni. They are united in their joint objective: that the excellent education provided by the school should continue. What I am concerned about is the role of the head teacher.
  Ms. Armstrong: I hope that my hon. Friend will live with me for a while on this. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The professional relationship—I always deal with professional relationships, although some of those who sit on the Treasury Bench seem to have some difficulty with that, but never mind—between the chair of the governors and the head teachers has to be a strong working relationship. They must be able to trust each other in performing their different roles. Both those roles are critical—
  Mr. Howarth: And complementary.
  Ms. Armstrong: Yes, and complementary.
  The governors will have to rely heavily on the advice of the head teacher in many primary schools as to who should be chosen to form the inspection team. They will rely on the head teacher for advice about the qualities to be looked for and the role that the inspection team is to fulfil. If the governors receive a good report which makes them say to themselves, "Is this a bit of a whitewash? Are we getting to the heart of how to improve and develop education in this school?", they may begin to wonder whether the head teacher is trying to make things easy for himself or herself. If, however, they receive a highly critical report, they may say to themselves, "How on earth are we to attract pupils to this school after such a critical report? Why did the head teacher not advise us to choose a team who might be a little critical but not too critical?"
  There would then be great problems for the head teacher and the governors of the school. It would be very difficult for the head teacher and the governors to work out just what they wanted for the school. That is where the complaints procedures on which we are seeking information from the Government will come into play. How are people to complain if they feel that the report has not been prepared in a proper professional manner, or that it is misleading in any aspect?
  In Committee, we talked particularly about the fact that some subjects or some of the more general work such as pastoral care or out-of-school activities might not have been properly addressed. People might find the report or parts of it misleading. What are the procedures for complaining? People must have confidence that if they do a certain thing, they will be pressing the right button to get action.
  It is ironical that this week we have had the relaunch of the citizens charter, part of which is supposed to be about how people who feel that they have not got their entitlement from any public service may complain, and what the redress is. Yet in the Bill that is still unclear. We managed to make a little progress in Committee, but there is still a long way to go.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned one sector of education. In my constituency, there are not 1 million preparatory schools, but where I taught originally in Surrey there were many preparatory schools and independent secondary schools with truly appalling standards. Some of those schools were conning parents in

  963
  every way. They were cheating them and giving poor education. I want to know whether parents of children at such schools will be protected by the inspectorate. From my reading of the Bill it seems that that will not happen. Therefore, the measure is a partial Bill. The Government are defending their money-grubbing friends who are making great profits out of exploiting poor pupils.
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend makes the telling point that the Government do not give the same consideration to the rights and opportunities of children in the independent sector as to those of children in the maintained sector. He was not a Member when we had the debates on the national curriculum in the Education Reform Act 1988. My right hon. and hon. Friends contended that, if the curriculum was national, it should apply to the independent sector. The reality is that the Bill will not deal with the independent sector. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has the opportunity to move another new clause later, he will deal with how we intend to ensure that inspection and the national curriculum should apply to all children, however their parents choose to have them educated. Children have an entitlement to quality.
  Mr. George Howarth: Prescott—[HON. MEMBERS: "Make a speech."] May I say to Conservative Members who are urging me to make a speech that I may do so later. On the last occasion that we had a similar debate, I managed to take up two hours of parliamentary time. If hon. Members would like me to speak, I am sure that I could find time to do so.
  Prescot county primary school is a matter of great interest to me and to many of my constituents—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) is talking.
  Mr. Howarth: If there were prizes in the Chamber for talking during the speeches of other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) would be unable to carry them home because she would be entitled to so many.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady cannot intervene because I am already intervening.
  What concerns me is the excellent nursery unit within the school, which is run by Mrs. Parker and Mrs. Jones, and which is attended by my younger son Jack. My daughter Sian attended the unit until last July. Will Mrs. Parker and Mrs. Jones be involved in the process of selecting inspectors? They already find it difficult to keep up with all the young children in the nursery unit and with the demands put on them.
  Ms. Armstrong: The answer depends on the status of the nursery unit. If it is part of the school, the responsibility will lie with the governing body of the whole school. It may be a separate unit. In Committee, we managed to get the Government to recognise that children in nursery schools have the right to proper, quality education and that such schools should be inspected. The
  964
  Government have tabled amendments—and I look forward to Minister moving those amendments—which will deal specifically with that issue.
  We are anxious to ensure that there is proper information is available about complaints procedures. I thought that such an issue was at the heart of the citizens charter. We cannot understand why complaints procedures have not been dealt with adequately in the Bill. It is a bit much for us to be expected to do the Government's business for them. I am sure that the Government do not want the Bill to complete its passage in the House before they have dealt with the issues with which the citizens charter also deals.
  New clause 1 gives the Government the opportunity to ensure that proper information is available about the procedures for complaints, whether about misleading reports or about an inspection that is seen to be inadequate because it has not taken account of all the relevant areas. I commend new clause 1 to the House.
  Mr. George Walden: I have a complaint to register about the record of the inspectorate, and I will give one concrete example. A few weeks ago, the inspectorate visited a few primary schools in France and made the most extraordinary discovery: that primary schools in France produced better results than ours do. That has been the case for a considerable time, to my personal knowledge, because my children went to primary school in France. It has been the case for at least 10 years, and may have been the case for a couple of decades.
  Most primary schools in France—I have visited schools in France other than the one that my children attended—are engaged in doing two things: they allow children's personalities to evolve, which none of us opposes; and they teach the children, which happens all too rarely in this country. By "teach the children", I mean, to give an example, that they were being taught grammar and also poetry by writers such as Victor Hugo and Stephane Mallarmê, while equivalent children in this country were reading, at most, sub-Enid Blyton stuff, specially written down for the children to keep them perpetually childlike.
  I am astonished that our inspectorate, which once fathered Matthew Arnold, should have failed for 10 or 20 years to notice that, a few miles away on the other side of the channel, they were doing these things rather better. How is it that our inspectorate for all those years failed to notice that there was something deeply wrong in the entire philosophy governing our primary schools? I see an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches nodding—I will not mention which one.
  There has been a problem, and it has affected most deeply people at the bottom of society, who cannot escape into private education. So the people who have suffered all these years tend to be those at the lower end, especially those in inner cities.
  It is very worrying that the inspectorate should simply catch up with a mood which has developed in society and which has been, rightly, reflected by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, a mood of concern about our primary schools. Reform should have been initiated by the inspectorate, operating against a background not of concerns, modish or otherwise, but of absolute standards, and standards that are internationally measurable. How are the French or German children doing in maths at seven years old? What sort of thing does the average French child learn at seven years old about its

  965
  own culture and history? What has been going on in our own schools during that time that we have only now registered? So there is a fundamental problem about the role of the inspectorate during this whole period which convinces me that the Government are right to undertake their radical reform.
  Mr. Straw: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. He will know, because he is fair-minded, that the Labour party concluded that the inspectorate, at national and local level, needed reform a lot sooner than the Government, who wrote these proposals on the back of an envelope some time in the summer.
  Since he is waxing eloquent about the French example, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the French have ever considered not strengthening their inspectorate but dismembering it and allowing individual schools to pick and choose their own inspectors, with the consequence, as Ministers have admitted in Committee, that schools will be able to pick inspectors according to their own dogma? Their dogma will not then be brought under public scrutiny but will be confirmed by the inspectors who will share it. How will that raise standards?
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Member has raised a valid point but has touched on only half of it. I would not support the Bill if there were no central control over standards in the inspectorate. If any Tom, Dick or Harry could pose as an inspector and thereby ingratiate himself financially with a school, that would be absurd. I would not support it, partly because I have sneaking centralist tendencies in education which I think are needed to balance the decentralisation that the Government have quite rightly gone in for. Grant-maintained schools and all the rest of it are part of that.
  What I see in the Bill is a coherent philosophy following that of grant-maintained schools, where there is decentralisation and a less corporate-minded inspectorate. But one cannot let these people run loose, for the very reason that the hon. Member for Blackburn has given. There should be central control, and that exists in the Bill.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Straw: I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for not following our proceedings in Standing Committee. If hon. Members are not members of a Standing Committee, they do not spend their time reading Standing Committee Hansards.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he supports the Bill because there will be sufficient control over local inspectors to ensure that high standards of inspection are maintained when schools are inspected. I want to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention an exchange that took place in Standing Committee between the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), and me. I asked the junior Minister:
  "What about a primary school which thinks its strength is in mixed-ability non-didactic group-work teaching? Will the governing body of that primary school be allowed to choose an inspection team that has a similar approach?"
  The Minister replied:
  "Of course the school will be free to choose a team registered with HMCI which concentrates on that approach, but the governing body will ask itself whether it is wise to do so if it is offered one particularly ideological method of teaching. That governing body would be at even greater pains
  966
  to assure parents and the wider community that that method was delivering the results for which it had argued."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 December 1991; c. 255.]
  The crucial point about the junior Minister's admission is that, whether or not it was wise to do so, the school governing body would be free, in the Minister's words, to choose inspectors which shared the school's approach for mixed ability, non-didactic group-work teaching. That is an approach which the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) would condemn and want to see rooted out from schools. However, as a result of the Secretary of State's scheme, schools can be inspected by inspectors who share such an approach. I do not understand how that can lead to a consistent standard of inspection.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind hon. Members that we are not in Committee. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman has raised a reasonable point, and I will give him a reasonable answer. Let us imagine that the philosophy on reading methods espoused by the spouse of the Leader of the Opposition was in force. Mrs. Kinnock is known to be in favour of what I consider to be the voodoo technique of leaving a book in a room in the hope that a child will—[Interruption.] This is a central point. The wife of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is a primary school teacher. If a school which espoused that method of teaching was to invite an inspector known to favour that method, that would be worrying. I would also find it worrying if there was an artificially rigid school, like a Japanese or cramming school, with a Gradgrind kind of inspector.
  The point of the Bill is that there should be a safeguard against that kind of thing. If a school is inspected by this or that type of inspector and receives full marks for its work but does not merit those marks, that will become clear over time and as a result of trial and error. We must consider the Bill in the context of the general thrust of Government policy, which is to allow information about school results to be known. Those results would reflect the inadequacies. If those inadequacies were endorsed by an inspector, the central inspectorate would rumble him.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The governors would be free to choose such an inspectorate. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and I would disapprove if they did that. However, under the proposals, they would be able to select such an inspectorate only if that inspectorate reached the national standards imposed by HMI. Under the alternative proposition which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says he came up with some time ago, if the local education authority sought to impose on the school an inspectorate with such ideological views—there are plenty of Labour local authorities which, on recent form, would indeed try to impose on the school an inspectorate with ideological views of which we disapproved—it would have no alternative. Labour proposals say that a local authority will impose its inspectorate and that only the local authority's inspectorate will be able to carry out an inspection.
  Mr. Walden: My right hon. and learned Friend casts the argument even wider. In my humble view, there is a fundamental problem with LEAs' representatives.

  967
  Humberside runs its schools on the basis of 13 per cent. Of the electorate. Whatever one may say about the Tory party, it is not yet down to 13 per cent. I listen with a sceptical ear to anyone prating about local democracy when the figures are of that order. I am sorry to say that there are Tory authorities which are in a similar position.
  The idea that people operating on such a slender, scarcely existent democratic basis should have total control over education in their schools and the inspection of that education leaves me dead cold. The record of education, particularly in primary schools, shows how easy it is for alarmingly low standards to go undetected, although the schools have been theoretically inspected for many years.
  I do not want to hog too much of the debate, but I should like to leave my right hon. and learned Friend with one little message from a primary school in my constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend has not inspected that school, but I feel bound to pass on, in all neutrality, the message from the newspaper "Meadow Express", which is admirably produced by the Bourton school in Buckingham. It states:
  "Kenneth Clark"—
  without an "e"—
  "said to two people to go and report on what Primary Schools are like. He thinks that the Primary Schools should be strict. You should sit in rows and let the teachers have all the fun and we just watch. This is called the three Rs. They stand for reading, writing and 'rithmetic.
  They want us to go back to the old fashioned ways because he thinks we are not learning enogh"—
  minus the "u".
  "The men who did this report said on the news last night that they had no time to see the schools so how do they know we're not learning? We know we are."
  I thought that I should pass that on as a piece of—
  Mr. George Howarth: Another cheap shot.
  Mr. Walden: It is not a cheap shot; it is a piece of grass-roots democracy.
  The new inspectorate system—the new information system—will work only if there is considerable rigour at the centre. We must get away from the ambiguous position of the inspectorate in London, whereby it has twin loyalties. One loyalty is to the education establishment and the other is to the Government. The result is that the inspectorate tends to oscillate in the prevailing wind. That has led to the abject failure of the inspectorate over the years to point to the fundamental difficulties in primary education that my right hon. and learned Friend is rightly highlighting.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I rarely speak on education matters, but the House will be aware that I have fairly wide-ranging interests. I was an experienced and highly qualified schoolmaster for quite a long time. I was also an examiner, I was involved in a local education committee, I took a fairly active part in my professional association, and I occasionally wrote articles about education. Although I do not often speak in education debates, I take a marked interest in the subject. During recesses, I visit schools in rotation in my constituency. The comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about the standard of British primary education do not tally with my experience as a schoolmaster or my experience of visiting primary schools in my constituency.
  968
  Indeed, not long ago, after a visit to the Wickersley and Northfield lane infant and junior schools, I tabled an early-day motion. I am not usually surprised by what I see in schools, but I was surprised at the very high standards attained by the children in those schools, despite the fact that, although the education authority is a good one, the infants school was able to obtain only £400-worth of books last year, while the cost of providing the papers that the teachers are supposed to read for the purpose of assessment and the national curriculum amounted to well over £800.
  I observed the children reading, and discovered that the vast majority of those leaving the infants school were free readers and that the vast majority of those leaving the junior school had achieved reading ages that 20 or 30 years ago were considered to be generally unattainable. I came to the conclusion—I believe that my early-day motion made the point—that it might well be that those children could read better than some of the Ministers who have graced the Department of Education and Science, not excluding, of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  My real reason for speaking on the new clause is that, in the current developments in education, we are seeing history repeating itself. That being so, I want to tell again a story which is entirely relevant and deals with this very serious matter. It is a comment on what is happening historically in education. It is about an inspection of a school in my constituency in the 1860s. I shall not detain the House too long, but the story is entirely relevant. I draw the attention of the Secretary of State's predecessor to it as, the day after I told it previously, his predecessor visited Wentworth Woodhouse to address the north of England education conference. The school that the story is about is the village school at Wentworth, which still exists.
  In those days, as a result of the abrasive approach of the Government of that day, there was introduced a scheme of payment by results. Her Majesty's inspectors toured schools to see that the children were learning the three Rs properly. One inspector—not Matthew Arnold, but an acquaintance of his who was also a reverend gentleman—arrived at Wentworth village school, which was not big. He looked at the work and gave the teacher a bad report. Wentworth is the estate village of the former earldom of Fitzwilliam. The earl, who "owned" about 30 parliamentary constituencies, was a Whig, and his eldest son, Lord Milton, was usually in the House of Commons. The earl was deeply distressed that the functionary of the Board of Education should have had the audacity to visit his village school and to question and criticise the schoolmistress. There were stories about the relationship between the schoolmistress and the earl, but I shall not go into that.
  The earl took exception to the inspector's very bad report, and in the House of Lords one day he told the President of the Board of Education that he was not happy about it. Shortly afterwards, the reverend inspector was sent to Wentworth school to carry out a further inspection. When he arrived, the earl, the countess, Lord Milton and various friends and relatives from the British aristocracy were sitting at the back of the room. Presumably they were in the area for the shooting season. The purpose of the inspector's second visit was to check the accuracy of his first report. On the second visit, he found that the village schoolmistress had improved dramatically and that the school was now very good indeed. Shortly afterwards that inspector received his reward. As I have indicated, it was

  969
  the fashion in those days that school inspectors should be reverend gentleman. This reverend gentleman was raised to the Bench of Bishops.
  The purpose of that story is to show that, in the 1860s British education was going through a period of reaction which brought about the obscenity called payment by results. That system was shown to be unsuccessful and entirely contrary to British interests, and it was scrapped. I am glad that there has been a reference to past times in the form of a comment on the Gradgrind attitude. During that period, initiative in education was stifled, imagination was destroyed and a corrupt system developed.
  I was always regarded—I did not object to this view—as a rather old-fashioned schoolmaster, but I must say that I believe that we are going back headlong into a situation that is not in the interests of British education and, above all, is not in the interests of British children.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is drawing an interesting parallel. I empathise with him, as the constituency that I represent contains the estates of the Earls of Derby. The less said about them the better. One of them was a Conservative Prime Minister. My hon. Friend predicted that his story would show how history repeats itself. I know that these days it is very unfashionable to quote Karl Marx, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend remembers Marx's words about history repeating itself—the first time as farce, the second time as tragedy.
  Mr. Hardy: That is the case. Unfortunately, what we see as a farce is a tragedy for British education and British children.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's tales—of Robert Lowe, I imagine—from the 1860s. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that one moral is that the owner of the school should not have been allowed to influence things in that way? No doubt the owner thought that the criticism of the school reflected on Earl Fitzwilliam.
  The hon. Gentleman says that Wentworth school still exists. No doubt it is now owned by the borough council responsible for education in his constituency. The Labour party's position is that the borough council should have a monopoly in determining who inspects schools, that there should not be a choice, which might be influenced from outside, to allow an independent inspection by any other body.
  Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned Rotherham borough council. He does not seem to hold it in very high regard. When he made a secret visit to Wentworth last summer he suggested that if there were any school building faults they were due entirely to the left-wing Labour council in Rotherham. Of course, Rotherham council does not deserve that reputation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman completely ignored the fact that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), had a very pleasant visit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that when I walked into a school classroom that he was visiting I saw him on his knees. He may recall my suggesting that the position was entirely appropriate for people in his Department.
  970
  I am sure that the Minister accepts that the standard of education in Rotherham and the commitment of my local authority have been entirely civilised and certainly do not deserve the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism.
  Mr. Straw: To continue the analogy of the school that used to be owned by Earl Fitzwilliam, if the earl had had the right under public statute to choose and pay his own inspector, there would have been no conceivable possibility of the school's standards being raised. The inspector would have been in the pocket of the people who owned the school. That is precisely the scheme that the Secretary of State has advanced.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend leads me to the point that I wish to make. Although the Secretary of State appreciates the past corruption, it is a great pity for Britain that he does not perceive the inherent corruption and the risk of danger in the system that he has devised. He may well have become excessively influenced by the publicity that he himself engendered. He did not seem to accept a point that I made during questions shortly before Christmas regarding the teaching of reading. I started teaching—
  Mr. Howarth: Was that in the days of Earl Fitzwilliam?
  Mr. Hardy: No, but it was in the days when there was a teacher shortage, and when some teachers were writing about sparing the rod and the difficulty of secondary modern education. I left the Royal Air Force on a Saturday and started teaching on the Monday. The first morning, I found myself facing 49 boys in a secondary modern school, 23 of whom were completely illiterate.
  Mr. Walden: Was that a primary school?
  Mr. Hardy: It was, in South Yorkshire—a long time ago. When I visit such a school in South Yorkshire today, I find that the average reading age is three years higher than it was then. There was a dramatic post-war improvement, and the success of British primary schools has been far greater than the Secretary of State may imagine. If he wants to examine weaknesses in British education, the primary sector is not that which should receive his attention.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: One of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals is that we should get rid of the possibility of the Wentworth situation arising. At present, local education authorities—which Labour wants to remain as advisers—serve as advisers and inspectors. They inspect their own schools, so they are bound to give themselves a good report.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Lady does not seem to have any grasp of the character of British education as it is or will be. A good education authority takes care to appoint a chief education officer or director of education—[Interruption.] When the hon. Lady asks a serious question, she should at least have the courtesy to listen to the answer. I do not differentiate between Labour and Conservative education authorities in that respect. A good local authority will appoint a good chief education officer or director of education, recognising that the role of education within local government is unique and special, and acknowledging that it is dealing not with dustbins or bridges, but with children.

  971
  That chief officer will, in co-operation with the local authority, appoint suitable people to serve as inspectors and advisers. However, supplementing and underlying all that is, and must be, a substantial body of independent, experienced, and powerful inspectors employed by the Secretary of State—capable of making a proper assessment of the state of education in the schools that they visit.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman touches on a fundamental argument, which I contest. He stressed the improvement that has been made since the last war.
  Mr. Hardy: I said that there have been dramatic improvements.
  Mr. Walden: Yes, dramatic improvements—and that worries me. It is fallacious to assume that, because things have improved over the past 20, 30 or 40 years, we should be satisfied. That is to undermine our whole education policy and to reinforce the great vice of the British education system—a contentment with low standards. Does the hon. Gentleman know that, after there was a revolution in China in 1949, hundreds of millions of Chinese children learned the language—which does not comprise just 26 letters of the alphabet?
  One cannot rest on one's laurels and say that, because there are no longer press gangs and slave trading, society has improved. We must keep up with the best of the bunch, and they are in Europe.
  Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman makes that observation, even if he misunderstood my point.
  Mr. Walden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop it.
  Mr. Hardy: I will—the hon. Gentleman need have no worry about that. Primary education standards improved significantly in the post-war period.
  Mr. Walden: I should hope so.
  Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman hoped so, he would not slavishly support the Government in Lobby. My anxiety is that improvement will not be possible—and has already been put in peril—as a consequence of the destabilising effect of a Government Department that cannot understand that incessant change has eaten away teacher morale to an extent that causes me deep anxiety.
  I know dozens of teachers in South Yorkshire—and this is true throughout the country—who are anxious, concerned, unnerved, or furious about the assumption that they are not doing their job, that British education is failing, and that children are not achieving what they should. Those teachers are sick and tired of the destabilisation and distractions imposed by the Secretary of State. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that the amount of teaching time lost and sacrificed in British schools in the past three or four years as a result of his initiatives has done more to damage and lower British education standards than anything else?
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman may find that amusing. I do not find it amusing that people who have given dedicated service to children, and parents who are deeply concerned about the quality of their children's
  972
  education, should find standards put at risk by a Secretary of State who does nothing but tinker, interfere, and seek to make changes that are very often not justified.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not find the hon. Gentleman's remarks at all amusing. I have the greatest respect for his views. He refers to an amendment which relates to an issue on which both sides propose change. When we debate other matters, I will describe the changes of the past four years—they include the national curriculum, and local management—which are now supported by teachers and even by the hon. Gentleman's own party.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about a good local education authority with an inspectorate. I agree that it is sometimes a good idea to raise the debate above the question of which party controls such an authority. I cite the example of Lancashire, which both sides agree ought to be addressed. It happens to be the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is generally agreed that Lancashire has no inspectorate worthy of the name, and never has had. We all agree that we want an independent inspectorate established which regularly reports back to parents.
  The debate makes clear the difference between the two sides. We say that a choice of inspectors approved by HMI ought to be available to the governors—and HMI is an institution that the hon. Gentleman holds in very high regard. The hon. Gentleman's own proposal is that only Lancashire county council should be allowed to undertake inspections—and that although it failed to do so in the past, it should be allowed to provide the sole inspectorate of its own schools. Given the hon. Gentleman's concern about primary education standards, he appears to be on the wrong side.
  Mr. Hardy: I do not know very much about the situation in Lancashire, but my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) suggests that the Secretary of State's interpretation is wrong. My own view is based on my considerable experience of the House, of British education before that, and regular, close, and careful observations of education in my own constituency during parliamentary recesses over a long period.
  I am deeply disturbed about the state of British education and the amount of time that teachers have to spend preparing for the national curriculum and assessing children rather than teaching them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham has left the Chamber. I suggest that he, as a parent, ought to investigate the amount of time that is spent dealing with matters that I regard as relatively ancillary. The Secretary of State did not become involved in education until comparatively recently, and he overlooks the fact that it is easy to start a fashion.
  It is one of the great weaknesses of post-war education that, when someone offers an idea, it is seized upon before its validity or worth has been properly assessed. If that fashion starts with someone in a position of influence, unless there is a wise, experienced and balanced inspectorate, that novelty might take off, even though it is not potentially successful or worth while.
  With a commercial inspectorate—that is how we have to describe it—if the Under-Secretary of State responsible for schools or the Secretary of State holds forth about a particularly novelty, perhaps even misinterpreting a report from his own Department, which is not entirely unknown,

