Lords Sitting of 15 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Air Traffic Congestion
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to helping to reduce delays in flights to and from United Kingdom airports caused by congestion of air traffic over southern England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the Civil Aviation Authority for advice by the end of November on strategies for making good use of airspace until the full benefits of the authority's reorganisation of the London control area become available in 1995.
Current delays being experienced by flights from the UK are due in large part to restrictions imposed by air traffic control services in other European countries. The CAA is working urgently with other European authorities to improve communication and co-ordination between air traffic control services.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that full reply. While sympathising greatly with those whose holiday are being spoilt at present, may I ask my noble friend why scheduled domestic flights between London and Scotland. in perfect weather conditions, should be held up by air traffic control? Do not flights to Greece, for example, when they are delayed, make more space and slots available for domestic flights?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, any such delays are due to the general balancing of demand for air traffic flow management purposes within the United Kingdom air traffic control system. I would point out to my noble friend that, for example, on Friday a fortnight ago Heathrow had its busiest ever day with over 1.000 air traffic movements.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we appreciate his comments to the Eurocontrol commission and his Written Answer on 11th November? Can he give some assurance that the early inquiry requested from the CAA will not be confined to the five options which they presented to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, but will take in the question of scheduled flights and charter flights? Further, can the Minister say what is the position with respect to Spain, which is not a member of Eurocontrol?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have asked the CAA to look into what can be done in the short term before we go on to consider the long-term problems. As I said, we hope to receive a report by
1016
November which will cover the issues which the noble Lord has raised. So far as concerns Spain, she is an associate member of Eurocontrol but not a full member. However, Spain attends the meetings. I very much hope that Spain would wish to join Eurocontrol as a full member. One of the problems in Spain has concerned industrial relations, over which we can have no control whatsoever.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, could there not be some alleviation of the suffering being imposed on air travellers this summer— caused partly, as my noble friend has said, as a result of the tiresomeness of European air traffic controllers—by relaxing night landing restrictions? At Heathrow and Gatwick night landing restrictions could be relaxed to permit the landing of delayed flights whose scheduled time of arrival was in the daytime.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, earlier this year we brought in a new regime for night flights at both Heathrow and Gatwick. Over the next five years at Gatwick—where the problem is greatest—we are planning an increase of 20 per cent. in the night flights allowed. That would be at the expense of the noisier aircraft and to the benefit of the quieter ones. There are means whereby delays caused by particular difficulties such as the Greek problem can he alleviated by allowing night landings or take-offs. That is what is happening at the moment.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government are doing what they can in this very difficult matter. However, does the Minister not agree that the trouble lies in Brussels, which interferes in other matters such as the takeover of Rover Group? Could not this fairly simple matter be resolved if the countries in Europe got together and ironed it out once and for all?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords. I agree with my noble friend. Eurocontrol was set up 25 years ago to deal with that kind of problem. I must say that over the first 25 years it has not had any great success. As president of Eurocontrol, I pressed at the meeting a couple of weeks ago for much greater co-ordination, much greater pooling of plans, and investigation in the short term of ways in which congestion could be relieved. I have asked for a report on that by the next meeting in November.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that to relieve pressure on the congested air space over South-East England there is much to be said for developing Bristol Airport to handle transatlantic traffic? Would that not be sensible, given its excellent road and rail links with London and the rest of England and hearing in mind the strong family and other links that many North Americans have with the West Country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have done a great deal over the years to encourage the use of regional airports. However, regarding the current problems, the delays are just as bad at Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle or anywhere else in the country.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, why not develop Stansted as an airport for the use of Scottish flights and then improve the end of the M11 into the centre of London? Would that not solve a lot of the problems of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Stansted is being developed at the moment, and the first stage of the development will be complete by 1991. It will then be able to handle 8 million passengers a year and there will be a new fast rail link into Liverpool Street. So far as concerns the M11, that is a slightly different question. There is nothing to stop planes from Scotland using Stansted either now or when it is fully developed. However, it will still he within the London terminal manoeuvring area and possibly subject to delays as a result.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend's reference to the very large number of flights at Heathrow last Friday indicate that there may now be too many flights, both scheduled and chartered, for the traffic control system as it is at present?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is the problem. That is why this flow control has had to be introduced. The main reason for it is safety, so that there should not he more than the number of planes that can safely be handled in any given sector. Over the slightly longer period we shall be getting a new air traffic control system which will give a 30 per cent. increase in capacity by 1995.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the Minister have any news about the new computer which seems to be so long delayed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure to which computer the noble Lord refers, but if it is the central control function that I have just mentioned, which will be coming fully into operation in 1995. it will give a 30 per cent. increase in capacity in the London terminal manoeuvring area. There are other plans for the other different computers. The NATS has a programme of investment of £200 million over the next few years. All that should help the situation.

British Film Industry
11.14 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to help the British film industry to survive in the face of international competition and the activities of transcontinental financial interests.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government's policy is to encourage all industries to compete in an open and international market and we do not consider that special measures are needed for the film industry over and above the support measures arising from the provisions of the Films Act 1985.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I make no apology for taking two bites of' this particular cherry.
1018
Does the noble Lord have in his notes references to speeches and Questions that have been asked in recent years by other noble Lords as well as myself concerning the continuing sale of the assets of the British film industry? Can he improve on the kind of bland statements that he put forward as policy to the House yesterday? Will he bear in mind that the very predatory nature of international capitalism, which is primarily if not wholly concerned with making money, puts at stake jobs and the filmic cultural heritage of our country? Will he consider very carefully the damage to the British film industry that has been done, which may be irreparable?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that it is the Government's policy to encourage inward investment into this country. However, there are considerable successes in the British film industry. Only this morning perhaps the noble Lord will have read of the very encouraging export sale of British television productions. There are opportunities arising from the requirement for Channel 4 to move toward 25 per cent. independent productions, and from the satellite broadcasting channels that are planned. Also, BSB plans to offer 25 million dollars to help finance predominantly UK film production. Such expansion in the market obviously represents potential new opportunities for the British film industry if it can produce the right product at the right price. I am sure that it will be successful in doing so.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the British film industry is now facing the greatest financial crisis in the whole of its history? Unless something is done we shall soon wake up and find that there is no British film industry at all able to take advantage of the opportunities to which my noble friend referred. Does he understand that the film has now become a major art form, particularly for young people, and that it gains for us prestige throughout the world? Will the Government look again at the most crucial economic matter, which is the provision of initial development grants for the film industry, such as are enjoyed in other European countries, and which the industry must have if it is to survive?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the big budget productions are produced on a highly international basis. They are very portable and tend to go where the most favourable conditions exist at any moment in time. I believe that the British film industry is far better at gearing itself up to smaller productions—£2 million or so —and that it can achieve considerable success at that level. The industry's exports remain at a high level, which clearly demonstrates that British films are made with a keen eye to the market. I have every confidence in the ability of the industry to continue to sell its films vigorously both domestically and overseas.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is enormous disappointment and dismay within the film industry as a result of the sale of Elstree film studios, about which I asked a Question yesterday? Is he further aware that

1019
shortly after Question Time yesterday there was a meeting of members of the film industry under the aegis of the British Film and Television Producers Association at which the future of our international participation was a matter of great concern to all present? Does he agree that now that we are going into Europe, European co-production will become a reality very soon and that, with the European co-production of films, it is more than likely that English will he the language chosen for them? In that case we shall most probably be in the best position to make those films on our own stage space. if indeed any stage space is left after the sale of studios of the importance of Elstree. Is it not time that the Government took more interest in this matter?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure that European co-operation will be as easy as the noble Lord makes out. Much of the government subsidy given by other EC states relates to keeping a film industry presence in their own language. I am not sure that English will necessarily be a common language for film production. I am not sure that there will he competition from other EC states to make English language films. That has to be said. However, the facilities on the scale of Elstree may well not be the way forward for the future. Smaller, more compact and more efficient studios may well be the facility on which the British film industry will thrive rather than trying to compete in the big international market for big-budget movies.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the Government's position on this once and for all? Is he saying what he appeared to he saying yesterday, and to some extent today: that the only criterion the Government thought relevant to this matter was one of commercial profitability and that there was no public interest whatsoever in a continuation of a film production industry in this country?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in my original Answer I said that we wish to encourage all industries. We are not in the business of giving the film industry more advantageous treatment than other sectors. However, there are various support schemes funded by the Government. We have recognised the unusual nature of film investment by the special methods approved by the Inland Revenue under which film companies can write off their investment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present Government have done much to encourage the British film industry? Can he give any information as to the future of Pinewood Studios, where some of our finest British actors and directors have worked in the past and where at the moment I understand there is very little United Kingdom production taking place? Has my noble friend any information as to whether anything is being done to counteract this situation?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the future of Pinewood Studios, as with the future of Elstree Studios, is a commercial matter for the owners and not a matter for government.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister saying that there are no spheres where we should be giving special attention to certain industries or other activities? Does he not realise that the British film industry is an example to the world of British life? That is the aspect that we should be considering.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the best thing for government to do is to create a climate in which all industry can flourish. Tax rates have come down. That must create an incentive for investment in films or in any other industry. Investment is running at a high level in this country at the moment. Inflation is being kept under control. The film industry is important but we believe that the best way to encourage investment in film making is by maintaining a sound and healthy economy with growth that is sustainable and containable.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I fully support the government policy of rolling back the frontiers of the state? Unless one is a nineteenth century Liberal there must be areas where the state rightly exercises influence and intervenes. One such area is a crucial industry that is facing this threat and the loss of which would be a major national disaster.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I intervene—
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. My noble friend is quite right when he stresses the importance of the British film industry. However, I believe that the British film industry has the best possible future in responding to demand. Demand is now coming very often from the requirements for the smaller screen rather than the big screen. There are many new, exciting developments taking place in television and broadcasting generally. I am sure that British producers will participate fully in the requirements that will be there world-wide for such products.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I intervene to remind the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, that nineteenth century Liberals did not always take the view that he expressed?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his bland and sanguine replies of today and yesterday will do nothing to lift the hearts of those who feel that the British film industry is in crisis and desperate? Although the Minister is advised of successes, which are not denied, there is a very real feeling that the British film industry is slipping away from the British people. In those circumstances, will the Minister accept that this is the right time for the Government to demonstrate their interest and concern for the future of the British film industry by calling a conference or a meeting with the leaders of the industry to make sure that anything more that can be done will he done before it is too late?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords. I shall of course draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the remarks of the noble Lord. I cannot give him any

