Lords Sitting of 12 March 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Rabies: Controls
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will veto any proposal by the European Community which would oblige the United Kingdom to dismantle or weaken its long-standing defences against the disease of rabies.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the future of controls on the movement of animals susceptible to rabies is currently under discussion within the Community. It would be premature to discuss negotiating tactics when no formal proposal has been made, but the Government will not support any measure which increases the risk that rabies might be introduced into this country.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. At first I thought that there was a certain amount of equivocation, but I am heartened by the last part of his reply. Does he agree that, despite the occasional inconvenience caused to a minority of pet owners, the present arrangements for the control of rabies have served the country well over the years and have spared the people of this country a certain amount of suffering? Does he also agree that it is for the British people, and the British people alone, to decide, through their representatives at Westminster, whether they are prepared to incur greater risks to their health and safety for the sake of some idealistic concept of easier movement across EC frontiers?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, our objective is to keep out rabies, not because of a fear of people being bitten, which is bad enough in itself, but because of the difficulty and enormous cost of dealing with rabies if it ever became established in our wildlife. If that were to happen, anyone exposed to a rabies susceptible animal would have to be treated at great expense and great inconvenience. We must recognise that we are a member of the Community. Much discussion is taking place, and we are of course prepared to look at any system of controlling rabies, but our policy is to keep out rabies.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we strongly support the Government's position on this issue? Apart from the risk element, the administrative aspect of the matter is one that gives great cause for concern. In the event of vaccine replacing quarantine, are supplies of the vaccine available freely in this country, or must they be obtained from other member states?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on present information, it is unlikely that we shall be relying exclusively on vaccine, but if vaccine were to become the norm it would be freely available.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say something about the steps being taken to prevent the introduction of rabies-infected animals through the Channel Tunnel when it opens?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Eurotunnel has implemented measures, agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to prevent the entry of rabies-susceptible animals while the tunnel is being built. Those measures include fencing, staged security zones, visual observation of openings in fencing and a system to ensure that any animal which is seen in the tunnel is reported. Ministry staff visit the construction site regularly to ensure that standards are maintained. There are full provisions in respect of rabies once the Channel Tunnel has been built and is in operation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us were encouraged to hear him say that the Government will not support any measures which would increase the risk of rabies in this country, but will that decision be taken by majority vote or do the British Government hold a veto on this matter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not prepared to talk about using a veto. It would not be wise to talk in those terms at present. Such action would tend to lead to a member state's views being ignored in negotiation. We shall be arguing for the continued protection of our rabies-free status.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House about the strict measures that are being taken against rabies in other member states of the Community? How many people within the European Community have been bitten by an animal with rabies over the past 15 years?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, most European countries follow the WHO recommendations. There are many statistics, but it is generally assumed that in Europe the risk of a person getting rabies is negligible.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Government's robust attitude to rabies extend also to the various diseases suffered by domestic animals, such as cattle, on the Continent, which, if introduced here, could greatly damage our system?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot today answer questions about diseases other than rabies.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at the moment vaccination methods against a dog contracting rabies are not completely reliable? Does he also agree that as, uniquely in Europe, we have urban foxes in this country, a vaccination programme for wildlife would be ineffective, especially in view of the mass release of urban foxes into the

1431
countryside over the past few months, which, I am informed, is promoted and encouraged by animal welfare groups, including the RSPCA?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that the problem of urban foxes is not unique to this country. However, my noble friend is right to say that the densities are greater. We do not believe that we can rely entirely upon vaccination. It is just one measure. I have heard the allegations that urban foxes have been caught and released. We believe that that is deplorable and irresponsible, and probably rather cruel to the fox. Having said that, I can understand that people in a town would possibly want to remove a fox from their back yard. In general of course such foxes are well adapted to their own environment and are unlikely to fair well if they are removed to the countryside.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his answer to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon? Will he say—I do not desire to give any offence to those with whom he is in negotiation—whether this matter, when it arises, will be subject to the veto process? When the decision is made—I am not prejudging the outcome one way or the other—will it be subject to the veto or will it be taken under the majority rule? Will the Minister bear in mind that the standard of enforcement of Community law in some countries tends occasionally to be patchy and that there is always the possibility of forged vaccination certificates?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have already explained that I am not prepared to talk about the use of a veto at this stage for the reasons I gave. I understand that compliance throughout the Community is variable.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, which animals in countries which suffer from rabies are the most likely to contract the disease and pass it on?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, all warm-blooded mammals can catch rabies and pass it on, but the ones most likely to do so are those in the habit of biting. They are more likely to be prone to what is called "furious" rabies as opposed to "dumb" rabies. Therefore, the risk of horses, cattle or sheep passing on rabies is remote.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the question of whether or not the vote will be unanimous is important? None of the other countries is an island as we are, and as a consequence their outlook is bound to be different. Therefore, unanimity is important if we are to preserve the protection that the moat has given us until now.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, of course I recognise the importance of the matter. The Republic of Ireland is part of an island and it supports our view. I shall not speak about how we are to negotiate on the matter. We shall keep an open mind on new science
1432
from which we may benefit in Europe. Meanwhile, we shall be interested to hear the ideas that the European Community brings forward.

Hard Boiled Eggs: NHS Rules
3.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now able to relax the rule about the hard boiling of eggs in National Health Service hospitals so that patients wishing to do so can obtain an egg with a soft yolk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): No, my Lords, the Government's advice remains that vulnerable people such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women should consume only eggs which have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid. We expect all caterers, especially National Health Service caterers, to follow that advice.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that a patient recuperating in hospital would rather like to have a lightly boiled egg for breakfast, not one that is totally incinerated? One can have that kind of egg in this establishment, in Parliament. After all, these instructions were first introduced in July 1988. If it is still considered that there is a risk from salmonella, should not patients be advised to take their own supply of eggs into hospital with them? That would therefore relieve the NHS of any responsibilities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although the risk is probably small, I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish us to instruct managements to relax their vigilance or any precautions taken which are, or may be, necessary in catering for vulnerable people in their care. It is up to individuals to heed or to ignore government advice.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it also the case that one has to have a hard fried egg as well as a hard boiled egg? If so, what is the difference in the infection rates between soft boiled eggs and soft fried eggs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's advice remains that any eggs which have not come from processed egg products and which are consumed should be cooked until they are solid.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it true that boiled eggs are available for Members in another place to buy at breakfast time? Can the Minister tell us whether there is any possibility of extending that facility to Members of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, Members of your Lordships' House are able to use the facilities in the other place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether a hospital would be liable if a patient contracted salmonella at a time when he or

1433
she was more vulnerable? Is the Minister aware that it is much harder to turn out a soft boiled egg than a hard boiled egg?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the risk of a patient receiving a soft boiled egg from a hospital kitchen, at his or her bedside, is probably remote. Of course, hospitals are much affected by the removal of Crown immunity, which was lifted in 1986. So they are subject to inspection and, if appropriate, prosecution in the same way as any other catering establishment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that despite the slaughter of 2¾ million laying hens since 1988, at a cost to the taxpayer of £4½ million, the number of cases of salmonella enteritidis food poisoning in the first eight weeks of 1992 was three times the level of similar cases in 1988? Does that not indicate that eggs may not be the prime cause of salmonella food poisoning?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government introduced a full package of measures in 1988 to control the incidence of food poisoning which is known to have resulted from infection of eggs. The Government are keeping the various measures which are designed to safeguard public health under constant review. I confirm that the number of outbreaks in regard to eggs that have been reported to the Public Health Service Monitoring Laboratories at Colindale is 52 for 1991.
Lord Annan: My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness correctly when she said that the Government give advice to all caterers not to serve anything other than hard boiled eggs? If so, is it not an intolerable intrusion on the rights of decent chefs? Moreover, a warm hard boiled egg is one of the most nauseating foods to eat.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The Government issued their advice to apply to all caterers, both commercial and domestic.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question will run and run?

Uncorroborated Confessions
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in advance of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, they will act to prevent accused persons being convicted solely on uncorroborated confession evidence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the considerable concern in the country at the number of wrongful convictions in recent years? Is there not a remedy which does not require legislation? Should not the Director of Public Prosecutions stop prosecuting in cases where there is a confession but a lack of corroborative evidence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern about miscarriages of justice. That is why we have established a Royal Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference to see what changes should be made. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that miscarriages of justice are not confined to wrongful convictions. It is also a miscarriage of justice if a guilty person walks free. The task of the Royal Commission is to consider proposals, such as the one which the noble Lord suggests, in their proper context and in the light of the need to convict the guilty as well as to acquit the innocent of crime.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to my noble kinsman that we all deplore miscarriages of justice? Cases where conviction has depended in part on confession and cases where it has not have always been such that there was bags of corroboration. Is that not worth pointing out to my noble friend?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I shall now point it out to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if he has not already heard it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister agree that wrongful convictions represent a great tragedy? The innocent suffer wrongful imprisonment; the guilty escape. The police and legal services are discredited. In view of that, can the Minister give a reason why interim measures cannot be taken prior to the publication of the Royal Commission's report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is simply because this is a serious matter. Uncorroborated evidence has been available in the past. If we wish to change that, we need to make certain that we change it in such a way that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are not convicted. We need to ensure that the innocent are not put in gaol and guilty people allowed to walk free. It is a difficult matter. That is why we have asked the Royal Commission specifically to examine it. To take action in advance of the report would be quite wrong.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been numerous cases where defendants committed serious criminal offences, made a confession which was totally uncorroborated, pleaded guilty at their trial and never for one moment suggested that they were not guilty of the offence with which they were charged? Would not this rather over-simple proposal mean that such people could not be charged at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is absolutely right. An even simpler example one could use is that of a case of murder where the principal prosecution witness is dead. If one is unable to convict on the uncorroborated confession of a person who has committed the murder, the person who has committed the murder would go free.

Northern Ireland: Interviewing of Suspects
3.21 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government the second Question standing in his name on the Order Paper:
Whether they are satisfied that the procedures for interviewing and interrogating arrested suspects in Northern Ireland comply fully with their obligations under international conventions.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): Yes, my Lords. Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others in 1988, the United Kingdom derogated from Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as Article 15 of the convention permits it to do; and also from the comparable provision, Article 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The derogation, however, relates to the system of reviewing prolonged detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and not to arrangements for the interview of suspects per se.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does it not largely refer to matters dealing with detention for up to seven days? What response will the Government make to the representations already made by such bodies as Amnesty International, Helsinki Watch, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland and the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, most of my Answer relates to detention of up to seven days. I believe that the safeguards we have as regards those procedures are effective and comprehensive.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, as regards the interrogation of suspects, does the Minister agree that the recommendations of his noble friend Lord Colville that interviews with suspects should be videotaped—as the Minister knows, that recommendation was supported recently by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—should be reconsidered by the Government and taken seriously?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we take those recommendations seriously. However, I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, although I am aware of his views on this matter. The position remains that set out in the report of the Bennett Commission of inquiry into interrogation procedures in Northern Ireland which recommended that closed circuit television should be installed in the holding centres under the supervision of a uniformed inspector or chief inspector, but that video recording should not be introduced.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as regards the powers of arrest and detention, is not the Minister aware that a period of 48 hours is often too short? The RUC needs time for forensic tests to be carried out; hence the extension of detention. The Secretary of
1436
State must personally scrutinise every recommendation of the RUC before it is accepted. Is the Minister further aware that prisoners have often been trained to remain silent? If silence meant guilt, they might start to talk. We must consider that factor.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with both the points made by the noble Lord.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the oppression of suspects may well lead, and has been known to lead, to unreliable confessions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I understand the question which the noble Lord asked. Earlier on in this exchange I was at pains to say that I believe the safeguards as regards holding those suspected of terrorist offences to be extensive and effective. However, I should add that under Section 61 of the Act that concerns emergency provisions the Government are now to introduce a new statutory code of practice on detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in police custody. That will add a further safeguard. We have repeated several times our intention to appoint a new commissioner for the holding centres to monitor procedure there. I believe that will constitute an important additional safeguard in this complex and sensitive area of the enforcement of the law.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister's first reply was reassuring as far as it went. Can he go a little further, however, and assure the House that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the procedures at the holding centres fully comply with the provisions of the convention against torture and cruel treatment? The Minister has referred to an undertaking given last year that a commissioner would be appointed to monitor the procedures at the holding centres. The Minister has just referred to that appointment. When will that appointment be made? Will the Minister tell the House the terms of that appointment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that the appointment of the commissioner will be made as soon as possible. To repeat what I have already said: the commissioner will monitor procedures, both administrative and legislative, which apply to the holding centres. The noble Lord asked me whether the safeguards that are in place as regards the holding centres comply with the requirements of our international obligations. I can confirm that that is the case. The range of safeguards already in place is more than sufficient to permit the United Kingdom to fulfil its international obligations, not least those which the noble Lord specifically mentioned.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, given that in Northern Ireland scheduled offences are tried without a jury, can my noble friend tell me whether a judge trying such an offence nonetheless has to direct himself in accordance with the rule of English law; namely, that he must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that oppression, or the converse, enticement to confess, has not been used in any case where the confession is admissible?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not a lawyer. If I stand corrected, I shall immediately write to my noble and learned friend and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House. However I am 99.9 per cent. certain that the answer to my noble and learned friend is yes.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, after the Third Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill I intend to make a statement about business for Monday. I expect this to be at about 4.30 p.m. but I shall ensure that as much notice as possible is given on the annunciator.