  973
  I guarantee that all the commercial inspectors in Britain will decide that they had better jump on that bandwagon. British education will be more likely to be placed in difficulty than before.
  5 pm
  The smaller HMI will be responsible for invigilating the quality of the commercial inspectorate, but when I consider the proposed size of Her Majesty's inspectorate I wonder how it will fulfil that function properly in such reasonable time as would allow even the commercial inspectorate to operate with any effect. It is an unlikely prospect that HMI will fulfil that function. I fear that wise, balanced and sensible inspection of schools will be placed at real risk and substantially delayed. The practical elements of the Bill seem to have escaped the attention of some people at the Department.
  Mr. George Howarth: The House respects the common sense and experience that my hon. Friend brings to the debate. I am following his argument closely. To summarise it—perhaps he will help me if I am wrong—the current fashion in education or the ideological approach, with new reading schemes or whatever, almost does not matter at the bottom of it all. What matters is the ability, commitment and enthusiasm of the teachers. That is the most important element in the equation. My fear about the proposal and, indeed, the Bill is that that enthusiasm and commitment, already badly undermined by the reforms of the recent past, will be undermined still further. The pendulum of fashions in education will not only continue to swing but may swing all the faster with commercialisation of the inspectorate, as my hon. Friend said in his last vital point.
  Mr. Hardy: I will illustrate the case from personal experience. In the 1960s, when I was teaching in a large secondary school in South Yorkshire, I did some research work and wrote articles in Education about the teaching of reading. Perhaps irresponsibly, I divided a large part of one year into three groups and tried three different methods of teaching reading. I said that I was a rather old-fashioned schoolmaster. I found that one group did particularly well. It was taught by the methods which, as an old-fashioned schoolmaster, I supported. I wrote an
  article in Education that cut across one of the fashions that prevailed in educational practice in my county. The director of education telephoned my headmaster and said that he was not happy about the article that I had written. I was not greatly worried because at that point I was a prospective parliamentary candidate and I had decided to enter the House rather than become a headmaster.
  I was greatly helped by the inspector who came to see the work and who was most supportive. I heard no more from the director of education, particularly after I told the inspector that I thought it distasteful that anyone should tell people what to write in educational journals. The fact remains, however, that the inspector was supportive and honourable, but what will happen with the commercial inspector who has his eye on the next contract or on getting the contract to inspect the school round the corner?
  Mr. John McFall: Like my hon. Friend, I am a former teacher, and I visited every school in my constituency during the summer. Perhaps the kernel of the argument is that the Secretary of State is a barrister who is mainly interested in winning cases and less concerned
  974
  about learning, in schools. If he were concerned about learning he would be on our side. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, we want to take issues forward. Privatisation of the inspectorate will not take issues forward one whit. I say that from personal experience, but the press at the weekend supported that view. An article in The Observer said:
  "On a typical inspection day in Knottingley, West Yorkshire, last week, heads and inspectors alike agreed that schools will he tempted to award contracts to private 'experts' willing to give a good report."
  We are seeing Tammany hall politics in education. Undercutting, collusion and sharp practice could occur.
  Immediately before I entered the House, my school was the subject of an inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate in Scotland. The inspectorate did not give us any warning of the visit. They did not send a letter to say that it was coming in two weeks' time. The inspectors spent three weeks combing the school and talking to teachers and senior teachers. They made a report which we had to go over with the local authority. Instead of going forward—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough for an intervention. I remind the House that we are not in
  Committee. Interventions must be brief. I call Mr. Hardy.
  Mr. McFall rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I call Mr. Hardy.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. A few moments ago I said that the proposed inspectorate would be a commercial inspectorate. It will be in business. Some Conservative Members have more connection with business than ever I had. I thought that people in business sought profit, growth, more orders, more contracts and to maximise their returns. It would look for such a level of business as could be obtained only by making sure that the customers got what they wanted.
  The schools will not pay for bad reports; they will pay for good ones. They may be prepared to pay a little more for an inspector who will give a good report than for one who will give them a bad one. That is a serious danger, especially with the weakening and diminution of Her
  Majesty's inspectorate. The commercial inspectorate may justify the Dickensian conditions referred to by the hon.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), to be so critical of the proposal. As The Observer said, the proposal will secure the fixing of private inspections. But may I take my hon. Friend back to standards? We will leave aside the fact that the Secretary of State had to invent Labour's policy in order in a rather mediocre way to attack it. We shall deal with that later. My hon. Friend is right to say that standards rose, although not fast enough and not factually. As the primary report says, there is incontrovertible evidence of a marked decline in the past three years in reading standards at the age of seven. Woodhead, Rose and Alexander, the authors of the report, attributed that decline in part to "considerable disturbance"—I use the exact phrase—in the primary curriculum. The consequence is that, every month that the Secretary of State has been in office, reading standards among seven-year-olds have fallen. If the Bill is passed, they are likely to fall even further.
  Mr. Hardy: That is the main reason for my participation in the debate. I seriously believe—I am not making a party point—that what has happened in the past three or four years has been harmful to children and has not been conducive to promoting and maintaining high standards in education. I firmly believe that what we are about today is harmful to good educational practice. I deeply regret that the teaching profession, some people in higher education who are charged with education, and in particular teachers in large schools are so demoralised and frustrated that the vast proportion of them cannot wait to get out because they are sick and tired of what has been happening.
  The weekend before last, I spoke to a friend in my home town who had just retired. He had been a distinguished headmaster in primary education in my constituency. I said that I was sorry that he had retired so soon because he could have continued to work for another four years and he loved his job. He said, "I got out, Peter, because I had had enough. I am sick and tired of what is happening and of what has been done to education." He loved his job and was a fine primary school headmaster. If he makes such a comment it should be taken seriously.
  For every man or woman who is saying that in my constituency one can find scores, if not hundreds, in every constituency. It is time that we made an attempt to re-establish some stability in education. The destabilisation of the past three or four years will result in disadvantages for a long time to come.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The new clause is about information—the information which should be available to parents. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) should object to school governors being given a choice of inspectors, whether commercial, independent inspectors or those from local authorities, which carry out inspections at present.
  From what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said, it is clear that there are marked differences in standards of inspection from one part of the country to another. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend say that there is virtually no inspection worthy of the name in Lancashire. What protection can be provided for parents—especially those living in Lancashire—if school governors do not even have the right to insist that inspections take place? That case is made: as far as I can tell, there can be no valid objection to the principle that school governors should be able to insist on proper inspections of their schools. I am surprised that the Labour party appears to object to that.
  I must move away from Lancashire to another authority, West Sussex, where, far from having no inspections worthy of the name, every school is inspected every year. It is difficult for West Sussex education authority to explain to parents of children in its schools that it is not proposed that there should be inspections only once every four years, because they have been used to a high standard of inspection. They get plenty of information. Reports are available to all schools about pupils' progress and they will shortly be made available to all children.
  I wish that the standards that have been set in West Sussex had been more generally applied and were available throughout the country. I dare say that it would be difficult to arrange yearly inspections at once, but it is certainly an
  976
  objective worth striving for. I hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend replies, he will tackle that problem. He will know that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in West Sussex find it difficult to explain to our constituents why we should support the Government's proposal of inspections once every four years, when we have an inspection every year.
  I see no reason why school governors should not opt for an independent inspection, as proposed. It is a good safeguard. However, I hope that the education authority will be able to enter schools to respond to any criticisms which may be made, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also deal with that.
  I am especially worried about what might happen if the Audit Commission were to report on the standard of schools in an education authority. The authority is directly responsible to the Audit Commission. The commission cannot criticise anyone else, only the education authority. Therefore, a statutory problem exists because if the Audit Commission is to make a valid criticism of an education authority it must have the right to deal with it, and to enter schools and respond to criticisms as best it may. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also tackle that statutory issue.
  5.15 pm
  As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, because I have spoken to him recently about the matter, standards in West Sussex primary schools are the second best in the country. He will also know, because he was good enough to tell me, that standards of inspection are among the top 10. Those standards ought to be repeated throughout the country and should not be confined to West Sussex. Therefore, the Bill is capable of improvement. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say in his reply that sensible and progressive evolution will bring the Government towards the high standards that are available to us in West Sussex, but which are regrettably not apparent within the limited ambition of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will tackle that issue, which so concerns parents in West Sussex that considerable numbers have written to me and to my hon. Friends.
  Mr. McFall: My apologies for taking too long in an intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that your patience has run out with me, I shall try to be brief.
  The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said that the Labour party objects to inspections. That is the last thing that we object to. We are for higher educational standards, but will the inspection regime proposed by the Secretary of State achieve them? Our answer is no, and for many reasons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned visiting his schools in the summer. I did the same and the information that I got from teachers was that they were overloaded because of what is happening in schools—the national curriculum, reading attainment, testing from five to 14, league tables and truancy rates. The system is overloaded and teachers need more time to implement the curriculum so that children can learn more.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman appears to go to schools only in the summer. I go all the year round. It is now some considerable time since the summer, and I have found that my schools are getting their teeth into those things. They are delighted that the local management of schools is giving them vastly better

  977
  surroundings and equipment. I agree that some time ago we had legislative indigestion, but that is now past. When summer comes, if the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are still here and if they visit their schools, they will find that there has been a vast change, as I have found when I go round mine. I shall do so again on Friday.
  Mr. McFall: The last time that I was in a school was on Monday, before I came here, and the next time will be next Monday. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), I go round schools all the time.
  I have found that teachers are demoralised. Last week I was in Kent, and was given the same message. Kent is a Tory authority. They questioned the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister about taking the practical aspect away from the GCSE in English. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are wrong. If they go to Tory authorities such as Kent they will get the message, and then perhaps they will do something for our children's learning.
  There is too much in the curriculum and teachers need time to plan and to make progress on the proposals which the Secretary of State has put forward.
  There is no doubt that reading standards have improved tremendously since the end of the second world war. The number of children leaving school with qualifications has increased. Since 1971, in Scotland, the number of children leaving with three or more highers has increased from 17 to 22 per cent. We have a good inspection team in Scotland. I suggest that the Secretary of State should do a case study on it.
  Before I was elected to the House, the school at which I was deputy head was subject to the inspection regime. The inspectors did not contact the school beforehand; nor did we have an opportunity to go over everything with the local education authority. Those inspectors were the school for three weeks and they spoke to senior staff such as myself, the teachers and departmental heads. They then came back for a further week and, after that, consulted the LEA. They then published their report, which was made public. However, we were given an opportunity before publication to iron out any problems with the inspectors. That is what I call public inspection.
  Those inspectors were not in hock to the local education authority or to the school. The regime that the Secretary of State intends to put in place will mean that the team leader alone is validated by the Department of Education and Science. That does not happen in Scotland, where everyone is validated. Under the proposals, governors or head teachers will be able to have a cosy relationship with the team leader. The report produced will be to the liking of that team leader and the school, because the team leader will want more contracts from that school, while the school will want a good report.
  How does one prevent such corruption? How does one prevent the head teachers of Knottingley and elsewhere in West Yorkshire from colluding with the team leaders and undertaking other sharp practices? The Secretary of State has not paid sufficient attention to the proposals. They represent a step backwards in terms of the education spectrum. The change is proposed not in the name of improving education, but because the Secretary of State wants to cut the budget for education.
  Why are the Government cutting the national inspectorate from 500 to 150? That is what the head
  978
  teachers of West Yorkshire and elsewhere want to know. Above all, how will the Secretary of State prevent the corruption which the Bill will promote? The Bill is a retrograde step in terms of education, as it will not improve children's learning.
  Sir Timothy Raison: The debate, quite rightly, is about quality in education and, in particular, about the quality of inspection under the proposed scheme of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is right that our debates should now focus almost entirely on the question of quality, because that is one thing that we have learnt in the past decade.
  I listened, as always, with great interest to my rather Cassandra-like hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He reminded us, as always, that the gap between current standards and what we should like to achieve is still large. International comparisons are sometimes tiresome, but they are necessary.
  By temperament I am slightly less gloomy than my hon. Friend about what goes on in our schools. Our constituencies lie side by side in the county of Buckinghamshire, which has produced the highest level of GCE passes of any of the shire counties in England, and the second highest of any of the English local authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will tell me that that is nothing like good enough, and I will not necessarily dissent.
  Does it make sense to have a system under which the governors of schools commission inspection reports? I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that I still need a bit of persuading on that score. There are qualms about the system because it seems a little odd that an obsessive left-wing body of governors, or perhaps a right-wing one—it is more likely to be left-wing—should be able to commission from a left-wing inspection team a report on what is going on in their school. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Bill contains the necessary safeguards against that and, to an extent, the debate hinges on their quality.
  I accept that one important safeguard is the insistence on far more information. Even the Labour party has come to accept the need for that. The way in which league tables have become a required part of the scene is all to the good. I do not necessarily want to see different schools rated in order of precedence, but it is important that the right facts are available upon which to make a judgment.
  The other validation for a loony inspection team—if I may put it like that—is Her Majesty's chief inspector of education, who is a central figure in the Bill. I had hoped to have a debate of my own on this subject, because some important questions have not been properly discussed. I am interested to know whether the chief inspector will be able to provide the kind of validation that seems to be such a keynote of the scheme that the Government have introduced.
  I am struck by the fact that clause 2(5) states:
  "In exercising his functions the Chief Inspector for England shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  That gives the Secretary of State a great deal of power to tell the chief inspector what to do and what not to do in the realm of policy, which is a sensitive area. If we postulate the undesirable and probably improbable spectre of a Labour Government with left-wing tendencies, one can imagine the Secretary of State saying to the chief inspector, "What you must do is to pay close regard to the

  979
  Government's commitment to absolutely no screening being undertaken in schools and ensure that comprehensive education is the norm." I do not believe that that will happen, because I do not believe that the Labour party will win the election, but we must recognise that the Acts of Parliament are designed for all Governments. It would be helpful to learn how Ministers believe the provision will work.
  Why is it necessary to have clause 2(5)? Why can we not accept that someone who is appointed as the chief inspector is an independent person? Time and again, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that it is his intention that the inspectorate should be more independent than it has ever been. If so, why is it necessary to have such a swingeing provision in the Bill under which the Government can tell the chief inspector what policy he must follow?
  Mr. Walden: I shall not try to answer for the Government; that is their job. However, perhaps some of the answer lies in the following question. How far does my right hon. Friend believe that independent bodies, such as the Plowden committee, created a climate of acceptance of low expectations in British education? Given that the inspectorate is part of the educational establishment, or has become so, that climate has helped to create the problem in primary schools, which the Government are trying to attack today. The problem is that one has an inspectorate that is infected—that is not too strong a word —with the same fallacious philosophy that the Plowden report helped to disseminate. I am conscious of my right hon. Friend's special knowledge of that report. I am not being a Cassandra; I am being realistic about this. The Plowden report is why we are where we are today with all our problems.
  Sir Timothy Raison: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting question. I spent about three and a half years on the Plowden committee; to try to encapsulate a reply to my hon. Friend's question in a time tolerable to the House would not be particularly easy.
  Mr. Walden: I am patient; why not try?
  Sir Timothy Raison: That may be so, but I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although a patient man, would be so on this occasion.
  In certain respects, the Plowden committee was swept along by the zeitgeist and I do not believe that that report was right in all regards. I do not believe for one minute that the deviationist aspects of the Plowden report, which my hon. Friend and others have analysed with such gusto, would have been cured by an injunction from the Secretary of State of the day to the chief inspector to say that he should not allow that sort of thing to happen. I am sure that, whoever was the Secretary of State, from whatever side of the House, we would have given a fair wind to what was going on then. In that respect, my hon. Friend's arguments do not hold water. I had better not say any more about the Plowden committee.
  The question that I am asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is serious. He said that one of the safeguards for the quality of inspections under the scheme is the role of the chief inspector. I understand that, but why is it necessary to diminish the
  980
  chief inspector's independence by giving Ministers a power which would be used benignly and sensibly by my right hon. Friends, but which might be used harmfully by a Minister of a different persuasion?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) will forgive me if I do not follow his particular line of argument. Instead, I first refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who spoke about the pace of change. I understand why he did so, but he should understand that the reason why the pace of change is so great is that we want to improve the quality and standards of state education as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and, to some extent, the hon. Member for Dumbarton, commented on the need for stability, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in a recent radio interview. Opposition Members call for stability, but that call is difficult to reconcile with their proposals were they to be elected to government. They are pledged to abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme, and even the tax concessions that enable the independent sector to remain. Those pledges will not result in much stability for the thousands of children who are involved in those schools, or for the schools themselves. Indeed, they will result in total instability.
  Under the Bill, schools will have more full inspections and 25 per cent. of all schools will be inspected each year. That is a substantial improvement on the present system, in which only about 150 schools benefit from a full inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate. It has been argued that some—only some—local education authorities, also have an inspection system. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in an earlier intervention, following the publication of the Bill local education authorities have suddenly come up with inspection programmes. It may be pure coincidence, but I think that it is rather more than that.
  The fact remains that not all LEAs undertake thorough inspections, which means that some schools in some areas have had nothing that remotely resembles a full inspection. The Bill changes that and ensures that all schools will be fully inspected. Indeed, it takes the wraps off schools.
  Local education authorities, advisers will still visit schools and be able to provide help and advice. Interestingly, if an inspection report or a complaint from a parent reveals serious weaknesses in a school, the local authority can draw those shortcomings to the attention of the school governing body, which now bears the main responsibility for what takes place in its school. If the governors accept that they need help to resolve the problem, the LEA is free to provide it. That help can include the analysis of weaknesses that have been identified and the provision of training to tackle those weaknesses. I appreciate that that is not an inspection, but the effect could be broadly the same. If governors want help from their LEA, the absence of a specific power to inspect does not prevent it from being offered.
  It should be remembered that, thanks to the Education Reform Act 1988, which was strenuously opposed by the Opposition, school governing bodies are now increasingly composed of parents. Those parents, like any others, want

  981
  the best for their children. If they believe that there are serious shortcomings in the school where their children are being educated, they will want those shortcomings exposed and put right as soon as possible. That is enlightened self-interest.
  When a school governing body selects an inspection team for its school and its children, it will go not for the soft option or the cheap option but for the best, in order that problems at the school, which directly affect their children, will be identified and put right. Parents have no interest in sweeping school problems or shortcomings under the carpet—the contrary is true.
  That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) when she introduced the new clause. She forgets the power that is now in the hands of parents. The HMI team leader will be registered and will be directly responsible for his team members. The inspector's team will have to meet the Bill's requirements and the conditions set down by Her Majesty's chief inspector. The team need not include only those with specific experience in teaching but can include people who are not qualified teachers.
  If we were to exclude all those who are not qualified teachers, we would exclude those with knowledge of administration is education and those with knowledge in research. It is important that additional expertise should be brought into the inspection teams, although I fully agree that, in the main, the inspection teams will be composed of people with teaching experience.
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not every member of the inspection team will be approved by Her Majesty's chief inspector—that only the registered inspection team leader will be approved? I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension about that. The Secretary of State said earlier that every inspector would be registered.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady laboured that point at substantial length in Committee. I am not sure why she chooses to do so again now.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not that point covered by clause 10'? It states:
  "No person shall conduct an inspection of any school in England under section 9(1) unless he is registered as an inspector in a register kept by the Chief Inspector for England for the purposes of this Act."
  Mr. Pawsey: I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West has heard clearly what my hon. Friend has just said.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has such delight when I stand up. He must be aware that, in an interview last year, the Secretary of State referred to
  "inspectors, all of whom will have to be registered with HMI and all of whom will have to have a little lion stamp of quality given to them by a central Her Majesty's Inspectorate".
  That simply was not true and the hon. Gentleman who, unlike the Secretary of State, served on the Standing Committee, knows that it is not true. There will be at least 3,000 to 4,000 inspectors and only some 600 of those can conceivably be registered by HMI.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He apparently did not listen to the debate that took place in Committee, where the point was thoroughly aired by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West. The hon. Gentleman has already had the answer.
  Opposition Members have said that we are privatising the education service. My understanding is that privatisation occurs when something is transferred from national or quasi-Government control to the private sector and private enterprise. Clearly, that has not happened in this instance. Opposition Members' claims about privatisation are pure scare mongering. They are similar to the claims made by Opposition Members about the privatisation of the health service. In both cases, I deeply resent those unfounded allegations.
  It seems that Labour Members are failing to win the argument and are simply trying to scare patients and parents into voting Labour. There is no reason for the electorate to vote Labour other than being scared into doing so by the scaremongering tactics of Labour Members.
  Ms. Armstrong: This is an important moment. The hon. Member is declaring his opposition to privatisation. We welcome that.
  Mr. Pawsey: I wish that just occasionally the hon. Lady would listen. She fails to do so because she is only interested in what she has to say. I can understand that, but it would be helpful were she sometimes to listen to what is said by others.
  I should like to hark back to the so-called golden age of LEA inspection. Let us remember who the inspectors are. They are frequently the colleagues of the very teachers they are now called upon to inspect. That answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton on corruption. The teams of inspections proposed in the Bill will result in less corruption.
  Mr. McFall: I should correct the hon. Gentleman. I mentioned a case study in Scotland involving Her Majesty's inspectors who were not members of the local education authority and not colleagues of the teachers. The very point that I was trying to make was that they
  were independent.
  Mr. Pawsey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I close by quoting a leading article in The Daily Telegraph of Friday 24 January:
  "The report on primary schools by Mr. Kenneth Clarke's Three Wise Men draws a thick black line under the post-Plowden experiment in progressive education whose chief legacy has been an almost unprecedented decline in children's literacy and numeracy. Why was it allowed to go on for 25 years?"
  The leader continued:
  "Furthermore, so pervasive was the ideology being peddled by the training colleges, so Stalinist the influence of local education authorities and advisors, so approving the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors—the dogs that did not bark as night closed in—that anyone who dissented from the approbation of happy children being kept noisily busy in decorative classrooms risked dismissal as a crank."
  That extract from The Daily Telegraph leader contains the reason for the Bill's introduction. It sums up the reasons why we need to change HMI and why we have selected the system that we have.
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I support the general interpretation of the Bill and the fact that the inspection of schools—which is to be in depth—will be a statutory requirement. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State put my mind at rest on what may be a slight gap in the changes? Local education authorities such as mine in Warwickshire at present use a system of a basic minimum of three visits per annum by the general schools inspector with a rolling programme to follow up with visits on specific subjects. It seems that that policy will go under the proposed changes.
  Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, following the changes set out in the Bill, schools that may have to wait for three years for full inspections will still be able to have some inspections?
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The new clause has prompted a lengthy debate. I was pleased by one aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong)—the frequency with which she seemed to invoke the citizens charter and the principles that lie behind it. She was concerned about parents' right to complain and their right to have more information about the quality of the schools that their children attend. We are in the early days of what my right hon. and hon. Friends often describe as a 10-year programme of installing the principles of the citizens charter into the administration of public services in this country. If we have made such rapid progress in persuading an Opposition spokeswoman, who are moving in the right direction.
  The new clause relates to complaints and the quality of inspection. I do not think that we require the formal procedures that it sets out. The most obvious way in which people will complain is by approaching Her Majesty's chief inspector, who will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, play a crucial part in the process. The chief inspector will have the overwhelming duty to ensure that the integrity and quality of inspections is maintained.
  I did not understand the point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, which ran throughout the rest of the debate, about the form of the inspections. She seemed to make the curious assertion that our proposals might damage the information received by parents in order that they might be better informed about schools and their choice of schools—our intention under the parents charter.
  Under the parents charter, to which the Bill gives effect, we set out to give parents in this country far more information than they have been vouchsafed before on the performance of their children's school. In order to add to parents' understanding and ensure that the information is of good quality, we are introducing a system of quality assurance with a new regular inspection by independent people whose quality has been validated by HMI. That is a considerable step forward.
  Having listened to the debates, I detect a sense that there is more agreement between the two sides on some of the principles than would be readily conceded. I suspect that it is difficult for Opposition Members in the run-up to an election. They keep saying that they thought of various aspects of Government policy first, which is not the strongest form of criticism to make.
  984
  There seems to be universal recognition that, hitherto, the standards of local inspection of schools have been patchy and variable. Standards achieved by the different local authorities have ranged from the excellent standards of West Sussex referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) to the almost non-existent inspection system of Lancashire, where I do not think there are any designated inspectors.
  Lancashire is by no means the only county to have fallen to such a low. From time to time, trade union general secretaries have drawn attention to the patchiness of inspections. We are all agreed that, hitherto, local inspections have been inadequate.
  Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to make progress as I think that we may have agreement on this.
  We are also agreed that there has to be a national standard to ensure universal quality of inspection. I am not sure whether the Labour party agrees—I think that it might—that we need a regular cycle of inspection. I sense that the Labour party has been converted by the parents charter to the idea that, for the first time, parents should as of right receive unsolicited and directly the results of inspections of their children's schools.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) referred to Warwickshire. Inspection results in Warwickshire go not to parents or governing bodies but to heads. The West Sussex authority may be contemplating sending them to parents, but I do not think that it did until we suggested it.
  It is a short time since we published the parents charter and announced a system of a national standard for regular inspection of schools with regular reporting back to the parents and a straightforward summary of what the inspection states. I think that all hon. Members who have participated in the debate agree with everything that I have said so far. The only difference between us involves who carries out the inspection. We say that it could be the local education authority if it is up to Her Majesty's inspectorate standards, or an independent organisation. The governors should have the choice. If it is an independent organisation, it must be up to the national standard, which Her Majesty's inspectorate should regulate.
  The Labour party says that local authorities, and only they, should inspect their own schools. It says that outsiders should not be able to carry out inspections. In effect, it says that only the local authority that manages a school should provide inspectors. It says that there must be national standards, but we are to have a commission and a committee. It will not be Her Majesty's inspectorate that imposes national standards. After cutting through all the guff that we all know arises from hon. Members on both sides of the House during a political debate, there is only one issue that comes between us. As usual, the Labour party has no education policy worth the name. It has folded in and tried to get on the back of the best bits of our policy.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is profoundly isolated on this issue. There is virtually no support for it within the Conservative party. He is rather like a drowning