1021
comfort today on that subject. I hear what he says. However, the Government support the British film industry in a number of ways and feel that the demand for productions for the smaller screen will be a more than adequate challenge for the industry.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is it reasonable to sum up by saying that the film is an art and that the government attitude to all the arts is purely commercial?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, when I see the amount of money that the Government devote to the arts, that is probably a matter with which I could not agree.

School Boards (Scotland) Bill
11.26 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time.
The Government's intention is simple and straightforward; it is to increase the involvement of parents and the community in the decisions which affect their local schools.
Parents are under a legal as well as a moral obligation to provide for the education of their children. The public education system exists to enable them to discharge this duty and education authorities are required by law to arrange school education in accordance with parents' wishes so far as that is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and the avoidance of unreasonable public expense.
Unfortunately it seems that as the Scottish public education service has developed, in particular with the restructuring of local government in the mid 1970s, parents have drifted further and further towards the fringes. The same Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which set up the regional and islands authorities and made these large administrative blocks responsible for education, required the establishment of school councils. They were intended to maintain a degree of local involvement and authorities were given wide powers to delegate functions to them.
Regrettably, it is generally agreed that school councils have failed to achieve their purpose. Starved by education authorities of a real job to do, many dedicated council members have become increasingly frustrated. In other areas the poor reputation of school councils has discouraged good quality candidates from standing for membership. School councils have been a sad testimony to the reluctance of education authorities to promote real local participation in education.
The other obstacle to parental involvement is the belief that education is a matter which should be left entirely in the hands of professionals. Of course education is a professional matter and it Would he foolhardy to say that parents should tell teachers what to teach, how to teach it and how to assess the results. But that is not a reason to exclude parents from a voice in the education system. It is not an
1022
excuse for refusing to explain educational objectives and methods. This Government believe in the importance of a professional education service. They also believe in the duty of the professionals to listen to those they serve and to explain their activities to them. Indeed, the Government believe that it is impossible for the education professionals to plan and deliver a sound and responsive service without listening to what parents have to say.
The result of this exclusion of parents by authorities and professionals is inevitably an absence of full parental involvement in the running of schools. That is bad for the parents: their rights are ignored. As ratepayers and taxpayers they fund the education service. As parents they are legally obliged to see their children educated. But they have no rights to express their views about the services they buy nor to influence how they are delivered.
It is also bad for pupils. Their education suffers. Research confirms that children do better at school the more closely their parents are involved with their education. If the system deliberately excludes parents, the chances of pupils are affected.
It is bad for the education service. In order to be effective and responsive a service needs to have mechanisms for finding out what its customers want. How else can it be properly planned and delivered? It will not do for authorities and professional educators to say that they know what parents want. If they are right, they have nothing to fear; if they are wrong, they have much to learn.
These then are the threads of our policy— to recognise the importance of parental involvement in education; to give parents wider access to information about how their local schools operate; and to allow them to participate in decisions which affect their schools. We are not trying to undermine the legitimate strategic role of education authorities or the standing of the professionals in education. But at the very least their actions and the decisions they take should he open to question by those who are fundamentally responsible for the education of children; in other words, the parents. If authorities and professionals are doing their jobs well their position can surely only be strengthened and enhanced by a wider apprecation of their efforts and of the difficulties they face.
The Bill before us seeks to achieve genuine participation for parents and the wider community by the establishment of a system of school boards. The provisions of the Bill arise from a set of proposals which we modified—after one of the most comprehensive consultation exercises ever —to take account of the genuine concerns which were expressed. Since the Bill entered Parliament we have made and accepted a number of amendments which we believe have further strengthened it. However, the underlying principle of increased parental involvement in school education, which received almost universal approval in the public consultation which preceded this Bill, has never been questioned.
The first six clauses of the Bill concern the establishment of the school boards system. They determine the categories of membership. Two clauses provide for the procedures for election and co-option

1023
and lay down the fundamental procedural rules for board business. There will be a board for nearly every primary, secondary and special school. Exemption may be given in the case of very small schools which could not support a board.
All boards will have elected parent and staff members and members co-opted from the local community. Parent members will be in the majority on every board so that there will be at least one place in the system where parents will have a guaranteed voice. We hold this to be so important that if enough parents cannot be found to form a board the school will have to do without. Church representation on school boards, although mandatory only in the case of denominational schools, will be encouraged in the guidance we will issue.
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State power to set the precise numbers of members for boards for schools of different sizes or types by regulation. We intend to make regulations providing for the size of a board to depend on the number of pupils at the school. In most cases boards will range from seven members to 13 members; single-teacher schools will have five members.
We have paid particular attention to representations about the procedure for elections. The consultation exercise caused us to make a number of changes to our original proposals to help ensure the representativeness of boards. More recently we amended the Bill to free authorities from the need to submit electoral schemes for the Secretary of State's approval. As the Bill now stands, authorities will be required to prepare schemes for elections in accordance with the fundamental provisions of Schedule I and in accordance with detailed guidance that the Secretary of State will issue. We have also amended the Bill to limit the period during which a casual vacancy for a board member may be carried and to restrict the continued service of a member who becomes ineligible.
Clauses 8 to 14 set out the basic functions, powers and duties which boards are to have. These concern mainly rights to information and to make representations about any aspect of running of their schools. A board's right of access to information and its corresponding duty to communicate with parents is the undisputed key element in the development of parental involvement.
The rights of boards to approve head teachers proposals for spending the school's budget for books and materials has been the subject of considerable debate. It should be clearly understood that we are not proposing to give boards the power to determine the curriculum of the school. The initiative for making proposals will lie with the head teacher exclusively and both he and the board will be required to have regard to the education authority's policy on the curriculum and to any guidance it may issue.
Boards are also given rights to be involved in the selection of senior staff for their schools. The detailed provisions in Schedule 2 will provide for the first time a coherent national approach to senior appointments which draws on existing best practice. We believe that
1024
boards have a legitimate place in the choice of the personnel who will determine the ethos of the school. But it is equally right that in these key appointments the education authority should have a continuing role.
In providing a basic set of functions for all boards we believe that we have addressed those aspects of the running of a school which are of immediate interest to all parents and which will allow a modest degree of executive responsibility to be exercised by every board. But we also believe that boards which show competence and appetite should be given the opportunity to play a still more active part. Accordingly Clauses 15 and 16 and Schedule 3 provide for the delegation of additional functions to boards either with the agreement of the education authority or on appeal to the Secretary of State. The Bill's provisions for delegation show clearly how we listened carefully to the concerns expressed during the consultation period about the accountability of school boards. Certain exclusively professional functions (such as the regulation of the curriculum) and strategic functions (such as the employment of staff) are reserved entirely from delegation by the Bill.
The Bill places a duty on every board always to act in accordance with its education authority's statutory and other legal duties. If a function is to be delegated an authority may attach further specific conditions to ensure the proper discharge of the function. If the authority believes that a board is being too ambitious it may propose a trial period or simply refuse to make the delegation order. But the Bill entitles a board to appeal to the Secretary of State. Before a board may appeal to the Secretary of State it must obtain the support of a majority in a ballot of parents for its proposal. The Secretary of State may refuse the board's appeal if he is satisfied that the delegation would prejudice the good running of the school.
The Bill strikes a clear balance between the desire to allow boards sufficient room for growth without being stifled by bureaucracy and the genuine need to make boards properly accountable to their electorate and to the education authorities on whose behalf they are acting.
Education in Scotland undoubtedly has a proud heritage and a reputation for being at the forefront of new ideas. It is all the more regrettable then to know that on the subject of parental participation, Scotland lags behind every other country in western Europe-if not the world. This Bill redresses that balance and gives parents and representatives of local community interests a proper place in the running of their schools and a voice in the education system.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
11.38 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and his manner of dealing with its important clauses. We all wish to see parents play a part in the education of their children, not just in the home atmosphere, but in the wider area of schools and the whole environment in which young people live during their school years. No one can seriously believe that the