Business of the House
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the remainder of this Session.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Business
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the normal carry over Motion for private Bills before a dissolution.
Moved,
(1) That the promoters of every private Bill which is at present before this House have leave to introduce the Bill in the next Session of Parliament provided that notice of their intention to do so has been lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than 5 p.m. on Monday 16th March next;
(2) That a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages which they have reached, be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
(3) That every such Bill be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than twelve noon on the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
(4) That the proceedings on any such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session;
(5) That no petitioners be heard in the next Session before the committee on any Bill introduced in the present Session unless their petition was presented within the time limited in the present Session;
(6) That any instruction to a committee on a Bill in the present Session be an instruction to the committee on that Bill in the next Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
1438
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
3.28 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Still-Birth (Definition) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Traffic Calming Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Cheques Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 9 [Inspection of certain schools]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 5, at beginning insert ("the effectiveness of the overall management of such schools, including").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to widen the scope of school inspection to include the overall management of schools. The Bill sets out—in Clause 2(1) for the HMCI for England, Clause 6(1) for the HMCI for Wales and Clause 9(4) for registered inspectors—the general duties placed on inspectors in reporting on inspections. Paragraph (c) of each subsection provides a duty to inspect the efficient management of financial resources in schools. However, if inspectors look only at that one aspect of schools management a distorted picture of the quality of management in a school could appear.
For instance, it may be the case that a school is judged to be financially efficient because it keeps within its delegated budget. If that efficiency is achieved through tight centralised control of the budget rather than through giving staff members budgetary responsibility for their curriculum areas it might be judged not to be effective management. Such financially efficient management could lead to a large turnover of staff, with staff leaving because they have not been given sufficient delegated responsibility and have not been able to obtain the kind of management experience they need in such a Stalinist and centralised school.
The amendment asks inspectors to examine the effectiveness of the overall management of schools and

1439
at the same time give a special place to inspecting schools' financial efficiency. We entirely accept that that is also needed and should be singled out.
At Report stage Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and Amendment No. 23 in the name of my noble friend Lady David, sought to widen the scope of school inspections to include aspects of the general running of schools. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred specifically to behaviour but his speech was also concerned with aspects of management excluded from inspections under the Bill. He rightly drew attention to the fact that while financial management is singled out, other aspects of management are ignored. He made particular reference to the management of human resources as well as the management of pupil discipline and arrangements for the pastoral needs of pupils. My noble friend Lady David went on to ask for inspections of the whole life of schools, beyond discipline and standards of behaviour to include such matters as the physical environment, staff/parent relationships and so on.
This amendment seeks to find common ground between the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the amendment of my noble friend Lady David. It widens the scope of the Bill to include inspection of staff management and development and the effectiveness of schools' organisation. It thereby prevents what we see as an over-concentration on financial efficiency by introducing the broader concept of inspection of the overall management effectiveness of schools.
It would be helpful in achieving consistent inspections across the country if that were on the face of the Bill so that all inspectors have a clear duty to inspect the overall management of a school. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we discussed these issues at some length at the previous stage on the basis of an amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, helpfully indicated, stood in my name. The noble Baroness accurately summarised most of what I said but she did not summarise what the Minister said in reply. As what the Minister said seemed to be an entirely satisfactory response to my amendment I hope that the Minister will now repeat it and that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Part of the Minister's assurance which led me to withdraw the amendment was my noble friend's undertaking that the Government would press upon the inspectorate the importance of exactly the aspects of management to which the noble Baroness referred. If the noble Baroness is in a position to do so it would be helpful if, in withdrawing her amendment, she would tell the House that her party is also committed to a similar treatment of the matter.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to something that has already been debated in your Lordships' House, but I was unable to be present during the Report stage of the Bill.
1440
It seems to me that in this connection the subject of catering could be mentioned. I do not know whether that subject has been debated, but I should like to ask the Minister whether it should not be part of the inspectors' duty to look at catering in a school. The amendment might cover that point.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it has always seemed to me that one of the most important aspects of inspection is that it is very different in kind from a management consultancy. It does not look at the theoretical organisation of management but concentrates on the effectiveness of the delivery of what the management does in a school at the point where the education is delivered to the pupils or students. I should be very sorry indeed to see the words set out in the amendment put into the requirements for inspection.
It is my firm belief that if what is already set out in Clause 2(1)—which states that it should be the duty of the inspector to report on the quality of the education provided, the educational standards achieved, the efficient management of financial resources and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils—is reported on, then the effectiveness of management has been reported on in the only way which is right and proper in the context of inspection. If a school or governing body wishes to have a report on management and the way in which the school is organised and structured and the way the management goes about its business, it should call in management consultants.
I know that my view is shared by all members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It is the custom and practice of the inspectorate to comment on management only in so far as it can be measured at the point of delivery to the pupil. I hope that that will be maintained and carried forward under the new inspection arrangements. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the assiduity with which she has pursued her aim of including the word "effectiveness" on the face of the Bill. This time she followed up the debate which I had with my noble friend Lord Elton at the last stage of the Bill in which, as he has just said, I argued that there is no need for the management policies or any other policies of a school to be singled out for particular mention since they will all form part of the inspection report on the school, and in particular the quality of education offered.
That was an interesting debate because it approached the matter from the right end. The primary concern of the inspection process is to investigate and report on what is seen, but we must make sure that its contributory causes—such as the effectiveness of management—are not ignored. I hope that I convinced your Lordships that such causes would not, and could not, be overlooked in inspection reports.
HMI focuses its inspection reports on what the inspectors see in the school. Inspectors look at the

1441
education—in its widest sense—being offered to pupils, and its observable effects. They then look for contributory causes, which are by no means all a reflection of the effectiveness or otherwise of the school management, and report on those. That is the process we have sought to reflect in very summary terms in the Bill as drafted.
If the noble Baroness would have us believe that this process is equally consistent with her amendment, I argue simply that we might as well keep the Bill as drafted, which is a closer reflection of the process we expect to take place. Our drafting makes plain that hard evidence will underpin all the inspectors' judgment about all aspects of the school and that concepts such as management efficiency, about which experts will argue for hours, will be built up from a basis of fact which is exposed for all to see.
The effect of overall management is evidently covered in all aspects of the inspection process. The need to maintain financial management is because, as we said earlier, it is not self-evidently part of the education and inspection process.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, believes that she is genuinely shifting the Bill away from that factual basis—that inspectors will be able to offer judgments of effectiveness against their own criteria rather than reporting factually on what they observe —she is offering us a dangerous shift in the Bill. I hope that on reflection she will not wish to press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I thought her comment at the beginning a little snide. I am not concerned about whether or not the word "effectiveness" is in the Bill. I am concerned to ensure that all aspects of the quality of a school's work should be adequately inspected. It is perfectly possible that the amendment could have been worded slightly differently. It could have said:
"the quality of the overall management of such schools.
I find a little puzzling the fact that we should pick out efficient management of financial resources rather than take a more overall and broadbrush approach to the way in which a school is managed. However, at this stage of the Bill I have no intention of dividing the House on the matter. I regret that the Government are unable to accept the amendment. I believe that it would have ensured that all inspectors considered the question of how well a school is organised and managed, which is an important part of a head teacher's role and the senior management team working under the head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall within two years of the date of Royal Assent publish proposals to—

(i) consolidate; or

(ii) consolidate with corrections and improvements in accordance with the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949,

those powers to which subsection (10) above relates".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention a misprint on the Marshalled List. In the last line, the figure (1) should be (10). It is an obvious misprint but I only discovered it when I arrived at your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The amendment arises from the answer given by the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 55 which was discussed on Tuesday at Report stage. I remember saying to her how helpful and interesting I found her answer. However, the consequence has been that both the main local authority associations have been in touch with me. They would like to know more about what the noble Baroness had in mind.
Noble Lords will recall that we discussed the question of whether there was a conflict between these information requirements and the more general information requirements in other legislation. In a very interesting way, the noble Baroness said that one would proceed to consolidation generally, which means also specifically with respect to information requirements.
For a few minutes this afternoon and purely as a probing measure, I want to find out whether the noble Baroness can tell us more about this matter and whether the department has considered the information with a view to consolidating the subject. It is a matter which very much concerns local authorities. They are also rather intrigued with the issue that I raised; namely, whether the department itself has any reason to believe that possible conflict exists or whether subsection (10) is there purely as a failsafe measure. That is the reason I raise this point. I do not want to delay noble Lords too much but I —and more importantly the local authorities—would like to know whether there is any more light that the department can throw on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, when we saw the amendment, we assumed that it was the academic curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which had led to it being tabled. I understand the concerns that he expressed on behalf of the local authorities. I hope that I can put his mind and theirs at rest.
I hope that I do not need to take up too much of noble Lords' time explaining the inadequacy of the amendment as a possible addition to legislation. Proposals for a consolidation Bill are a matter for the Lord Chancellor and are not a matter for any individual Secretary of State. It is not possible to consolidate a power or even a subsection. The object of consolidation Acts is to present the whole body of statute law on a subject in complete form. It would be entirely inappropriate to introduce such a Bill on a small topic within a large subject such as education. And it would be quite improper to try to fix the legislative timetable for a consolidation measure in the way suggested, rather than through the usual procedures which govern such decisions.
Given that the noble Lord wants to find out more about the plans for the consolidation of education legislation and to cover the areas of information to which we referred, perhaps not as clearly as he would have liked, at a previous stage, there is simply nothing

1443
more to tell. The case for consolidation has been accepted for some time and work is in hand to that end. But no decision has yet been taken about the timing of a consolidation measure. I can promise the noble Lord that such a decision will not be taken within the next four weeks. I must ask him to contain his impatience and perhaps take the message that there will be an announcement in due course, after we have been re-elected, when a consolidation Bill is ready and time is available. In the light of my explanation I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the addition she makes to my education in telling me how consolidation proceeds. I am glad to know about it. I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I understand her answer to be that at the moment the department does not see a major problem, which is partly what I wanted to know.
With the prospect of a change of government, we too would both reform and consolidate the education Bills. There is nothing between us on the subject of consolidation. I entirely accept that nothing can be done in the next four weeks on anything that happens in the real world. Having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in sub-paragraph (5) above shall be taken to apply to an employee of a local education authority whose connection with the school or any person specified in that sub-paragraph has arisen in the course of the exercise by the authority of its statutory functions".).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a rather similar amendment and withdrew it at Report stage. This amendment approaches the matter from a slightly different angle. It seeks to prevent LEAs being excluded from carrying out inspections under the Bill as a result of carrying out their statutory functions. Paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 2 excludes from the team of inspectors people whose impartiality is in doubt by virtue of their connection with the school, with an employee of the school, a member of the governing body or the proprietor. It does not define precisely what "any connection" means and therefore leaves in doubt whether or not an LEA inspector who has been involved in advising or inspecting schools within the LEA would be treated as having had a connection and would prevent the person being involved in an inspection team.
The amendment argues that any LEA exercising its statutory functions should be presumed to have acted in a way that would not put in doubt the subsequent impartiality of its officers. The concern is to prevent partiality being argued against LEAs which seek to bid for privatised inspections. The problem arises because the registered inspector would have to consider partiality in respect of each member of the team. For example, an LEA in the past may have criticised a school. Let us suppose that its chief
1444
inspector now forms an inspection team which includes some of his or her colleagues to bid on behalf of the LEA for inspection at the school. The registered inspector, the LEA chief inspector, is under a duty to keep partial people out of the team. The subparagraph refers to "no person" taking part in an inspection, and so on. It is therefore unclear whether that includes the registered inspector himself. The chief inspector should be immune from having to consider whether the LEA's past view expressed through its officers prevents the participation of those officers. We wish some clarification on that point.
Some local authorities—it applies to the authority in which both the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I live—are setting up their inspectors under an agency arrangement so that they will be free to tender for inspections. We wish to know who will and who will not be excluded from that team. I should like some more general information too. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is laudable that the noble Baroness seeks information on some points which may not be entirely clear. However, I wish to speak simply to the amendment.
I believe that it is a dangerous amendment. It is paradoxical that the Opposition should propose such an amendment when at an earlier stage it was anxious to ensure the independence of the inspection team from the governing body of schools and from the schools themselves. Indeed, many of us at a much earlier stage of the Bill were anxious that if the governors alone were to appoint the registered inspectors there could be a cosiness between the inspection team or some member of it and the governors; and a relationship might arise. At that stage I used the term "back-scratching".
I realise that this may not be the intention underlying the noble Baroness's amendment; I do not wish her to take what I say amiss. It would be a matter for disquiet if the Opposition sought to weaken the provisions guaranteeing the independence of inspection teams from the schools and governors of the schools. It would be a pity if the Opposition sought to diminish the distance between the inspection teams and the schools which they seek to inspect.
Let it be stressed that under the new Clause 15 local education authorities have powers of inspection outside the normal perennial cycle under Clause 9. In general there is nothing against an employee of an LEA being part of an inspection team under Clause 9 and Schedule 2 unless he has had a connection,
"of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially".
I see no reason to modify that phrase in any way. It is very clear. Therefore why do we have the amendment?
One can conceive of cases—they may not be those which the noble Baroness intends to address—where an LEA employee has had a close connection with a school in the exercise of his statutory duties. He may have been an adviser of the school over a long period or served as part of the inspection team under Clause 15. It would be altogether inappropriate if he were also to be part of the inspection team under the quadrennial arrangements that we now discuss.