  985
  man who is clutching at straws when he seeks support for a policy that is entirely inconsistent with Conservative policy generally.
  I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should so wilfully wish to mislead the House about Labour party policy and the chronology of events. We said that there should be reform of the inspectorate at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his predecessors were trying to defend the current system of inspection. That was why—this was way in advance of the so-called parents charter and all that nonsense—we published "Raising the Standard", which set out Labour's plans for an education standards commission. That had been presaged two years before in Labour party documents that called for reform of the inspectorate.
  The Secretary of State has talked about Lancashire. Let me quote from a letter written by the chief education officer of Lancashire:
  "It is quite untrue to state that Lancashire does not inspect schools. We have inspected schools for as long as anyone here can remember."
  When I make my speech, I shall deal with that issue.
  There is need for a much tougher regime of inspection by local authorities. The issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about has no relationship to the Bill. How does he believe that allowing schools to pick and choose their own inspectors—to allow the provider to be the regulator—can conceivably lead to anything but inconsistent standards and an overall lowering of standards?
  Mr. Clarke: In the midst of a great deal of waffle, the hon. Gentleman almost defended Lancashire. I do not think that he often does that, although he represents a parliamentary seat in that historic county. I think that he conceded almost every point that I have made before arriving at the only difference between us. He did not rush out a Labour party document until after I had announced a review of the inspectorate. When he knew that I would produce proposals concerning the inspectorate, he reached for the back of an envelope, to use his own phrase, and rushed out his own proposals.
  The parents charter—I detect this in what the hon. Gentleman said—has established universal consent that we should have regular inspection by inspectors who are subject to national standards, and that the results of the inspections should be reported to parents. That is a substantial advance. The argument is whether a choice should be available to governors of inspectors who have achieved a standard approved by HMI or whether there should be inspection only by local authorities, with schools having no choice about the source of inspections.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will there continue to be regular inspections of schools that deal with children with special learning difficulties? I refer to schools that specialise in that area of education and to children who are being taught specially within schools because of their learning difficulties.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has asked a valid question. The answer is that there will be regular inspections of those schools. The inspectorate's work in validating the standard of inspection will not be changed. There will be the same number of inspectors within HMI.
  The argument is whether inspection should he the monopoly of a local education authority, albeit supervised
  986
  by a commission, which I describe as a committee or quango with the usual appointees—we shall debate that issue when we come to consider new clause 10—or whether there should be a choice. Responsibility may rest with the local education authority if it is up to HMI standards or inspection may be carried out by others. The issue is whether governors should be able to choose and thereby to ensure quality.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West was less than candid, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been in every one of his frequent interventions. Their principal aim is to ensure that no one outside local government, which manages education, should be allowed to inspect schools. I cannot understand how that is compatible with the constant reiteration by the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman of the claim that they share our views about standards. They are insisting on a monopoly organisation—local authorities—to inspect its own schools.
  Under the Labour party's proposals, it seems that those from the local authorities who advise schools would take part in inspections. They would examine their own work and then comment on what they think are the results of it. The inspectors would all be employed by local education authorities. They would produce reports that would be sent to parents. They would undoubtedly be inhibited because, if reports become too critical of certain aspects of a school, they will be seen to be criticising their own employers.
  The Labour party is obsessed by those who continue to see education as essentially the monopoly of local authorities and the teachers' trade unions. That is the difference between us. The quality controls of independent people and local authority people answer the hon. Gentleman's wild criticism.
  The letter that has been cited by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West is signed by many people who have asked us to achieve a consensus. I think that we are rather nearer to a consensus than most people would acknowledge. This near-consensus has been created by the parents charter. The Labour party dare not refuse to provide parents with the sort of information that we shall make available to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and I have been pressed for a definition of the education establishment. With one or two honourable exceptions, the signatories to the letter cited by the hon. Lady and all the acronyms that follow them are a pretty good collection of representatives of the education establishment. Many of them, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of London Boroughs, could have done something about inspection over the past 10 years. They did not but they have responded now to our proposals. They are seeking to defend the monopoly of inspection rights by their members and by those who currently are solely responsible for schools.
  Mr. Straw: Do the right hon. and learned Gentleman's insults extend also to the National Association of Governors and Managers and the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not refer to every organisation in turn. I said that there were some exceptions. I shall not refer to the exceptions that I would excuse and I am not

  987
  too particular about the ones that I would attack. Anyone who goes through the forest of acronyms will have a pretty good cross-section of the various parts of the education establishment, which has been resisting most of our reforms. It is now resisting the idea that anyone who is outside the closed world of local government and the teachers' trade unions should be allowed to inspect schools and then to report to the general public, including parents, on what has been found.
  The important feature of our new system is the integrity and the quality of the inspection that is carried out. Those of us who advocate the parents charter want to provide parents with straightforward descriptions of the strenghts of schools, which will be praised, and their weaknesses, to which attention will be drawn. These descriptions will come from inspectors whom parents can trust. That is the objective of the parents charter. We put at least as much emphasis on that as do the Opposition. The Opposition, however, put more emphasis on the closed world of local government and teachers' trade unions being allowed to continue to dominate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham talked of what could be a danger. There were exchanges between him and the hon. Member for Blackburn that replicated the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the hon. Member for Blackburn that took place in Committee. An example that we have focused on from time to time is a school whose governors are dominated by a dogma of education that is now discredited. We now have what has been described as post-Plowdenism. There are some left-wing ideologues who dominate education in far too many Labour boroughs who are dominating governing bodies, and the example is that they decide that they want to choose an inspectorate that matches their approach to education.
  There has to be a safeguard against that, which is Her Majesty's inspectorate. Only the leader of each team will be registered, but the registration will be lost if a report is submitted that plainly is not of the quality that it ought to be. All the members of the team will have to be trained to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's inspectorate. All of them will have to be approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate. For them to be chosen, the quality of inspection will have to be up to standard.
  6 pm
  If an independent group of inspectors were dominated by dogma of any kind—I refute the defence that the left wing now put up, of accusing all their critics of somehow being right-wing ideologues, since I believe that in the opinion of most people we represent common sense—I would expect HMI not to approve that group. If the results of a particular school were below par, its inspectors would no longer be available to left-wing governors because they would not be approved by HMI.
  If the hon. Member for Durham, North-West fears that a team of inspectors might peddle a particular philosophy, she need look no further than a few local authorities whose monopoly of inspection rights she defends. Reference has already been made to the Alexander report on Leeds schools, which shows how Leeds council spent a great deal of money and time on trying to dominate the teachers in
  988
  Leeds and get them to adopt a philosophy of education that was plainly a failure and that led to lower standards in primary schools.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: In a minute.
  The position of the hon. Gentleman's party is that only Leeds authority people should be allowed to inspect Leeds schools. Only local authority staff, under the control of the same political party as that to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, should be allowed to do that. Nobody from outside should be allowed to challenge the basis upon which they inspect their primary schools.
  Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman grossly distorts the picture in Leeds. I suspect that he is one of the great many who has not read the Alexander report. If he had read it and understood its genesis, he would also understand that it was commissioned by Leeds local education authority. The authority did not try to conceal the report. It published it.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): How long did it take to implement it?
  Mr. Fatchett: Who are we going to have—the monkey or the organ grinder on this occasion? It is clear that the Secretary of State does not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I will get on with it if hon. Members will keep quiet and not shout out from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State continually makes comments about Leeds, although with little knowledge. He relies upon his Minister of State to provide the information. The fact is that Leeds commissioned the report, published it and acted upon it. It would be good if the Government recognised that fact, applauded Leeds local education authority for doing so—
  Mr. Eggar: It did not publish all the reports.
  Mr. Fatchett: No, that is not so. All the reports were published and therefore are available. The Secretary of State has to recognise that fact and put it on record that this authority behaved in a way that other authorities ought to behave and that Leeds provides an example to other authorities.
  Sir Giles Shaw: Before my right hon. and learned Friend replies, he will recall that Leeds community charge payers had to foot the bill for this travesty of a report, which cost £14 million, and that from their point of view it was useless.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct, although he made one slight slip of the tongue. In fact, between £14 million and £15 million was spent by the community charge payers of Leeds on experiments in schools that were then condemned by the report. Extra expenditure was embarked upon in Leeds, with results that I should be quite happy to describe. I have read the report. Rather than indulge in exchanges across the Floor, I commend hon. Members to read the report and its clear description of the catastrophe that the experiments caused in Leeds schools.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) leapt to his feet to defend what happened by saying that Leeds local education authority commissioned the report

  989
  and eventually published it. He then had an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) about how long it took Leeds to take any action in the light of the report. I stand by my description of the report. It criticises the council and shows that the experiment was a failure. Despite that experience, the Labour party remains committed to saying that only employees of Leeds city council shall be allowed to inspect schools which only Leeds city council shall be allowed to run. I do not regard that as a defence of quality.
  I have already said that I have great respect for the views of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He described himself as an old-fashioned teacher. I suspect that he used the word "old-fashioned" in a way that I would regard as a compliment. I have no doubt whatsoever about his commitment to higher standards in schools. We had a long exchange about whether things had got a lot better in the last few years and also about what things were like in Rotherham.
  Yesterday, at this Dispatch Box, I praised the standards achieved in Rotherham and contrasted them with the achievements in nearby Labour-controlled Sheffield, which spends more but achieves lower standards. I hope that, at the conclusion of the debate, the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is on the wrong side of the argument. I do not intend to enter into an argument with him about the noble Earl who owned Wentworth school in the 19th century.
  The last example that the hon. Gentleman gave related to his expression of views about teaching that got him into trouble with his director of education 20 years ago. On that occasion he escaped only because an inspector helped him. In any case, he decided to make a distinguished career in this House and not to carry on teaching.
  The position has changed in the last 20 years—and not just in Leeds. There are boroughs where expression of views that are inconsistent with the ideology of the council gets teachers into serious difficulties. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman groans. If he wants protection against that—I agree with him that good teachers should be protected against it—one form of protection is not to say that only the local authority shall be allowed to provide inspectors, even if the governors want somebody else.
  Mr. Hardy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman paid tribute to Rotherham, but he did not do so when he addressed the Conservative party in Wentworth last summer.
  Mr. Pawsey: Was the hon. Gentleman there?
  Mr. Hardy: No.
  Mr. Pawsey: The press were.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is not a competent Member of this House if he does not know what is said by Ministers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have known that certain members of the press were present, but I found out very quickly.
  The Secretary of State may have misinterpreted the fundamental point that I made. I accept that standards improved dramatically in primary schools throughout most of the post-war period, but the point that I made was that during the last few years that progress has not been maintained, as a result of the disturbances—that is an appropriate word in this context—that have been inflicted on schools by his Department.
  Mr. Clarke: I stand by the criticisms that I made of the garden in Wentworth and the capital and maintenance programmes of Rotherham borough council, but I pay tribute to the standards achieved by its schools—and even to the school buildings, as maintained by the borough council. It is not true, as the hon. Member for Blackburn keeps saying, that the three wise men's report says that the introduction of the national curriculum has resulted in a decline in standards during the last three or four years. That is a gross misquotation. His argument that the changes of the last three or four years are undesirable does not stand up to examination.
  When one is asked about the national curriculum and about local management of schools, one finds that there is a overwhelming support for the principle. I agree that it has been hard work introducing it: I always pay a compliment to that. I do not think that the process of change is causing damage; it is paving the way for a further advance in standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham raised a point which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton. Where local authorities are inspecting more regularly than once every four years, they wanted to know whether that would be damaged by the statutory requirement to have four-year cycles of inspection. Again, I pay tribute to what is being achieved by West Sussex in its comparatively new system of annual inspection. My one reservation is that we are not comparing like with like. What West Sussex calls an annual inspection, as I understand it, is a brief visit and not the full inspection once every four years. The inspectors have regular calls to go into the schools, as has been happening in recent years in Warwickshire as well. My answer to the queries of my hon. Friends is that we could not have annual inspections nationally on the full parents charter without enormous expense. A four-year cycle is a more reasonable timetable.
  The local education authority will retain its right to enter schools in pursuit of any of its statutory duties. It will also have the right to enter a school for the purpose of inspection and looking into a problem if the governors have invited it or if it is acting on a complaint. The reason why my hon. Friends resisted in Committee amendments designed to give the local education authority a general duty to inspect is that, where somebody else is brought in to inspect, we do not want local authorities duplicating the statutory inspection under the parents charter so that schools are over-inspected.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I must move on. I am not sure whether we have had a filibuster in the debate, but I do not propose to delay my own Bill excessively. I will give way on the West Sussex point.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The point is of importance to all parents in West Sussex. Supposing a parent complains to the local authority in West Sussex about standards in schools, what is the position? Will the authority have the right to enter the school to examine the complaint, or will the obligation remain with the governors of the school to invite the local education authority to come in to examine the problem?
  Mr. Clarke: Whether the authority has a right or a duty will depend on the nature of the complaint and whether it

  991
  bears on the statutory duty of the local authority. If it was a complaint about inspection or about some aspect of teaching in the school, West Sussex county council would almost certainly approach the governors for their consent to go in and investigate the complaint. That position would be established under the Bill.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: My right hon. and learned Friend himself posed the correct question on the point a moment ago when he wondered whether the proposed change would damage the existing system which West Sussex is very keen on, as indeed are parents in West Sussex. What is the answer to the question which he posed? Will we be able to continue with the existing system?
  Mr. Clarke: We shall certainly do nothing to stop it. I have no reason to disbelieve my right hon. Friend when he says that the system is popular with governors and parents in West Sussex. No doubt it is good quality inspection. I cannot imagine that any governors will start defying parents by preventing West Sussex from carrying on with the system. So long as parents and governors are content with the system, there is no reason why it should not continue in parallel with the system under the parents charter.
  I shall not reply at length to the comments of the hon. Member for Dunbarton (Mr. McFall). I am delighted to see him taking part in the debate. When I came into the Chamber earlier to await the start of the Bill, I walked into what I can only describe as a Scottish riot at the end of Question Time and a series of points of order. The hon. Gentleman was one of those who leapt to his feet, protesting vigorously about English Members having the temerity to intervene in Scottish Question Time. The hon. Member made an interesting speech on the Bill. I welcome his participation in a debate on a new clause which would have no application to Scotland or his constituency. At least he has sufficient regard for a United Kingdom Parliament to take part in English debates. No doubt, if there is a vote, he will exercise his right as a Scottish Member to vote on an education matter which has not the slightest application in Dumbarton. I trust that he will respect the continued right of English Members to take part in Scottish debates and to cast their votes on Scottish affairs as well.
  Mr. McFall: I have spoken on the Bill simply because clause 17 refers to Scotland. The last thing that I would do would be to prevent English Members from talking about education issues in their constituencies, as they disgracefully tried to prevent Scottish Members doing earlier. While I shall contribute, I want English Members to give their points of view. In that way we will respect the sensibilities of the House.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Clarke: That is probably enough of constitutional debate. At least we will accept that the new clause does not apply to Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth took us back to the key point of the proposition—the quality of education provided in schools and how far it can bear on raising standards. As to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, the critical
  992
  figure is Her Majesty's chief inspector. My right hon. Friend is right to remind me that I have always stressed the increased independence which the changes will give to that key figure—independence of Government and independence of the Department of Education.
  Her Majesty's chief inspector, the work of his or her staff and the criteria drawn up for inspection will be crucial to quality control. In due course, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will see Her Majesty's chief inspector in post and we will see Her Majesty's inspectorate working for him or her. The numbers of HMI—one point which has most exercised the Opposition—have been determined by the best judgment that the present senior chief inspector and I can make of what will be required for the national monitoring role.
  My right hon. Friend also draw attention to the clause which allows the Secretary of State to cause Her Majesty's chief inspector to have regard to aspects of Government policy. It may be a cautious thing to put in. It is a limited power. My right hon. Friend may say that at the last moment I drew back from cutting this great and powerful figure loose of all advice and control, but it is not a fettering or silencing control. That clause would not enable the Secretary of State in any Government to stop Her Majesty's chief inspector saying whatever he or she wanted, either on the process of inspection or on any aspect of education standards which HMCI would be free to issue reports on and comment on.
  HMCI would only be enjoined by the Secretary of State to have regard to aspects of policy, but if the Secretary of State is to be answerable for education policy at all, at least he should have the ability formally to point out to HMCI that he or she ought to have regard to policy for which the Secretary of State has been accountable to the House. I do not think that goes back seriously on all the other steps that we have taken in the direction of independence. HMCI will be a much more independent postholder, because he or she will have his or her own statutory functions under the Bill, giving independence of a kind that such a person has not had for many years. I am not sure whether there was so much independence in the 19th century; I doubt it. Certainly there will be greater independence than in modern times.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also stressed the quality of education and went back to the main point between us. He talked about all the swings of fashion in recent years and how there have been times when everybody has gone with the fashion. He echoed the words of the hon. Member for Wentworth on that.
  In addition to stressing how important it is to keep national standards, my hon. Friend made the case against a monopoly at any given time of inspection in the hands of a commission, local government and so on. The fact that governors will have some choice and the ability in any county to go outside the inspectors who usually inspect there, if they are beginning to lose confidence in inspections, is a guarantee that never again will the whole education world be swept one way or the other without governors and parents having more ability to restrain matters.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate. I shall conclude as I began. Odd tinges of the citizens charter imbued quite a lot of Labour Members' contributions. Much of the huffing and puffing by the Opposition disguised the fact

  993
  that we have converted them almost overnight to about four fifths of our policy and that they will never again deny the need for regular inspection and reports.
  When Opposition Members go on about governors picking their own inspectors, they disguise the fact that they are defending a closed world of monopoly which would be harmful. The one reference to privatising the inspectorate is the Opposition's daftest argument to try to disguise their lack of any policy. There is no existing inspectorate to be privatised. I have never heard the word more misused.
  The parents charter is a great breakthrough in the direction of quality control, openness in education, better guarantees of standards, more information for parents, and more ability on the part of governors and of parents to keep an eye on what is happening in schools so that standards can be driven up. For that reason, I trust that the House will reject the new clause if it is pressed to a Division by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Our debate has been wide-ranging and has had the tone more of a Second Reading debate than of a debate on amendments. I do not intend to make a wide-ranging speech because I did so on Second Reading and in Committee. One point which has been pressed by Conservative Members has not been answered properly by the Secretary of State.
  When the Secretary of State was asked by West Sussex Members what would happen about more frequent or ad hoc inspections outside the regular cycle, he avoided answering any questions from Opposition Members or giving a clear answer to his colleagues. The clear answer is that it will be impossible for inspections to take place outside the four-year cycle. In Committee, Ministers made it clear that although local authorities, following their statutory duties, may go into schools and may offer advice, they cannot undertake a formal inspection either of part of what is going on in the school or of the school as a whole, no matter what problems may have arisen.
  It has been suggested that it would be possible for inspectors to go into a school following the wider powers which the local authorities have, but there is a catch which guarantees that no such inspections will take place outside the four-year cycle. The catch is that if any LEA inspector goes into one of the schools in the LEA area to perform an inspection outside the four-year cycle, he will be regarded as giving advice to the school and therefore barred from undertaking an inspection of that school in the future.
  No local authority can afford to have its inspectors undertaking inspections outside the four-year cycle because the team that it maintains to offer that service to local schools will gradually bar itself from undertaking an inspection in any school in the LEA area. So there could not be ad hoc inspections by the LEA. Indeed, there could not be an inspection service at all by the LEA. That is why the Secretary of State did not want to answer points made by the Opposition, and that is why he did not give a straight answer to Conservative Members who were rightly concerned about the issue.
  I hope that Conservative Members who are concerned about that aspect, which does not impinge on the rest of what is intended in the Bill, and about the principle of a need to have ad hoc inspections from time to time when problems arise will continue to pursue the matter. Amendments which would have met the concern of the Secretary of State that LEAs would simply undertake a
  994
  parallel four-year cycle and which would have ruled out that possibility were tabled in Committee, but Ministers would not accept them. If that point is not pursued successfully here, I hope that those Members who are concerned will use their contacts in the other place to ensure that it is successfully pursued there.
  There should be nothing between the parties on this. The issue is straightforward and I fail to understand why the Secretary of State cannot understand the point. Instead, he resorts to sending letters to hon. Members in which he argues that the matter is being pursued on purely partisan grounds. Today's debate has made it clear that that is not so. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a straight answer on that important point.
  Mr. Straw: It is plain from the debate that the Secretary of State, who did not serve in Committee, does not understand the impact of the Bill or its major defects. He tried to pretend a moment ago that the Bill says only that the chief inspector "may have regard" to
  "such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  In fact the Bill says clearly that the chief inspector "shall have regard" to
  "such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  The Secretary of State gave no answer to the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I appreciate that the Minister of State is trying to make a point to the right hon. Member for Worthing, but I will make it too. The point was examined at great length in Committee, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has just said.
  The power of local government to inspect and to intervene if it discovers that something is wrong is based on section 77(3) of the Education Act 1944. Under schedule 5, that power is to be removed and will not be replaced by any other power for the local authority. As a result of that removal, almost every local authority apart from Wandsworth—certainly every member of the Association of County Councils, Tory and Labour, and also Conservative boroughs such as Croydon—has thoroughly objected to the removal of the power because it believes that if a school faces difficulties the authority will not have the power to intervene. The Secretary of State is legislating for a local authority to be powerless in the face of a school where standards are sliding.
  There is another major flaw in the Secretary of State's scheme. Not only will local authorities not have the power to intervene; they will not have the money to employ inspectors who could intervene if they had that power. Under clauses 9 and 15, a local authority can employ inspectors only as a separate, semi-privatised
  operation—
  Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister of State shakes his head, but he must know that under the Bill the inspectors have to be a self-financing operation. They will have to get back their salaries and other costs from the fees that the schools pay for the inspection. Almost by definition, a school which faces serious problems will probably have the governors on one side of the issue and the local authority on the other. It is almost certain that the governors will have exhausted their pot of money to pay for an inspection because an inspection can be carried out only on a