1025
Bill at a stroke will produce the conditions for mass parental involvement. But we must start somewhere. The experience of school councils has made it clear that as a first step parents should be involved specifically in the schools their children attend so giving them a direct connection.
In time we may see a growth of co-operation, at least in the exchange of ideas, between different school boards while each retains its own independence. That is something that time will decide within any one area. Perhaps, as was the original conception of school councils, the natural coming together of schools, especially the feeder schools, as they are sometimes called, towards the secondary school, may happen. But that is all in the future. The Bill deals only with the individual school and that is an advance on the old school council idea. If. in good faith, that is the intention of the Bill, we on this side of the House can do no less than support it.
Concern has been expressed that the Bill could pave the way for the opting-out of some schools from the general educational establishment. We would resist that with considerable commitment and, I hope, a great deal of vigour. I should never wish upon any child the competitive pressures I saw 20 or 30 years ago in the west end of Glasgow. At four-and-ahalf and at nine years of age some children considered themselves to be failures because they had not obtained places in fee-paying schools. To some extent that was also the view of the parents and some of the children's contemporaries. I saw that happen frequently.
The assistance given by government to fee-paying schools in the old days must have been about 90 per cent. It was embarrassing to listen to parents whose child had been unsuccessful in getting into such a school, and it was shameful to see the effect on the children. Therefore, we would resist any idea and it has been suggested—that that may be a possibility. I hope that it can he avoided because it would be a retrograde step for Scottish education. Most parents were glad to see the end of that pernicious system. Few would like to see it return.
I believe that there is now a greater awareness on the part of parents. A significant number are eager to become involved in their children's schools. Surveys carried out by representatives and by those involved in education show that while parents wish to become involved in the running of the school, they do not wish to have responsibility for controlling the running of the school. They want to be a part and they want their voice to be heard; but they do not want the responsibility of control.
If we go ahead and have school boards, I hope that the Government will accept that the amendments we shall be tabling in Committee are genuine and an attempt to be helpful. I should not he willing to participate in any wrecking of a Bill of this nature hidden behind the pretence that I was trying to improve it. However, I believe that we must have improvements. Our amendments will be tabled in good faith at the Committee stage; we shall spell them out in detail.
I should like to select a few areas where we believe that the Bill needs clarification and redirection. First, we wish to make absolutely clear the fact that at all
1026
times the guiding light for the new school boards is that their primary duty is the provision of proper school and further education, as laid down by Section 1 of the 1980 Act. We believe that to be fundamental.
Secondly, we believe that the chain of command must he explicitly stated. I believe that the Minister went some way towards that objective. But it must be made clear that, at the end of the day, the head teacher is responsible for the entire school. A good head teacher—and we hope that they will all he good — will be aware of the desires of the new school boards and of the power that they will he given under the Bill.
Thirdly, in order to keep the school boards and the parents involved, it will be essential to maintain contact between the two groups. Some regularised reporting-back machinery must be built in to the Bill so that parents and the boards can meet for report and questioning sessions. I do not think that the Minister was clear about that matter. If there are to be boards consisting of between seven and 13 members without regular reporting back, I do not understand how we can consider that we are involving the community or the parents. Perhaps that matter can be clarified in Committee. If there is regular reporting back and attendance of parents there will then be a greater interest among parents. Therefore, when new board members are required there will be available people already interested and partly integrated in the machinery of the schools. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
I believe that Clause 8(2) and (3) could be the cause of considerable difficulty. The Minister will be aware of the anxieties expressed in another place. No doubt he will have given serious thought to the potential for conflict or even the serious break-up of the scheme. To be an agent of an authority in action while being immune from the liability of that action seems to introduce a dangerous novelty into an untried relationship. That is in part an objection of the Scottish Law Society.
The Minister spoke of increasing the scope and the range of the work that the school boards will be given. He mentioned Clause 15. I believe that there may be a great opportunity for active, progressive boards. We must be cautious but not too cautious. I believe that to achieve the best results the new school boards must be given time to absorb their role. Too much, too soon, or running before they can walk, could be just as disastrous as working a board below its potential capacity. A certain amount of skill will be required in deciding how much and where any new powers should be given to the boards. In some areas it has been suggested that a period of about three years will he necessary. The period will vary considerably, but I believe that thought needs to be given to the problem. The education authority, the headmaster in the area and the school board must be the judges of the appropriate time for assuming new powers.
The Minister knows that the question of religion has caused considerable trouble. It is easy enough in non-transferred schools but there are problems in transferred schools. I suggest that the form of words chosen by the Church of Scotland is adequate to cover the matter. I hope that we shall be able to

1027
consider the problem perhaps more briefly than was done in relation to England and Wales.
If we are to give the school boards a good start we must decide upon the means by which the boards are to operate. That almost always involves the question of how much money the Government are willing to provide, and it is certainly so in this case. After looking at the Government's figures and comparing them with those evaluated by the local authorities and supplied in detail by CoSLA, I favour a colourful American expression used by an active Member of the Minister's party in Scotland who said that when you are doing something you should not "nickel and dime" it; you should decide what to do and provide the resources to do it.
Local authorities are believed by the Government to be profligate. The costs which have been worked out by CoSLA, are different from the Government's by a factor of over three. Even allowing for the costs of the old school councils, the gap is not only quantitative; it also becomes qualitative. Without proper finance the whole scheme will collapse. We must consider the importance of the Bill. The Minister will have the local authority estimates and his own. In order that we can make a comparison they must be given in considerable detail before the debate is properly started. The seriousness of the Government will be judged by their frankness over resources, and we look forward with anticipation to the answer to that and many other practical details which are not yet clear even after the long process in another place.
This Bill is not a revolution but if the Government believe in its stated purpose and do not become caught up in half-thought-out ideological arguments, which I hope I shall avoid, then it will be a modest beginning to something which we should all like to see: namely education conducted in an atmosphere of full community co-operation between pupils, parents, teachers, head teachers and the elected local authorities. If that is the spirit of the Bill, I can assure your Lordships that we on this side will give all the help we can to its passage.
11.50 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this Bill is disappointing. It is one of the most disappointing Bills brought forward by this Government. It is disappointing because they could so easily have produced a Bill which could have gained widespread all-party, all-section support based upon a desire to give parents a wider involvement in the education of their children. Such a Bill would have created a partnership in schools between teachers, parents and the community. It would have benefited children and would have been welcome throughout Scotland by all parties and all those involved in education.
The Conservative manifesto for Scotland in the last election promised to reform and strengthen school councils. Instead, that widely supported concept has been distorted by the insistence of the Scottish Office that parents should have a majority on the new school boards. That decision goes against the grain of consensus in Scotland which is in favour of
1028
a partnership. Parental majority is not only rejected by the teaching profession, which fears that it could become a barrier to educational development, but also seems to have been rejected by the parents themselves who do not believe that they are qualified to run schools, but who would still like their voices to be heard.
A survey carried out by Education Alert and the Lothian Parents Action Group of a random selection of parents, mostly though not exclusively in the Grampian and Lothian regions, found that 77·8 per cent. of parents did not wish there to be a parental majority and that 87·9 per cent. wished for additional staff to be elected to the boards.
We shall seek to amend the Bill so that it does not store up trouble for the future. It is not so far-fetched to think of the damage which could be done if an organised special interest group of parents gained control of a school board.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Addington: My Lords, instead, a school board should be created which is a true partnership between the headmaster, staff and parents, as well as involving students to an extent and the community as a whole.
We are happy to acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Bill is different in a number of significant proposals from that originally put forward by the Government. For example, we hope that the Government have accepted that the so-called ceiling powers are inappropriate to Scottish education and the idea of opting out which seemed to hover menacingly over this Bill has been safely put on the sidelines. The Government must understand that those are alien to Scottish educational traditions and the Scottish Office must not attempt to use this Bill as a Trojan horse to smuggle them in at a later point.
The Bill has been improved during its passage in another place. We welcome the fact that regional councillors will be able to attend meetings and that additional scope is given for pupil involvement. We believe that the Bill can still be greatly improved in other areas. The House will not be surprised that one of those issues will be the method of electing the school boards. We believe that parents, especially if they are to form the majority voice, should be as well informed as possible, hopefully with the inclusion of an annual report on the financial running of the School. We also feel that parents should be elected by the most representative system possible. Not surprisingly, we on these Benches would favour a system related to PR. An interesting point to bring to the attention of the House is that between 1919 and 1928 the independent schools in Scotland had their boards elected by a system of PR.
We remain concerned that the Government have rushed into imposing school boards and have not properly considered the financial cost and the professional back-up which the boards will require. For example, one can foresee problems for rural schools which may have very wide catchment areas and which may have to transport people from the islands to get them to school. "Transport" is probably the wrong word to use. The Convention of