1445
The effect of the amendment would nullify the impartiality provision with regard to LEA employees. For that reason I believe that it is a dangerous amendment. However, I do not believe that the noble Baroness intended that effect.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, we discussed the issue at Report stage. I had hoped that I had managed to reassure her and to put on record the thinking underlying the Bill's provisions on impartiality of inspectors, and our views on how that might work in practice. I hope that I can now reassure the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Renfrew stressed that the determination is to ensure impartiality for the protection of the inspection. Therefore the amendment is unacceptable and probably flies in the face of all that has been said on this topic by both major parties.
One—though by no means the only—purpose of the impartiality provision in Schedule 2 is to rule out inspection by those who are closely identified with the work of the school through their previous advisory work. The need to split inspection and advice—not to put advisers in the very difficult position of having in effect to report on their own work—is a key element of our policy. It has also been thought, at least until now, to be the policy of the party opposite and is a central part of its most recent policy document.
As I hoped that I had reassured noble Lords on Tuesday, an individual will not be barred from inspection simply because he or she is or has been employed as an inspector, adviser or advisory teacher by the LEA which maintains the school, or indeed simply because he or she has been employed in the school itself. The schedule is deliberately drafted so as to allow a decision to be made having regard to the circumstances of each case. The registered inspector is placed under a specific duty to ensure that no member of his or her team has a connection with the school such as to call into question his or her ability to report impartially upon it. The registered inspector will have to be in a position to defend the impartiality of the team he has chosen when he submits a tender to the chief inspector; and I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the chief inspector will be able to decide on a common sense basis whether the Bill's requirements in this respect have in fact been met.
If an individual has given advice to a large number of schools throughout the authority, that might indeed suggest that they would be capable of acting impartially in relation to one of them. But if an adviser has formed a close relationship with one or more schools in the course of his or her duties, that might be less acceptable.
The test in the Bill is a straightforward one, and I cannot imagine a serious attempt to argue against the commonsense principle that inspectors should be impartial about the schools on which they report. We cannot accept an argument that the test of impartiality should not apply to anyone who just happens to be employed by an LEA, whether as teacher or adviser.
I am sure that professionals will try to be as impartial as possible, whoever employs them. But
1446
there is nothing about employment by an LEA which guarantees detached judgment and fairness in all cases.
Some LEAs already manage a clear separation of the functions of advice and inspection by employing staff as advisers to schools in one part of the LEA, and as inspectors of schools in the remaining part. Such an arrangement would be perfectly acceptable under the terms of the Bill, and I am sure that many more authorities will adopt it.
The need for inspection to be impartial, for reports to be fair and without bias, is a matter of common sense. It would simply not be right to allow those with a past close connection with a school to report upon it. There is no room for special pleading on that score.
I hope very much that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for further elucidation before I reply. At the end of my speech I stated that the registered LEA chief inspector is under a duty to keep partial people out of the team. The wording in the Bill refers to "no person" taking part in an inspection, and so on. It is therefore unclear whether that includes the registered inspector himself. Will the noble Baroness clarify that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the registered inspector would be bound by his conditions of employment which would cover impartiality.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It has clarified the situation. The LEAs will better understand the position. I therefore have no regrets about putting down this variant on the amendment that I put down at Report stage. I thank the noble Baroness for that reply.
Now that the HMCI is in charge of the whole inspection duty, we may have more faith in the chief inspector's impartiality than the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has. Such provision makes all the difference. However, in the light of what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Schools Inspections]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 49, at end insert:
("(1A) An appropriate authority which has prepared an action plan in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above shall so far as practicable undertake the action proposed in the report within the period or periods therein specified".).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment on Report. It proposed that local education authorities should intervene to ensure that action plans were implemented. The Government were unhappy with the amendment because they considered that it would give too much power to local education authorities. I wish to make it clear that the purpose behind that previous amendment was not to increase the powers of local education authorities but simply to ensure that there should be some mechanism for making a school implement its action plan.
We have now tabled an alternative amendment which I hope will be more acceptable to the Government. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 specifies that the appropriate authority is under a duty to:
"prepare a written statement ('the action plan') of the action which they propose to take in the light of his [the inspector's] report and the period within which they propose to take it".
However, it is not stated in any part of the Bill that the appropriate authority has a duty to carry out the action plan that it has prepared. Therefore, it would be possible for a governing body, where that is the appropriate authority, to decide on a range of action and a timetable for carrying that out but to fail to do so. That would be rare, but it could happen. It could occur for a number of different reasons. For example, the action plan might be decided by the governing body at the end of its term of office. The new governing body, perhaps with a new chairman, might not agree with the action plan and decide to ditch it.
Alternatively, the governing body may feel that implementing the action plan will in the end be too expensive and will run the school into budgetary difficulties. For that reason it may chose to ignore it. Another possibility is that the governing body may have several inquorate meetings—I am afraid to say that that is a common occurrence in some parts of the country—and therefore may never be able to act on the action plan.
Since the legislation does not at present require the governing body to carry out the plan, nor does it lay down that any other body such as the LEAs or HMCIs must do so, no action might be taken to deal with the failure of the governing body to act on the plan. That appears to us to be a serious omission from the Bill. There is little point in having a requirement in legislation for an action plan to be drawn up if there is no requirement for it to be carried out. The amendment would ensure that the omission from the Bill was rectified by giving the appropriate authority a duty to carry out its action plan.
I assure the Minister that in moving the amendment, as with the different amendment that I moved on Report, our only concern is to ensure that there is adequate follow-up to an inspection and that improvements in the performance of the school take place. The amendment is about obtaining higher standards in our schools and I hope that the Government will be willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, at first sight this may seem an innocuous amendment. It is certainly a well meaning amendment. However there is a real risk that in the end it will prove counter-productive. It should be noted that subparagraph (6) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 also places on the governing body a responsibility to publish later in its governors' report what action has been taken under its action plan. I do not believe that the noble Baroness mentioned that provision. Therefore, even if there were a new governing body it would have the responsibility of publishing what action it had taken under the action plan of the former governing body.
1448
It appears to me that there is a real risk that the amendment will prove counter-productive in a literal sense. If a governing body knows that when it is formulating an action plan it will have a legal obligation to carry it out, and that therefore it will be in difficulty if it does not succeed in carrying out every element of the plan within the period of time which it has specified, there may genuinely be a tendency for the body to make a more modest plan with an extended period of time. In doing so it will be more confident that it will be able to carry out that action plan within the time that it has set itself. The outcome might easily be the formulation of more modest objectives and of longer time periods because the governing body would not wish to find itself in breach of the law in failing to carry out the plan which it would have a statutory obligation to carry out. For that reason this clearly well-meaning amendment might rebound in a manner which the noble Baroness does not intend and therefore I doubt its utility.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have built into the Bill an additional element of accountability for governors by requiring them to produce and to distribute action plans, and to report annually on their progress. That makes sure that parents will know what is planned to follow up the inspection findings and what happens as a result. Parents will have an annual opportunity at their open meeting with the governors to ask about the most recent plan and progress with its implementation, including any readjustments of priorities to take account of changed circumstances.
The amendment before us seems to take no account of this system, which is both open and flexible in its operation. The amendment would impose a direct duty upon the governors, once they had produced a plan and set out their timetable for action, to meet that timetable unless to do so proved impracticable.
But let us suppose that following the detailed plan simply proves inappropriate in the light of changed circumstances. The duty to implement the plan would still apply. Let us imagine that another situation has arisen in which urgent attention is required in another activity in the school for which it is entirely sensible to switch priorities. It could still be deemed practical to pursue the original timetable but not necessarily the most sensible or appropriate action. Again, that would not make good sense for the school. In such circumstances, we should soon find that action plans were being very carefully drafted to involve the minimum of specific plans and the maximum of general and unfocused enthusiasm for improvement. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Such plans would serve schools, parents and the whole community very poorly indeed.
It is also possible that the appropriate authority, knowing that it will be bound in law by a duty to meet a timetable, will be very cautious about time limits which it must undertake to meet. There is no flexibility in the amendment nor is there any mention of a sanction if the governing body does not meet the time limit. It would be in breach of the law. It would be against the law to go over the timetable by a day.
Of course we could get round these practical problems. We could require plans to be regularly

1449
updated. We could have a process of formal adjustment, by agreement with the chief inspector. But this is all entirely unnecessary. The position that I outlined at the start of my remarks—the openness of the plan and its regular and public review—should surely serve the need of the school.
My noble friend has touched on the matter but it was worth pointing out that the Bill not only requires the action plan but also a timetable and a period within which the appropriate authority shall take that action.
Amendment No. 49 tabled on Report by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, gave the LEAs powers to have access to a school where they had concern. HMIs have also retained powers to enter a school in addition to the regular four-year inspections. There are annual reports whereby not only are they required to discuss the action plan with parents but they must return to it each year and indicate the progress that has been made. Those requirements are also supplemented by annual meetings. It is the argument about duty and inflexibility versus what we all want—and as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, wants—namely, to make sure that action plans are produced, that they are realistic and that they build on the strengths and address weaknesses in schools. Governors will not be able to ignore their published plans nor will they be able to adjust them without good reason. However, over the course of a four-year cycle, they must have scope to revise and review their plans and to develop their thinking. I am sure that we have struck the right balance in that respect and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my experience of being a school governor over many years suggests that governors are not nearly as Machiavellian as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the Minister suggest.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend or I were suggesting that governors are Machiavellian. It is important to say for the record that if this amendment were accepted the governors would have no flexibility to do what is appropriate and sensible. They may need to extend the timetable slightly in order to do that. This amendment does not allow a governing body to act in a sensible and an appropriate way for the school.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I take the point about flexibility. Perhaps I misheard the Minister and the noble Lord but I thought that they were suggesting that governing bodies might adjust their action plans if they were under pressure to implement them and may be inclined to be rather less ambitious and less concerned to follow the recommendations made by the inspectors. I believe that that is a rather cynical view of governors. I do not believe that they are that Machiavellian, nor that they operate in such a way. Governors sometimes fail to do what should be done through what I would call the "cock-up" rather than the conspiracy theory; that is, that they are not sufficiently well organised to take on some of the responsibilities required of them.
I am worried that simply requiring governing
1450
bodies to report on progress in an annual report seems to be a rather weak way of ensuring that the action plan is implemented. I believe that the Minister is rather over confident in what she has said. However, in the unlikely event that the Bill is implemented, we shall watch with interest the progress which it makes and see whether the mechanisms in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that the action plans are properly implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. We have had some eventful sittings during our consideration of this Bill, and we are finishing at an eventful time. The Bill has been subjected to open-heart surgery and, following a short period of attention, it underwent further treatment and the patient has been declared to be in robust health. The Bill leaves this House ready for implementation, subject to the final agreement of those in another place and is ready to take forward the Parent's Charter.
The main task of opposition has fallen upon the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who have been supported by a number of their colleagues; in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Glenamara, who occasionally offered valuable support by joining with us to oppose amendments which would not have been in the interest of the teaching profession. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Ritchie of Dundee and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have, together with noble Lords on the Labour Benches, seen to it that all parts of the Bill were challenged. The debates have been lively, always courteous and of a high order, whatever disagreements there might have been about the content of the Bill. There is, I believe, a philosophical divide between us in that the Government would have devolved more responsibility to schools and governing bodies whereas noble Lords opposite would have left control with local education authorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, held strong views about the Bill, as indeed did other noble Lords, and he fought his corner with characteristic tenacity, with great courtesy and from a position of considerable experience, having worked with local education authorities. He has made the case for a restatement of a provision in another education Act of the role of LEAs on the face of the Bill and I am sure that the House will join me in thanking him for that. I only regret that my promise to bring forward such an amendment was not accepted by the noble Earl.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who is not in his place, has also taken a great interest in the Bill. His sagacious advice during our deliberations on a variety of issues, but in particular on the sensitive issue of religious education, has been most welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been instrumental in persuading the House—although I have to say the House succumbed readily to the case