  995
  four-year cycle. The funds to pay for such an inspection will not exist. The consequence is that there is no power for a local authority to intervene and there would be no funds for the local authority to employ inspectors even if that power existed. The Secretary of State needs to answer that point directly.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate and we are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State sought to apologise for the Bill by suggesting that it was not a privatisation measure. Privatisation used to be a badge of honour which was worn with pride by every Tory. Now it seems to be a mark of shame that Ministers wish to hide at the first opportunity.
  The reason is simple. When the Secretary of State first published the proposals at the beginning of July 1991, virtually every newspaper said that the Government were privatising the system with private inspectors going into schools. The Secretary of State discovered that he had made a profound political and educational error in dismembering Her Majesty's inspectorate, in cutting its numbers from 480 to 175 and in trying to pretend to an incredulous electorate that the result would be that HMI would be strengthened. It was not until he proposed to hand over inspection not to co-ordinated teams, but to one team of privatised inspectors and it was not until he proposed allowing governors to pick and choose inspectors that he suddenly realised that privatising the inspectorate was going down like a lead balloon both with those running schools and with the electorate.
  That is why, in all the great publicity that the Government have come out with recently about strengthening the inspectorate, scarcely a word has been heard about the notion of privatised inspectorates. Perhaps the Secretary of State will now tell me what precedent exists, in the entire administration of public services under this Government, for a provider of a public service to choose the regulator to inspect it. He knows that even with the semi-privatised trust hospitals he insisted not that they should appoint their auditors but that the Audit Commission should do so.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for inviting me to intervene by asking questions. He mentioned my objection to the word "privatised". I am not against privatising commercial activities, but it is a word that we should use correctly. It means transferring something which goes on in the public sector into private hands.
  The hon. Gentleman has always acknowledged—this time he did not, he tried to go back on it, but I repeat my own belief—that there is no inspectorate in Lancashire. There is nothing being transferred from the public to the private sector. A new inspectorate is being put in place, and the hon. Member is misleading the public to keep on about our privatising it.
  It is really no good the hon. Member for Blackburn lecturing me or any other member of the Government on the need to separate inspectors from providers of service. The people who inspect will be independent of the governors. They will be taken from the list of those registered by Her Majesty's inspectorate, nationally
  996
  approved, independent inspectors. The provider will have a choice between two inspectors, both of whom are quite separate from the providers.
  The hon. Member's proposition is that the providers, Lancashire county council, should be the only people entitled to inspect their own, the provider's, schools. He is misusing the argument, and it can easily be turned against him. He is resisting the independence of inspection that the Bill introduces.
  Mr. Straw: I asked the Secretary of State a straight question and he has sought to waffle for about three minutes in reply. He said nothing about what I had asked him, but at least he has confirmed that he cannot draw a single precedent to our attention of a provider of a public service, under this Government, being able to pick and choose its own regulator.
  Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Member for Blackburn agree that his position is that Lancashire county council should be the only people allowed to inspect Lancashire schools? What sort of independent regulator or guarantee of independent quality is that?
  Hon. Members: Answer!
  Mr. Straw: We will deal with Labour's proposals under new clauses 10 and 20. Our proposals will ensure that there are far more rigorous standards of inspection and also that the inspectorate stands at arm's length from the people it inspects. If the Secretary of State is going down the ludicrous road of asking whether the inspectors are to be employed by the local authority, I remind him that the police are employed by the local authority but are able to exercise independence. Twice I have put a straight question to the Secretary of State and twice he has refused to answer it. What he proposes to set up is a system without parallel. even under this Adminstration.
  To their credit, the present Administration have at least ensured, when privatising a public service, that the regulator is separate from the provider; but here we have a situation where the provider is to be the regulator. It is because of that, because the governing body of the school, including the head teacher, is to pick and choose its own inspector, that nobody with any experience either of the regulation of public services or of the educational services supports the proposals.
  HMI does not. For the first time in 150 years, HMI came here last Thursday to lobby hon. Members on both sides and to tell them that the scheme proposed by the Secretary of State was profoundly defective, would undermine and weaken the inspectorate and would lead to inconsistent standards of inspection. HMI, which is supposed to run this ramshackle system, has itself said that it cannot work.
  The National Association of Governors and Managers, in whose interests, apparently, this has been set up, has said the same. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has said it. So, too, have scores and scores of head teachers who, as reported in The Observer on Sunday, said that it could not lead to consistent standards of inspection and some of whom said that they would "fix" these private inspections.
  There has never been a crazier, more ludicrous scheme for trying to raise standards. It will lead to a lowering of standards and it must be opposed.
  Question put and negatived.

New clause 2

  FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR WITH REGARD TO THE CURRICULUM
  'In Section I of the Education Reform Act 1988, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted"—
  "(aa) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England as respects every maintained school in England;
  (bb) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales as respects every maintained school in Wales;".'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) moved new clause I, she said that it was a modest new clause. Perhaps that was characteristic of her own approach, but I am sure that she did not expect the sort of debate that the new clause stimulated. If I may make a slightly immodest point at this stage, I feel that new clause 2 is probably more important than new clause 1. It is not the modest clause that new clause I was, because it relates directly to the inspectorate and the independence of the chief inspector.
  In the previous debate, we had comments, particularly from the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), about the need to preserve the independence of the chief inspector. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury specifically drew attention to clause 2(5), which I think the Secretary of State had not had an opportunity to read, because when he referred to clause 2(5) he spoke of the word "may", whereas the word "shall" is used in the Bill. The crucial element of the new clause is the preservation of the independence and integrity of HMI.
  To achieve that objective, the new clause would insert in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 the responsibility of the chief inspector to make sure that the national curriculum is delivered within the terms cif the 1988 Act.
  It is interesting to recall the debates on the Education Reform Bill. My colleagues who served on the Standing Committee will recall that the Government said at the time that it was the last substantial piece of education reform that they expected in this Parliament. It was deemed to be similar to the Education Act 1944 and would set in place a legal framework for education for many years. It is not without significance that this year we are debating two major education Bills, neither of which will probably be enacted but both of which attempt to fill the gaps already created by the Education Reform Act 1988.
  One thing was clear from the debate on new clause 1: the respect of those who know about education for the independence and integrity of HMI. Anybody involved in education recognises that HMI performs a difficult task with integrity, skill and knowledge of the education system. The inspectorate is an essential attribute of the system, and the independence of the chief inspector is an important element in putting the system above party politics, making it a national system and one in which, while we may disagree about many aspects, we may have some national pride. The inspectorate is valuable in its own right and it is therefore important that we try in new clause 2 to preserve its integrity and independence.
  We have moved new clause 2 not simply because of that traditional respect for Her Majesty's inspectorate, but for
  998
  other reasons. It is crucial that new clause 2 is added to the Bill because the measure as it stands would create a charter if not for corruption, certainly for collusion about inspection. That point was made in our earlier debate on new clause 1.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) realised as a result of interventions by Opposition Members that only the leader of an inspection team requires the approval of the chief HMI. The rest of the team could comprise anyone. As I said on Second Reading, the net could be cast so widely, that even the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) might be a member of an inspection team. Only the team leader must be approved by the senior HMI. As the hon. Member for Buckingham recognised, that system could work only on the basis of, to use his term, trial and error.
  The wrong inspectors may be appointed. The definition of "wrong" is interesting. Do we mean wrong ideologically or in terms of efficiency? It has been said that, if the wrong inspectors are appointed, the right team might appear on subsequent occasions. If the wrong team has been chosen, during the rest of the four-year cycle, the standards in the school concerned will decline. The best defence that the hon. Member for Buckingham could offer for that system was that it would be based on trial and error. Our schools and the education of our children are too important to depend on a system that relies simply on trial and error.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that parents are concerned about the quality of their children's education? The quality of that education will depend at least to some extent on the quality of the inspection. Why does not the hon. Gentleman agree that parents will ensure that they select the best teams to inspect school adequately?
  Mr. Fatchett: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has just made my argument for me. Obviously good education depends on good inspection. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made similar points. There is no guarantee that an inspection team will be appropriate or efficient. It may prove to be the wrong inspection team.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth fell back on the argument of parental choice. He said that parents will be able to choose a new inspection team. Let us consider a primary school that is inspected by a trial and error team which I will call T and E inspection. That inspection may take place when a child is half way through the primary cycle. Four years on, that child will be out of the primary cycle, and into the secondary cycle. What parental right will then exist?
  We have learnt from the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there is no guarantee of a right of complaint. Parents will not be able to demand a further inspection. In those circumstances, that child's education will be put at risk. That is what the T and E system will create and that is the system which the Government and the hon. Member for Buckingham are advocating.
  Mr. Pawsey: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. Why should there be trial and error? I do not understand why he uses that phrase. If a team leader is registered, he will ensure that the team with which he is working and for which he is responsible, will perform its

  999
  work satisfactorily. The hon. Gentleman is straining at gnats, such is the weakness of his argument. He is calling into aid the most improbable situation.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am not calling into aid improbable situations. With his sycophantic enthusiasm for Government policy, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth tends to forget that the statements were made by the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Worthing. They expressed concern.
  6.45 pm
  Concern has also been expressed by others. It would be useful if the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth talked to a wide range of parents' organisations which have expressed the same concerns. The hon. Gentleman will have seen reports suggesting collusion in the system. It does not make for good inspection to have the potential for collusion within the system.
  In our debate on new clause 1, the Secretary of State said that the local education authority would have a monopoly, as purchaser of the inspection team, as the employer. We must bear it in mind that HMI is in the system. It is independent and not employed by local education authorities. Its role is being changed substantially by the Bill. HMI is a source of independence and integrity.
  There is a weakness in the argument of the Government of the Secretary of State. The Government argue that because the LEA is the employer, it will call the tune. However, if that is a flawed relationship, will not the same relationship exist in terms of the contractual relationship—and even more so? The team of inspectors will be dependent on a contract with the governing body for its inspection function. Because of the nature of business, the team will be looking for more work. If it does that, it will want to satisfy the governing bodies for which it is producing reports. In those circumstances, the relationship is more controlled and incestuous than the relationship with an individual local authority.
  Mr. Enright: I want first to declare an interest as I belong to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and 1 express a specific view. In supporting new clause 2, the association is concerned that, as the Bill is drafted, there will be political control from the centre.
  I was a teacher for 22 years and spent some time teaching in the west riding. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has already referred to the old west riding, which was Conservative-controlled. At that time, we were determined that we would not be controlled by politicians. When Wakefield metropolitan district council was Labour-controlled, we were equally concerned not to have political control. Will not control now directly pass to the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Have we not seen the disastrous results of his interference in the national curriculum? Would not the new clause give independence to the inspectorate?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made many valid points. He was right to refer to collusion in terms of the contractual relationship between the inspectorate team and the governing body. He is right to say that there is no guarantee of quality from the inspectorate. He must have
  1000
  looked at my notes to make his point about the constitutional importance of new clause 2, which is to preserve the independence and integrity of the inspectorate. My hon. Friend is assiduous in such matters, so he will be aware, unlike the Secretary of State, that clause 2(5) states:
  "In exercising his functions the Chief Inspector for England shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  That is a substantial power. If, as the Minister of State tried to pretend in Committee, the subsection does not mean "shall" but really means "may", why does the Bill not say that? The Bill states that the chief inspector, on a mandatory basis and under a mandatory responsibility, "shall have regard" to aspects of government policy. He "shall have regard" to the Secretary of State's whim, because the Secretary of State has very substantial directions.
  The Bill does not give any flexibility. It talks simply in terms of a mandatory obligation upon the chief inspector. There is no freedom—the chief inspector will be fettered. Why is it so important that we try to limit the Secretary of State's fettering power? There are good arguments for limiting that power. For example—it is a general point, but it is an important constitutional point—we know from the Government's record that there seems to be a crucial criterion that they use in appointing people to senior public office. That criterion is simple—"Are you one of us? Do you support the Conservative party?"
  The Minister of State looks surprised by that point. I sometimes wonder what a sheltered life he leads. If he ever left his garden and looked at what was going on in the world, he would understand the issues that take place. Let us consider the Government's appointments in the health service. This matter is very important to the integrity of the chief inspector. Each appointment seems to be vetted by Conservative central office. They are card-carrying members of the Conservative party. We have the atavistic element on the Conservative Back Benches. Conservative Back-Bench Members enjoy every party-political appointment. I warn them not that Labour will not do that in office but that Labour will have regard to the constitution. When Conservative Members behave in that way, they undermine the country's constitution.
  Mr. Enright: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Wakefield health authority district, democratic results gave only two seats to the Conservatives but that every appointment in the health authority area is a Conservative? Is not that a disgrace? Does not it give us cause to fear clause 5?
  Mr. Fatchett: Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point relating to new clause 2 and the method of appointment. We are trying to preserve the integrity of the chief inspector. My hon. Friend will know that, not too far from Wakefield, the chairman of one of the hospital trusts in Leeds, who is the largest private donator to the Tory party—a man who decided last week that he would use private medicine in the hospital trust that he manages—was yet another of those appointments.
  You probably consider that my remarks are a little wide of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been a recent discussion about contextual factors in education. This is a contextual argument, which makes one understand the way in which the Government are prepared to make appointments for political reasons.

  1001
  We know that from time to time, there has been a slight delay in publishing the HMI annual report. We also know that the Government are not reluctant to make it clear to those working on their behalf exactly what sort of political message they want to receive. There are real risks in that. I refer, for example, to a recent HMI report. My hon. Friends will be interested in this matter, because]t is an HMI report on the first city technology college, Kingshurst, in Solihull in the west midlands. It is a creature of the Government, a college in which the Government have invested substantial money, and a college which, in the Government's terms, should be a success.
  The independence of the inspectorate enabled it to make its comments, which is why new clause 2 is so relevant. On the Kingshurst CTC, it stated:
  "On occasions, the lessons are undemanding."
  On curriculum management, the inspectorate report stated:
  "There is no co-ordination of the various aspects and strands that support the curriculum, nor are there effective links with the social education programme or with careers education and guidance."
  In other words, a college had substantial Government money but was producing education standards that were not satisfactory to the inspectorate. I want an inspectorate to have the ability to make comments and criticisms and to be free of direct government interference.
  Why have we decided to relate the responsibility and the duty to the national curriculum? We have linked back to the Education Reform Act 1988 for several reasons. There is broad acceptance of the principle of a national curriculum. It seems sensible for the inspectorate to maintain that national curriculum. There are certain characteristics that any national curriculum should have. It must be national and it must not be the plaything of any political party.
  Mr. Pawsey: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Fatchett: Yes. Over recent months, we have seen good evidence of a Secretary of State who is prepared to overturn independent expert advice in order to satisfy his own prejudices. We saw that in terms of history, and we recently saw it in terms of music, although he did a famous U-turn after his cage was rattled, I suspect. In those circumstances, we have seen party-political interference as represented by the idiosyncratic views of the Secretary of State.
  We want a national curriculum which is above and beyond the suspicion of party politics. Above all, it must be a national curriculum that gives all our children a guaranteed entitlement to higher standards in education. That has been the Government's argument for a national curriculum—it has been broadly accepted—but we need a national curriculum that is secure and delivered by the inspectorate. We need an inspectorate that is powerful and independent and has a chief inspector who can make comments on aspects of Government policy, free from the interference of Education Ministers.
  There are points on which my hon. Friends would like HMI to comment. For instance, they would like HMI to comment on the increase in class sizes in primary education, the scandal that one in four of our children are now taught in classes of 30 and over, and the fact that 10,000 of our children in primary education are taught in classes of 40 and more. We should like the inspector to
  1002
  comment on what those large classes do to the quality of education. A reading of the report of the so-called three wise men last week will show the difficulties in delivering key stage 1 and key stage 2 in very large classes.
  I have no evidence to support it, but I suspect that Ministers looking for private schools for their children will not take as a key selling point class sizes of more than 35 or 40. They will be looking for smaller classes. We should like the inspector to comment on that point. We should also like the inspector to comment on the quality of our school buildings. We are faced with a backlog of £3.5 billion of school repairs. We need comment on that. We need to know what that does in terms of the quality of education and the standards of education for our children. They are legitimate matters. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) seems delighted to have children taught in substandard schools.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that schools in my constituency are improving substantially under LMS.
  7 pm
  Mr. Fatchett: Clearly the hon. Lady does not understand LMS. Let me explain it to her. We may find that there is a substantial difference.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. Let us get a bit closer to the new clause.
  Mr. Fatchett: I believe that this is close to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is totally within it to talk about the fact that the inspector has a right to comment on the quality of school buildings and its impact on education.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of the hon. Lady and the House, was going to explain LMS.
  Mr. Fatchett: I appreciate that in that respect I was drifting out of order. I probably felt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thought that the task was beyond my intellectual capacity. In the circumstances I was asking a great deal.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Surely the hon. Gentleman would expect an inspector commenting on school buildings to do so in proper context by drawing attention to the fact that deterioration, about which we are all concerned, has been prevalent for 40 or 50 years, and sometimes much longer. This is an historical situation that must be addressed by everybody.
  Mr. Fatchett: That was an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman says that the problem has existed for 14 years.
  Mr. Greenway: No, 40 or 50 years.
  Mr. Fatchett: Ah, 40 or 50 years. I was about to remind the hon. Gentleman that the present Government have been in office for the past 13 years and therefore must accept a great deal of responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a considerable understanding of education issues and will realise that all the independent evidence suggests that the problems have worsened over the last few years. There is the problem of crumbling schools. Literally hundreds of thousands of children are taught in

  1003
  substandard buildings. That must have direct effect on education standards, and it is legitimate that Her Majesty's inspectorate should comment on it.
  I want the independent inspector to be able to comment on other aspects of Government policy. Whether the Government are Labour or Conservative, the inspector ought to have the right to comment, on, for instance, funding and on what is currently going on in the Prime Minister's county of Cambridgeshire, where there have been some very severe reductions. These must be matters for the inspector.
  A report prepared by head teachers in Cambridgeshire and circulated to all county councillors comments on the impact of the £2 million cut in the county council's budget. It refers to the reduction in the number of teachers, to cuts in the provision for children with special educational needs, to larger classes, to cuts in the expenditure on books and equipment and to the national curriculum. The hon. Member for Lancaster will be interested to hear that it says that the national curriculum will not be delivered because of the difficulty—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It will be delivered in our schools.
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady demonstrates the typically inward-looking Tory approach. She says that the national curriculum will be delivered in her schools. It does not seem to matter to her what will happen on the other side of the road. She is bothered only about what happens in Tory Lancashire. That is a quite legitimate interest, but surely what is going on in other parts of the country should be of interest to all of us. If we are to improve our general education standards we must have funding for the system and an inspectorate able to comment on that matter.
  I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take a keen interest in educational matters. If you look at other schools in Cambridgeshire, you will find cuts in physical education, technology, language assistance and music. All that is the result of the Government's funding policies, and an independent inspectorate has a right to comment on it.
  An independent inspectorate would have a right to comment also on teacher supply and teacher shortage and on instances of classes being taught subjects in which the teachers are not qualified. The Minister of State does not see this as a legitimate area of concern for the inspectorate, but I do. It is an important matter. We know from an HMI report of last year that more than three quarters of our secondary schools are finding it difficult to deliver the national curriculum because they do not have properly qualified staff in every subject. This is a crucial difficulty.
  We should be concerned not just about the number of teachers but about their quality. We should be concerned about whether a science teacher is available to teach a science lesson, or whether the only person available is someone trained over a very short period. We want an independent inspectorate that is able to comment on all those matters.
  We want, above all else, a system of inspection that does not derive from ideology, that is not a quick fix, that does not represent a commitment to privatisation on the ground that the Department of Education and Science must deliver its element of privatisation. We want an education partnership between parents, schools, local
  1004
  authorities, industry and higher education—a partnership that will enable us to achieve standards comparable to those in the rest of western Europe. The only way we can achieve such standards is to have a chief inspector who is independent and free and who brings integrity to the partnership. That is why we have moved new clause 2.
  Mr. Eggar: Before hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) I was going to say how much we had missed him in Committee. Having heard him speak, I can just about forgive him for not understanding the Committee debate. Indeed, he probably did not read the report of it. But there is something for which I have rather more difficulty in forgiving him. It is quite clear that he has failed to read not only the Bill and the report of the Committee's proceedings but his own party's policy document "Raising the Standard".
  It is up to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to decide whether hon. Members are in order, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman went on at considerable length about matters some of which seemed to stray interestingly from the subject of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about his desire for a totally independent inspectorate. If he had bothered to read his own party's policy document he would have seen that it is his party which seeks to deprive the inspectorate of its independence; that it is his party which is determined to put the inspectorate under the control of a new quango quaintly called the educational standards commission; that it is his party which would deprive Her Majesty's inspectorate of an essential part of what has given it independence and credibility—its role in advising the Secretary of State of the day.
  I am not the first one to have criticised this side of the Labour party's proposals. The criticism came from the former senior chief inspector, Mr. Eric Bolton, who pointed out that, under Labour's proposals, the inspectorate, instead of advising the Secretary of State directly, would have to rely on the secondment of some senior inspectors. It must have been a considerable disappointment to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to hear Mr. Eric Bolton describe their proposals as "cloud cuckoo land".
  To people who seek to follow the Labour party's proposals in this area I suggest that the new clause demonstrates very deep and very worrying confusion. Her Majesty's inspectorate—presumably still under the control of the education standards commission—would apparently have executive responsibilities. That is what the new clause suggests. The chief inspectors would be responsible for the curriculum in all schools. As well as supposedly advising the Secretary of State on policy and standards, they would take on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the local education authorities, the governors, the heads and the senior management of schools. For good measure, it appears that the inspector is meant also to advise in respect of a number of other matters, including resources.
  I was interested that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said nothing about the importance of separating inspection from advice. I recommend to him a good paragraph in "Raising the Standard":
  "We propose that every LEA should be placed under a legal duty to maintain a local inspectorate of schools, separate from any team of advisers or advisory teachers."
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central will recognise those words, and he should own up to them. The hon. Member

  1005
  for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—whom I welcome to the Chamber—missed that point in Committee, where we enjoyed the confusion that reigned on the Opposition Benches in respect of this issue.
  Although one can understand the Opposition having difficulty with their own Back Benchers, I never expected that they would have difficulty with members of their own Front Bench. It is no use the hon. Member for Leeds, Central looking to either side of him; he is the guilty man. In a document that has conveniently been leaked to me, the hon. Gentleman, without any hesitation, contradicts the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in "Raising the Standard". I refer to a letter written by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on 28 November 1991 to the secretary of the Society of Chief Inspectors and Advisers:
  "The subsequent evaluation, monitoring and implernentation of new practices could be carried out by both the initial inspector or by a group of advisers. At this point, whilst we define separately the responsibility of inspection and advice we also recognise that in certain circumstances approved by the LEA and the Education Standards Commission inspection and advice could be offered by the same group of people."
  That is directly contrary to what was stated in "Raising the Standard" and to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blackburn from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not here to set the hon. Member for Leeds, Central right. I would welcome an intervention from the hon. Gentleman to explain whether Labour's policy is that described in "Raising the Standard" or that stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central in his letter to the Society of Chief Inspectors and Advisers. I suspect that the Opposition are in the same muddle on this as on every other issue—including taxation, over the past three weeks.
  If the Opposition Front Bench cannot get its act together, how can we believe that they want to introduce effective inspection? New clause 2 is humbug. It clearly exposes the weakness that is at the heart of Labour's inspection policy, and demonstrates that the hon. Member for Blackburn does not speak to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central.
  Mr. Fatchett: It is flattering of the Government to
  spend so much time on Labour's proposals. There is a growing consensus, which the Minister is prepared to
  support, that there will be a Labour Government before too long—when our proposals will be implemented.
  It is characteristic of the Government that although the Minister spoke for one quarter of an hour, he did not once refer to new clause 2 or defend the Government's record. That is typical of the Government's tactics and negative approach.
  The Minister called the new clause "humbug". If he regards the inspectorate's independence and integrity as humbug, he is not fit to serve as Minister of State. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response and will divide the House on new clause 2.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 203, Noes 285.