1029
Scottish Local Authorities estimates that an additional £17.2 million will be required to run the boards. The Scottish Office disputes those figures but says that negotiations are under way. Scottish education is already being starved of funds and it would be quite wrong if any shortfall in funding were to come out of resources allocated for general education.
There are many areas of concern at present in the Scottish education system at all levels. One has only to think of the crisis facing the universities, particularly Aberdeen and Stirling, both of which are well below their original student capacity and both seem to be staring bankruptcy in the face. There is also a lack of nursery school provision which would seem to suggest that there is much to occupy the Scottish Minister for Education and his colleagues.
Instead of addressing these issues much time, effort and expenditure is being spent on creating school boards which bear little resemblance to that promised in the manifesto. The boards will be deeply flawed if the insistence on parental majority is carried through and that could stand in the way of their effective operation. There is still time for the boards to be an asset to Scottish education, but as they stand they are an unwelcoming and damaging diversion from the real needs of parents, teachers and pupils.
11.59 a.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I must confess that I am rather sorry to hear the somewhat disturbing report which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, gives on this matter. I have a much more hopeful outlook that these boards will serve a useful purpose. There are difficulties with this and I believe that my noble friend realises the delicate position of a school board. It lies between the education authority, the school and the parents. There may be trouble from all three so that they need to conduct themselves with a great deal of understanding, and I hope that will happen.
I am not concerned about majorities. I should not think that this board will vote very much. To my mind what is needed is to have people with understanding—understanding of the problems of the schools and the parents. That is what is required. I do not see why it should be too difficult to find those people. On the other hand, if those people try to run the school or try to have a row with the education authority, they would he absolutely useless, but they can play a role. I should like to ask what is the status of this body. Has it any status in law at all or is it just a gathering of trustees? What is it exactly? I believe it is not unimportant that we should know what sort of body it is.
What seems to me most important—and I should like to know whether the Government have any views on this —is who will be chairman. It seems to me that to obtain a first-class chairman is extremely difficult. The whole quality of this board will depend very largely upon the chairman. I do not know what steps are being taken to ensure that a person with experience and ability should hold that post.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the question of cost. What this will cost is rather worrying. I do not know whether the Government
1030
have any further views on this subject but there is a wide difference between Government estimates and local authority estimates. I do not know whether that has been bridged.
There is one point which I do not understand; namely, the question of reporting back. How are the parents to know what goes on in the board? After all, it is fundamental that they should know because the board is supposed to be the link between the parents and the schools. Are we reckoning on a quarterly, half-yearly or annual report? Someone should be told what are the discussions and how these decisions are being taken.
What is the intention about delegation? Is this to be done straightaway? This Bill creates an executive body which is not unimportant. The suggestion in some cases is that delegation should be delayed, perhaps for three years, to see whether the body is showing itself to be competent.
I should like to say a few words about religious education. I see that all the denomination schools will make an appointment, but a great many schools in Scotland are not denominational. Is that to say that they will have no one charged with the duty to see that religious education is carried out in some form? Is it the intention that one member of the board, either co-opted or a parental member, should be charged with responsibility for supervising that? We should be given some idea of how that stands.
The Bill is a bold endeavour to bring in a relationship. I must say that I was shocked to hear my noble friend say that Scotland lingers behind all countries in Europe in parent-school relationships. I have to admit that I did not know that. If that is true, it is very sad. I hope that this relationship can be properly built up. I shall not detain the House further. There are points which need a great deal of clarification which can perhaps be dealt with in Committee.
12 noon
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Sanderson explained the importance of this Bill in giving parents in Scotland a real voice in the decisions that are taken about the education of their children in local authority schools.
The public education system exists to help parents to discharge their legal duty. This is to ensure that their children receive schooling and parents have a right to choose what they judge to be the best for their own children in this respect. The teaching profession itself has come to realize—perhaps it always did realise—that the commitment of parents is vital to the success of schools. Teachers are indeed most anxious that parents should take due responsiblity for their children, particularly in matters of discipline. Yet the recent development of public schooling in Scotland has tended to exclude the parental voice and previous attempts to redress the balance have failed. This has given rise to the paradox of an educational establishment on the one hand bemoaning the lack of parental interest while on the other hand insisting that there is no place for lay opinion when real decisions have to be made. The

1031
Government, with this Bill, have solved that paradox which was created out of fear; fear that genuine parental involvement would lead inevitably to lack of accountability and the usurping of the legitimate role of the professional in education.
This Bill provides a straightforward framework within which parents can exert a beneficial pressure on the system. Equally it is a framework in which a constructive partnership between parents and teachers can be formed. Of course, it will need good will on both sides—any system which is to function well always does. It will require parents to learn a lot about what teachers are trying to achieve for their children, and it will cause teachers to formulate their own aims and objectives in clear terms and to put them across persuasively. It should be a salutary experience for both parties.
In no way are we attempting in this Bill to devalue professional expertise, but we have confidence in the ability of lay people to make sound judgments, and we contend that there is ample opportunity for the exercise of sound, informed judgment in local school matters.
Of course, the Bill does not limit the scope of school boards to the interests of parents and teachers. It makes provision for the wider community to be represented by co-opted members and in the membership of the board sub-committees. It also incorporates all the checks and balances that are necessary to protect local authorities in the discharge of their statutory and other legal duties, and to safeguard the legitimate interests of the professionals in education and to ensure that school boards are properly representative of those who elect them.
I turn now to some of the matters raised in the debate. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his overall welcome to the measure. The noble Lord raised one or two points. He asked about the board as an agent of local authority. Clause 8(2) determines that in respect of its relations with third parties the board is to be treated as the agent of the education authority. This is necessary to protect those with whom boards make contacts. In the event that the board is, for example, disestablished, a contractor must know that he has recourse to the education authority for the completion of the contract. Without the provision of Clause 8(2) the contractor would be left high and dry.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also referred to the cost of school boards. He mentioned that CoSLA had estimated a cost to authorities which was rather different from that put forward by the Government. CoSLA's estimate was £17 million per year. The Government's initial estimate was £5 million. There have been several different estimates from CoSLA and individual authorities. They range from the equivalent of fewer than £5 million to more than £20 million. CoSLA's latest estimate is in fact £17.2 million. When the unreasonable elements of that estimate are removed, the figure is around £8 million. The Government's initial estimate of additional cost was around £5 million per year, but Ministers have always made it clear that that figure was not set in stone. Ministers have undertaken to
1032
consider any reasonable case made by the authorities in the annual rate support grant settlement. CoSLA's most recent estimate is being discussed in that context now.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the personal liability of board members. Board members are only protected from liability if they believe that they are acting in good faith.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his remarks. I am sure we all wish to congratulate him on graduating this month from Aberdeen University. The noble Lord was a little concerned about a number of points in our proposals. He felt that there had not been sufficient consultation before we devised them. I can assure him that there was extensive consultation, and I believe that throughout the country there is a wide measure of agreement with our proposals.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the composition of school boards. He said that he was unhappy that there should automatically be a parent majority. The parental majority is a fundamental part of policy. Authorities and teachers are dominant in other parts of the education system. The parental majority at school level will ensure that the parental voice is heard. However, the majority does not mean that parents will be taking over schools. Authorities remain responsible for management of education, and boards must ensure that the statutory duties of authorities are complied with. The professional areas such as the determination of the curriculum and assessment of pupils are excluded from delegation.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to the chairman of the board. The Bill requires boards to elect a chairman and vice-chairman from among their members other than the staff members. The chairman, or in his absence the vice-chairman, will have a second or casting vote in the case of a tied vote.
In conclusion, I believe that there is general agreement that greater parental involvement in schools is highly desirable. Today's debate has raised a number of points about the detailed provisions of the Bill and these we shall be returning to at the Committee stage. However, I feel that all of your Lordships, although with one or two reservations which have been quite rightly expressed today, support the fundamental principle of this Bill which is that of parental involvement. It goes without saying that any responsible parent wants to see his child's school improved. Essentially, what this Bill seeks to do is to release the latent interest of parents in their schools. This can only be to the good of the system as a whole, and I therefore have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Staffing of Community Institutions: ECC Report
12.11 p.m.
Baroness Serota Baroness Serota rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European