1451
he made—that the spiritual, moral, cultural and social dimension of education should be made subject to inspectoral scrutiny. I was impressed with his case from the start and I am delighted that the appropriate form of words was agreed and now form part of the Bill.
I wish to record my thanks to my noble friends on these Benches. They have offered valuable support and constructive criticism, though not always agreeable to the Government; for example, from my noble friend Lord Beloff. However, no-one can doubt that the motives of my noble friend Lord Beloff are of the highest, and that is in the interests of high quality education. My noble friend Lord Elton has pressed his great eloquence for assurances on a number of points some of which are now either incorporated in the Bill or will be addressed subsequently as the Act is implemented. On those issues on which he was not so successful the debate will continue, and he has my assurance on that. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Young, whose credentials in these matters are well known to the House, and Lady Perry, who has contributed to this Bill from her vast experience in the field of education and in particular as an HMI. My noble friend Lady Faithful] has once again ensured that the question of special needs has been fully examined. My noble friend Lord Renfrew has played a major role in filling a lacuna in the original proposals which he did very effectively. Even though his efforts were overtaken by the "ambush", his expertise has nevertheless added considerably to our debate.
I wish to thank my officials for the skilful way they have served my Front Bench team on this Bill. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lords Strathclyde who "kilted" the Bill with style, as only he knows how, and to my noble friend Lady Denton, who is making a very impressive introduction onto these Benches and has taken a considerable workload in her stride. Of course, I never doubted that she would and her assistance to me on the Bill has been tremendous.
Inevitably, I will not have covered everybody but I am very grateful to all who have contributed for the intellectual and good humoured debate we have experienced, which is in the best traditions of the House.
This is the Parent's Charter Bill. It sets the seal on the education reforms we have put in place over the past few years. Those reforms were designed to improve standards and quality in our schools. This Bill will give everyone, at every level, encouragement to ensure that the full benefits of the reforms are realised, and will demonstrate that achievement to parents.
The Bill will ensure the regular inspection of all schools to high standards set and monitored by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It will require the publication of a full inspection report on each school, and make sure that each parent is sent a readable summary of that report. It will require governors to prepare action plans to follow up inspection, and to report regularly to parents on progress; and it will ensure that parents and others can compare the performance of all local schools in key areas of educational activity.
1452
The Bill is essentially about more and better information; not for its own sake, but because governors, teachers and parents need the best possible information if they are to play their proper part in improving educational standards. Professionals, governors and parents all have much to gain from this Bill and so, as a result, have all our children. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I regret that due to a long-standing commitment, I shall have to leave before the completion of the Third Reading of the Bill. The Chief Whip is looking rather surprised but he knows that the date of this Third Reading was brought forward with our agreement.
I thank all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. They have been given the most unenviable task in this House in this Session in being asked to take through its various stages such a misguided and unpopular Bill. We all feel sympathy for them. They have done their best to defend the indefensible and to cope with the follies of their right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am grateful to them also for their patience in dealing with such a large number of amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill. They accepted the amendments on which the Government were defeated in Committee and came back with further revisions to ensure that the purpose behind those amendments was reflected in the Bill and that the consequentials were all in place. We recognise that that entailed extra work for both noble Baronesses in a tight timetable and we are truly appreciative for that.
On the Government Benches I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—I see he is no longer in his place—for his independence and integrity in stating what he believes, and the spirited way in which he attacked the Bill. He has been much quoted, deservedly, because he always puts things in a pithy way—good sound bites I believe is the modern jargon—but also because he put his finger on what is wrong with the Bill. He and I do not always agree but on this Bill we are in almost complete agreement. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the considerable work he put in on the Bill. He managed to secure some improvements in the Bill through his amendments, improvements with which we agree and which we endorse.
On the Cross-Benches I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. He always brings to debates on education a quiet authority based on his long experience of schools and his work as an education officer. We on this side of the House greatly appreciate his contributions, and particularly value the way in which he handled the important amendment—Amendment No. 11A—that he moved in Committee. On the Liberal Benches I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who share our opposition to the Bill.
Finally, I come to my noble friends on the Front Bench, Lord Peston and Lady David. Without their

1453
enormous support I would have found tackling the Bill much more difficult than I did. I mention also my noble friends on the Back-Benches, Lord Young of Dartington—who all his life has been a champion of the consumer and of parents as consumers—and Lord Dormand who, like the noble Earl, also spent time early in his career as an education officer and has a great deal of experience and knowledge of the subject.
Many Members of this House and, more important, many people outside it who will be affected by the Bill if it is implemented, were delighted that the combined forces of the Opposition with Cross-Bench support were able to amend it so that two of the worst features of the Bill were removed. Schools will not now be able to choose their own inspectors. Local education authorities will be able to inspect schools in their areas when circumstances require it. Those are major improvements. However, I regret to say that in spite of those changes the Bill is still one of the worst pieces of educational legislation that has been brought to Parliament since the war.
We are still left with the absurdity of the privatisation of the system of school inspection, although now it will be slightly better regulated than before. We are still faced with a wholly untested system of private firms being set up to inspect our primary and secondary schools. At no time in the course of the Bill has the Opposition claimed that everything about the existing system of inspection is perfect; it is not. The Labour Party's longstanding policy is to place Her Majesty's Inspectorate under an education standards commission independent of Ministers, reporting to Parliament, who in turn would direct and advise on the work of local inspectors who would operate at arm's length from the local education authority.
It was deliberately misleading of the Secretary of State to claim, after the Government lost the amendments in Committee in this House, that it is Labour Party policy that all inspections will be on the basis of allowing local councils licence to inspect local schools. Incidentally, his claim that the amendments were sponsored by trade unions was utter tripe. I assume he thought that making the claim would in some way discredit those who tabled the amendments. I can assure the House that it does not.
The use of private firms as inspectors will not improve standards in schools; it will do the reverse. It will mean that people with insufficient experience and expertise will be let loose on our schools. There is also a serious danger that there will be insufficient funds available to allow high quality inspections at the kind of intervals that the Government claim they intend. That is why the major firms of management consultants who already do educational work have stated clearly that they will not become involved.
Finally, by including further requirements on schools to publish information under Clause 16, the Government are claiming to be implementing the Parent's Charter. There is a serious question of whether the clause is necessary as the 1980 and 1988 Acts already require the publication of almost all the information required in the Bill; only data on the destination of school leavers is a new requirement. We
1454
made clear that we believe that that data will be valueless. But our real anxiety is that league tables based on raw data alone will not provide the kind of high quality information parents deserve in a genuine Parent's Charter of the kind we want to see. Moreover, many parents will be misled and many teachers will be complacent, some even smug, when it is not merited, and others demoralised because their success in difficult circumstances goes unrecognised.
However, a general election has been announced. In just over four weeks' time, after a Labour victory, the Bill will be dead, buried and no more than an unhappy memory in a long chapter of unhappy memories we have had to endure since 1979.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add a few words of appreciation from these Benches to all those who have taken part in the prolonged and interesting discussions on the Bill. First, I should like to mention the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Denton, whose clarity, coherence and courtesy throughout the Bill has been remarkable. Most remarkable of all has been their stamina. It has been required at a late hour in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion.
We have had many worthwhile debates and I should like to add appreciation for the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady David, and the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Dormand of Easington, whose pugnacious sincerity is remarkable. I should like to make special mention of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. His contributions are unfortunately comparatively rare but their incisiveness and authority are in proportion to their rarity. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has sat faithfully on the Front Bench also to a late hour and whose name has not yet been mentioned.
Your Lordships' persistence in scrutiny through long and weary hours and attention to detail is remarkable and has been exemplified in discussing the Bill. We, too, are pleased that we have achieved the two points already mentioned; first, an arm's length relationship between schools and their inspecting authorities, which is to be carried out by the chief inspector. As I remember, that was the purport of an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, which I moved at Committee stage. It is gratifying to know that it has substantially come back from the Government's hands. There is also the right of local education authorities to go into the schools and to inspect those for which they are responsible.
We too regret certain things about the Bill, particularly that the HMI annual report will no longer be based on its own inspections but on inspections carried out by other inspectors. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that what you have not inspected yourself you never know so well as that which you have. We also fear that too much time will be taken up with administration and monitoring the inspections of the registered inspectors which should have been taken up with their own experienced inspecting. They will be inspecting inspectors too much of the time.

1455
We also regret that the registered inspection teams will lack expertise, particularly the expertise to give continuing professional advice to teachers which is what the HMI has been able to do in the past. With its truncated numbers it does not seem that it will be able to do so in future. We also regret that the published league tables will not be modified by any value added or supplementary information.
I notice that in Clause 16(6) (c) the Secretary of State may command that supplementary information should be given by local authorities. I hope that it will include the kind of information that we have been seeking. We must hope that the education service will make things work and that somehow benefit will accrue from the more frequent inspections. We say goodbye to what has been described as the silliest Bill that has ever come before your Lordships' House. We hope that it leaves us a little less silly.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will not follow other speakers in a long catalogue of comment on my colleagues' performance or in an analysis of the effects of this worthwhile Bill other than to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her kind remarks and to say that it was a pleasure, although a rare one, to find myself in agreement with her. Under those circumstances her eloquence is a great deal more persuasive than it is under others.
As a former Minister of State in the Department of the Environment I should remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Blatch is a Minister of that department and not of the Department of Education and Science. She has put in a most remarkable performance, as has my noble friend Lady Denton, in taking this not uncomplex and not uncontroversial Bill through this House with unconquerable competence and in the wake of formidable legislation on behalf of her own department. That is a matter of note and I congratulate both my noble friends.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I imagine that we all have mixed feelings about the passage of this Bill. Believing that it is overall not a good measure, I am glad that certain important changes have been made on the way. The key one of course is the choice of inspection teams: here I believe most people will think that common sense has prevailed. The establishment of an LEA's right to inspect its own schools is important no less for the messages it gives to hard-working professionals of experience and integrity round the country than for the principle that it secures. The Government's hostility to LEAs en bloc has come across fairly unmistakably, and I do not believe this is conducive to good decision-making. There are things to criticise, but there is much that is good at local level, too.
The Government's determination to provide information for parents is entirely right, and I think they can justly claim credit over the past 12 years for helping to change the climate of opinion in this particular. Over the methods of doing so we have argued in this Bill, and I sense some degree of
1456
convergence of views. I would be happier if I felt that the Government fully appreciated the danger of raw league tables, already referred to, for they can do a lot of damage which is not easily undone.
My main worry, which I put in question form at Second Reading, remains unanswered. It is the debate which we have never had. The assumption that the present situation in our schools calls for a massive programme of full inspections every four years rests on very shaky foundations. We need more information, yes. But the leap to what schools are now going to face is an example, I believe, of overkill on the grand scale. In a debate last May introduced by my noble friend, Lord Annan, who is not in his place, I do not think I was the only noble Lord who stressed that the pace of enforced change in the educational world was greater than any organisation could reasonably absorb. Evolutionary change is one thing, but change that is imposed is that much harder to digest—as well as frequently being less effective.
I would beg the Government to consider—they could even take soundings and consult in the way they have not done before this Bill—whether a four-year interval between inspections is really wise. An awful lot of precious money is involved, with an awful lot of time, and an awful lot of disruption. My own suspicion is that most of what the Government want to achieve, and what we all want to achieve, in monitoring and raising standards, can be done by reforms of a less elephantine nature. Previous inspection intervals were undoubtedly too long. Something like seven years may be nearer the mark. It may be, from what some noble Lords have argued, that the economics of the exercise will dictate some relaxation even if the Government do not.
It is not just a courtesy in this case to congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on the way she has handled the Bill. We differed over most things, and she may not always have represented me correctly, so I am sure she will believe me when I express real admiration for her stamina, her readiness to meet serious argument with serious argument, and her willingness to concede some minor amendments where common sense suggested them. These all contributed, as she said, to some debates of high quality in which many of your Lordships took part. I enjoyed them all. I should add that the Minister was most ably abetted by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield.
Whichever government is returned in April I hope we may see a period when educational change is kept to a minimum and the need for consolidation is understood. I hope also that future governments will see the virtue of working with the educational profession and not against it, because that is the way that we shall see lasting improvements made.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Future Business
4.36 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the business for Monday. It is intended that the House should meet at eleven o'clock. After Starred Questions, we will proceed to the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Finance Bill, the Consolidated Fund (No.3) Bill, and the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. It is anticipated that proceedings on these three Bills will be formal though your Lordships will be aware that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill does provide, if noble Lords so wish, an opportunity for debate.
Thereafter, and assuming that the following Bills are received from another place, we shall proceed to take all stages of the Army Bill and the Friendly Societies Bill. Parliament will then be prorogued. It is at this time hard to say at exactly what time, but at present I believe it will be at some point in the early to mid-afternoon.
Finally, I anticipate that many of your Lordships will have detailed questions as to the domestic arrangements in your Lordships' House during the Dissolution of Parliament. Rather than attempt to spell these out from the Dispatch Box, I can tell your Lordships that a printed notice will be sent out from the House tomorrow, setting out what facilities will be available to your Lordships before Parliament meets again. Your Lordships should therefore be able to peruse that paper and make your arrangements at leisure over the forthcoming weekend.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
4.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 7 [Scottish Further Education Funding Council]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. At Committee stage I indicated that I might bring back this amendment at Report stage. I make no apologies for doing so. My intention is to make provision in the Bill which would commit a future Secretary of State to creating a further education funding council. At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that it would be inevitable that a future Secretary of State for Scotland would set up a further education funding council. I was happy with that. However, she will be aware that the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, Mr. Michael Forsyth, referring to this matter, said:
"I remain of the view that it would be a mistake to establish such a council".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/92; col. 306.]
That comment was made during the Report stage in another place and not, as indicated in previous
1458
briefings, at Second Reading. The implication is that Mr. Forsyth's comments were made after the Government had introduced the new clause into the Bill and does not suggest that the present Government were convinced of the merits of a further education funding council as it appeared during the course of discussions in Committee in another place. Despite the good faith of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we believe that a commitment should be written into the Bill to ensure that a funding council is established.
Amendment No. 2 is concerned with the question of the formation of a further education funding council. Amendments to the Bill were tabled at Report stage in another place in order to meet a commitment made by the Minister to allow for the establishment of a further education funding council. Because of the timescale imposed on consideration of the Bill, there was insufficient time for close examination of the new Clause 7. It is likely that all parties would wish to consider the correct duties and powers and membership of a funding council in some detail before it is established, rather than after. If the first amendment is accepted, this amendment commits the Secretary of State to full consultation before establishing a funding council.
We on these Benches are particularly concerned that while in England and Wales a further education funding council will have duties in respect of further education, those duties in Scotland are to be vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland. No clear explanation as to why this difference should be preserved was given at Committee stage. Given the timetable set for completing consideration of the Bill, it is essential that there should be scope for full consultation on such matters before a funding council is put into place. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is a pleasure to return to this subject which we discussed at Committee stage. The noble Lord pressed the Government to make a decision on establishing the further education funding council. However, as I indicated then, and as the noble Lord appreciates, our approach is designed to ensure flexibility and is firmly supported by the college principals. I reiterate that view. Let us ensure the success of the colleges' new status before we consider the case for establishing a funding council.
Good progress is being made by the colleges in preparing for their new responsibilities and there is a momentum for change being established. The momentum would be jeopardised if we were to introduce a funding council into the picture. No date is included in the amendment for the establishment of a funding council, leaving the date of establishment still to be determined by the Secretary of State in an order made under Clause 7. In essence, that is no different from the existing provision. Inserting "shall" rather than "may" would only confuse the colleges of our objectives, and as I said earlier, our prime objective must be to ensure that the colleges smoothly take on their new responsibilities at 1st April 1993.
The noble Lord went on to explain his thinking behind Amendment No. 2. It is, of course, normal