  Division No. 60]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Alton, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  1006

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Hain, Peter

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barron, Kevin

  Haynes, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Beggs, Roy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bell, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  Bellotti, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Benton, Joseph

  Home Robertson, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bid well, Sydney

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Blair, Tony

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Blunkett, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Boateng, Paul

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ingram, Adam

  Caborn, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Carr, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cartwright, John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lambie, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lamond, James

  Clelland, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Terry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Crowther, Stan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretlord)

  Cryer, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McCartney, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCrea, Rev William

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Darling, Alistair

  McFall, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Enright, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  O'Brien, William

  Galloway, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Parry, Robert

  Gordon, Mildred

  Patchett, Terry

  Gould, Bryan

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  1007

  Reamona, Martin

  straw, JacK

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooney, Terence

  Vaz, Keith

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stephen, Nicol

  Mr. Eric Illisley and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Strang, Gavin

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Amos, Alan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, W.

  Eggar, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fallon, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Franks, Cecil

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

  Freeman, Roger

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fry, Peter

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gale, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Butcher, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butler, Chris

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butterfill, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Gregory, Conal

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grist, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Ground, Patrick

  Churchill, Mr

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hague, William

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  1008

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Raffan, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kilfedder, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knowles, Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Speller, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maples, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thorne, Neil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlingtonj

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mills, lain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Trotter, Neville

  Moate, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Walden, George

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Needham, Richard

  Watts, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  1009

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Wood, Timothy

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  Power of Chief Inspector for England to promote studies for improving efficiency etc.
  'The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New Clause 4—Power of Chief Inspector for Wales to promote studies for improving efficiency etc.—
  'The Chief Inspector for Wales may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in Wales.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 26, 27, 48 and 49.
  Mr. Straw: I am sure that the House is pleased that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), is to answer the debate. It may explain why scores of hon. Members are trying to get into the Chamber.
  Mr. George Howarth: It is the other way round.
  Mr. Straw: One of the problems with the Official Report is that heavy irony usually fails to come off, and it certainly did on that occasion.
  New clause 3 proposes to add to the Bill the following:
  "The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."
  Clause 4 has the same wording, except that it applies to the chief inspector for Wales.
  7.30 pm
  Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 appear on page 412 of the amendment sheet. We need not worry about No. 26 because it simply deletes the word "and". Amendment No. 27 proposes to insert in clause 16, at the end of the two sets of criteria, the words:
  "assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed."
  Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49, which can be found on page 413, do the same in respect of clause 17 and the exercise of functions in Scotland.
  In Committee there were substantial debates about how far the effectiveness of schools could fairly be judged simply by the publication of crude raw data on their results. We shall deal with that later.
  1010
  New clause 3 touches on those issues because it proposes that, after consultation with the Audit Commission, the chief inspector ought to be able to "undertake studies in connection with his functions…to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools".
  It would be difficult for us to object to Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27 since, as I recall, they arose from amendments that we tabled in Committee. Thus, we do not object—it would be churlish to do so.
  Amendment No. 27 is concerned only with assessing the degree of efficiency with which a school's financial resources are managed. The Chief Inspector ought to be able to study wider criteria. Obviously efficiency is important, but he should also consider economy and effectiveness.
  The Audit Commission provides an important model of how Government institutions, which are there to monitor the work of public services, should work. I pay tribute to the Audit Commission's work in the 10 years or so since it was first established. Under the leadership of the first controller, John Banham, and more recently under the leadership of the present controller, Howard Davies, the Audit Commission has achieved the enviable position of being respected by both central and local government, by the health authorities and by the public, who view it as a body which will rigorously assess, scrutinise and seek to monitor the effectiveness of public services on their behalf. Interestingly, the model offered by the Audit Commission in respect of auditing the accounts of local authorities and health authorities is wholly at variance with the scheme of the Bill.
  My hon. Friends will recall that I asked the Secretary of State, not once but three times, if he could name one area of public services where such a crackpot scheme had been introduced as the privatisation of the schools inspectorate and allowing the provider to pick and pay the regulator.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in the Chamber. He is the only Conservative member of the Standing Committee—apart from the hired hands on the second row—in his place. Indeed, he is the only Conservative member of the Standing Committee who has taken any part in the debate. Although he is not a hired hand—in the sense that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is—he holds the esteemed position of chairman of the parliamentary Conservative party education committee, so it is his duty to be here. The fact that the other Conservative members of the Committee listened to the debates hour after hour but cannot bring themselves to come into the Chamber today, let alone speak in support of the measure, shows how bankrupt their argument is.
  Mr. Pawsey: It is not duty which brings me here, but pleasure—the pleasure of hearing my right hon. and hon. Friends demolishing the Opposition's arguments.
  Mr. Straw: I suspect that that pleasure will be long delayed.
  Mr. Pawsey: Yes, I suspect that it will be.
  Mr. Straw: The curiosity of the Bill is that it has no parallel in public administration here or elsewhere in the world. I do not think that anyone in the western industrialised world or the developing world has ever dreamed up such a madcap scheme as allowing schools to

  1011
  pick and pay inspectors. At least the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has the good grace to smile—perhaps with some acquiescence—at what I am saying.
  The interesting thing about the Audit Commission is that its method of operation is different from that proposed in the Bill. It is fascinating that the Audit Commission was established by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was last Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): First.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, it was when he was first Secretary of State for the Environment. Now he is their last Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The Audit Commission was established in 1981–82 because of worries about inconsistent standards in the inspection of local authorities' accounts. One of the main concerns of the Government and the public at that stage was that local authorities were allowed to pick and pay their auditors. It was the main objection to that system of inspection. The right hon. Member for Henley said in the House at the time that it was crucially important that not only should the auditing of local authorities be independent, but that it should be seen to be independent. Rather than allow local authorities to decide, the Audit Commission was given powers, under its enabling legislation, to determine who should audit their accounts. Some local authorities objected to the fact that their right to decide was to be taken away.
  I happen to think that that was the correct decision. It was also entirely consistent with the Conservative Administration's approach of the past 13 years to the auditing and regulation of public services. However, the Secretary of State for Education and Science had a brainstorm in the summer after reading the draft pamphlet produced by the Wandsworth chief inspector and immediately introduced the Bill. I believe that he did so in the hope, if not the expectation, of an October election so that the Bill would never see the light of legislative day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had to rue the fact that we prevented the Government from calling an election in November. Now he must deliver the Bill.
  Mr. Fallon: We could have the election now.
  Mr. Straw: We would be delighted, but the last person who would want an election now must be the hon. Gentleman as one of the certainties of that election is that he will not represent Darlington after it, especially in view of the way in which he has so gratuitously offended Catholics in his constituency.
  Mr. Fallon: I have not offended anyone in my constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that, in the past, the Labour party underestimated the Darlington electorate.
  Mr. Straw: Once bitten, twice shy. I am sorry to say that it is a racing certainty—
  Mr. Fatchett: Do not apologise for it.
  Mr. Straw: Again, that remark is full of deep irony. It is a racing certainty that the Under-Secretary of State will not represent Darlington after the election.
  1012
  Some of us believe that the hon. Gentleman's approach to politics in the past year has been dictated by a desire to secure a safe seat somewhere else rather than by concern for his constituents in Darlington. Only someone who had already decided to abandon his constituents would so offend a large number of them, the Catholic population. The hon. Gentleman has thrown his seat away.
  Mr. Fatchett: What has he done?
  Mr. Straw: I do not believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a stickler for order, would wish me to pursue that. I must relate my remarks to the Audit Commission.
  Mr. Fatchett: It might be a serious matter.
  Mr. Straw: It might indeed, but it has nothing to do with the Audit Commission. I know that the Under-Secretary of State has offended a lot of people, but I am not aware, as yet, that he has offended the Audit Commission. In any case the commission has a broader back and no votes—unlike the Catholic population of Darlington.
  As a result of the local government legislation of 1982, the Audit Commission and not the local authorities appoints the auditors to local authorities. The Audit Commission also appoints the auditors for the health authorities and even the opt-out hospital trusts. Earlier, the Secretary of State wriggled and wriggled on that parallel, but it is well known that those trusts sought to argue that, as they were semi-privatised. they should have the right to appoint their own auditors, as though they were the shareholders of their trusts' property. One can appreciate the argument, given how detached they are from the health service. However, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, he insisted that the Audit Commission should appoint the auditors to the opt-out trusts.
  It is true that for the audit of local authorities the Audit Commission uses not only the district auditor service but a number of private audit companies. Conservative Members could have used that fact as an argument for saying that, with the system of audit of local authority accounts, the Audit Commission offers a parallel to the proposed privatised inspection regime.
  The important difference is that the Audit Commission uses only seven or eight firms of auditors. Those firms are carefully controlled and regulated by the commission, not by the local authorities. The crucial difference between the scheme proposed in the Bill and that operated by the Audit Commission is that it is the Audit Commission which pays the fees of those firms. The Audit Commission chooses those firms and, on behalf of the public, ensures that they do the job.
  Mr. George Howarth: He who pays the piper.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend with his usual sagacity—I could have used other words—has put his finger on it; he who pays the piper calls the tune.
  I believe that the Bill will be defeated by the fact that the Government and the Opposition will run out of time—
  Mr. Fatchett: And by the electorate.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Straw: That goes without saying, including the electorate of Darlington.

  1013
  Part of the Opposition's function is to try to improve legislation even if we do not agree with the principles behind it. In the unlikely event of the scheme coming into effect, I hope that the senior chief inspector would be able to draw upon the experience of the Audit Commission by seeking to judge in a wider sense the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the management of schools.
  The Audit Commission began the serious scrutiny of the work of the local inspectorate with its excellent report, "Assuring Quality of Education", published in 1989. The Secretary of State flies so many canards that it is difficult to know where to start in terms of correcting him. However, one of the many inaccuracies that he has uttered—he usually does so when he has nothing better to say—is to suggest that our proposals for an education standards commission were hastily put together when we heard about the citizens charter.
  I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has now taken his place on the Front Bench. I accept that it is a well-known political truth that if one side of the House finds out what the other side is doing it sometimes tries to take pre-emptive action. However, our discussions about the education standards commission predate any hint or suggestion of a parents charter or a citizens charter.
  We proposed an education standards council, as it was first called, as policy to the Labour party conference in 1988. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that predates the parents charter. We published a document on our proposals in May 1989, which predated the Audit Commission proposal. However, when that proposal was published, we studied it in detail.
  The Audit Commission has an obvious interest in the running of the local inspectorate. Although the Audit Commission report spelled out the steps that local authorities needed to take, it did not, at any stage, suggest that the inspectorate should be privatised.
  Recently the Audit Commission published a working paper entitled "Two Bs or not…", which is an important study of the performance of schools and colleges at A-level. We shall consider some of the main conclusions of that report when we discuss school effectiveness. However, that report revealed that it is silly to seek to judge institutions simply on the absolute level of results that they achieve. They are an important starting point for judging how schools and colleges are proceeding, but they cannot be the finishing point, any more than, as any accountant knows, the only basis for judging the financial soundness of a company is the total amount of its sales. That is a received wisdom among Conservative Members, but we have moved on from that method of judging the effectiveness of companies to much more sophisticated techniques that tell us how much value added they produce and how much work they do.
  Similarly, the Audit Commission, a number of whose officers work in education, decided to look not just at crude results but at the attainment of young people in sixth forms, sixth form further education and tertiary colleges, and private schools. It compared their GCSE attainment when they entered those institutions with their A-level attainment when they left and sought to judge from those results the effectiveness of those institutions.
  I am glad to welcome to the Government Front Bench the Minister of State, Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who is the longest serving Minister in the same post in this Parliament and whose
  1014
  record can scarcely be exceeded by anyone this century. I hope that I shall not ruin his chances at the general election by saying that I have always had considerable affection for him. I am glad to see that he is here, because the debate also concerns Wales.
  The results that the Audit Commission found were interesting. They showed that the GCSE results of young people in the middle of the range were better in independent schools but that independent schools did worse in terms of those with a lower attainment and, at the top, had average results. Those results were important in focusing on what makes institutions effective and in debunking some of the myths about the performance of such institutions.
  I hope that, in explaining the background to the proposal and the Audit Commission's work, I may have persuaded the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that he could easily accept the amendment. It would help to strengthen the work of the chief inspector of schools, as the Government wish.
  New clause 3 says that the chief inspector should, with the consent of the Audit Commission, be able to undertake studies. It is important tht he should be able to carry out research into what is going on because the difficulty of the Government's scheme is that the main source of data on what happens in schools would come from inspections carried out by privatised inspectors.
  May I put on record the fact that there is now no Conservative Member left in the Chamber apart from Ministers? Although this is supposed to be a flagship policy, no Conservative Member is here to support the Government—[Interruption.] A Conservative Member is now scampering on to the Benches. We look forward to her contribution to the debate. The Bill is a Government measure and it is for Conservative Members to argue in favour of it. It is noteworthy that Conservative Members have not volunteered press statements or speeches in support of the privatisation of the inspectorate. Their silence is deafening.
  When the Prime Minister was trying to relaunch the beached citizens charter the other day, as to how central the privatised, pick-and-pay, pick-your-own inspectorate would be within the parents charter or the citizens charter, there was virtual silence. The Prime Minister's apparent scepticism and distaste for the measure is plainly shared by most Conservative Members, who have shown their unhappiness about the measure by leaving the Chamber.
  Mr. McFall: To add substance to my hon. Friend's remarks, early-day motion 574, signed by six Conservative Members, deplores the action of Labour Members and asks them to clarify their position during the Report stage of the Bill. Where are those six Conservative Members? The fact that they are not here illustrates the vacuousness of their position and the fact that they are not interested in the Bill. Those interested in the rights of parents are the Labour Members who are present to debate the issue.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. One or two Conservative Members are interested in those issues. The Secretary of State dealt neither fairly nor with the respect that they deserved with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who made an important contribution to the debate on the rights of local authorities. One can never accuse those Conservative

  1015
  Members of being in the pocket of the left-wing educational establishment. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington, may do so, but I certainly would not.
  Those Conservative Members are concerned with ensuring that consistent standards of education are maintained in their constituencies. They know that removing a local authority's power to inspect schools in the period between the privatised inspections that will take place evry four years and refusing to provide the local authority with the money to pay for inspectors will mean that schools that fall below standard between inspections—arithmetically, schools will probably not fall below standard exactly at the point of inspection, but problems will arise at other times—will go unmonitored and standards will fall further under the so-called parents charter, which represents declining standards and mediocrity.
  The Government claim that the main data that will flow to Her Majesty's chief inspector, from which he will judge the state of the education service, will be derived from individual inspections.
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman is filibustering.
  Mr. Straw: I am not filibustering. This debate is raising important issues. In the previous debate, many Conservative Members were as unhappy with the Government's proposals as we were. They were certainly unconvinced by the Secretary of State.
  The Government claim that the main source of data will be individual reports from the privatised inspectorates. We believe that those individual reports are bound to be of an inconsistent standard, for the reasons that the Minister of State admitted in the Standing Committee. Governing bodies will be able to pick and choose inspectors who follow their approach.
  The Minister of State also made the damaging admission that, if a school was following an integrationist approach, for example on special needs, it could appoint inspectors without expertise in that subject. Therefore, there will be no consistency in the standard of information and, even if there were, it would still need to be backed up by nationwide studies such as those undertaken until now by the Audit Commission in its relatively narrow field and which HMI and organisations such as the Assessment of Performance Unit used to undertake until it was abolished.
  Mr. George Howarth: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and it is clear from his detailed analysis of all the implications of the process that it will be disastrous. In Committee the Government heard all the criticisms being made. In my hon. Friend's opinion, why are the Government carrying on with the Bill? Are there sinister reasons for it?
  Mr. Straw: I think that the Government have got themselves stuck. I believe that Conservative Members wish for an early election if only to see the end of the Bill.
  The Secretary of State has a history of introducing measures and then changing his mind. He did so with the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill that he brought before the House in November 1990. He commended it in fulsome terms and said that he agreed not only with the
  1016
  Bill but with his hon. Friend's comments. Then, hey hoe, about two months later the matter is turned on its head and the Secretary of State says that he does not agree with a word of it and introduces a different measure. That is on the record and the Secretary of State had clearly not thought his position through and so had to change his mind. He could easily do the same on this Bill; if he did, we would applaud his action.
  8 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: We spent about 300 hours discussing the so-called Education Reform Bill. I alluded to it as a "deform" Bill. The Government thought through that Bill with such urgency that it was almost doubled in size by Government amendments. Endless Government amendments had to be introduced before the Bill could be made to work. The present Education (Schools) Bill is also being rushed through at such a rate that people are not conversant with what is happening. However, the Government will not accept one Opposition amendment out of hundreds, but every now and then Ministers say that there is not much difference between the views of the parties.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend brings experience and wisdom on educational matters to the House. It is no good the Secretary of State going on about the need to keep the pace of change going. Change is in the nature of life, but our charge against the Government is that they have failed to think through their changes and have then mismanaged them.
  It is known—perhaps the Secretary of State will wake up to this fact at some stage—that our 1987 manifesto contained a proposal for a national core curriculum which we would have introduced had we won the election. We did not oppose the principle of a national curriculum in 1987 and we are not undergoing a latter-day conversion, but we certainly depart from the way in which the Government have put the national curriculum into practice. They have failed to think the matter through, and consequently one change after another has been imposed on schools. Some 165 separate documents have been sent to schools—more than one for each week of every term since the Education Reform Act 1988 has been in force.
  Before I was interrupted, I was saying that we believe that—[Interruption.] Sometimes one feels bound, out of deference to colleagues to allow interventions from hon. Friends. We think that there is a strong case for studies, as well as receiving information and making judgments on the basis of the local inspection reports.
  Mr. Fallon: The House will have listened to the most extraordinarily discursive speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) which started with mention of Darlington. I must correct what he said—I have provided £243,000 for Church schools in Darlington but the Labour-controlled Durham county council is threatening to refuse to spend any of that money on Catholic schools there, and I shall hold the council to account.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The Minister has just given the House—I shall not say "deliberately"—some misinformation. Durham county council, in consultation with the Department of Education and Science, proposed extra accommodation for Catholic

  1017
  schools. The Minister turned it down—the people of Darlington know that and the Catholics will remember it at the general election.
  Mr. Fallon: I have made it clear that I provided £250,000 for Church schools in Darlington—[Interruption.]—personally. Durham county council is threatening to withhold that money from schools in Darlington—I think that the people of Darlington will clearly understand that.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn attempted to explain the Government amendments in this group, but I shall do that myself later. New clauses 3 and 4 are wholly inappropriate. They would not add anything to the powers of the chief inspectors. Instead, the amendments would reduce their ability to act as they see fit. The clauses may appear to give a function to the chief inspector. They state that he may, in connection with his functions, arrange studies into how schools might be more efficiently, economically and effectively managed. However, nothing in the Bill as drafted would prevent him from doing this, if he so chose.
  The clauses add nothing to the powers of the HMCIs for England and Wales in this respect. The clauses would reduce the ability of the HMCIs to follow their own independent judgment in carrying out such studies. They would be required to obtain the consent of the Audit Commission before they could act as laid down. That is unacceptable, and quite out of keeping with the increased independence we are seeking for the HMCI.
  I expect that in practice HMCI and the Audit Commission will carry on and develop the relationship which HMI and the commission have already established. The House may not fully appreciate that there is already considerable co-operation between the Audit Commission and HMI. A number of HMIs have been seconded to the commission's staff in recent years, and such individuals have been involved in several published reports on educational matters, including that on local authority inspection and, more recently, on management in primary schools. At present, the commission and HMI are carrying out joint exercises looking at 16-to-19 education and special educational needs. They are co-operating on work in performance indicators which will be relevant for the implementation of both this and the Local Government Bill.
  I fully accept that the Audit Commission's experience and expertise are relevant to those parts of HMI's functions which have to do with efficiency and value for money in schools. It is equally true that HMI's experience and expertise are relevant to that part of the Audit Commission's work which has to do with education. I am sure that co-operation will increase under the new legislation. I am sure, for example, that HMCI will want to talk to the Commission about relevant aspects of his guidance to registered inspectors. But I am sure we can rely on HMCI and the Audit Commission to achieve that, and do not need to give their relationship the backing of statute.
  I do not see any difficulty in the two bodies continuing to work alongside each other as now, both with their separate remits. The Local Government Bill now before Parliament gives the Audit Commission new powers to require the publication of performance information covering local authority services including education. The Education (Schools) Bill gives a formal basis for HMI's
  1018
  increasing interest in the efficiency with which resources are used in schools. It will be essential, as now, for the two bodies to co-operate and consult as they carry out their duties. But I see no reason for that to be set out in law—and certainly not for HMCI to be made subordinate to the Audit Commission in that respect.
  That must have been the original view of the hon. Member for Blackburn. Paragraph 64 of his document "Raising the Standard" states:
  "There should be consultation between the ESC and the Audit Commission about the transfer of appropriate staff and about where the dividing line between the work of the two Commissions should be precisely drawn."
  That is a far cry from new clause 3, which would impose in statute the subordination of the HMI to the Audit Commission.
  It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is making this up as he goes along. It seems that he drafted the new clause on the back of an envelope during a delayed railway journey between Blackburn and London when he had forgotten what was set out in "Raising the Standard". It is not often that we praise "Raising the Standard", but we think that he had it right before he scribbled new clause 3.
  There will, of course, be consultation between the two bodies. They will work out between them precisely where the dividing line should lie.
  To show that we are not opposed to improvements to the Bill in the cause of encouraging efficiency, I commend Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and the corresponding amendments, Nos. 48 and 49, for Scotland. These amendments meet a point that was urged upon us by Opposition Members in Committee, which we undertook to consider further. It appears that the powers in clauses 16 and 17 do not extend to the collection and publication of information about efficiency in schools. That is a gap. When indicators are available through the work of HMI and the commission, we want to be able to include them in relevant publications. Inspection reports will cover quality, standards and efficiency, and so, as far as possible, should other publications.
  I hope that the Opposition, on reconsidering the merits of their new clauses, will be able to give their full support to the Government amendments, which are designed to bridge a gap in the Bill to which they, the Opposition, drew our attention in Committee. Accordingly, I hope that new clauses 3 and 4 will be withdrawn and that Government amendments Nos. 26, 27, 48 and 49 will be accepted.
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I listened with interest to the Minister's response. It astounds me that the Government still do not understand, after the decade of disturbance that they have caused within the education system, that they are responsible for a veritable blizzard of "innovation". Whenever I speak on this subject I find myself searching for new and more adequate ways of describing what the Government have done. I have used various words, such as storm, wave and carousel, and tonight I have opted for blizzard. I feel for our hard-pressed teachers, who have the unenviable task of delivering education to our children in the face of the blizzard of "innovation".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said, the pace of change is astounding. There is at least an administrative circular each day. One can imagine the amount of time that head teachers and teachers must spend reading the literature that is produced by the Government. It is no wonder that they have not