1033
Communities Committee on Staffing of Community Institutions. (11th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 66).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I first thank the eight noble Lords who so kindly agreed to undertake this ad hoc inquiry in addition to all their other responsibilities both on the Select Committee and in the House generally. Each one of them was uniquely qualified to take part in a broad review of this kind across the whole range of institutions that comprise the European Community, the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice and the Economic and Social Committee. We did not include the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank in our detailed inquiry. I am extremely grateful to them all for their continuous encouragement and support throughout the inquiry.
I also express the thanks of the committee for the co-operation and assistance that we received from all our witnesses. Most particularly, we were impressed by the welcome that we received at all levels of the institutions themselves during our visit to Brussels and indeed by the frankness with which our many questions were answered. I have no doubt that our path, for what was a difficult and sensitive inquiry, had been greatly smoothed in advance by Sir David Hannay, the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels, who kindly made the arrangements for our visit. We owe him and the staff of his office a very real debt of gratitude.
In the introduction to our report we set out the two main objectives of our inquiry. The first was:
"to assess whether the Community institutions' recruitment procedures, staff management methods and career structure allow them to carry out their functions effectively and to attract high quality stall from all the Member States".
Our second objective was:
"to consider whether the development and implementation of Community policy is being hampered by the present stalling levels of the institutions."
We also expressed the hope that our report would help to improve public understanding of' the role and structure of Community institutions, of the importance of their staff to the efficient development and execution of Community policy, and of the small size of that staff in relation to the tasks that they perform.
While it was not our intention to concentrate on specifically British considerations, we were concerned that there should be sufficient and appropriate participation by British staff in the operation of the Community and hoped that the report would also be of assistance to young people who are considering careers as European civil servants.
Part 2 of our report explains the origins, the unique character and the particular features of the development of the different institutions of the Community. All the evidence that we received, which is printed at the end of the report, is analysed in Part 3. We set out our findings in Part 4 of the report. Having examined all the evidence that we received on the impact of recruitment methods, career structure
1034
and staffing levels on the development and execution of Community policy, together with the replies to our questionnaire (which we sent to all the institutions and which is printed in Appendix 2 of the report) requesting factual information, I believe that it is fair to say that we were all inclined to recommend a single, fully-integrated service for all the institutions.
However, our witnesses took the view that as all the institutions have very different roles and are on occasions required to check, scrutinise or judge one another's acts, this was neither practical nor desirable at this stage of the development of what is by any standards a very young and a very rapidly changing institution. We recognise this view and accept that the separation of powers within the Community structure is more complex than within a single national state. But we still feel that certain joint services and especially joint recruitment and training services, will greatly improve both administrative efficiency and the career prospects of the staff.
I turn now to three specific aspects of our conclusions; first, staff numbers, then recruitment policy and procedures, and training; and, finally, to some of the particular difficulties that are experienced by British personnel working for the Community or wishing to work for it. When the Minister comes to reply at the end of a fairly short debate, I hope that he will comment upon those three particular areas of concern. I know that both the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Murray (two members of the committee) who will be speaking after me in this debate will be raising other important questions upon which we shall also be interested to hear the views of the Minister.
I also hope that the recommendations that the committee has made will be given serious consideration by the Community institutions themselves. The House will be pleased to learn that the initial reaction to our report from M. Delors, the President of the Commission, has been very encouraging.
To begin, then, with staff numbers. In its inquiry, the committee found no evidence of general overstaffing. On the contrary, the public image of idle bureaucrats living it up in Brussels is far from the truth. In the Commission we found evidence of serious shortages of staff in certain areas which cannot be made good merely by redeployment, especially when specialist skills are required in new fields of Community activity. Implementation of policies agreed by the Council is often hampered by lack of staff, and the situation will only worsen as the responsibilities of the Commission grow with the years. To give two examples that we came across during our visit to Brussels: with the new spirit of openness in Eastern Europe, more countries are requesting to enter discussions with the European Community and we learnt during our visit that the Commission's Directorate-General for External Relations is unable to meet all these requests because of a shortage of staff. Somewhat closer to home, the Select Committee reported to the House some two years ago on the important issues involved in the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas. Such recognition was increasingly important in our view for the free movement of people in the

1035
Community if a true internal market in professional services is to be achieved by 1992.
We were amazed to find that in the Commission only two-and-a-half people were employed on the complex negotiations involved in the development of this crucial aspect of the completion of the internal market. As Member States require the Commission to discharge even great responsibilities, so we concluded that they must accept the consequences in terms of extra staff for that institution. The committee was told repeatedly that there is not sufficient correlation in the Council between decisions on new policy and decisions on granting additional staff resources. The committee therefore urged the Council to pay closer attention to the staffing implications of the proposed policies, and to consider staffing requests by the Commission in the light of the impact of such policies. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Glenarthur, will he able to give us some assurances on that point. We also recommended that to assist the Council in future the fiche financiere, which accompanies Commission proposals. should always include an assessment of the staffing implications of the policy changes involved.
The second area to which I wish to refer briefly and upon which we concentrated a great deal of our attention during the inquiry, was that of staff recruitment procedures. At present each institution conducts its own individual recruitment. Open competitions are often not well-publicised; they take place irregularly and infrequently; and candidates are often kept waiting, in our view, for an unreasonably long time before being informed of their success or otherwise. Even then, and much to our surprise. candidates who pass the whole of the competition are not guaranteed employment as a result. Individuals are recruited from a reserve list of successful candidates only as and when vacancies arise. The whole process can take anything up to four or five years. By way of illustration, perhaps I may cite the case of a former member of the staff of this House, now employed by the European Commission, who applied for a post in September 1984 and only finally received a firm offer of employment in June 1987, some three years later.
Perhaps I may give another example we came across during our visit. In the Council a competition advertised in July 1984 had by January this year resulted in only six appointments, while other successful candidates remained on the reserve list. The committee feels strongly that such long periods of uncertainty must inevitably deter good candidates from pursuing career opportunities in Community institutions. It recommended that the period between the announcement of a recruitment competition and the establishment of a list of successful candidates should be reduced to a maximum of nine months. Competitions should be held annually whenever possible to allow candidates to plan their applications.
As I have already indicated, the committee considered that the best way to achieve these improvements would be for the institutions to establish a joint service to organise recruitment for
1036
them all. By pooling their efforts, they could reduce costs and reduce the overall length of time taken by the recruitment process and the interval between selection rounds. A joint service could establish what were the requirements of the institutions for competitions each year, administer the selection process and draw up lists of successful candidates. The institutions would still have power to appoint for themselves from those lists. To ensure the success of such a joint service, the institutions would need to standardise their initial grading of newly-recruited officials. It would also be necessary to devise procedures so as to allay the fears that undoubtedly exist among the smaller institutions that a larger Commission would play too dominant a role and recruit the best candidates. However, given effective co-operation neither of these obstacles seemed to the committee to be insurmountable.
The last aspect of our report to which I wish to draw attention concerns the experience of British staff in the Community. This is the area that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, our former Minister of State at the Foreign Office, would have wished to deal with had she been able to take part in our debate today. She has asked me to give her apologies and to say how much importance she attaches to the recommendations in this field.
The committee heard that British candidates for Community posts were sometimes discouraged or confused by unfamiliar procedures. In particular. they often felt reluctant to adopt the entrepreneurial approach and the practice of pistonnage—the canvassing of personal contracts—which is an accepted part of life in the Community but is so alien to accepted British practice in the public service. We therefore recommended that Her Majesty's Government should establish a co-ordinating unit within the Cabinet Office to act as single source of advice and guidance on careers in the Community. The unit should publicise career opportunities, encourage applications, advise candidates and monitor the effects of these activities.
The committee was also concerned about arrangements for existing British civil servants who spend a period of their career in the service of the Community. Their right of return to the British Civil Service is limited: more importantly, they are rarely reinstated at a grade higher than that they held when they left. Considering the wide and valuable experience which service in the Community gives, it seemed to the committee unfair that such experience should not be more usually recognised. Talented people will be encouraged to contribute to the service of the Community only if they feel sure that their career will be enhanced rather than hindered by such experience.
Another specifically British experience on which the committee heard evidence was the difficulty in getting a grant for a period of European studies abroad. It was apparent to the committee that a period of such study did much to fit a candidate for European service. It would prefer therefore that more young people could benefit by such an experience and urges Her Majesty's Government to make more funds available for such grants, or failing that, to divide them between more applicants. I hope that the

1037
Minister will be able to give us some assurance on this point, particularly in relation to young people seeking a career in the Community.
I could not conclude without expressing thanks to our excellent specialist advisers, Sir Christopher Audland, former director-general for energy in the Commission, and also Professor David Edward, Salvesen Professor of European Institutions at the University of Edinburgh who advised the Select Committee in two of its previous inquiries and is well known to us all. Their experience and direct knowledge of the Community institutions were invaluable throughout the inquiry. That, together with the continuous help and support of our most efficient Clerk. Mary De Groose, has enabled us to make this report to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Staffing of European Institutions. (11th Report, 1987–88. HL Paper 66)— (Baroness Scrota.)
12.26 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I had the honour of serving on the committee which produced the report that is being debated today. It is appropriate that I should start by referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who has just spoken and say with what awe and admiration those of us who sat under her chairmanship did so. Her formidable knowledge of public administration was extremely helpful to the committee as well as her capacity to assemble in her mind and sort out the wealth of detailed information which we were given in the evidence, which appears in the full report. In saying these things I believe I am speaking for all other members of the committee.
My time as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities is coming to an end. I cannot forbear to reflect on this occasion that it was formed to ensure a measure of parliamentary control in relation to government and the Community and yet its influence in Europe, effected through its reports. is, I believe, as great in the Community as it is here through your Lordships' House. On a recent visit to Brussels I gained the impression that our report is being widely and carefully considered, so I hope that it will serve a useful purpose there as well as here.
I should like, however, to focus my remarks today on the need for appropriate numbers of United Kingdom members of the staff of the institutions. At present we are under-represented. I hope I shall be forgiven if I touch on certain matters mentioned by the noble Baroness under the third of her headings. Mr. Delors, President of the Community, has predicted that in a decade 80 per cent. of the economic and perhaps also of the tax and social legislation will be directed from Brussels. That is provocative and is no doubt intended to be so. But in a week in which the problem of Rover has been much in the news, it cannot be regarded as far-fetched or fanciful.
The need for full representation among staff in the institutions derives not from the idea of inserting a mole in the heart of Europe— -if I may he forgiven for mixing my metaphors —but to ensure that United Kingdom modes of thought and attitudes will make
1038
a contribution to the development of the Community. It is a matter of concern to the Commission, not just to those of us in this country, that proper representation should he seen there. In category A the United Kingdom is underrepresented, as appears on the table at page 8 of the evidence. One might expect that we would have rough equality not anything exact—in Grade A with the larger members of the Community—namely, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and France. Yet we find on consideration of those figures that the numbers we have in Grade A in the Community service are far less.
It seems that insufficient attention was given to recruitment when we joined the Community, now many years ago. That is one reason which we were given for this shortfall. But the deficiency has persisted. and it is urgent and important that it should be remedied.
One disadvantage which perhaps we have suffered has been the practice until recently of recruiting graduates with around three years relevant work experience. That does not fit in easily with our recruitment practices because by then a potential recruit has settled upon a career. For instance, what normally happens in recruitment by the professions in this country is that those at university are offered positions about a year prior to graduation. conditional upon obtaining an adequate degree. Even now that the institutions are seeking Grade A8 recruits—that is the starting point of Grade A—without work experience, they' must have a degree before they will he considered. However, that is a welcome move in that it enables a career in Community service to be started without previous work experience and will avoid graduates becoming tied up in other careers and thus being unavailable.
The reasons which struck me most forcefully for the continuing lack of UK applications to join the staff of the Commission at Grade A were, first, that there is inadequate publicity and information with the careers advisers at universities. I believe that it is rare for an undergraduate even to think about a career with the Community. That can easily be remedied.
There is great advantage in having had a brief' period as a stagiaire, or temporary pupil or student, within one of the institutions. It is quite common to meet young people from countries on the Continent who have done this—and I have met quite a number. They have then joined the Community service, gone into private practice in one of the professions or, indeed, gone into business. It is rare to find someone from the United Kingdom who has done so.
The advantage of a stage is that by contact within the Commission, or another institution, you gain some idea of how it works in practice and of the personalities and their relationships. In the report we refer to that sinister word, pistonnage, as the noble Baroness mentioned earlier. To get a job in the Commission it is an immense advantage to know the right people and to press your claim forward. It seems strange to us with our background and customs here, hut it is so. To he accepted as a stagiaire you need to exercise those techniques. Having completed the stage, you are far better equipped to take your career there further. So guidance and help, perhaps by those