1459
practice for all governments to carry out consultations before taking major decisions and the creation of a further education funding council would be no exception. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is saying to the House and to avoid any doubt I can give an undertaking that the Secretary of State would consult representatives of boards of management, education authorities, and others with an interest, before any order was made establishing a council. No such step would be taken unless there was clear support for it. In any event, the amendment as drafted uses terms which I understand do not fit into the Bill.
I hope that those assurances will give the noble Lord some comfort and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am very pleased that the Minister has been so specific on Amendment No. 2 and that we have it on record that there will be full consultation. I have never understood why there is such reluctance on the part of Ministers and their advisers, of whatever party, to refuse to have "shall" instead of "may".
The Minister has gone quite a long way in regard to Amendment No. 1, which calls for the establishment of a further education council and particularly on Amendment No. 2, which calls for consultation before the establishment of such a council. Knowing that he is a man of honour I am only too pleased to accept his statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Constitution and proceedings of boards of management]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("ten nor more than sixteen") and insert ("sixteen nor more than twenty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. This group of amendments seeks to make provision for at least two persons nominated by a local education authority to have a place by right on the board of management.
We on these Benches have consistently sought to make provision for two representatives of local authorities to have a place by right on college boards of management. An essential part of the suggestion is that the minimum size of the board needs to be increased to ensure that there is scope for local authority and other interests on the board, once the positions given by statute to employers, staff and students of colleges have been filled.
At Committee stage Government supporters indicated that their opposition to local authority involvement in boards of management reflected a concern that local politics would be drawn into the discussions of the boards. Clients of colleges appear, in the Government's view, to be employers and students only—and it has always been established in the mind of the party opposite, that employers, by some wonderful freak, are never political whereas
1460
local authority people always are. However, we on these Benches believe that it would be of benefit to have two local authority representatives on boards to give the point of view of local authorities.
Amendment No. 4 reinforces the points I have already made in these amendments. The amendments are all concerned with increasing the number of people on boards in order to include representatives of local education authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in speaking to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. As I explained at the Committee stage, the Secretary of State will make the appointments to reconstituted college councils later this year. These appointments will be designed to ensure continuity in membership with the existing college councils and the need to ensure a stronger employer presence. I do not think that the noble Lord will disagree with that.
The Scottish Further Education Unit, in a report on the present college council system, identified a number of helpful criteria to use when making appointments. These include an appropriate level of seniority, a record of involvement with the college, expertise with education and training, and a balanced representation of employers to reflect the college's curriculum. This will be helpful in considering membership both when the Secretary of State makes the initial appointments and thereafter when boards fill vacancies themselves. So far, so good. These arrangements do not preclude education authority representatives from serving. I think that boards will see advantage in such appointments—as clearly the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, does—either to the main board or to committees. The noble Lord will agree with that. Much will depend on the personal qualities that individuals can bring to bear.
Other links, of course, need to be considered, for example, with higher education institutions, where there are exciting prospects opening up of much closer collaboration between FE colleges and higher education. That is a vital means of opening up access to higher education via the non-traditional route. Programmes such as the government-financed Scottish wider access programme have stimulated these developments and we will continue to encourage such developments in further education. That goes with the grain of developments in Scottish further education, where 60 per cent. of students are aged over 18, and this can be expected to grow as increasing numbers of under 18 year-olds stay on at school. Colleges therefore need to have many linkages. Some may best be forged at school or university level. It is, I would suggest, best to leave this for boards to determine in the light of experience and the nature of their college.
The noble Lord will not take it amiss if I simply point out that the drafting of the amendments would have some undesirable results. I hope that, with the explanation I have given, he will withdraw the amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it is rather late for me to discuss whether or not the drafting is right. If he finds,

1461
on the advice of his experts and counsel, that the amendments will not fit into the Bill there is obviously an insurmountable wall which we shall not be able to do much about. The general idea is that there should be local authority representation. Although the Minister said that any intelligent group would accept and perhaps look for suitable local authority candidates to sit on the college boards, I do not believe that that was strong enough. The noble Lord said that this would happen provided the candidates were suitable. I take the view that if someone is democratically elected to a local authority he is ipso facto considered by the people in that area to be a responsible person. That is why we were concerned that people should be nominated by representatives of the local authority.
Having made my point for local democracy I acknowledge that it is unlikely at this late stage, given the Minister's, I am sure, well-founded view that the wording is inadequate, that the amendment can be accepted. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question before the amendment is withdrawn. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the drafting of the amendments was defective and could cause difficulty. What could be defective about substituting the words "sixteen nor more than twenty" for the words "ten nor more than sixteen" when all the amendment is doing is changing the figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a very good point. I did not want to go through the reasons why they were defective but the noble Lord has asked me a question and I think it is right that I should answer it. It is in the consequential amendments that the drafting of these amendments creates undesirable results. Board members should all be subject to the same grounds of disqualification and removal if, for example, imprisoned for fraud. The amendment would mean that education authority nominees would not be while everyone else would be. That is clearly undesirable. I hope that that explains the position. I do not want to make a meal of it though.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I cannot say that I am terribly convinced. I have asked the question and I think that I have received a rotten answer.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, only someone like my noble friend, who has long experience in local government, could have pulled out this good point. It is one with which, in fairness, I do not think the Minister's answer even began to deal. However, I am sure my noble friend will agree that there is little we can do at this late stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Transfer of property etc. to boards of management]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee but the point it raises is still causing worry to local authorities. They are not nit-picking in terms of the present Government. They are concerned about future governments, not the next one which obviously would be sympathetic to local authorities but others in the future which would not be.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove the provision that the transfer of liabilities from the education authority to the college board should not include debt charges relating to the colleges. It is entirely inappropriate that local authorities should continue to pay debt charges on property which will be transferred to the college boards on the first transfer date. The Government have maintained from the first that this provision has been included in the Bill for administrative purposes. First, the Government argued that it would be difficult to establish the debt pertaining to each college. Thereafter, when local authorities had provided such information quickly and easily, it was suggested by government that it would be difficult to untangle debt since loans taken out by local authorities were made up in a complex way.
Since then we have been assured that in practice there is no difficulty at all in disentangling debt for a particular building. The debt is managed largely through consolidated accounts and it has been a simple matter to identify that around £86 million of total debt is outstanding. The Government have acknowledged that local authorities hold the expertise in such loan arrangements. On 3rd March of this year the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made it clear that he partly agreed with the local authorities. It is these expert officers who have advised us that there is no technical difficulty in making such a transfer.
What seems to be the basis of the matter was finally referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He said that,
"if historic FE debt charges were to transfer, that sum would have to be found out of the Secretary of State's block".—[Official Report, 3/3/92; col. 775.]
We believe that the Government must be pressed to acknowledge that it is this reason, rather than the previous rather misleading statements, which make the Government determined to leave debt with the local authorities.
The Government have also suggested—I am sorry to go on, but this is the one point in the Bill about which I, and many local authorities feel particularly strongly—that debt charges are met almost pound for pound by the Secretary of State. In fact, currently around 12 per cent. of the debt will be borne by the poll tax, plus any under-estimation of the level of inflation in the grant settlement. The convention takes the view that the fact that a relatively small proportion of the cost of debt repayment is currently met by the poll tax does not make the arrangements any less unjust and leaves open the possibility, under future financial regimes, of local government finance meeting a larger proportion of the charges.
The convention also takes the view that it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the proposal amounts to bad accounting practice which flies in the