  1019
  caught up with one change before they are overtaken by the next. It is not surprising that there is a crisis of morale in the teaching profession. The Government have failed to recognise the crisis but it has been researched. Warwick university undertook a study and concentrated especially on those who teach pupils of seven years and over.
  8.15 pm
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Member is straying and I must draw his attention to the new clauses that we are considering. I invite him to address his remarks more specifically to them.
  Mr. O'Hara: I shall do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am setting out the background to the new clauses. I have drawn attention to the crisis of morale among those who deliver education to our children. It has arisen because of the constant disturbance that they suffer in undertaking their task.
  In deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refer more briefly to the difficulties that face local authorities in managing their budgets as a result of the changes that the Government are introducing and the cuts that are being inflicted on local authority spending. The problems that are experienced in the local management of schools are shared by the schools themselves and local authorities. They are trying to share a cake that is too small to meet demand.
  Surely the most pressing need is a period of consultation within the education system. We need a period of review and overview. We need to stand back and assess whether we are moving forward or merely spinning round and getting nowhere fast. We must determine whether we are moving fast but ineffectively.
  For example, how much time are teachers able to devote to teaching? I have referred to the time that they must spend reading Government circulars. They have to spend time preparing and testing. Studies have shown that teachers of seven-year-olds are spending only about 42 per cent. of their time teaching. The rest of their time is devoted to other duties.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having again to call the hon. Member's attention to the new clauses that are before us. The hon. Member has excellent parliamentary manners and I have never known him attempt to abuse the House in any way. I must ask him to convince me that he is speaking to the clauses, which relate to the powers of the chief inspectors for England and for Wales. He must address himself to the substantive matters that are set out in the new clauses.
  Mr. O'Hara: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that all my remarks are relevant to the new clauses. New clause 3 states:
  "The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."
  If an overview, initiated by HMI in consultation with the Audit Commission, of the way in which teachers are spending their time in schools is not an examination of "efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England",
  1020
  I do not know what is. What more expensive resource is there in this context than staffing costs? I am sure that we all want as much as possible of the money that is allocated to be spent on the teaching of children. There has been some limited research, but there is a crying need for the sort of study to which HMI has drawn attention repeatedly during its distinguished history. It is surely the best-equipped organisation to carry out that study.
  We are told repeatedly when we complain about the allocation of resources to local authorities that they have surplus places in their schools and that if they were more efficient in eliminating them they would be able to allocate their resources more efficiently. Surplus places are not just a matter of space, not just a matter of square metres. There can be many reasons why surplus places cannot be taken out. For example, they may be on the wrong side of the main road. In the case of Church schools, of which I have a large number in my constituency, surplus places do not match conveniently the parish boundaries.
  There is an educational as well as a financial dimension to the problem of surplus places. I hope that I have convinced you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that new clause 3 would enable the chief inspector for England, in consultation with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, to carry out such a study. Therefore, the two new clauses should be accepted so that tasks that Her Majesty's inspectorate are well suited to carry out can be carried out in the interests of good and efficiently provided education.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The two new clauses are particularly to be welcomed, not least at a time when entirely misconceived proposals are being considered by the Conservative-controlled Brent borough council. They seem to be designed to close down schools in the southern part of the borough. I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on introducing the two new clauses. Some of my constituents have written to me only recently. One of those letters was written by Mr. Peter Herson of 73 Fortune Gate road, Harlesden, NW10. He writes with good cause about his concern, and that of many other parents who are in a similar position, about the public consultation document "Primary School Provision in Brent" that was recently published by the council.
  If new clause 3 were to be given a Second Reading by the House, it would be possible to have an independent audit. Newfield school, like similar schools, is delivering the goods in terms of the quality of the education that it provides to pupils in my constituency. It has won praise from the inspectorate. It is geared to achieving the highest standards while at the same time ensuring efficient and cost-effective use of resources. That school is now threatened with closure.
  I am opposed to the closure of Newfield school. The overwhelming majority of parents in my constituency who send their children to that threatened school are also opposed to its closure. They would welcome an independent report that would show just how well resources are being used in that school and just how well the needs and concerns of parents about the educational welfare of their children are being met.
  It does not end there. The consultation document is misconceived. The Conservative chairman of the education committee, Mrs. Elisabeth Ormiston, has acted not like a bull in a china shop—
  Mr. Pawsey: A heifer?
  Mr. Paul Boateng: No. I do not intend to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman urges me to go down. However, that lady acts like someone who has not considered the consequences of her actions. She has shown a singular lack of sensitivity in her approach to her job and in her willingness to close schools, regardless of the quality of education that they provide.
  My borough is particularly proud of its standards of primary school education. They are being achieved despite the lamentable lack of financial support, at times, from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment, and despite the lamentable politicisation of education, spearheaded by the Conservative group on Brent borough council which is determined to take its lead from Conservative Members of Parliament and to engage in an absolutely deplorable form of social experimentation when it comes to the education of my constituents' children. We are sick and tired of—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to breach our procedures or our Standing Orders. What he says is very interesting, but as far as I can see it does not relate to the new clauses that we are considering. May I ask him to relate what he has to say to the two new clauses, which I know he is interested in? Furthermore, we want to hear his views on them.
  Mr. Boateng: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to address my remarks precisely to new clause 3. Its value to the pupils and parents of Newfield school and Chamberlayne Wood school—also threatened with closure, which will be overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of parents in the borough who, particularly in the southern part, seek to exercise the widest possible choice and to make wise choices for their children—is that it would then be possible for an independent review to be carried out of the education provided for those children.
  Mr. Fallon: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on new clause 3. Is it his position, and that of the Opposition generally, that the chief inspector for England, as proposed in the Bill—or his equivalent, as proposed by the Opposition—should have the power to intervene over the provision of school places and the proposal to remove surplus places? Does he want the chief inspector to have the power to challenge the decision of local education authorities?
  Mr. Boateng: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has made it clear that that is not the case.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady has not spoken yet on this new clause.
  Mr. Boateng: If my hon. Friend has not yet made that clear, I am sure that she will do so shortly, which will allay any suspicion that may linger in the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to our intentions.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am amazed by the Minister's intervention. The Government's proposals for opting out have distorted the surplus places issue. What has happened in Brent is partly due to the idiotic policies that the Government have pursued. There are far more surplus places now than at any other time. That has come about
  1022
  specifically because of the way that the Government have frozen proper reorganisation. We want a reorganisation that will provide parents with proper rights of consultation and independent rights of consultation. Again he cannot read. We produced another document on this last year and I invite him to read that. It deals specifically with the reorganisation of schools.
  Mr. Pawsey: What is it called?
  Ms. Armstrong: Off the top of my head, I cannot remember. [Interruption.] I do not understand why that should be an issue for derision. I cannot remember the name of every document. The document deals with reorganising schools properly in a way that would give an independent right of appeal to anyone with an interest in the school, be that person a parent, a governor or any member of the community.
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now relate his remarks to the new clause.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. The Minister mentioned surplus places and I am only too happy to respond. I am concerned particularly about Newfield school. The position there emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend about the importance of consultation.
  Newfield school's actual capacity is 201. In the consultation document issued recently in my borough its capacity is determined, wrongly, by the architects as 243. At present the school has 173 pupils in six classes, which leaves just one surplus place per class. Should a new family move into the area, with three children all of primary age, without the spare capacity Newfield school could not offer them all places. That is why we welcome the new clause.
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Mr. Boateng: The Minister will have his opportunity in a moment.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to eat his dinner while sitting on the Front Bench?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not see any hon. Members having dinner or any form of refreshment. If they were, perhaps they would offer some to me.
  Mr. Boateng: Whatever the Minister is chewing, it is as indigestible as the Bill that we are considering.
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Mr. Boateng: In due course, please.
  What I and my constituents are concerned about is that the chief inspector for England may promote studies to improve efficiency. With the consent of the Audit Commission he should be able to
  "undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."
  Such studies would be welcomed warmly by the governors and teachers of Newfield junior, middle, and infant school which is threatened with closure. They would also be

  1023
  welcomed by the parents, governors and staff of Chamberlayne Wood school, another school threatened with closure.
  It does not end there. In being able to exercise those functions, the chief inspector could also draw the attention not only of my local authority but of local authorities throughout the country to the good work being done in William Gladstone school, yet another school in the London borough of Brent, under Conservative control, which is threatened with closure. Overwhelmingly among staff, parents and in the constituency there is opposition to closure.
  Before sitting down, I invite the Minister to meet me and other hon. Members who are concerned about the reorganisation of primary education in my borough and about the closure of William Gladstone school. Excellent work is being done in primary schools in the borough of Brent and in William Gladstone school. That work would contribute to the study which the chief inspector would have power to make under new clause 3. We should like the opportunity to make representations to the Minister. Will he meet us to discuss the problems of primary schools in Brent and of William Gladstone school, which is also facing closure? That is a challenge to the Minister; I look forward to him taking it up.
  Mr. Flannery: New clause 3 is the same as new clause 4 except that it applies to England while new clause 4 applies to Wales. We have all met chief inspectors at various times. At that level the inspectorate is very much an independent body. Anything that would destroy its independence is alien to education. The inspectorate can say whatever it wishes, in an honourable way, to try to bring about changes not only in schools but in the organisational groupings which deal with schools.
  Independent reports began only a few years ago. To his credit, it was a Conservative Minister who introduced them. Those reports can be uncomfortable for a Government and for an Opposition. We want enough money for the inspectorate to promote or undertake studies. What does that mean? It means that the inspectorate could initiate courses to try to do something about what is happening in schools. When we want the chief inspector to undertake work
  "in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness",
  we mean that schools should be used at weekends to provide in-service training.
  In our city we had a teachers' centre. Not as an architect, but as a teacher, I was one of the people who planned it. It was one of the first. Some of us travelled the country to try to find out about it. It was in Melbourne house. In fact, it was outside there that the ripper was caught. We were very worried because many women teachers went along a rather dark road to the teachers' centre.
  That teachers' centre has gone. it is now part of the girls' high school, a private school. The school has enough money to keep it going, but we had not. As a result we have lost the in-service training and teachers' meetings which took place there. I hope that, as a result of inspections and discussions, an inspector, independent of the Government, would be disturbed about that. I hope that, if that were brought to the notice of a chief inspector, he would want
  1024
  to initiate studies into what was happening to teachers' centres throughout Britain. Such studies would induce efficiency and promote economy. It is necessary for us to have teachers who are surplus to immediate requirements in schools to free other teachers to go to the teachers' centres and similar places to study education further.
  The Scottish system of education is wholly different from ours. It is a very fine system and I hope that one day the two systems will come much closer together. The National Union of Teachers in England and the Educational Institute of Scotland are close to each other already.
  Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that another study might concern a subject of topical interest—the seven-plus test? HMI would be well placed to carry out a long-term study of the experience of nursery education and its effect on children's progress to assessment at age seven and further up the age range.
  Mr. Flannery: I am sure that such a study would be one of many that would improve "efficiency, economy and effectiveness" in the education system. During my lifetime in teaching, the task of the inspectorate has been to bring to the notice of Governments in a civilised way how they can promote efficiency in the schools by whatever methods, and how they can initiate methods, including the teacher at the chalk face, to make our system better. That is why we tabled new clauses 3 and 4.
  The new clauses would give the chief inspector himself or herself—I hope that one day it will be herself—the power to initiate research on aspects of education which he or she deems to be worthy of such attention. Although the aim is to promote economy, such research requires money. Education cannot be done on the cheap, and nobody knows that better than HM inspectorate.
  I have met HM inspectors on many occasions and have found them a most civilised group. Teachers have found that the breadth of their approach to education has often contrasted with that of the local inspectors who, no matter how willing and able, do not have the knowledge of HM inspectors who travel round the whole country. Inspection must be intended primarily to assist the development of education institutions, whether primary and nursery schools or in the secondary sector, and to dispense information on policy decisions for effectiveness in the management of schools.
  The Secretary of State is not an educationist and he needs advice. That advice will come from an independent inspectorate. It may sometimes be unpalatable to the Secretary of State, whoever he is. From my experience on the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, I know that Secretaries of State—not just the present Secretary of State—often lack knowledge of education, no matter how high-powered they may be. The chief inspector, his inspectorate and the teachers will not lack knowledge of education. We want the inspectorate to convey to the Secretary of State and to others involved in education the fact that they have noticed aspects in schools that need attention. There should be gatherings of teachers or those who run the education system to consider what has gone wrong.
  The inspectorate put out a document entitled, "The Implementation of the Curriculum Requirements of ERA". It stated that in primary schools, there were

  1025
  "too few micro-computers, inadequate or outdated library collections, a lack of good quality books and shortages of some items of basic equipment for mathematics and physical science."
  One would expect Government action to flow from such a report when such criticism had been made by the inspectorate. We want the chief inspector to have the right to make such reports. The document said of secondary schools:
  "about three-quarters of the schools visited expected problems in staffing Key Stage 4. Shortages were predicted in a significant number of schools for every national curriculum subject except PE".
  Such reports go to the Government and we want the chief inspector to be able to promote efficiency and economy, as we have said in the new clauses.
  8.45 pm
  The annual report of HM senior chief inspector of schools for 1989–90 stated:
  "In many primary schools, the lack of non-teaching time for class teachers remains a serious obstacle to effective planning and preparation of work."
  The report pointed out that inefficiency flows from certain matters in school. The inspectors have also said that schools are crumbling and that buckets wait for the water. I should expect the inspectorate to convey such information to a Secretary of State—especially this one. Until recently, he had not even visited a school in his constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has often said.
  The chief inspector must have a broader brief than that determined by the political interests of the Secretary of State. He must be able to stand up to a Secretary of State and to initiate developments without being dominated by him. Valuable comments such as those I quoted will not be forthcoming unless the inspectorate is independent and can initiate studies, as we have suggested in new clauses 3 and 4. We have made serious points, yet the Government take no notice of what is happening in schools. We are trying to get them to take notice.
  Ms. Armstrong: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Manoeuvrings are going on among the usual channels and my hon. Friend is continually called out to take part. I suspect that that is why the Secretary of State is also absent.
  We are debating a critical aspect of the Bill, and I listened with care to the Minister. I was far from convinced that he had understood what we are trying to achieve through new clauses 3 and 4. I was also far from convinced that he had taken on board the issue of school effectiveness which we pushed in Committee.
  The Minister continues to assert that the issue of how the national inspectorate will undertake its duties is being stirred up by the Opposition. He believes that quality is not an issue. We are very concerned that the method of inspection, other than through HMI, will be substantially flawed. We are also concerned by the severity with which HMI is to be cut down. The number of inspectors will be considerably fewer than at present.
  We want a national inspection of schools, with an ability to enforce recommendations. We want to know whether what an inspection team says about a school in Northumberland, for example, being effective cart be compared with a report of a similar inspection in, say, Norfolk or West Sussex. We hope that this aim is al the
  1026
  heart of the Bill and that the Government want to introduce a system that will allow it, but we feel that the Bill will not achieve that. In the new clause, we seek to insert conditions which would enable the chief inspector to undertake comparable studies in different parts of the country; this would lead to the national protection of standards that we feel is absolutely critical.
  When I worked in a polytechnic, HMI inspected the course on a regular basis and worked with it, and I was able to talk to individual inspectors over many years. They felt that a critical part of their expertise was their knowledge of what went on in different parts of the country. Although individuals inspected individual institutions, the inspectorate as a whole covered the country. Inspectors discussed their findings and no report was written on any institution without the involvement of other members of the inspectorate. One of our concerns is that, under the proposed system of inspection, that would not happen.
  There is another aspect. Under the proposed system, school inspections will take place in a well-heralded way. They will take place when the school asks for them to take place, and they will be well organised beforehand. While most of HMI's inspections are of that regular nature, one of its important methods of operation has come from its power to drop in when it wants to and not when an institution invites it. In this way, inspectors sometimes see things that they would not see if they announced their visits well beforehand or were invited to come.
  That is what gives us confidence that at present HMI can maintain a national perspective and acquire wide experience which enables its members to judge whether something is working well. The new clause would enable the inspectorate to promote and undertake studies of efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in both England and Wales. We are critically concerned with school effectiveness, how a school enables a child to progress. It is the way in which the school ensures that every child makes progress that is the measure of its effectiveness. It is not simply an outcome, it is the progress that a child makes in the school. W
  e particularly want HMI to be able to consider and monitor that.
  Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend will be aware of the report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—"The Cost of Implementing the National Curriculum in Primary Schools". The report, from what no one can deny are leading management consultants, estimated that the average recurrent costs of the national curriculum would be something like £671 million per annum over the first five years, plus start-up costs of £1,263 million. If the new clause were accepted, inspectors could, on the basis of such information, examine schools to see where resources were necessary, what schools were missing out on and what was needed in the way of extra teachers, equipment and so on. The report, which is a wide-ranging one, gives that information, and this is the type of information that the new clause would allow the inspectors to encourage in schools.
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
  We must know the effect of legislation not just on an individual school but across the educational system. The inspectorate has been severely pared, yet it has been given new powers so that its work load will increase rather than

  1027
  decrease. Training is very much in my thoughts and is important to me. I should have thought that training alone would make sufficient work for the number of people that the inspectorate will have to train, yet training will be only a small part of HMI's functions. The new clause would give the inspectorate, through the chief inspector, the right to look at school effectiveness, and to commission from others studies that would allow it to look at effectiveness across the system.
  The Minister failed to recognise that earlier when he tried to rubbish the clause. It is precisely because the Bill fails to cover this point and is weak on monitoring standards across the system that we want the new clause accepted. I constantly live in hope. I live in hope as regards the Government and look to whatever better feelings they may have. While not being too optimistic, therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider and accept the new clause and the one relating to Wales, as we accept the amendments that the Minister tabled in respect of the other clauses. We do not object to them.
  Mr. Steinberg: The introduction of the Coopers and
  Lybrand Deloitte report states:
  "The National Curriculum, introduced by the 1988 Education Reform Act and progressively implemented by Statutory Order from the date of the Act, is having wide-ranging consequences for the way in which schools structure the educational experience of their pupils. These consequences are widely perceived to include:
  increased demands on teachers' time, which must be addressed either by appointing further staff or by informally expecting staff in post to work longer hours
  changes in maximum class sizes, particularly for practical work, which again has implications for teaching staff increased resource expenditure as heads and governors equip [or re-equip] their schools to meet the curriculum demands
  increased staff training for teachers
  and possibly new training needs for Governors also, changes to the balance of the curriculum between different subjects and activities."
  That is a grand assessment of what the national curriculum has meant since it was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988. New clauses 3 and 4 would give the chief inspector the power to initiate research into aspects of education deemed by him or her to be worthy of that study. They would allow chief inspectors to investigate the problems highlighted by the independent report carried out by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.
  If the national curriculum is to be successful, we should know what resources are needed. My colleagues and I fully support the national curriculum, but if it is not resourced, it will be of no value to the educational system.
  9 pm
  If HMI cannot initiate research into aspects of the national curriculum and its resources, we will not know whether the curriculum is working. I hope that the Minister will consider the new clauses seriously and not
  rubbish them as he did earlier.
  If new clauses 3 and 4 are accepted, we should be able to discover, over several years, whether the national curriculum was working and whether more resources were needed. The Government always shudder when they hear the word "resources". They believe that the schools and education are being resourced. However, over the past few years, education spending, in real terms and as a proportion of GNP, has decreased. If the national
  1028
  curriculum is not being implemented, we should be aware of that fact. The new clauses would allow the chief inspector and the staff to carry out research to find out what is happening.
  I hope that the Minister will take note of what my colleagues and I have said and consider seriously the implications of the new clauses so that we can discover whether the national curriculum is a success.
  Mr. Fallon: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  We have had what I suppose I can describe as an interesting debate. A number of points have been raised, several of which were more oblique to the new clauses than others. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment in detail on the speeches of the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
  The hon. Member for Brent, South specifically asked whether I would receive a delegation at the Department of Education and Science. Ministers are well known for their courtesy in receiving delegations where there is a reorganisation. I do not know the details of the Brent reorganisation or whether it is within time, but I would be only too delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and to hear his views and those of his constituents about any particular proposals in his constituency.
  However, I must reply to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). I am grateful for her welcome to the Government amendments. I hope that we can put them to one side and, when the time comes a little later this evening, they can be written into the Bill without further ado.
  I had already explained at some length to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that it is not necessary to define in statute either the relationship between the two bodies—a point accepted in "Raising the Standard"—or the particular function of the chief inspector. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West did not explain why the Labour party now suddenly wants to define that relationship precisely and make HMCI subordinate to the Audit Commission and why new clause 3 is inconsistent with "Raising the Standard."
  Leaving that aside, I assure the hon. Lady that HMCI will not need the new clause to perform the studies and research work about which she was worried. Those powers are in the Bill. The hon. Lady thinks that the Bill does not cover that point. I draw her attention and that of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) to clause 2(1), which states:
  "The Chief Inspector for England shall have the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about—

  (a) the quality of the education provided by schools in England;

  (b) the educational standards achieved in those schools; and

  (c) whether the financial resources made available to those schools are managed efficiently."

  It is our contention, therefore, that the chief inspector already has all the powers that he needs to carry out the studies that are suggested in the new clause.
  With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will finally be satisfied that she does not need the new clause to give HMCI the power to undertake the studies that she wants. We think that he already has that power in the Bill. We think also that it would be

  1029
  introduce the subordinate relationship with the Audit Commission. We would much rather see those two bodies work in happy consultation with each other.
  Mr. Straw: As I moved the new clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6

  ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO INSPECTION TEAMS
  '( ):—(1) The Chief Inspector may determine that a person who has completed a course of training in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is in need of supervision, induction or probation and he shall maintain a list (the "Conditionally Approved List") of the names of such persons.
  (2) Without prejudice to the power of the Chief Inspector to register a person subject to conditions under subsection 10(5)(c), the Chief Inspector may in particular impose conditions which determine the circumstances in which a person whose name is entered on the list maintained under subsection (1) may be a member of an inspection team for the purposes of Schedule 2.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Armstrong: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 62, in clause 10, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
  '(6A) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the Chief Inspector from imposing conditions under subsection (5)(c) which determine the eligibility of persons acting as a member of an inspection team assisting the registered inspector in conducting an inspection in addition to the provisions regarding such eligibility mentioned in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act.'.
  No. 10, in Schedule 2, page 19, line 17, at end insert—
  '5A.—(1) The Chief Inspector shall not admit to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) any person, not being a registered inspector, who in his opinion is not a fit or proper person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection.