1039
with experience in the institutions and by the UK representative office in Brussels and those who have served there would be enormously helpful at universities if they would make visits and talk to students there.
Finally, I refer to the advantages to a student of having a rather broader experience than is normally provided in a UK university. Therefore I wonder, with the noble Baroness, whether some form of joint degree could be developed in European studies—and perhaps also in other fields—between the universities here and those on the Continent. The question of grants is of course essential to such a project.
It is not just the linguistic advantage that I have in mind, but enlarging understanding. That is of the first importance to enable relationships, not only within the Community but between the Community and those outside, to prosper. There is perhaps a tendency for courses related directly to the Community to be inward-looking. We heard of the arrangements made by the Cabinet Office for seminars for British candidates for Community posts. But, for the reasons I have mentioned, far more needs to be done.
Surely the prime responsibility for instigating action to ensure proper representation of the United Kingdom among the institutions rest with the Government. Therefore I hope that the Minister will he able to indicate what steps might be taken.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I shared with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, the good fortune of serving on this inquiry. I should like to join with him in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, not only for the extraordinarily able way in which she led the inquiry but also for the original happy thought of having it at all. It is quite clear from the response of the Commissioners and also of the staff whom we met in Brussels, both formally and informally, that they were warmed by the thought that we should have considered their role in the Community and should have devoted some time to examining their contribution to the success of the Community.
Like the noble Baroness I hope that the report will help to dispel some of the mythology which surrounds the staff of the Community institutions. The perception of these fat cats, Eurocrats or these lofty and rather arrogant individuals who take little heed of national bodies is. I believe, entirely wrong. The common perception is that they are overstaffed, overpaid and "over there". If the report does something to correct that and to underline the point that the noble Baroness made about the remarkably small size of the staff, then I think we shall all have a better perception of the Community to which we belong. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, any such impression is quickly dispelled by direct contact with the staff. Among the senior staff, the best of them—there is no doubt some dead wood—are to be compared with the best of British civil servants. I cannot give any higher praise than that.
As I said, the size of the staff is remarkably small. The Commission and the Council are, I think, properly stringent in considering future increases and I hope that that attitude in general will be
1040
maintained—although given the new responsibilities under the Single European Act, as has been said, some judicious increases will be necessary.
Much of our discussion lay in the area of improving the effective use of the staff in recruitment, in training and in the development of management skills. It was very evident that the staff had thought carefully about such matters and were more than willing to discuss them with us. It reflects the extent to which the staff, through their staff associations, are involved in the management of the Community institutions. For example, they take part in the joint committees which oversee the competitions and they are represented on the three-member selection boards. Thus they have indeed experienced involvement in that whole range of activities. They strongly supported the idea of a single service of recruitment and a single training service for all institutions, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, mentioned, it will be most important even in that single service to bear in mind the difference between the roles of the different institutions as a consequence of the delicacy of the relationships between the Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the other institutions.
Outside the formal methods of recruitment to which the noble Baroness has drawn your Lordships attention, there are the less formal methods of recruitment. For example, it has been suggested that more use might be made of secondment—there are mutual advantages both to the Community and to national governments in that area—and that Her Majesty's Government might look at their own procedures, especially at the question of reinstatement of people when they return.
I share that hope. I also hope that Her Majesty's Government will use that provision sparingly. It should not he made too easy for people to return. Some of them might benefit from having to concentrate their minds on coming to terms with the activities of the Community rather than think too readily about returning to our service.
One point upon which the staff associations rightly laid great emphasis was the need to improve career development inside the institutions. Their practices compare unfavourably with the British system. Their system was summed up by one of the staff association representatives who said that the individual managed his own career. One consequence of that is graphically, on both senses of the word, illustrated in an analysis of the Community's top management. The analysis was made by two Community officials based on information given in the 1986 edition of Who 's Who in the Community which deals with senior staff in the Community institutions.
In their section entitled "The Influence of Experience in Certain Community Units on Community-Careers", they say:
"It is obviously career enhancing to work in the Communities external relations Directorate Generals. it is even more recommendable to work in the Cabinets or as a party official in the European Parliament … the best Community career start is in a Cabinet (for those who did not know already)".
That takes us to the kinsman of pistonnage, to which reference has already been made; that is, parachutage, which is referred to in paragraph 56 of the report.

1041
As is said in that paragraph, there are different forms of parachutage. There is the recruitment of outside experts to fill a specific need or provide a specific skill; and the other form of parachutage is finding a job on the Community staff for officials who have been recruited on a temporary political basis to the staff of a commissioner. Clearly that is a case for exceptional recruitment to meet exceptional needs. I do not believe that there is any case for finding jobs for former members of the staff of a deposed or retired commissioner.
In evidence to us the Chairman of the Central Staff Committee said:
"This is a practice which is very generally condemned by just about every official".
He continued:
"Every four years, we have the Olympics. In order to arrange parachutage, we go along doing some incredible gymnastics, rearranging structures of services, putting new labels on, and one often frankly does not see very well the need for rearranging the structure just to place somebody".
The committee recommends that careful reconsideration should be given to that practice. My view is that the principle is indefensible. Former members of cabinets compete on merit for places on Community institution staffs. Their knowledge, and the judgment they derive from their experience, may well be taken into account in that process but automatic entitlement cannot be justified.
The noble Lord. Lord Nathan, referred to the practice of pistonnage. It may be a French word, but we understand what it means. It is a fact of life in Brussels. What is worrying is where pistonnage is coupled with, and reinforced by, the clear fear that a move from one directorate to another will prejudice promotion prospects. That contrasts unfavourably with the arrangements in our Civil Service. The committee has made recommendations to try to remove some of those fears. I hope that they will bear fruit in the staffing of the institutions.
As I said, the word may be French, but it is clear that British entrants are capable of adapting to the Community environment. It is, as was said by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, clearly advantageous if able British men and women can he encouraged to take up posts in Community institutions. That applies to people drawn not only from our public service but from industry, the trade unions, the professions and the academic world. It is highly desirable that we should encourage such people to enter the service of the Community, of which Britain is an inextricable part. I hope that among other things the report will help to achieve that desirable aim.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I believe that mine is the only critical voice about the report today; but that must not detract from my belief in its excellence or the wisdom of its recommendations. I am reminded of what happened on The Times a few years ago when there was a competition among sub-editors as to who could write the least attractive headline. The winner was:
"Small Earthquake in China Few Killed''.
1042
If I were to award a prize for the least attractive title it would be:
"Staffing of Community Institutions"
That may account for the fact that we have no one taking part in this debate, except for the two Front Bench speakers, who did not serve on the committee. It could have been given a title such as:
"The Community Civil Service: its size, its structure, its selection and its rewards".
The report contains about 180,000 words, As things go today, at £12 that is not expensive for so much paper and print. Any old parliamentary hand or Fleet Street hack could evolve 1,500 relevant and entertaining words of comment merely by using the page and a half summary of conclusions; or a more conscientious commentator could explore the report in depth, having mastered the first 37 pages. I went further. I read most of the many thousands of words of evidence.
I did that not out of a sense of duty or responsibility, but merely because I was fascinated and happy to look again into the organisations on which I had served during the four years that I was a Member of the European Parliament. We were unelected and unpaid, and even threatened with British income tax. We would have had to pay it except that my noble friend Lord Bruce brought his political and professional skills to bear on the case. There may he a touch of ambient cupidity in my studies, when I read of the rewards of those who serve the Community today.
In one way, the report is a model of' its kind. It is a patient exploration in depth by a small and most distinguished sub-committee which included not only those who have spoken this morning but the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, who was once chairman of the advisory committee on the pay of our Higher Civil Service, and the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who was head of the Home Civil Service. I like to think of those two great public servants looking with a fraternal but discerning eye on the new breed of civil servants, men and women of 12 nationalities and nine native languages working together to create the Community.
The only criticism I have to make is a minor one. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Serota will forgive me, but it concerns the presentation of the report, not of the content of its conclusions. Of the five or six hours that I spent poring over it, some were spent re-editing it for the general reader. I can well understand that it has gone down very well at Brussels and will have been well read in Whitehall. But it will not do very well what it sets out to do—that is, to improve public understanding of the role and structure of the Community institutions, of the importance of their staff to the efficiency of the Community and of the small size of the staff in relation to the task they perform.
There is certainly a need for an improvement in public understanding, since, as my noble friend has pointed out, for years the opponents of the Community, have accused it of being weighted down by an excessively large, stupid and overhearing democracy. The odd, bizarre idea thrown up has been treated as if it were an edict, a diktat. Noble Lords may remember that it was once put about that British