1463
face of the principle of local authorities being accountable for their own expenditure. The situation would become even more outrageous if colleges disposed of land or property in the future whereupon it is possible that local authorities would be paying debt charges on property that they had sold to a third party. The Minister may remember that I put forward the example of schools in the area which I used to represent that had been sold to local housing associations. A very good job was done in that respect. But under the Bill a local authority could still be responsible for paying debt charges on property which had already been sold on.
The authority members in Scotland are most worried about the Government's insensitivity in the matter. They feel that the proposal is especially unjust and that it demonstrates a real disregard on the part of central government for local authorities, which are at present struggling to remain accountable to the electorate in difficult financial circumstances. We take the view that central government should not be so ready to disrupt local authority accounting principles simply to solve the Secretary of State's short term financial difficulties. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am always keen to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. However, on this particular amendment, I regret to say that there is very little that I can add to the points I made when we discussed the matter fully in Committee. Our position is clear. Local authorities' authorised loan charges are met on virtually a pound for pound basis in the distribution of the aggregate external finance settlement. FE historic debt will continue to be met in that way after 1st April 1993. Therefore, local authorities will have no additional financial burden.
Further education colleges' capital expenditure will be funded by the Scottish Office education department after 1st April 1993 on a different basis. Instead of loans being incurred, capital grant will be paid. They will not therefore be geared up to take over loan charges, even were it possible accurately to disentangle debt of many years and the subsequent rescheduling of debt that takes place. I know that the noble Lord put forward figures and an example of how that could be disentangled. However, my advice is still that it would be a rather complicated and bureaucratic matter. That is why we have taken the line that such matters should be left as they are.
Further, education authorities are experienced in debt management. It is the most sensible and straightforward arrangement for them to continue to administer it. I should stress, as I have before, that the arrangement will not involve them in any financial cost that they do not presently have.
In Committee, and again this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question of boards disposing of property. I should like to draw the attention of the House to Clause 18 which regulates the disposal by boards of management of certain property, including property transferred to a board
1464
from an education authority under the provisions of the Bill and property acquired by grant from the Secretary of State. Such disposals require the consent of the Secretary of State and provision is made in subsection (5) for the proceeds, or a portion of them, to be surrendered to the Secretary of State. There is therefore no question of boards having unfettered discretion in that area. I believe that the noble Lord and I both agree that that is exactly the right approach where public funds have created such assets.
I am not sure that the full effect of the amendment is appreciated. Not only would it mean liability for authorised loans would transfer to boards; it would also mean liability for unauthorised loans would transfer. It would reward education authorities for taking out loans without consent as required by statute—Clauses 28 to 32 of the Bill—and render useless the provisions of the Bill protecting college property in the run-up to the transfer of the colleges. There can be no justification for that.
I know that this is a complicated and important matter. However, having aired the situation fully on two occasions, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to disagree with me and that perhaps he will then withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there is no question about it: it is a matter of agreeing to disagree. The Minister may think that my accountancy skills are not adequate to deal with the matter. I would agree with him in that respect. However, from the way that the Minister explained it, I think that a coach and horses could be driven through any possibility of local authorities being dealt with fairly.
There is always the assumption that the Secretary of State will deal with the matters in the way that we have discussed. One of the horrors that we have in Scotland is that perhaps in 20 or 25 years' time a present Minister of State could become the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that he would give his consent to the selling off of all sorts of things. That is not something that is out of the way. Indeed, there is a Question tabled on the Order Paper tomorrow about which the Minister may be aware. It relates to land which was sold off and which we believe, without adequate protection, could become an extremely serious matter as regards certain parts of Glasgow. We shall deal with that tomorrow. It is the kind of thing about which we are worried. We are worried that a local authority could be paying debt charges for land or property which is owned by someone else.
I have no reason to doubt the Minster's understanding of the matter. I just happen to think that he has got it wrong. I am also, sadly, of the opinion that perhaps even his advisers have taken a way out which saves much trouble at present but which may build up a great deal of trouble for local authorities in the future. However, for all the reasons that we discussed, we shall not be able to do a great deal today. We want the Bill to pass. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [College development plans]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) how the college development plan relates to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a provision which strikes me as being a blindingly obvious commitment by any college which is established. It would ensure that college development plans cohere with overall education provision in the area. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated that he was puzzled that the amendment was tabled as the insertion of Clause 22 had been welcomed on Report in another place.
We also welcome Clause 22. But we would argue that the amendment strengthens the clause which was introduced at short notice on Report in another place. We know that sometimes amendments which are introduced at short notice seem good at the time, but in the cold light of day it can be seen that they need a certain strengthening. The Minister indicated in Committee that the amendment would cause confusion as there is an obligation under Clause 12(1) for boards of management to,
"have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated".
The amendment seems to complement that clause rather than oppose it. Clause 12(1) places an obligation on boards to have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated. The amendment supports that aim in that college development plans would be required to indicate—the college would not need a seal of approval from the LEA—how the college was dealing with its obligations under Clause 12(1). It is not just a question of the college authority merely saying that it had dealt with the matter; it would have to explain how it believed its development fitted in with the general education requirements in a wider sphere within the area. We believe that that is a strengthening of the clause; in other words, even at this late hour we are trying to be helpful to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a sensible addition to a sensible clause. The whole of further education provision should be looked at, and to lay down how a college fits in surely cannot hurt the Bill: it will probably strengthen it. In relation to previous amendments the noble Lord mentioned the interaction between colleges. He mentioned higher education colleges. There are school sixth form colleges and higher education colleges. There will always be a level of interaction. An amendment such as this would only strengthen the position by requiring information to show how all the types of education fit together.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said in Committee, when we considered a similar amendment, that the provision sought already exists in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said Clause 12(1) was excellent. He also said that the amendment was excellent, but I shall explain why it does not fit into the Bill.
1466
Clause 12(1) places boards of management under an obligation to have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated. To fulfil that requirement they must consider the provision of education in the wide sense of including school, vocational, community and higher education provision and the extent to which it complements or overlaps with the college's provision.
We see the merits in close collaboration between schools and colleges, but that, of course, can and does take place without direct education authority involvement in the same way as there is no need for a middle-link in college and university collaboration.
I do not think, however, that we should be under the impression that such collaboration is necessarily as well developed as it might be, and that includes school/college links within the existing education authority management regime. More could undoubtedly be done, and we shall be encouraging colleges to maintain and develop such links. That is one reason why Clause 22(4) requires a board in preparing its development plan to consult the education authority for the area. Colleges have much to offer young people and I am sure they will realise, as do universities, the benefits of forging close links from an early stage.
To conclude, the amendment is unnecessary and because it overlaps with the effect of Clause 12(1) could cause confusion, which is why it is difficult to accept the amendment, however well-meant it is. However, given the importance of this issue I am prepared to give an undertaking that guidance given to boards on the preparation of development plans will ask them to highlight how their plans relate to provision of school, community and higher education in their area.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are obviously in the give-away season. I am delighted that the Minister has found it possible to go as far as he has. I understand that it is impossible to accept the amendment. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was welcome. I am glad that the Minister has been able to help us to the extent that he has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 29, line 1, leave out ("68") and insert ("70").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small textual amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Change of name by institutions]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 36, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) Any designated institution whose name includes the word "university" subject to subsection (5) above is to be treated as a university for all purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises as a result of a discussion in another place where a similar amendment was moved. The amendment effectively provides that any institution whose name

1467
includes the word "university" shall be treated as a university. When a similar amendment was moved in another place it was suggested that it was unnecessary because there would be no confusion under the Scottish system. The anxiety was caused by the case of a university college in Lampeter in the 1950s. There is a precedent that gives cause for concern. The new universities in Scotland—Heriot Watt, Strathclyde, Dundee and Stirling—had trouble in getting themselves accepted by the Carnegie Trust because initially they were not thought to be universities. That idea was overridden because they had Royal Charters.
The new universities being created will exist as a result of consent by the Privy Council. The amendment seeks clarification. We want to encourage universities—this is something that the Government seem to want—to obtain funding and support from all available sectors (charitable trusts or business). I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question, although it is probably silly of me to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned other universities. I was interested in the establishment of Strathclyde University which has a Royal Charter. We debated Royal Charters at great length in the other place, and we discovered that there was no such thing until about three months after the university was established.
I am asking for information, because I may have missed something. Will the universities be established under Royal Charter, or is there some other way of establishing them? That may reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. I am asking partly because of the experience we had some 20 years ago in the other place.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has raised an important point. As he said, the issue came up in Committee in the other place and the Minister of State explained that part of the reason similar words appear in the English Act is as a form of insurance against the remote possibility of legal challenge arising from the judgment in a 1951 case involving the University College of St. David's, Lampeter. The Government's view was that the parallels between the position then of St. David's and of our Scottish Higher education institutions today were so slight that the words served no useful purpose as far as Scotland was concerned at least.
Indeed, the words are incompatible with the structure of Part II of the Bill, because, as I pointed out in Committee, there is a clear and very important distinction between the existing universities and designated institutions in the Bill. That does not disadvantage the designated institutions in any way; the distinction is necessary because the constitutional and organisational arrangements for designated institutions are different from those for the existing universities and they are provided for in Clauses 44 to 49.
The standing of the "new universities" to be
1468
established under the Bill has been compared unfavourably to that of the Royal Charter universities. I believe that view is misplaced. There is no special magic in a Royal Charter, it is merely a means of conferring a title and constituting the body with its necessary powers.
In reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the Bill sets out a new procedure and therefore there is no requirement for a Royal Charter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that means that we have three types of university in Scotland. We have the ancient universities, the Royal Charter universities and the new universities. At some point a government will need to establish a level playing field—a splendid phrase—or we shall have a hierarchy with the Ivy League and the others. That will surely be bad for education.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point about hierarchies, but there are already different hierarchies within universities and within departments. The noble Lord is right, there will be three types of university, but I do not believe any of us should worry about those different types.
The institutions will have to meet the criteria set out by the Government before they will be eligible to apply for a university title. They will have to have passed tests related to the quality of the work they do and have been judged competent to award their own taught course and research degrees. They will also have to demonstrate that they meet the criteria related to the scale and breadth of their activities. By all these means, they will have demonstrated that they are eligible to use the university title. In other words, they will have what it takes to be a university. That does not mean that they have to be organised on the same lines as the existing universities. The important point is that they have the essential characteristics of universities as they relate in particular to activities and powers.
Accordingly, we see no reason why the new universities should not be given parity of treatment with the existing universities, whether ancient or modern. I hope that that is a full explanation to the noble Lords.
Lord Addington: My Lords, that answer was full and covered most of the points that were raised. It was just a technical procedure, guaranteeing the status of the universities under this clause, so that they would be just as good.
I believe that the Government are effectively saying that if the validity of the new institutions such as universities were challenged—and I hope no one would challenge it—they would correct anyone who makes such a challenge. Is the Minister saying that? He nods his head, so I feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Directions]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 37, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, which has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. However, the latter amendments raise quite separate issues and I shall move Amendment No. 11 separately, speaking also to the consequential Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 11 relates to a most important provision which has attracted attention throughout the discussion of both this Bill and the English Bill: namely, the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the funding council. I believe it is right that, on both the Scottish Bill in the other place and the English Bill in your Lordships' House, consideration was directed entirely to Clause 54(3)—in other words, towards the provision that directions can be institution-specific. That was seen throughout as a threat to academic freedom. The breakthrough took place on the English Bill in your Lordships' House when the power to make institution-specific regulations was cut down to the form that now appears in subsection (3).
However, to my surprise, when I was going through both Bills, I could find no explanation about the equally important power under subsection (2). This confers power on the Secretary of State to give general directions to the funding council. It seems to me that even at this late stage it is important to have a ministerial statement as to the general directions, which are potentially of great importance. I do not believe that one could quarrel with those that I envisage, but I am by no means certain that they cover the whole ground. I therefore put down this amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could say under what circumstances he envisages general directions to be given to the funding council; the nature of those directions and why it is important for the Secretary of State to have that power. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on this subject. He is a great expert on it. I understand that he has decided to move Amendment No. 10 separately and we shall revert later to the other amendments which were originally in the group.
The noble and learned Lord has returned to the charge that he set out at Committee stage. He taxed me on institution-specific directions, or at least it was those directions with which my reply was concerned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not believe that I made myself clear. This is not the amendment that I moved in Committee. That was Amendment No. 11. I should be grateful if the Minister could speak to the general direction, not the institution-specific directions.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was getting to that, I was simply explaining that it was at Committee stage that the noble and learned Lord and I discussed the institution-specific directions. This time, he has moved the amendment on the general direction-making power. That is understood. However, the arguments are substantially the same. I have little to add to the
1470
remarks that I made at Committee. It is difficult to find anything new to say on the subject. After all, the debate on affirmative versus negative resolution procedure must have taken place at some stage during the proceedings on every Bill in modern times.
Essentially, the power to make general directions to a non-departmental public body is a commonplace feature of legislation these days, reflecting modern approaches to financial and ministerial accountability. Such powers are often not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny at all, but in this case they are so because of the concern about the possible effect on academic freedom of the institution-specific power, not the general power.
However, both types are there to deal with unpredictable contingencies. As the Minister of State at the Scottish Office said in the other place, what we are dealing with here is a form of disaster insurance. The power to attach conditions to grant under Clause 42 deals with the general case and the power of direction with the unforeseen exceptions.
I hope that that is sufficient and that the noble and learned Lord will accept the explanation and therefore withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to say that it is quite insufficient. The Minister has spoken to the next amendment. He referred to the affirmative and negative resolution procedure, which has nothing whatever to do with this amendment. He then quoted the Minister of State in another place. But what the Minister of State was directing his remarks to was the institution-specific power in the next subsection, subsection (3).
I must press the Minister to face the fact that he is seeking wide powers of ministerial direction to the funding council which have been instituted between the Secretary of State and the institutions of higher education. I must press the Minister to say what kind of general directions are envisaged and why it is important that the Secretary of State should have them. Those are the questions. I should have thought that it was quite simple to answer them. However, the answer that the noble Lord found in his brief is the answer to the next amendment and not to this one.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble and learned Lord, I should say to the noble and learned Lord that the position of "arm's length bodies" spending large amounts of taxpayers' money is well understood in Scotland. There are many non-governmental bodies in Scotland that spend a lot of money. As Scotland is a rather small place people follow the fortunes of those bodies more closely than is the case with people south of the border.
When the Scottish universities discussed this matter with my honourable friend in another place—I also discussed the matter with him—it was well appreciated that this was not a threatening provision at all. I do not have the precise types of direction in front of me but I know that they have been discussed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not be too