  (2) Any person admitted to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) shall be excluded from it if, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, he is unlikely to qualify for a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).

  (3) Any person who has completed a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) and 5(1) and who, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, is adequately trained for the purpose of carrying out inspections under this Act, shall receive a certificate to this effect.

  (4) No person shall carry out an inspection under this Act unless he has received a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).'.

  Ms. Armstrong: I may need to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will now catch the eye of one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. O'Hara: I trust that, at the beginning, you will see that I am addressing the subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I hope you now accept I was doing in my previous contribution. Perhaps it was not so obvious at the beginning—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more precise in his presentation.
  Mr. O'Hara: I shall, to the best of my ability, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  1030
  The new clause and the associated amendments are concerned with quality control, which is central to the Government's citizens charter and, I hope, central to the policies of any Government. I therefore appeal to the Government to consider the new clause with sympathy.
  There is a fundamental flaw in the Bill—the contradiction in the Tory philosophy of separation of the provider from the monitor. The provider is the master of the monitor—he hires the monitor. As we said earlier, who pays the piper calls the tune. We must have monitors, but if we cannot separate the monitor from the provider, we must at least have effectiveness in the monitor. We are considering the quality control of monitors—in other words, "quis custodiet ipsos custodies".
  Clause 10 refers to persons who shall conduct inspections of schools in England and Wales.
  "No person shall conduct an inspection…unless he is registered…for the purposes of this Act."
  That is fine. It is provided that the chief inspector shall compose the register and shall not register a person except in certain conditions—for example, if it appears to him that the person is a fit and proper person to discharge the functions of a registered inspector and that he will be capable of competent and effective inspection under the legislation.
  The clause goes on to deal with the way in which a person might apply for registration. Such a person will have to pay a fee. If one turns to schedule 2 one sees that registration criteria are specified. Paragraph 4 says:
  "No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team…unless he has completed a course of training".
  That, too, is fine. There are some criteria for registration. The course of training will be provided by the chief inspector for England or will comply with arrangements approved by the chief inspector. But the provisions peter out when it comes to payment of the fee.
  Paragraph 4 of the schedule says simply:
  "Where the Chief Inspector for England provides such training he may charge such fees as are reasonable for the purpose of recovering the whole, or part, of the cost of providing it."
  But there is something missing. We are told about the length of the training course and about the price, but not about the quality. No standards are set. This is a good example of "Never mind the quality; feel the width and look at the price."
  The question of standards will arise only if a person failing takes the matter to appeal. In those circumstances the inspector may give the reasons for failure. That is not satisfactory. In respect of the training courses there is no reference to standards or even guidelines. We need to know by what criteria a would-be inspector will be said to have passed. That is a serious omission. Such guidelines would be helpful to various people. For example, they would help registered inspectors to select suitable team members. Some hard and fast quality criteria would be set. The guidelines would also help team members to secure employment. They would be particularly helpful to lay members of inspection teams—and the Bill makes it very obvious that the Government are anxious to recruit such people.
  I understand that there have been disturbing suggestions that certain groups of people may be accredited by the senior chief inspector almost on the nod.

  1031
  That cannot be satisfactory. Surely the Bill should contain some provision setting the standards that must be achieved by would-be inspectors attending these training courses.
  One could extend that principle and stipulate—as is done in other professions—a probationary period, particularly in the case of a lay member entering education, to ensure both that the member fulfils the promise that he or she showed during training, and the monitoring of the skills that inspection team members bring to the system. A wide variety of skills will be needed among those recruited to the many teams which are to undertake 6,000 inspections per year.
  9.15 pm
  It has long been an accepted principle of teacher training—at least until the Secretary of State recently kicked over the table—that the responsibility vested in a teacher is such that he or she must complete a probationary period. That is a common requirement in many other professions. If the responsibility vested in a teacher is so great, how much greater is that vested in an inspector in monitoring the effectiveness of teachers? It seems anomalous that one should be subject of quality control, but not the other.
  The Secretary of State may argue that the registered inspector will oversee that aspect. However, one team member will almost certainly serve many teams. Some people will make their living doing that. If quality control is left with the many registered inspectors for which an individual team member may work at any one time, that will be a recipe for chaos.
  The principle of a probationary year for teachers marries well with the evident pathological distrust of teacher trainers that the Government have manifested—particularly in recent weeks. However, I cannot understand how that distrust marries with the Government's trust in the capabilities of an untried cadre of registered inspectors in a shifting market of inspection teams.
  Schedule 2(2)(a) states that at least one member of a team shall be a person??

  "(i) without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity); and

  (ii) whose primary function on the team is not that of providing financial or business expertise".

  Schedule 2(4) states:
  "Any experience of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) which it is reasonable to regard as insignificant, having regard to the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), may be ignored by the registered inspector."
  There is enshrined in the Bill an ascending scale of insignificance by which the experience of team members will be graded, and their capabilities to perform the job for which they put themselves forward will be forecast by few relevant clues from their past performance and experience.
  Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend mentioned the registered inspectors. The registered inspector may have to take on different people for certain schools—for example, schools which teach minority subjects. My hon. Friend mentioned an example of such a school. The inspector will not be familiar with the people in that school. How will the inspector ensure quality control in the inspection of
  1032
  schools? That is an important point. The Bill does not tell us the answer to that question, and certainly the Secretary of State and his Ministers have not explained that point.
  Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend leads me neatly to my next point—the nature of the skills that the system needs. I maintain, as my hon. Friend implies, that the many registered inspectors are incapable of monitoring what skills the system needs because of the nature of the system.
  The system needs a full range of skills. I acknowledge that the Government have shown a commendable commitment to developing and targeting skills and allocating resources so that the skills that the system needs are developed. For example, they introduced the local education authority training grants scheme. I am prepared to concede that the scheme is an improvement on the old free-for-all system of training. I am referring to in-service training in particular but applying the principle to the development of a cross-section of skills for the system.
  As a school governor several years ago, I was often worried by the reports of the number of training courses that members of staff had attended. The audit of the training was weighted on the side of those who received training and went on to develop their careers. That was fine—of course, one needs to provide that opportunity for
  staff—but the new-found skills often contributed little to the curriculum of the school that was effectively supporting the staff training. The LEATGS gave better assurances that the funding allocated to training went on skills that the schools needed and could use.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the grants and education support and training scheme and LEATGS. I am sure that he has noticed that the amount of money that the Government make available for training is 50 per cent. more for grant-maintained schools than for schools in the maintained sector. That disparity will clearly have an impact on the provisions with which we are now dealing. The ability to train teachers will be considerably reduced in the maintained sector. I wonder whether, in his interesting speech, my hon. Friend was about to come to the unfair differences between the grant-maintained sector and the maintained sector?
  Mr. O'Hara: Indeed, that is a good example. If one assumes that the resources for the development of skills in the system as a whole are finite, the disproportionate allocation of resources to the sector which is independent of the LEAs must be at the expense of the maintained sector. That is at a time when, as I said earlier, there is a desperate need for new skills to be developed and for teachers in post to have their skills updated.
  Given the Government's commitment to the development and deployment of the necessary skills in teachers, it is difficult to understand their failure to make similar provision for school inspectors. Given the enormous number of inspectors who will be needed to carry out all those inspections every year and the openness to the trade—I use the word advisedly because of the evident desire, judging from Minister's comments, that butchers and bakers be avidly recruited to inspection teams—it is crucial that inspectors recruited have the skills required by the team if it is to be called that.
  Mr. McFall: I am interested in my hon. Friend's argument and would like him to give us a greater insight

  1033
  into it. Paragraph 3(2)(a) of schedule 2 contains the butcher and baker clause, which states that at least one member has no
  "personal experience in the management of any school".
  Given his earlier remarks, and his experience in dealing with probationary teachers who need two years' experience, how does my hon. Friend think that that butcher or baker person can have the proper experience to evaluate his own skills? I have been responsible for liaising with probationary teachers, and for guiding them through the two-year period. My experiences have led me to believe that they need the experience gained in those two years and that assistance. How can butchers and bakers get that when they are drafted into schools straight away?
  Mr. O'Hara: It is indeed difficult to see how, and I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. One of the most important things that those butchers and bakers might learn on a training course is the limit of their prerogative in assessing the effectiveness of a school. Certainly it is a conundrum. Without a course of training and some criteria for assessment of their suitability at the end of it, it is difficult to see how the requirement that my hon. Friend reminds us of could be met.
  I must get away from the subject of the butcher and baker because I might be accused of dwelling unfairly on an untypical example, although I do not think so, given the clear and full statement of that provision in the Bill. I am thinking of people who might have skills in one area, but might not be able to transfer them to another.
  For example, someone with skills in an academic subject—perhaps a redundant inspector recruited on to an inspection team—might apply the skills that he used in his former existence when on one of the new model inspect ion teams. He might have to make an assessment at a school for special educational needs, a specialised area where he might not be able to make such an assessment. I have come across people who have come from the outside and have come a cropper—and may even cause damage—because they do not understand the subject of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. A special skill is required to deal with that.
  Mr. McFall: I know of one example and ask for my hon. Friend's comments. It concerns the pastoral field of education. Educationists who devote themselves to the pastoral care of children have a different perspective of such care than a social worker would have. I have had experience of trying to merge and manage both the social work and educational perspectives. It takes a number of years before that commonality of view is established. That quality is germane to the inspection team in terms of the perspective of the individual when assessing the worthiness of a school.
  Mr. O'Hara: I attempted to make that point earlier, when I sought to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He was addressing the difference between efficiency in monetary terms and effectiveness in educational terms.
  Cost-effectiveness may be achieved by front-loading the provision of nursery education, as that will save costs later on, especially as it is a sector in which resources should be spent. Likewise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has just said, a judicious allocation of resources to the pastoral sector of education provision is money well spent because such pastoral care
  1034
  often leads to savings when a pupil continues his educational career. Such pastoral care is a specialised area of education, and it can identify problems early.
  9.30 pm
  Given the facility that inspectors will have to tout around for recruitment by different registered inspectors, there must be some quality control over the system. That system should consist of a package which contains, at the very least, a scheme of certification at the end of the course training—which we applaud—and the facility for a provisional or limited right to practise. One could take that even further by including a need for people to acquire new skills if they intend to make inspections of a sector of education of which they have no experience.
  The new clause and the amendments could be adapted for the purpose. The underlying point is that there should be provision for a range of skills to be available and some system whereby those skills can be standardised and certified.
  Such a responsibility is too great a task to be left to the registered inspectors. In fact, it would be impractical for those inspectors to undertake that task, given the way in which the market is designed to work. That is why new clause 6 states:
  "The Chief Inspector may determine that a person who has completed a course of training in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is in need of supervision, induction or probation and he shall maintain a list (the "Conditionally Approved List") of the names of such persons.
  Without prejudice to the power of the Chief Inspector to register a person subject to conditions under subsection 10(5)(c), the Chief Inspector may in particular impose conditions which determine the circumstances in which a person whose name is entered on the list maintained under subsection (1) may be a member of an inspection team for the purposes of Schedule 2.'."
  Amendment No. 10 complements the new clause, and part of it states:
  "The Chief Inspector shall not admit to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) any person, not being a registered inspector, who in his opinion is not a fit or proper person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection."
  That responsibility is most effectively and appropriately left in the hands of the chief inspector, so that we avoid the entry into inspection teams of mythical individuals as
  exemplified in the joke advertisement that I have before me, which says:
  "V. cheapo licensed plumber and HMI schools inspector. All types of schools and drains inspected. Estimates free. Guaranteed customer satisfaction. Very keen prices."
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I apologise to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) for being absent at the
  start of his comments. It was largely because I had expected a vote on the previous new clause.
  The new clause and amendment tabled by the Labour party and my amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats are all aimed at essentially the same issue, which was debated at length in Committee and which relates to the supervision of team members. Opposition
  Members are worried that only the registered inspector will be directly controlled.
  Ministers have accepted the argument that team members must be suitably qualified. I shall not repeat my discussion with the Minister, when it was suggested that team members' training would be overseen because the registered inspector would have to ensure team members' in-service training and the updating of their skills. I pointed out that, precisely because those teams will not be

  1035
  attached to a particular registered inspector and because people with particular skills may be called on infrequently by different inspectors, the necessary oversight will not Occur.
  It is not hard to imagine subjects in which the situation may change rapidly. The most obvious is technology, where changes can be fundamental and relatively sudden. The Bill should provide that the chief inspector ensures that people who carry out inspections in schools under a registered inspector have the necessary skills. Amendment No. 62 proposes that in a way which I hope will meet the objections that the Government raised in Committee. It is not the same as amendments that I moved then, which sought to require, first, control or identification of team members and, secondly, the regular recertification of team members in every case.
  The new version would permnit Her Majesty's chief inspectors to take action only where they considered it necessary in particular cases or classes of case, such as when a change in respect of a technology teacher or inspector had taken place and that change was considered fundamental enough to require it, or perhaps where team members should be aware of and understand important changes to the national curriculum. I hope that that introduces the necessary provisions that should have been in the Bill all along, while meeting the desire for flexibility, rather than inserting the over-prescriptive format that the Minister described in Committee.
  Mr. McFall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that without the amendment the Bill contains nothing to validate and assess individual members of the inspection team? That concern is held not merely by Opposition Members but is articulated throughout the country. I have a letter from Alderbrook school in the metropolitan borough of Solihull—a Tory authority, as far as I know. It states that the school is worried about the quality of people who will make up the inspection team under the Bill's proposals, and the basic criteria and consistency of appraisal that will apply.
  The letter states:
  "Serious problems will undoubtedly arise if the teams lack credibility with staff and parents."
  If communications between the inspection team and the staff are flawed from the beginning, that will cause serious problems. The governors of Alderbrook school believe that it is bizarre that one member of the inspection team should know nothing of the educational system. In order to allow for the short, perceptive, searching, professional queries that are currently made by inspectors, it is important that the Government should accept the amendment, or there is nothing to guarantee quality control.
  Mr. Taylor: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the Minister's express concern that the HMI should set national standards. Without the sort of measure proposed in my amendment, it is hard to see how, in a changing world, HMI will be able to ensure that inspections are carried out to that uniform standard.
  It is important to stress that, while I think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and I both have strong objections to some of the Bill's principles—the way in which inspections will take place and the private contractual relationship—the amendment is not an attack
  1036
  on the Government's principles. Those arguments have taken place elsewhere. The amendment is designed merely to ensure the quality and standard of the inspection.
  I introduced the amendment having listened to what the Minister said in his objections to earlier amendments that tackled the same issue. It responds to the Minister's concerns and I hope that he will take the opportunity and show the same flexibility in meeting the worry which, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton rightly says, comes not just from the Opposition but from many people within the Conservative party at local level and perhaps even at national level. Those people want to ensure, above all else, that the highest quality standards are maintained throughout the inspection team as well as at the level of registered inspector.
  Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on the way in which he spoke to the amendments. He raised a number of important points. Central to the thrust of the debate on the amendments and new clauses is the issue of standards of inspection.
  Anyone who has followed the debates with interest will recognise that there is a fundamental division between us. The Government essentially believe in a free market in education and that sensitive and important issues such as inspection can be left to the free market.
  Mr. Fallon: That is nonsense.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister rightly says that that is nonsense—I agree that it is nonsense to hold those views. However, they are underpinned by a philosophy that the flow of information to parents will ensure that, in a free market, free choices are made and parents will be able to guarantee quality of schools on that basis.
  That philosophy totally ignores two important factors. First, it assumes that each and every parent is equal in the education market, and has the ability and resources to make an equal choice about which is the best school in the locality. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said on Second Reading, that is far from the case. If a market is operated, it will be inapplicable in rural areas. Those who live in rural areas—this applies to the majority of parents everywhere—want a good neighbourhood school. They are not looking for market provision, which reflects the notion that it is possible to pick and choose. Parents in rural areas want to send their children to a good neighbourhood school. In that sense, the Government are abdicating their responsibilities.
  9.45 pm
  The Government have refused to recognise that the system has to be managed and that they have a responsibility. The Bill represents the Government washing their hands in respect of standards in the education system. Last week saw the publication of an important report on primary education, which referred to signs of declining standards over the past four years in literacy and numeracy. During those four years there has been substantial change as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988. The committee of inquiry made it clear that the pace and burden of change had been two aspects among others that may have led to a decline in education standards.
  It is interesting that during the same period the only body that could achieve the "standardised" approach that

  1037
  my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South talked about—the Assessment of Performance Unit—was disbanded by the Government. We are not able to make comparisons of reading performance and numeracy performance over the years. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has rightly said on many occasions that it is important that we should be able over a period to make an assessment of standards in the education system. The hon. Gentleman asked earlier for a broader perspective. Indeed, he talked about an international perspective so that we could compare British children with children in France, Germany, Holland and other European Community countries.
  Mr. Allen McKay: As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency is divided into urban and rural areas. Many small schools in the rural areas have been closed irrespective of their standards. In some instances, the children who attended these schools had a better educational start than some children in urban areas as a result of better teacher-pupil ratios. On the basis of standards, many small schools in rural areas would have remained open. They have been closed because of the Government's financial problems in the education system.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made an interesting and important intervention.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am happy to say that, when Lancashire county council tried to close five rural schools in my constituency—they were all of a very high standard—my hon. Friend the Minister did not permit the closures to take place and we still have the schools. The same thing happened in the north end of my constituency. Closure was not permitted, we still have the schools and they have excellent standards.
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall pay the hon. Lady a compliment. If I were the chair of the education committee, I would not even dream of closing a school in her constituency. The risk involved would be too great.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made an important intervention on the quality of small rural schools. Sometimes their standards can be affected in terms of ability to deliver the national curriculum. I do not know whether this goes wide of the new clause, but it has been brought to my attention that the Under-Secretary of State—we have heard him defend the Roman Catholic community in Darlington—is keen to close small rural schools. That might well bring him into conflict with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It would be a case of the irremovable object meeting the untestable force. It would be an interesting phenomenon.
  I was saying that there is a need for some overall assessment and some management of the education system. When the Government disbanded the assessment of performance unit they left their responsibility behind. They said that they had no real reason to maintain assessment figures and no reason to maintain any system of measurement. That is an abdication of their responsibilities. Parents have a right to know what is happening and whether, under this Government's stewardship, standards of education have improved during the last 12 or 13 years.
  Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that education standards cannot possibly be maintained
  1038
  without sufficient money and expertise? Reference has already been made to paragraph 3(2) of schedule 2 which says:
  "It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that—
  (a) at least one member of the inspection team is a person—
  (i) without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school (otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity)".
  It is bizarre to believe that somebody who knows nothing at all—it almost says that here—about something can become an inspector. I wonder what lawyers and doctors would think about that. Educationists are disgusted about it and wonder who, in God's name, thought it up.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes two important points. He rightly pointed out that in the context of declining and tight resources it is difficult to achieve high education standards. During the last few years, great pressure has been put on many local authority budgets. My hon. Friend knows, from his experience in Sheffield, that this Government's education policies have caused devastating damage.
  My hon. Friend was also right to point out, as we must continue to point out, that if standards have declined, they have declined under the stewardship not of a Labour Government, but of a Conservative Government who have invested little in the state education system.
  My hon. Friend also raised another important point: in what other context would it be a statutory condition that a person without any suitable qualifications should apply for a particular job? My hon. Friend said that this seemed a little bizarre to him. He referred to what would happen if lawyers and doctors were able to set themselves up as part of a team without any relevant expertise. One might then see advertisements containing words such as "Doctors wanted for a general practice; expertise not required."
  Through you, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask my hon. Friends to think of any other circumstances in which a person would go to an interview for a job and make it clear that he had no expertise. I can provide an example. Throughout the last 12 years, we have had Ministers with responsibility for education who have no expertise in education. That is a very bad model to work from, particularly for schools.
  Mr. McFall: According to paragraph 3(2) of schedule 2, only the registered inspector will have to be validated by the Department of Education and Science. The registered inspector's team will include somebody with the minimum training as outlined in schedule 2 and no or very little expertise in education, but within the inspector's team he will be regarded as an expert. That person's comments will be included in the report and will then be put into the public domain. That could mislead parents, even though the Government say that they do not want that to happen.
  Mr. Flannery: More than one person could have no training and expertise in education.
  Mr. Fatchett: I intend to deal with that matter, but the framework for my speech is tight and detailed. My hon. Friend would be disappointed if I dealt with these points out of sequence.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is looking for examples. One example might be the Prime Minister, who is not sure whether he is qualified to do anything. He cannot remember what qualifications he has. Perhaps my hon. Friend would agree that it sounds very much like an Arthur Daley system of certification that we are contemplating.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a distinctive and separate point.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Hon. Members have referred to schedule 2(3), which says:
  "at least one member of the inspection team is a person—
  (i) without personal experience".
  There is nothing to say that several members of the team may not be people without personal experience. When someone is setting out in a new business, one problem is pricing a job. That might lead to skimping and to the employment of a number of people without personal experience because they would come cheaper. That is one danger inherent in the provision.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend was not in the House for the earlier debate on new clause 2, when I talked about a trial and error inspection team. My hon. Friend's notion is close to a trial and error inspection team. Presumably the Government intend to get the price right and will not worry about the quality. In a sense, those remarks were a preamble to the more detailed points which I want to make.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South made strong detailed arguments about four or five central points, including the cost of training inspectors. He wondered how that cost will be met. If you have read schedule 2, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you have, because you like to keep yourself fully informed of the affairs of the House, you will have seen that in the various paragraphs there is no reference to cost. Particularly in paragraph 4(3) there is no reference to how the system is to be paid for. There is a reference to
  "recovering the whole, or part, of the cost"
  but it does not give the source of the recovery or the nature of the courses which will be provided.
  My hon. Friend made the important point that the training of registered inspectors may be expensive. Will that cost be met by the team of registered inspectors, by the new business to which my hon. Friend referred or out of the DES programme? Will the full cost, or only part of it, be met? We need answers to those important questions, because they may affect the quality of the training.
  Given that the system is designed to be cheap, coming from a cheap Government, the training that is deemed to be attractive may be cheap for the inspection firm. In setting up the firm, one may look at the possibility of finding cheap initial training. If so, the quality of the training may not be substantial.
  We need to know more about the cost of training. We also need to know more about the quality guidelines for the initial training. We have heard that the training of the registered inspector, and the team may not be subject to quality guidelines. The inspection may satisfy the chief inspector but there is no indication about the quality of the inspection and the guidelines to be met.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has much experience of teacher training. He has great experience with the Council for the Accreditation of
  1040
  Teacher Education, which has set out important and specific guidelines on what is necessary for initial teacher training. Such a model could be used effectively to satisfy the provisions of the Bill. That is essentially what we recommend in the new clause and amendments. We need guidelines to ensure that standards and quality are maintained.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South also talked effectively about the breadth of the inspection team. You may know, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend has a genuine interest and ability in the classics, and that he has a fluency in Greek which is rarely shown in the House.
  Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to satisfy the Minister, who challenged me in Committee—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be able to assist the House. We have a lengthy amendment paper on which we have not made much progress. Since 7 pm, no Conservative Back Bencher has taken part in the debates, although there have, of course, been the usual ministerial replies to debates. It has become clear that the House is unlikely to be able to complete the business at a reasonable hour tonight.
  I have been discussing through the usual channels and with my opposite numbers our progress so far, and I have been seeking ways in which, if the Opposition take up less time in debate, we may be able to shorten matters. It is a long time since I have had the experience of feeling myself trying to force an agreement on an opposite number who seems not to be disposed to reach an agreement as the evening goes on. For that reason, the Government decided not to move the business of the House motion at 10 pm. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to make a business statement on how we shall now proceed.
  Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just witnessed a Government who have no stomach for a fight. The Bill, which was introduced by the Secretary of State to privatise the schools inspectorate and to dismember HM inspectorate, has no support outside the House and precious little support inside the House. The Secretary of State was right to say that no Conservative Member spoke in support of the Bill after 7 pm. However, there was not even a Conservative Back Bencher sitting in silent support of the measure after 7 pm.
  Of a total of 75 amendments and new clauses selected for debate today, 31 have been tabled by the Government. It is the Government's unwillingness to debate the measure through tonight which has forced them to withdraw the business at this stage.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Government, who usually use the protection of a guillotine but who have not done so on this occasion, are disinclined to debate the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Opposition. They are frightened that we shall expose their policies for what they are. The privatisation of the inspectors has gone wrong and people outside the House do not agree with the Government. The Government are frightened of being exposed and that is why they did not move the business motion at 10 pm.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not really points of order for me.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider the fact that a Select Committee is considering the hours that the House sits? The Government are pre-empting the Select Committee with their enthusiasm for not moving the business of the House motion when there has not been reasonable discussion on Report.
  You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, from your long service in the House that it was fairly common for Report stages to take a considerable time. I understand the lack of morale among Government supporters and their reluctance to stay after 10 o'clock to debate these matters, but when we have serious issues concerning the future of our schoolchildren to consider, it is surely reasonable to expect the Government to be prepared to provide adequate time and not to pre-empt decisions about the hours of the House with precipitate guillotine motions.
  Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for me.