1043
drinkers were to be prevented from having their own warm beer but would have to drink Continental lager beer. It was not true, but the odd thing is that the British, including the Army, have since freely taken to lager beer in a big way.
The Community is on the march again under the banner of the Single Act. During the next few years the Community will do things which people will resent. It will cause an outcry for a return to national sovereignty in particular areas. Therefore it is most important that they should know how the Community works and how well it is staffed. The report provides this knowledge; it contains incontestable evidence that it is not excessively staffed; that it is pretty efficiently staffed but that the new responsibilities, as we go towards 1992, and as we double the structural funds, will require some increases. The new task can only be partly accomplished by redeployment of existing staff. The Committee arc to be commended for the bold way in which they put that unpopular point.
The committee heard much convincing evidence, they tell us, that in the Commission a number of services are significantly understaffed, circumstances which will have an increasingly negative impact on these services. Furthermore, Member States which require the Commission to discharge even greater responsibilities must accept the consequences in terms of extra staff. That is well said. If we need a reminder of the need for an excellent or a sufficiently high quality staff, it has been provided in recent days by the British Aerospace case.
The committee also recommend that sideways mobility of staff should be encouraged. From other sources I know that some people in the Commission have been in the same job for 15 years and are longing for a change, while others who have been in jobs for a long time have now got to the stage of dreading that they might be changed. The words the committee has to say on parachutage seem to me to be very wise but still moderate. We really cannot have a good career structure if too many of the top jobs are for people drafted in from Whitehall or the Quai d'Orsay.
The views of the committee are clear enough, but we have to work hard to get at some of the written evidence. The vital questionnaire sent out to the institutions appears on one page and the answers are given eight pages later. So one has to he turning back all the time to see what questions are being answered. Officials and temporary agents are classed as A, B, C and D, but their range of responsibilities is inadequately described. Some of the tables throughout the volume lack consistency. In one place Denmark is DK and in another place DA. Germany is De or D, Spain is E (for Espagne, no doubt) and Es. Greece is Gr or H, presumably for Hellade. I is for Ireland or Irl, though I in another place is for Italy. The rewards are most unhelpfully put into Belgian francs or sometimes into sterling, without any clue as to their current value. All this is acceptable in a report for insiders, as this was primarily intended to be. But it had a secondary objective. If we are looking to a wider public, say Members of this House or the other place, then some greater effort should be made.
I am aware that my strictures could apply to some other reports, they are not unique to this one. I was
1044
going to suggest that there should be, for example, a preliminary chapter, a foreword or preface, designed for the outsider, describing in simple terms what the report is all about. In this case it was necessary not only to describe the function of each of the institutions but also the work of the civil servants who staff them, their qualifications, their national origin, their rewards, their pensions, their permanence or impermanence, the system of recruitment and choice and their unions and staff associations. All of this could be done in about 600 or 700 words. The chapter headed "Background to the Inquiry" attempts that in great depth, but a bit too stiffly, too formally, for somebody coming new to the problems.
I was going to suggest that my noble friend should persuade the Select Committee on European Communities to discuss this subject. I wondered whether I was asking for too much but then quite suddenly there fell into my hands the report on farm prices which had all the virtues for which I had been going to ask, including statistics which even a fairly innumerate person like myself was able easily to comprehend, even the statistics about the green pound.
The one disturbing piece of evidence in the report comes from Mr. Richard Hay, director general of personnel and administration in the Commission. I wish to go a little more deeply into the selection procedure than our chairman has done. The Community institutions are required by law to recruit by competitions open to candidates from all member states. Knowledge of those is spread through advertisements and contacts with the universities,
"We then get together a large number of candidates, frequently, 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 candidates, and, if we are,lucky in a sense, 10,000 candidates for competitions."
Those who have minimum requirements take a written examination in their own member state. Those at the A-level, the top level, get three papers, a multiple choice paper, an academic paper on the subject of the competition—economics, law or agriculture —and a file containing a bundle of papers on which they write a letter to another department or a memorandum to the Commission. Then the multiple choice paper is examined and those candidates who do not pass it are eliminated. Their other two papers, painfully and conscientiously completed, are not read at all but are painlessly and ruthlessly thrown away. This is apparently because there is high degree of correlation between success in the multiple choice questions and the final result. Then the much smaller number of candidates who pass the next stages are admitted to an oral examination, and 7 per cent. of the total number who started out are successful. Then the departments are asked to bid for individuals. The list is left on the table until the time it is exhausted. Then it is on to the next six, seven or 10,000 European aspirants.
Only half the successful candidates get appointed because the others have taken other jobs or have a specialisation that the Commission does not want. The process between first applying and getting an offer of a job can he four or five years. It is no wonder that there are not as many British candidates as we might hope. That is hardly surprising if they have any

1045
inkling of what goes on. Candidates must he as amazed as Members of the committee were to discover that old examination papers are not even available to them. They do not have a clue about the kind of examination which they are being asked to pass. I have a feeling that even the Tang Dynasty in China which introduced competitive examinations for the Civil Service in about the 6th or 7th Century must have had a better system than this one.
However, the problem is being worked on. The committee recommends that:
"the institutions should take urgent steps—including if necessary increasing the number of officials dealing With recruitment—to reduce to nine months the period between the announcement of the competitions and the establishment of the reserve list".
The committee also recommends that there should be a joint recruitment service which would make it possible to hold annual competitions. The committee recommends that the Cabinet Office in Britain should have a special unit to furnish advice and guidance on careers in Europe, and that the universities should do more to prepare students for service in Europe in the private as well as in the public sector.
I recommend anyone who has not read the report to read the evidence of the first witness Sir David Hannay for its philosophic wisdom. I also recommend that the evidence of the last witness should be read; that of Madame Renee van Hoof-Haferkamp who is the Director-General of the Joint Interpretation and Conference Service. I recommend that evidence for its panache.
I wish that people who want to argue that the Commission is modest in its use of' manpower would stop comparing it favourably with Wandsworth or the Scottish Office. The Commission employs 4,368 people at Grade A, not counting the linguists. The official Scottish Office figure of their equivalents, the administrative officers, on 1st July—noble Lords should note how carefully they manage these things in Scotland—was 895½! It is essential for such comparisons to take quality and not just quantity into account.
The witnesses speculate on the reasons why the British have a greater propensity for earlier retirement than nationals of other member states. There is such a thing as the Brussels blues. Whoever called that city "a little Paris" cannot have been to the big Paris for a long time. The culture of Brussels is pretty thin. The restaurant culture is, of course, absolutely superb. But if one is to survive for very long one must certainly start counting the calories and cutting down on the cholesterol; otherwise, one will not survive.
However, there could be a deeper reason for the early retirement on the part of the British. If one is French, one can get a fast train from Brussels to one's home, or one can get on to the motorway and drive home, or one's extended family can drive out to Brussels. Of course the British have to cross the Channel. As people in the service become older they do not want to be separated from their young married children and they want to return home.
I have been a little scornful of the shortcomings of the selection system, but we must acknowledge that they spring from the desire to be fair to all aspirants in 12 countries where nine languages are spoken, and
1046
that does not include Welsh. Anybody who has run even a small international conference knows how much more time, staff and money it consumes by comparison with a national monoglot conference. Moreover, the Community has had to swallow six new member states in two batches. It has had to suffer years of stagnation as the member states have fought the domestic battles of inflation, unemployment and a natural wish to keep their budgetary contribution as low as possible. It is remarkable that the civil servants of the Community have kept their morale, as I believe they have, and are able to find a new élan to meet new challenges, such as that of 1992.
1.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for introducing this subject so clearly, for the other useful interventions that we have heard today and for the care with which the committee of the noble Baroness approached its task. I wish to say at the outset that the Government very much welcome this penetrating and timely report on an important matter. I am not sure that I am qualified to answer the points of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, on the style of the report itself. It certainly uses familar terms with rather unfamiliar applications. I am thinking of such terms as parachutage and pistonnage. But perhaps I can leave the technicalities of style to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, to deal with.
As the European Community evolves—and especially with the completion of the single market, which we believe will be of great benefit to this country—the Community institutions will face new demands. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, brought out that point very well. It is essential that these institutions should be able to recruit people well qualified for the posts in question, to deploy them to the best advantage and to ensure that they are well motivated.
As the report points out, the institutions are still very young. The creation of a cohesive and unified European civil service with people of different languages and from different educational backgrounds and administrative traditions is inevitably a gradual and complex process. The successive enlargements of the Community from the original Six to the current Twelve have made this process more difficult still. Spanish and Portuguese officials are new settling into posts in EC institutions.
This is a good time to take stock. As the report points out, the institutions are recognising the need for more active and sophisticated management and training techniques. The Government welcome this and the steps being taken towards more flexible deployment of staff and better career planning. Those improvements arc crucial in meeting our main objective in relation to the staffing of Community institutions and to promoting the most effective use of staff in order to ensure that each institution operates efficiently and economically. We also welcome the considerable efforts already being made by the Commission to improve recruitment procedures—in particular to reduce the time taken, which I know is a problem for United Kingdom