1471
anxious about the effects of this clause in Scotland as I believe it has been accepted all round. There is no great concern. The universities are satisfied with it now and they have written to me to say that they are satisfied. I expect they have also written to the noble and learned Lord. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord should be too anxious about this clause. Having said that, I know that my noble friend will wish to reply to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am somewhat at a loss to know how to answer the accusation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I have not answered him fully. I have gone as far as I possibly could. However, perhaps I could take up one point which the noble and learned Lord mentioned about the Minister of State in another place. When he was talking about these powers he called them a form of disaster insurance. He was talking not just in respect of the specific powers but also in respect of the general powers.
The general power of direction is intended to deal with unpredictable problems which may arise in the future. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, recognises that this is a fairly common provision these days. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for explaining the position of the colleges and their support for this Bill. I hope the noble and learned Lord does not feel that I am being evasive and that my answer is full enough to allow this provision to go through.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this matter continues to be profoundly unsatisfactory. I have no quarrel with this power. I agree with the noble Baroness that it has been recognised generally, both in relation to the legislation for England and for Scotland, that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have a general power. What I wanted to know was in what circumstances that would be exercised. The noble Baroness at any rate gave the beginning of an answer that the Minister might have given; namely, that we are concerned with large sums of money. I thought that this general power would be exercised in circumstances where large sums of money were involved; for example, a direction could be given to the funding council—in view of the large amount of money that is available to it—that more medical facilities would be required. But that is only the beginning. That seems to me to be quite unobjectionable.
What I want to hear from the Minister is in what other circumstances a general power might be exercised. It is simply not good enough to come to Parliament and ask to be given general, unspecified powers to give directions to the funding council which is responsible for dispensing the large amounts of money to which the noble Baroness referred. It is not good enough to give general directions to the funding council without telling Parliament the circumstances in which the powers will be exercised and why it is important that the Minister should have those powers. I am afraid that I shall not withdraw the amendment until the Minister answers the questions that I have
1472
asked which seem to me to be perfectly reasonable ones. The Minister knows that I wish him well and he knows the reason for that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is an unrealistic request that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is asking—
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but I point out that we should bear in mind that we are on the Report stage of this Bill. We ought to follow the proper procedures.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, am I out of order to speak?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as we are on Report I understand that I may speak with the leave of the House. I shall speak on that basis. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes an accusation that I have been unable to explain under what circumstances it might be necessary to use the powers that we are discussing. It is precisely because that situation is unforeseen and we are discussing a contingency requirement that it is difficult to be entirely specific in answering the noble and learned Lord.
One key reason for the power is that the report of the review of the University Grants Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, recommended that the Secretary of State should have such a power because he is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the Government's funding policy. As is the case with research councils, the Secretary of State requires a reserve power to issue directions to the council if need be. We would expect such a power to be rarely used. I have tried to give comfort to the noble and learned Lord. I am not sure that I have been entirely successful so far but I hope that he will accept that these powers are required solely in the light of an unpredictable contingency.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not think that I need the leave of the House to reply to the debate. I am bound to say that this matter continues to be quite unsatisfactory. If I may say so, I well knew what the Croham Committee recommended. I have never quarrelled with the Minister having general powers. What I, your Lordships, and obviously the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wanted to know was in what circumstances those powers would be exercised, why they were required and why it was important to have them. We have had no answer at all. All we have is the completely negative reply that the Minister is asking for general, wide powers to be exercised in circumstances which cannot be envisaged. I venture to give him one circumstance which could be envisaged; namely, a direction that medical facilities should be extended. The Minister did not even take that up.
We now have on record that no answer will be given. The Minister is seeking for Parliament general powers and refuses to say in what circumstances they

1473
will be exercised, merely saying that they will be exercised in unforeseen circumstances. I leave it for anyone reading the record to determine how satisfactory that is.
I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. I do not wish the Bill to founder; I wish to see it go through. However, in withdrawing the amendment I must not be taken—and I doubt whether I shall be taken—as thinking that the answer given from the Dispatch Box is in the least satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 38, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, which is entirely consequential. Amendment No. 11 seeks to make the direction-making orders under Clause 54 subject to the more effective affirmative resolution procedure rather than, as under the Bill at the moment, the ineffective negative resolution procedure.
I considered this an essential amendment even before I moved the previous amendment. We now find that there is a general direction power under subsection (2), which is defended on the grounds that it will be needed in exceptional circumstances, but circumstances which cannot now be disclosed and apparently cannot even be envisaged.
When I moved the amendment in Committee I read out to your Lordships the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. I shall not delay your Lordships by doing so again; it can easily be summarised. The Joint Select Committee said that the affirmative resolution should be used for important matters and went on to make clear what was meant by "important" or "substantial." It was anything which was not trivial, consequential or involved tidying up. The essential word here is "trivial." Anything which cannot be dismissed as trivial should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Faced with that quotation the Minister swallowed hard. He could not quite bring himself to say that the matter was trivial but said that it was verging on the trivial. If it merely verges on the trivial it falls on the affirmative resolution side of the divide. Even if it falls only marginally on that side of the divide, it cannot possibly now be argued that that power is other than important. The last resort power under subsection (2) is a general power to be used as a matter of last resort in circumstances which cannot yet be disclosed and which are not yet envisaged. Is that not an important power?
The institution-specific power under subsection (3), as it has been narrowed down in your Lordships' House, is also a last resort power for use in the case of severe mismanagement of an institution. It has been described in both Houses as a last resort power, one to be used when the funding council and the institution have gone completely off the rails—circumstances so
1474
extraordinary that it is not envisaged that the power would be used at all. Is that not important? Is it really to be dismissed as trivial? Is it to be dismissed even as verging on triviality? I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in replying to the amendment I hope that I can justify the Government's position better than I have in the case of previous amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
In the circumstances which the noble and learned Lord described, it would not make sense to shackle the power to the potentially lengthy and cumbersome affirmative resolution procedure. The 1988 Act did not do that; neither does the Further and Higher Education Bill of 1992.
The House recognises that by convention this House would not normally reject a negative order. Equally, it would not normally fail to confirm an affirmative order. Therefore, in practical terms, from the point of view of this House there is not a great deal to choose between the two.
Noble Lords have placed great importance on bringing the academic freedom provisions in the Bill into line with the corresponding provisions for England and Wales. That also was in the end the strong wish of the Scottish university principals. The Government accepted the wish of the House and I made the necessary changes in Committee. Having committed myself to that policy of consistency it would be very difficult to reverse it in the light of the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
The noble and learned Lord repeated the points that he made in Committee on the question of the nature of the power itself and its appropriateness to the different classes of legislation available. Following the noble and learned Lord's remarks I revisited the second 1972–73 report of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, as no doubt did other noble Lords. Paragraph 43 describes a fourfold classification of affirmative powers. The noble and learned Lord attempted to persuade us that the power of direction in Clause 54 was a class one power, an important power, a power,
"the exercise of which will substantially affect provisions in Acts of Parliament, whether by alteration of their effect, or by increase or limitation of the extent or duration of their effect, or otherwise".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, did the noble Lord also look at the other summing-up provision to which I referred last time, namely paragraph 77 on page 98?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly read a substantial amount of it. Perhaps I could finish the point that I was trying to make. What we are dealing with here is not a class one power but, if anything, a class four power, namely:
"a miscellaneous or general class comprising powers the exercise of which has for a variety of reasons been thought to involve considerations of some special interest".

1475
Accordingly, on that view, the noble and learned Lord's test of triviality or substantiality for negative or affirmative resolution is not apt. Instead, as paragraph 46(4) says of class four powers:
"Research cannot be of much help here as importance is a matter of political judgement".
It is with that point that I have a great deal of sympathy. In my judgment the negative resolution approach is probably the right one. It was the approach that was adopted in the 1988 Act. More recently, in what is now, as I said, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and in the words of the Joint Select Committee in paragraph 45 of the report, I feel that affirmative resolution might risk a needless consumption of parliamentary time.
I know that the noble Lord has made great efforts to explain exactly why he feels that this amendment would be appropriate for this particular Bill. But I wonder why Parliament has not sought to include the powers in the other Acts that I mentioned. I hope that the noble Lord feels satisfied that I have done my best to explain to him what is meant by these powers and why we are introducing them in this procedure.
In the light of that explanation I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord said, first, that this point falls under the second head of what the Joint Select Committee recommended. But it does not. It falls under the first head; namely, whether it is important or whether it is merely trivial. Having got no further last time than saying that it verges on the trivial, I cannot blame him for trying to evade that head of distinction raised by the Joint Select Committee.
Secondly, he said that it is a negative power in the English Bill. So it is. But the noble Lord is responsible for this Bill and he must justify this power in the light of the Joint Select Committee's recommendation which was accepted by both Houses and from which it is not open to the noble Lord to depart. He has to accept it in relation to the Bill for which he is responsible.
The third comment of the noble Lord was that in the 1988 Bill it was no more than a negative resolution procedure. So it was. But that was part of a quid pro quo. The critics of the Bill dropped the agitation for the affirmative resolution procedure when the Government conceded that the safety catch should be fitted to the barrel of this gun: the power to give directions to the funding council. It was a quid pro quo.
This matter must now be determined in relation to this Bill. It is a question of parliamentary control of ministerial order. Obviously, I shall not get any further. I do not wish the Bill to founder. If an amendment were carried against the Government that would be the effect. I do not doubt that noble Lords would so carry it. I see that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has returned to see that the Government have a safe majority. I hope that they have a majority because I wish this Bill well. However, in asking leave to withdraw the amendment I yield to force and not to argument. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill represents a landmark in the history of Scottish education. It has been widely recognised as such and has consequently received a good deal of support from all quarters. We have had debates of high quality in this House. I pay tribute to noble Lords who have worked hard to subject the Bill to such a thorough scrutiny, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and Lord Addington. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her help and advice during the passage of the Bill.
Many noble Lords have brought to the proceedings considerable experience of further and higher education in Scotland and further afield. Many aspects of the Government's policies have been clarified and refined during our debates. We have been able to make improvements to the provisions in a number of key areas. The result is that we now have a Bill which will increase skill levels in the Scottish workforce in order to increase the growth and potential of the Scottish economy. That does not only mean training for school leavers; it also means continuing training and retraining for adults already in the workforce. For the first time all higher education institutions in Scotland will come within the ambit of the Secretary of State. That, together with his new responsibilities for further education, will ensure a coherent and co-ordinated system of further and higher education, as we move into the 21st century.
The theme running throughout the Bill is one of opportunity —opportunity for Scots of whatever age to improve themselves through training and education. It is predicated on the principle that places in higher and further education should be available for all those who wish to take up the opportunities and are able to benefit from them. Only by expanding tertiary education will we continue to remain an advanced economy. We shall achieve that goal and create the means of ensuring our national prosperity in the next century through these reforms.
This Bill will release and focus the energies of principals and their staff. It means freedom to manage and expand further and higher education in Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words and for the efforts that he has made throughout the passage of the Bill to

1477
accommodate what we on this side of the House believe to be the anxieties of the people of Scotland. By and large we believe that it is a handy Bill. To say that it is a landmark Bill in terms of Scottish education puts it rather high. But it is certainly an advance. We are particularly pleased that higher education will be made available to more people. We are also pleased that in his short remarks the Minister stressed the fact that the Bill will give opportunities to people of whatever age in Scotland.
Perhaps I speak chauvinistically, but I believe that Scotland has possibly a higher percentage of people who realise that life does not finish academically at school age and that they can move on. This Bill may help them.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their efforts on this Bill. The House is always pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and his very sharp comments on Bills in his attempts to improve them.
The Minister has handled the Bill with great skill. We all look forward to seeing him in the next Parliament, sitting perhaps on the other side and looking at legislation that has been put forward by a different Administration. That legislation perhaps will be seen rather more as landmarks than the Bill which the House has put to bed this evening. We have all tried to be helpful in a common cause. Therefore I am pleased to see the Bill on the statute book.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has been helpful and constructive during the passage of the Bill. We have worked towards improving the Bill and I believe that we have done so. I thank too the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. When I reached a minefield once or twice she put me right. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, took the main brunt of the debate. I am glad that he was so polite about my supporting role.
The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will ring in the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for some time. If ever I find myself drawn against the noble and learned Lord, I shall make sure that I have done every bit of my homework.
The Bill improves the situation in Scotland. It gets rid of the ridiculous binary divide—and not before time. I hope that it will contribute to the encouragement of Scottish higher education. I speak as a zealous convert to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, Scottish higher education has always provided one of the driving forces and principal examples for the development of higher education in the United Kingdom and indeed the remainder of the world.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Bill is a landmark in Scottish education. One could also say that a new chapter is opening. The local authorities are naturally sorry to lose the further education colleges. However, as times change I believe that the
1478
new system will work extremely well. I am sure that local authorities will have frequent contact with colleges because, as the noble Lord and my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the colleges remain part of the education pattern. I am sure that they will flourish under the new autonomy. We shall follow their fortunes with interest.
The new funding council in Scotland for the higher education institutions is a landmark. I am sure that it will develop its method of working and its relationship with the Scottish Office with care and vision.
I express my particular gratitude to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and to the Minister of State in another place for the way in which they handled the issue of yet another amendment to the so-called academic freedom provisions. The Bill was amended in another place, it was believed to the satisfaction of all concerned. That turned out not to be so. The Bill had to be amended again. I found it encouraging that the Government listened hard to what the universities said and provided what was wanted. We now have the same provisions as those which exist in the Bill for England. It is unusual for Scots to want that, but we wished it on this occasion.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had another go at his aspirations for the handling of orders in Parliament. He did so admirably. I thought that he was a little tough on my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, but that probably did my noble friend no harm. We now have a procedure that is no less speedy than that set out in the English Bill. That will give satisfaction in Scotland. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will one day prevail with regard to that aspect. I am very glad that he is as keen on the Bill as I am and that he has ensured that it will not fall by the wayside at this stage.
I thank everyone concerned for the way that they have co-operated with my noble friend on the Bill. I am sure that the future of further and higher education in Scotland will be exciting.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about the academic freedom clauses in the Bill. It is an honourable settlement that is very welcome.
I thank the Minister. I thank too the noble Baroness for the effort that she has put into the matter. I am glad about the outcome.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as an interloper into debates on Scottish education, I felt it necessary at the outset to ask for the indulgence of your Lordships. Now that the Bill departs from us, I express my appreciation of the way that indulgence has been shown and add how much I have enjoyed and learned from the debates to which I have listened.
It would be an impertinence if I mentioned Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debates. That has already been done. At the outset I explained why it was a particular privilege to take part in discussion of a Bill that was piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Although we have crossed swords on academic freedom and on parliamentary control, he has successfully piloted the Bill to the very last stage. It would be surprising if it