Business of the House
10.5 pm
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
Timetable motion on the Education (Schools) Bill, followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill. I will announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the business originally set down for tomorrow.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Leader of the House aware that that is a statement of which he ought to be ashamed? As I said earlier, the Government have no stomach for a fight. If they had been willing to debate these matters through the night, as we were, and then to ensure that there was sufficient time next week, they would have got their Bill, but the truth is that they are now in total panic over this measure. They know that even with the guillotine tomorrow they have no chance of getting the Bill through the other place and then back here if an election is called for 9 April. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case—if an election is called in the middle of March, there is no way in which this measure can become law?
Will he also explain what will happen to the Welsh revenue support grant order which was due to be debated tomorrow?
Mr. MacGregor: We were willing to accommodate the Opposition in any way today on the Bill. They never asked in any of our discussions for more than one day. Well into today's debate, there was, for the first time, an indication that the Opposition were not prepared to see the Bill through in one day. They never approached Ministers until well into the debate, and we had been quite unable to understand the purpose of their concern. It is now absolutely clear.
I cannot comment on the progress of the Bill when it reaches another place. What I can tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is that he has now revealed that his concern is entirely about election timing and the position of the Opposition on election timing.
It is important to make it clear to the House that I have been under pressure from all sides of the House to accommodate a large number of debates. I am under great pressure to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House want that Bill to be passed. I am trying to secure it in this Parliament.
After every business statement, I am asked to fit in more debates. I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of Members on both sides of the House, including their desire to debate the Friendly Societies Bill, and it was on that basis that we agreed to spend one day on this Bill. When it was clear that there was no agreement on that, we had to take the steps that we have taken to protect the rest of the programme.
Mr. George Howarth: Will the Leader of the House explain to us why important groups of amendments that are still to be discussed have to be put back to tomorrow? Several of my hon. Friends wished to speak. Several of us were concerned about important aspects of the Bill. Not one speech has been ruled out of

1043
order by the Chair, and we have not been pulled up for being out of order. The whole issue was still to be debated, and we were most concerned about it. Moreover, will the Leader of the House explain what is to be done when local authorities all over the country are waiting to hear what is to happen with the revenue support grant—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to converse among themselves? It is difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.
Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Leader of the House explain how those of us from Merseyside who have had correspondence with the Merseyside fire authority about the rate support grant assessment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the House a question, as Members do with an ordinary business statement.
Mr. Howarth: How can the local authorities which are most concerned about the revenue support grant settlement and how it will affect services—[Interruption.] When will they know when the grant settlement—[Interruption.] When can local authorities sort that out? It is disgraceful that the Government are running away from—[Interruption.]
Mr. MacGregor: I could hear only a small part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if I heard him aright, I will make clear the position on the revenue support grant settlements in my business statment tomorrow.
With regard to the question about the time to be given to the Education (Schools) Bill, we had originally agreed absolutely that one day would be sufficient to see the Bill through. If we can agree the timetable motion early tomorrow afternoon, we will have two full days to debate the Bill instead of one.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. These are business questions.
Mr. Hayes: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right in saying that he offered the Opposition more than one day to debate the Education (Schools) Bill and they refused that, it is clear that the Opposition were simply filibustering tonight for political ends. The Opposition have only one person to blame, and that is the shadow Leader of the House.
Mr. MacGregor: The Opposition did not ask for more than one day. We are now giving the Bill two days.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say again to hon. Members below the Gangway that it would be helpful if they would carry on their conversations in the Lobby?
Mr. Boateng: Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid the long-awaited
1044
Friendly Societies Bill when he has already put off the publication of that Bill on several occasions? When will he publish that Bill and stop using it as an excuse to curtail debate about this disastrous measure—the Education (Schools) Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask for the publication of the Friendly Societies Bill and also claim that I am not trying to find time for it. There is a great deal of legislation ahead of us, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House want me to fit in many debates. I am trying to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill because I am well aware of the desire on both sides of the House in respect of it. I am hoping to find time for it, and that is precisely why I thought that we had reached agreement to deal with the Education (Schools) Bill in one day. If we can find time, I hope to be able to publish the Friendly Societies Bill before long.
Mr. Bob Dunn: With regard to the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been forced to make his statement because of the systematic abuse of the procedures of the House by the Labour party and continuous filibustering to prevent proper debate on very important legislation?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that, if we can move quickly back to the Bill tomorrow afternoon, we will have two days to debate it.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Leader of the House will be aware that the debate will continue tomorrow at very short notice and that that will make it difficult for some hon. Members who had intended to do so to take part in the debate. Why must the right hon. Gentleman rush ahead with the Bill tomorrow when other business had been arranged? Why did he not arrange for it to be debated at the beginning of next week when it would have been easier for hon. Members, who have a genuine interest in the Bill, to see it through?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that this is the case, but it was forced upon me. It is important that we proceed with the Bill and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to rearrange his affairs so that we can proceed with it and so that he can participate in the debate.
Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend, in support of his decision, should know that, every time that I have walked into the Chamber on a regular 10-minute basis throughout the evening, there have been only two rather bored Members sitting on the Opposition Benches and one person speaking. Will my right hon. Friend put tomorrow's business back to 14 February, as that would be a jolly good time to discuss tomorrow's business?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not quite sure whether I follow my hon. Friend. I hope to be doing other things on 14 February.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the 10 o'clock motion was not moved because the Government feared that they would not be able to sustain the business as they did not have 100 Conservative Members in the House? [Interruption.]

1045
Will the Leader of the House make a statement tomorrow on the arrangements that he will make for debating the important revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? He will be aware that local authorities have been notified of that debate. They have budgeted accordingly, and it may cause them great difficulty because they are now faced with the problem that they will have no certainty until those orders are passed.
In his statement tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the reason is the confusion and incompetence of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the rest of the Government in organising the business? Will he also confirm—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an ordinary business statement. I think that the hon. Member has asked two questions.
Mr. Cryer: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: No. I think that that is enough.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point in relation to the number of Conservative Members and the closure, it is quite clear that he cannot count, just as the Opposition generally cannot count on their tax and expenditure plans.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about the revenue support grant orders, I understand the importance of clarifying the position on that, and I shall do so tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be related to the business announced by the Leader of the House. I shall allow questions to continue until 10.25 pm, when we shall move on to the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is it not evidence of the extreme cynicism with which the Opposition have been dealing with an important education measure that, in Committee, they should not have any problem with the timetable, yet this afternoon should spend no less than three hours debating the first new clause and then not even vote on it?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has a point. As I have said, we are now giving two days for the Bill to be considered on Report and on Third Reading.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, throughout the 12 years of the Conservative Administration, there has been concern about standards in education? Will he confirm also that previous Secretaries of State, including himself, have not considered it necessary to introduce such a Bill? Will he confirm also that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third question. Let us have the answer to the first two questions first.
Mr. Spearing: I am coming to the question for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Will not the business for tomorrow, which changes the goalposts for the assessment of standards and upsets an inspectorate of 130 years' standing, cause extreme cynicism not only among the teaching profession but among most parents in this country?
Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that throughout the period of this Government we have been concerned about standards in education and we have constantly been improving them. I confirm also that I wholly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in bringing forward the Bill. Had I still been at the Department, I would have done so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's third point arises.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unless there is more self-discipline on both sides of the House between now and the general election, we shall do no credit to ourselves? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend offered two days for the business but that in the end it was agreed that there should be one day? Now the Government have agreed to provide two days. What on earth do the Opposition have to grumble about? They must be interested only in pure filibustering to frustrate legislation. Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the end the House will be the loser?
Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm two things. First, we now propose to provide two days for the remainder of the Report stage and Third Reading to enable the Bill to be discussed thoroughly, as happened in Committee. Secondly, we are getting on with the business of the normal legislative programme and endeavouring to do as much as possible in a parliamentary Session that will inevitably be shorter than usual. It is to do that in an orderly fashion that we are taking this action tonight.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: While welcoming the provision of two days for the remaining stages of the Bill, may I ask the Leader to ensure that, in the consultations about the timetable motion, discussions will be held with all parties in the House? Four or five clauses in the Bill which relate to the Welsh Office were dealt with very inadequately in Committee as a result of the make-up of the Committee. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss those clauses on the Floor of the House tomorrow?
Mr. MacGregor: That could best be achieved by having the timetable motion disposed of very quickly, so that the whole day could be devoted to the Bill itself.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will it be possible, during the debate on the timetable motion tomorrow, to raise the fact that headmasters in my constituency are refusing to deliver the leaflet that the Department of Education and Science produced? Shall I have an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Grimsby Evening Telegraph takes a very dim view of that?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point already. I hope that, if he wants to make it again, he will do so during the debate on the Bill rather than in the debate on the timetable motion.
Mr. John McFall: Is not this shambles the Government's own doing? I speak as one who has been here since half-past three this afternoon, and I heard the points of order just now from Tory Members of Parliament who never graced the Benches opposite. Now we have this shambles led by an inept Leader of the House. That is the reason for the rearrangement of business. That is why the programme should be reinstated.
Mr. MacGregor: In recent days there have been many points of order from the Labour party, but today points of order took up very little time.
Mr. James Pawsey: May I, as someone who has been here for most of the debate, ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that, by debating this matter again in prime time tomorrow, we shall enable the people of this country properly to understand the benefits that will flow from the Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend always takes a very great interest in educational matters, in which he is a great expert. He makes a very good point. The many excellent aspects of this Bill will be debated in the House tomorrow at a time when the public can be made aware of them. I am sure that that will be of great benefit.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I have been here all day and have contributed to the debate, and I expected the business to be disposed of tonight. In all the years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never seen such a situation. I should like to put a simple question to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not to me.
Mr. Flannery: May I, then, ask the Leader of the House whether his Government are in some kind of mess?
Mr. MacGregor: Certainly not.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Has the Leader of the House taken fully into account the fact that the Government will be seen as having acted in a most cavalier fashion by their handling tomorrow of the revenue support grant and that this will cause a great deal of distress throughout local government? As the Leader of the House wishes to appear reasonable, will he tomorrow look at the Official Report, which will show that, in the early part of our proceedings, speeches were deliberately lengthened by means of extremely long interventions from the Government side? I rose to make a short speech in the earlier debate. There was a series of long interventions, including one that amounted to a speech by the Secretary of State. Given the Government's filibustering tactics—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No pointing, please.
Mr. Hardy: Given the filibustering tactics adopted by the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman), and one or two others among the few Conservative Members who were in the Chamber, does the Leader of the House really think that his action could be described as reasonable?
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there were no filibustering tactics on this side of the House. I repeat the important point that we are giving more time to consideration of the Bill by allowing a second day of debate. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House to conclude consideration of the Bill in that way. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about revenue support grant, I acknowledge the importance of clarifying the situation, and I will do so tomorrow.
Mr. John Greenway Rydale): Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Bill received its Second Reading, it was rare to see Opposition Members in their places? That debate almost collapsed before 10 o'clock. However, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends
1048
participated in that debate, and I was one of them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason for the Opposition's pathetic protest is that Labour realises that it has lost the initiative on education, and is now behind in the opinion polls?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes two good points, and he is right on both.
Dr. John Cunningham: No one is clear why the Government panicked at 10 o'clock this evening. It can be explained only by their desperation to get the Bill into the other place, in order to meet their timetable for a general election. The Leader of the House has organised a loss of Government time tomorrow for the revenue support grant orders for England and Wales, which we shall presumably now have to consider next week, when the Bill could have been completed in the early hours of the morning. Instead of all this nonsense, why do the Government not announce the date of the general election now?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have been endeavouring for several hours to have discussions on those matters and to reach a conclusion, so that it might have been possible to complete the Bill in the early hours. However, we were unable to do so. We are therefore giving the Bill an extra day, to ensure that it is properly considered.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the revenue support grant orders was very much in my mind. As he knows from our exchanges in business statements, I am anxious to accommodate all the pressures on the parliamentary timetable in agreement with the Opposition, and to meet their desire for supply days. The more days I lose, the more difficult it is to do that.
Dr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member asked one question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be some discipline in this place.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is mistaken. There were no discussions about not suspending the 10 o'clock rule. What is more, there was no filibustering on this side of the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He was not here. "]
There are 31 Government amendments for debate on the Order Paper, and 44 Opposition amendments, so the idea that the Opposition have been delaying the passage of the Bill is complete nonsense—and the Leader of the House knows it. If the right hon. Gentleman had sought for one moment to discuss the matter through the usual channels—with me—as he did not seek to do, we might have resolved the problem and the Government could have had their Bill. This is about the Government panicking because of their general election timetable. It has nothing to do with this side of the House—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. MacGregor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say briefly—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful behaviour.
Mr. MacGregor: The business statement has nothing to do with the point that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made. I am aware that discussions have been going on for some time. We have endeavoured, as I always endeavour, to accommodate the requests of Members on both sides for time and to enable the Government's legislation to get through in the best possible way.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will not take the point of order.

Wing (Bypass)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
10.30 pm
Mr. George Walden: I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to a serious difficulty in my constituency over the proposed bypass for the village of Wing. If there were a traditional division of opinion in my constituency about the route of the bypass, I should not take the time of the House tonight, but that is not the position. The village is virtually united against the present proposal.
The proposal has a long history which has tried the patience of my constituents, who have had to live with uncertainty for so many years. A bypass was first mooted two decades ago. It has now grown like Topsy, but unlike Topsy it has grown into a monster. That monster is no longer a bypass—that is to say, a road which passes by the village. It has developed into a major trunk road which could have three lanes in each direction—a six-lane road verging on a motorway. It will go through the northern part of the village and divide part of the village from Burcott, which has become virtually part of the village.
The new road will not only have environmental effects—for example, it will disrupt the view of the Chilterns—but will pass close to elderly people's bungalows at Park Gate and residential areas in Moorlands road and Moorhills road. I have been there to examine the site and have seen that the proposed road will be within a few yards of those residential areas. People will be able to hear and smell the road. The idea that it might one day grow from a two-lane to a six-lane road is intolerable.
The main problem has been well summed up by the organisation called STRIVE, which stands for Stop Trunk Road Invading Village Environment. That sums up the problem. I stress that STRIVE is not an ad hoc organisation of amateurs. I have met the group several times. It includes professionals with experience of road engineering, who know what they are talking about, and they have given careful and balanced thought to the issues.
STRIVE has sound democratic roots, and has carried out a survey within the village, consulting 2,094 electors personally, of whom 1,418 replied—68 per cent., which is
a high rate of reply. More than three quarters—78 per cent.—of those replying agreed that the road, which has developed into a major trunk route, should be further from the village.
What is the history? How did we get where we are today? In the early 1970s, it was decided that a close-in by-pass should be eliminated from the possibilities by the Department of Transport. That decision was taken because a close-in bypass would intrude into Wing park, because self-evidently it would have an impact on the village, and because the proposed route would have passed through a grade I ancient site.
In the early 1980s, a north route and a south route were proposed. To cut short on history, in 1989 a proposal to upgrade the Wing bypass into a new dual carriageway was included in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity".
The need for the road is contested by no one. Clearly it is of major strategic interest to the Government and to business to connect to the east ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. That is understood by my constituents, who are by no means backwoodsmen. They understand the

1051
commercial and transport rationale behind it. What they do not understand is how the road, which was originally a bypass, has been allowed to evolve in a somewhat organic way to the point where it will invade their village and their environment.
The real problem is that a number of interrelated schemes have been dealt with independently. The three schemes are as follows: first, the A418, Leighton to Linslade, southern bypass, which has been promoted by Bedfordshire county council. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) has taken the trouble to be here for the debate. The Wing bypass is the second scheme, and is promoted by Buckinghamshire county council, and the A4146 Linslade western bypass, which is also promoted by that county council, is the third scheme.
The three separate schemes are obviously interrelated. The more strategic the roads become, the greater the need for them to be interrelated. However, they have not been interrelated in such a way as to allow the public to express their views or to propose alternative routes. As a result of the interrelating that has taken place, the meeting point of the three roads has been decided at a preconceived point—a roundabout. Obviously that limits the options open to dissenters, because it freezes the position, making it impossible for them to suggest alternatives, which can always be dismissed on the grounds that they do not tie in with the pre-arranged nodal point.
What we have had is a historical muddle—the organic growth of the bypass—plus an over-rigid reliance on this one meeting point. That is causing enormous irritation and frustration to my constituents. The Minister must take note of that.
To complicate matters still further, the Wing bypass is covered by section 272 of the Highways Act 1980 with the county council taking the lead. To the west, the Rowsham and Bierton bypass has the Department of Transport in the lead. There is an element of incoherence in this situation, as no one seems to have taken an overall look at where the road will go. Just as important, no one has considered the implications for the people who happen to live in its path.
To complicate matters still further I am informed that publication of the A418 west of Aylesbury to Wing proposals will be delayed until May 1992 so they will not be available to be seen in relationship to the proposed Wing bypass. Again, there is an element of fragmentation.
What will come out of all this is a de facto situation in which, because of the preconceptionabout the meeting point of those roads, the way the project has evolved over time and the lack of co-ordinated planning between the two county councils-co-ordinated in a manner in which the public could get at the whole system and question the assumptions behind the bypass—the democratic right of my constituents to challenge the route has been effectively undercut. Therefore, what is needed is a joint public inquiry. For that reason, I propose that the Secretary of State should consider calling in that particular bypass.
My constituents have been extremely patient over the years as the route has evolved. They have lived with the uncertainty. There are obvious implications for the people of the village, whether the route goes to the north or the south—there have been plans for both options. All are
1052
agreed—I stress this—that the bypass must be taken further away from the village, but that can be done only if proper oversight is taken by the Department of Transport, which, after all, is funding the roads. This affair must not be allowed to continue to evolve in a higgledy-piggledy, patchwork way.
10.43 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): Over the past year, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has sent me several letters from his constituents about the route of the Wing bypass. He and his constituents support the need for a bypass, but there is no consensus about the route that it should take.
Various routes have been examined to the north and south of Wing. Back in 1984, Buckinghamshire county council gave planning permission for a southern bypass. In 1989, the A418 through Wing was identified in the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper as a local authority scheme which could form part of a strategic route linking the M40 with the M1. Traffic predictions warranted a dual carriageway and Buckinghamshire county council reviewed the relative merits of alternative routes. This led to formal consultation by the county council in April 1991 on three options, one to the north and two to the south of the village.
In May 1991, the county highways sub-committee recommended southern route S2. An application seeking planning permission was submitted in December 1991 to the county and district council planning committees, and I understand that the application is likely to be considered in March. I neither wish nor intend to interfere in the local democratic decisions on this matter, although I am well aware of the concerns that some have expressed about S2.
It is probably inevitable that no route will please everybody. In 1983, an outer route north of Burcott was rejected by the county council. It would have gone along the south of a valley facing Wing and had a strong visual impact on the village. The April 1991 consultation carried out by the county council canvassed a northern route developed in conjunction with consultants representing Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, a prominent local landowner. His consultants have also since put forward a further alternative.
The county council's preferred route to the south has been criticised for going too close to Wing, having regard to the amount of traffic likely to be using the road, but an alternative route further to the south is criticised because it would be insufficiently attractive to traffic going between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury to bring maximum relief to Wing.
It has therefore been suggested by some that the county proposals be abandoned in favour of a scheme developed using trunk road procedures. But that would mean starting again from scratch, causing delay and prolonging uncertainty. The scheme has been revised once to take account of the wider implications of its national role and represents the refinement of prolonged and detailed studies.
Mr. Walden: Before my hon. Friend the Minister gets lost, may I point out that he said that further delays might be caused if the entire scheme were reviewed from scratch. I suspect that my villagers would prefer further delay to

1053
having a four-lane, and potential six-lane, highway foisted on them, which would run very close to, if not through, some parts of the village.
Mr. Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Ultimately, it is a matter for the local people in consultation with their elected representatives on the county council. Nothing would remove the need for a dual carriageway bypass of Wing. The traffic predictions show that a dual carriageway would be warranted. If the villagers want a bypass, it is inevitable that it will be a dual carriageway. The route for that bypass has already been the subject of a consultation, and the next stage in the planning process will be for the planning committee of Buckinghamshire county council to decide on the issue in March. Much argument remains prior to that meeting and it will not be an easy task for the county councillors because there is considerable opposition, as my hon. Friend has made clear to the House.
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment has, potentially, the opportunity to use his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to direct an authority to refer a planning application to him for his own personal decision. More generally, the county council has produced—as it is required to do—an environmental statement setting out the expected environmental impact and mitigation of the proposed road. That environmental statement is currently being considered by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Should the line of the route eventually receive planning permission, the next step for the county council would be to make draft side roads and compulsory purchase orders under the terms of the Highways Act 1980, probably by spring 1993. The public will have the opportunity to comment and object to the proposals. It seems likely, because of the level of concern, that a public inquiry would then be necessary. That inquiry would be conducted by an
1054
independent inspector appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and would have a forum for a full debate on the issues in great depth. It would give objectors an opportunity to express their views and enable alternative proposals to be examined and discussed.
This is a controversial scheme, but I hope that the county council, in conjunction with the representations made by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents and other local opinion, will be able to reach a conclusion that is reasonably satisfactory for all involved. Clearly, there is a demand for the uncertainty to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the best people to bring that uncertainty to a conclusion are the Buckinghamshire county councillors who have carried the scheme forward so far and are much closer to local opinion—or should be—than is any other authority.
My hon. Friend is clearly concerned about the present position. He can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the application. That could be done before the county council takes a decision in March of this year. I am sure that my hon Friend the Member for Buckingham will not be slow to draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should he wish to do so.
I do not think that I can add anything further this evening. The road has been promoted by the county council, although it has national implications. When it is built, it will be funded largely by the taxpayer. However, that does not mean that the Government are dictating which route should be taken. They are listening to the views of people and relying on the county council to choose the best option.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.