1047
candidates. As the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, made clear, this is an area where improvement really is needed.
The Government want to see a proportion of high quality British personnel in the staff of the institutions commensurate with the United Kingdom's weight in the Community. In particular, United Kingdom nationals should have an adequate share of key senior and middle range posts. We believe that a proper spread of nationals from each member state throughout the institutions is very much in the interests of the whole Community. That should ensure a good institutional understanding of traditions, circumstances and needs in each member state.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to under-representation of United Kingdom nationals in EC institutions. It is fair to say that the United Kingdom is satisfactorily represented at the most senior levels—that is Grades A1 and A2. But United Kingdom numbers are barely adequate at A3 and some lower grades.
There are several reasons for United Kingdom under-representation at those levels. The procedures for the United Kingdom's accession to the EC gave insufficient time for proper recruitment at every level at that crucial initial stage; natural wastage through retirement of the generation of staff who joined at accession; relatively high wastage before retirement age (which is a worrying phenomenon of which the Commission has been made aware); long and complicated recruitment procedures, to which the noble Lord referred (and as I have said the Commission is committed to improving them); and the need to be able to work in at least one Community language other than English.
I hope that with improved recruitment and publicity efforts in the United Kingdom, some of which have been prompted by the report, we can increase the numbers of good quality UK officials in key jobs and bring the overall UK staffing level up to that of the other major member states.
Your Lordships have mentioned the question of parachutage. I accept that this can make it more difficult to maintain a proper career structure and sustain staff morale. The Commission itself has rightly a very restricted policy on this, but it is important, in the Government's view, to keep the possibility of parachutage where necessary to ensure that really good candidates are available at the most senior level, thus helping us to maintain our share of key posts.
I turn now to the recommendations in the report on which this morning's debate has concentrated. We have considered very carefully the report's conclusions. I should like to reply now to the points directly addressed to the Government. I have to some extent referred to the matter of staffing levels and deployment. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, referred to this issue in particular and I should like to take up her comments.
The Government believe that efficiency is best served by tight staffing and have encouraged
1048
flexibility in staffing patterns. New demands will arise from stalling priorities but those should generally be met by rationalisation and reallocation of resources from areas of lower priority. The committee believes that scope for redeployment is limited, but I note an important admission in evidence given by the Commission—that it is not really very good at moving people around.
I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, in the context of the point she raised concerning relations with Eastern Europe, that relations between the EC and Eastern European countries are progressing well. An EC—CMEA declaration was signed at the end of June and a trade and co-operation agreement with Hungary has just been initialled. Negotiations with Czechoslovakia should soon be concluded. The Community is also considering how to respond to a request from the Soviet Union for a bilateral agreement.
The Government therefore urge the Commission to implement rigorously its management modernisation programme. We regard as useful the committee's suggestion that a staffing impact assessment be incorporated in new policy proposals put forward by the Commission. But it would be still more helpful if the assessment identified lower priority areas from which staff could be redeployed to meet new needs.
The Government would very much welcome a reduction in the number of commissioners to one for each member state, and we have proposed that. However, as I think the noble Baroness will be aware, other member states will not agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, raised the matter of career development. One way in which that can be achieved is through the exchange of officials between European Community institutions and the member states. The Government are in complete sympathy with the recommendations in the report along those lines. We shall continue to play our part in releasing and accepting officials for secondment as far as practicable and as far as resources permit. The EC's 1988 budget provides for a large number of new posts to be filled by experts from national administrations on a temporary basis. Work is already in hand to identify suitable UK candidates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, referred to the recommendation for a special unit within the Cabinet Office to act as a single source of advice on EC careers, a point which the Government have noted. The Cabinet Office already provides help on the lines proposed by the committee; for example, alerting the universities and polytechnics, the professions and public sector organisations to the opportunities available, and, as was welcomed by the committee, briefing candidates who have entered particular competitions. We are considering what more we can do to provide the best possible information and guidance to potential candidates within the resources available.
General publicity and advice are of course provided by the EC press and information offices in the UK. The Government welcome the committee's separate recommendation that they should be more active in this respect.

1049
The recommendation on promotion in absentia for civil servants working in EC institutions— another point raised by the noble Baroness—is also an important one. The House will be aware that the Government are keen to increase the number of exchanges with the world outside Whitehall. It is important that those spending such periods outside the Civil Service incur no penalty for so doing. A review of in absentia promotions is to be carried out. The results will be made available to the committee in due course.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the committee recommended that more grants be made available for students to study in other EC member states. There are extensive opportunities for undergraduates to spend part of their course in another member state. The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1987 provide for assistance with the additional costs of such study where this forms a necessary part of the student's UK-based course. Depending on the country of study and the student's financial circumstances, a higher grant may be payable and travel costs may also be met. In appropriate cases, postgraduate awards may also be used to support a period of study abroad.
Under the recently established European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (known by the acronym ERASMUS), grants are available from Community funds to meet mobility costs arising from student exchanges lasting up to a year and involving institutions in different member states. It is estimated that in 1988–89 over 3,000 UK students will be eligible for support. I hope that that gives some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
The Government fully endorse the committee's view that UK students need to be better equipped to take advantage of the opportunities to work in and with public and private sector organisations in other member states. The content of higher education courses is a matter for the institutions concerned. But we are pleased to note that UK higher education institutions have shown considerable commitment to that goal.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made an interesting suggestion about joint degrees and I am sure that the higher education institutions will take note of that point.
The Office of the UK Permanent Representative in Brussels is involved in every step of the recruitment process for stagiaires (details were submitted as part of the written evidence to the committee). The main area of difficulty for stagiaires seems to be the "lobbying" process that they are required to undertake in Brussels to secure selection. Following the committee's recommendation, United Kingdom representatives are now working to increase further their involvement in this part of the process by expanding their contacts in the directorates-general where the stage posts lie.
I am happy to confirm that—as many of your Lordships will have noted—many of the committee's recommendations are entirely consistent with our own thinking. We shall do all we can to promote action on those lines. Several recommendations relate to action that can only be taken by the
1050
institutions themselves. The Office of the UK Permanent Representative in Brussels has discussed the committee's report with the Commission. I am glad to say that the Commission regard the report as positive, noting that it usefully highlights areas where the Commission itself is seeking to improve existing arrangements. The Commission has asked to be kept informed about this debate. I shall arrange for that to be done and for other institutions also to be made aware of it.
1.20 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, after the lengthy sittings that we have all endured in recent weeks, I am sure that the House would not wish me to reply in great detail to the debate. However, I must thank my two colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Murray, for their support and for their very interesting comments on the report today. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I must confess that on a Friday morning at the end of a very heavy week I hardly expected this topic to raise the political passions that would have been engendered by, for example, a debate on the common unit of currency, the European financial area or even the subject of a central bank for the Community.
However, I accept some of his strictures. I was particularly interested in the point that he made about the presentation of the report. That is a matter to which the Select Committee might well give thought. The committee's prime function is to report to the House, though we hope that it has an impact on public thinking as well. Possibly the Foreign Office would like to rewrite our report. and I was not very clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was offering to produce a more attractive version that would be more saleable, which I am sure would greatly appeal to Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Finally, I must thank the Minister for his very careful and detailed comments which reflect the time and trouble that he has taken to study the evidence that we received during our inquiry and the conclusions to which we came. I was a little disappointed that Her Majesty's Government are still standing on the thought that all will be well if only the existing staff of the Commission were more flexibly deployed. We deal with that subject in our report.
I think also that we all recognise that governments of all kinds and colours are not anxious to extend the staffing of institutions, let alone Community institutions. Having said that, I hope that the Government, while recognising the need to be reasonable and economic in staff, also appreciate the point on which we all felt very strongly; namely, that it is absolutely no good to continue to demand increasing activity in the Community institutions and not give them the staffing resources.
So we are grateful that our suggestion about the fiches financiéres has been accepted. One recognises that such an addendum to the material before the Council quite rightly should include the possibilities of stair redeployment. Nevertheless, we believe that overall an increase in staff will be needed if increased activity is expected.

1051
I conclude by saying that I believe all noble Lords will agree that any organisation is only as good as the staff whom it employs. If our report has helped the House, and indeed Her Majesty's Government, to consider the staffing needs of the institutions of the Community, particularly in relation to the development of future policy, I think that we would all feel that we had done a useful job.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past one o'clock.