1479
were now defeated. That has given me pleasure, and I congratulate him and join in the felicitations that others have paid.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now Pass. (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill
6.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Although there have been differences in the House about the scope of the Bill there is, in the main, cross-party support for the principle which underpins the Bill, that social security money intended for mortgage interest should reach the lender.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell, wish to make a few points. I look forward to hearing them. To the extent that it is necessary I shall respond. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side wish to thank the Minister for his invariably courteous, although not always invariably helpful, responses to the amendments and comments that we made. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his friendly verbal support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the less verbal but no less welcome support of my noble friend Lord Carter who was always present to give helpful advice and encouragement.
Throughout the brief Bill we have been at pains to agree that mortgage payments through income support should be paid to mortgage lenders for the sake both of the householder and the lender. There is no disagreement between us. At Committee stage of the Bill we had the support of the Minister, reported in Hansard, that the Government would use their best endeavours to ensure that the Benefits Agency will pay the income support payments for mortgage payments as speedily as possible so that no arrears that accumulate will in any sense be due to administrative inefficiency or incompetence. We welcome his anxiety to expedite payment of benefit.
We regret that the Minister felt unable to meet us on what we regarded as our "bridge" amendment; that compulsion (that is, direct debit of mortgage support payments) should be restricted to those who have a track record of financial incompetence—those who are two months in arrears, and so on. We believe that that would have been a most helpful amendment.
1480
It would have done much to remove the sense of unfairness of treatment that still remains with those who have always made their payments on time. They feel somewhat stigmatised and penalised by that policy when in no sense have they committed an offence.
Secondly, I wish to register our regret that two wider issues which we on these Benches raised on Second Reading were unable to be brought back by way of specific amendments. They proved to be beyond the remit of the Bill but it is worth flagging them now. The first was our wish to have mortgage interest payments paid in full during the first 16 weeks of income support and not merely at the rate of 50 per cent. As regards the second issue, both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I tried to draw attention to the implications of moving to the new 16 hours per week rule from 24 hours per week, which will take place in April. There is a need, therefore, to permit families a "better-buy" choice.
As regards the first point, I wish to quote from a letter which I received recently from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Mr. Boléat stated:
"I noted also your comments about only half of mortgage interest being met by income support in the first 16 weeks of a claim. The experience of lenders is that often they receive no mortgage payments in the first 16 weeks of a claim, because in this period borrowers have to adapt suddenly to a sharp reduction in income".
There is no difference between us; that is precisely the problem that we sought to register on Second Reading. At the point when there is a sharp reduction in income made worse by only half of mortgage interests payments being met, families begin to spiral into debt. That was confirmed last week by the independent Institute of Policy Studies. It showed that about 2.5 million families are in debt, that one in 100 borrowers face repossession and that one in seven borrowers is in arrears and difficulties with his mortgage repayments. The institute showed that such families are not feckless but merely poor.
I do not suggest that as a result of only half the mortgage interest being met those families will be repossessed within the first 16 weeks. That is not the case. Mr. Boléat was at pains to state that no repossession would take place in the first 16 weeks. The point that we sought to establish and to which the Minister has yet to reply was that that was the beginning of the spiral into debt out of which it was almost impossible for a family to climb. At the point when they move into 100 per cent. repayments they continue to carry a burden of arrears, which even capitalised adds significantly to their outgoings and makes it that much harder for them to stay financially afloat.
In Committee we could not return to the second issue that we raised on Second Reading. However, it is important that we flag it for the last time. I refer to the implication of reducing from April what is considered to be full-time work from 24 to 16 hours per week. That means that a member of a family who is at present working up to 24 hours per week can claim income support, obtain a modest disregard of perhaps £15 if he is a lone parent and, most importantly, because he is in receipt of income support

1481
he gets a passport to other benefits. Above all, he receives mortgage interest relief in addition to free school dinners, prescription charges and so forth. By reducing the number of hours from 24 to 16, families coming onto social security will go onto family credit instead. The people who do not have children will not be eligible for anything.
Therefore, some families coming newly onto social security will be better off under the change. Those lone parents who live in rented accommodation will benefit from being able to go onto family credit rather than income support because they do not face the problem of mortgage interest relief payments. All childless couples and virtually all owner-occupiers in receipt of income support who are in part-time work will be direct losers by moving off income support and going onto family credit if they are in low paid work. A typical example might be a husband in work whose wife works perhaps 20 hours per week as a nurse or a school dinner lady. If her husband becomes unemployed she will be beyond the reach of income support. She may claim family credit but she will lose entitlement to the mortgage relief payments that come within income support. In future a family in that situation will be plunged into debt and arrears from which it cannot recover.
In consequence, as the CAB made clear, that will encourage such people to drop work (at which point they will lose benefit entitlement) and not to take up part-time jobs. A recent anti-poverty survey carried out in Manchester showed that approximately one fifth of all jobs were in the 16 to 24 hours per week range. Those jobs will no longer carry with them a passport to mortgage relief.
It is clear that the issue of the 16-week half payment and the reduction in the number of hours from 24 to 16 must await a different Bill. We should have liked to have seen full payment from the first week. We should have liked new families coming onto social security to have the option of "better-buy"; that is, they could go onto family credit or income support plus mortgage relief as suited their circumstances better. However, both those issues must await a different Bill which we on this side of the House look forward to introducing in due course.
I suggest that without those reforms the narrow aims of this Bill will not be met. Without wider reforms—for instance, the releasing of capital receipts for building an adequate supply of socially rented housing, whether by a housing association, local authority or tenants' co-op—more vulnerable families on low incomes and with insecure jobs will be forced into owner-occupation which they cannot afford. The problem will not go away until families of modest means have a genuine choice about whether they rent or buy a decent home at a price that they can afford. We are seeing the end result of 13 years of a government removing that choice from vulnerable families and we see the wreckage around us. That issue, too, will be speedily redressed when Members on this side have the pleasure of introducing legislation to that effect.
6.17 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for her kind words. I thank her also for the enthusiasm, energy and thorough knowledge of the material that she has brought to the Bill. As always I thank my noble kinsman for his kindness, his courtesy, his care in considering arguments and his attention to detail. In respect of this Bill he has made a particular effort to understand why we have put forward our arguments. Although he has not been able to meet them all there has at least been a tentative approach towards the meeting of minds. Many of us—in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—have occasionally talked about the growing thickness of legislation. But my noble kinsman has proved that blood is thicker than legislation and I thank him for that.
I also wish to thank my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown for the effort that he made in initiating the Bill. I am glad that it was brought forward. I look forward to seeing it on the statute book. It is undertaking a necessary job. However, in the very nature of the case—and one does not complain—it was undertaken in a hurry. When Bills are introduced in a hurry, however necessary that may be, there are inevitably some cases in which the tacking shows and parts need to be put together. It will be necessary to look at the issue in the next Parliament.
Unlike the Opposition Front Bench, I do not have the gift of divination; I have no idea which of us will be responsible for looking at it in the next Parliament. Whoever it is, there are some questions which must be addressed. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness said about income support for the first 16 weeks. It is then that the problems occur. In Committee I listened to my noble kinsman, who seemed to be of the opinion that most people are functioning with a considerable amount of savings. That may be true on some economic levels but I do not think that is so on all levels.
I began to wonder why my noble kinsman thought that. I began to think about the way in which government records are kept, because governments necessarily look at their records. Therefore, I thought about the way in which government figures for savings are calculated. While we are repaying our mortgages, everything which we repay is counted as savings. When we pay premiums for life insurance, all that is calculated as savings. Therefore, when my noble kinsman looks at the figures for savings, I wonder whether he is getting from them a quite unrealistic figure for the amount which people actually have in the bank.
I do not know whether the Government have recorded any separate figure for money which people have in the bank and for money which they are repaying on loans and so on, which is therefore calculated as savings. Until those figures are split, we shall not know how much people have in savings. Until that is known, I remain extremely doubtful as to whether most people have sufficient savings in their possession to continue paying mortgage interest for the first 16 weeks of unemployment. In those 16

1483
weeks, arrears build up. Of course, arrears of interest multiply. Therefore, taking over the interest after 16 weeks means that the department is taking on a bigger job than it needs to. That will need to be looked at.
The question of those who work part-time for between 16 and 24 hours must also be looked at. When that change in the rules was introduced, neither the Government nor anyone else foresaw the Bill before us now. Therefore, the two changes were introduced without reference to each other. It is not exactly a case of the right hand not letting the left hand know what it doeth, because the left hand had not done it yet. At some stage we must look at those two measures together, because that is a significant disincentive to people to take part-time work. That is against the public interest.
One thing which I note from the current size of the public sector borrowing requirement—and I do not intend to make a party point—is that a government, whoever they may be, should think not merely about the size of their spending but about maximising their revenues. The fall in revenues resulting from the recession has caused many of our present problems. I strongly believe that, if we wish to maximise our revenues, we must give people the opportunity to get back to work. In particular we must give women with children a chance to get back to work. They usually go back to work on a part-time basis, for reasons which are too obvious to need developing. In those circumstances, creating a major disincentive to work between 16 and 24 hours in a week does not seem to me to make sense. That too must be looked at.
In Committee we had a fascinating debate on the issue of compulsion. The difficulty arises from the tying of mortgage benefit to income support, because the lender, who knows the borrower is in arrears, does not know whether the borrower is on income support. It may be that we should not have the problems as regards compulsion if we changed, as we must consider doing, to a specific mortgage benefit. However, I am aware that that will involve large problems and will be difficult to do well. Whoever brings in that measure must think about it extremely carefully.
On the issue of delay, I welcome what my noble kinsman said in Committee. He understands the problem well. There is a growing burden on benefit offices of unemployment and recession. I shall say this before the election, because it must be said afterwards, that the current economic forecasts are that unemployment will continue to increase into 1994. Accordingly, the burden is likely to continue to increase. Therefore, my noble kinsman will have to put his money where his mouth is.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond to one or two of the points made by my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I was asked whether there will be delays. I can confirm that the benefits agency will pay as speedily as possible. I accept that there may be difficulties here but certainly the agency is confident that it can cope with any problems
1484
which are likely to arise. Obviously that matter will be monitored once the Bill becomes an Act and the direct payments under the Bill begin to be made.
As regards compulsion, as I implied in Committee, I thought that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was driving a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill, which is that it should be compulsory. There are enormous administrative difficulties in making it voluntary and as my noble kinsman said, there are problems of confidentiality whichever way one goes. Therefore, my noble kinsman asked that we should look towards a specific mortgage benefit. That would bear terrific cost implications. If my noble kinsman is putting that forward, I should welcome an opportunity to argue that in the coming weeks. I do not know whether that is part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, called for the abolition of the 50 per cent. income support payments during the first 16 weeks. I wrote to the noble Baroness to correct the figure which I gave, but it would involve an enormous cost implication of £71 million. I repeat what I said before: that most people in the first 16 weeks, particularly after losing a job and going on to income support, have other forms of savings—for example, payments in lieu of notice or redundancy. That has not created much of a problem in the past. Certainly, the mortgage lenders said, when we made the change, that they did not envisage that it would lead to increased numbers of repossessions.
Turning to the hours rule change for income support and family credit, the noble Baroness asked whether there could be a "better buy" proposal. I cannot go further than what I said on Second Reading. I promised that there would be protection for those at the time of the change but we do not believe we can go further than that.
I am glad that the Bill has not been opposed. It will provide reassurance for many people otherwise at risk of repossession. It will also form part of a package of measures agreed with lenders which will provide relief for many people with mortgage difficulties, whether or not on benefit.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Bill passed.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Midland Metro Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Private Business
A Message was received from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
That—
(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;
(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on Monday next of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon, or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that day be paid;
(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;
(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill has been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the present Session, it shall stand so referred;

(ii) if such Bill has been referred to a Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall be committed and—

1486

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and

(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) if such Bill has been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(iv) if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner has reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

(ii) if the Examiner has so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second Lime, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

(iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(10) where a Bill has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and the period prescribed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order 171A relating to Private Busineses (Petitions against private bills) has not elapsed before Monday next, any Petition presented during the present Session in pursuance of that Standing Order shall be void, and the period of time prescribed by that Standing Order shall apply to any Bill brought from the Lords in the next Session in pursuance of this Order;
(11) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(12) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
(13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
(14) where any Standing Orders have been disposed with in respect of any private Bill in the present Session
1488
or in the last Session, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
(15) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
(16) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the present Session.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.