Lords Sitting of 12 April 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Prisoners and Benefit Claims
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are proposing to take in response to reports that some prisoners have been claiming unemployment and other benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, we introduced new procedures at the beginning of March to check the benefit records of all prisoners and take appropriate action where fraud is suspected.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is it true that six years ago Ministers were warned about the fraud? Can my noble friend say whether the computers within the DSS and the Home Office are compatible or is it illegal for computrs to talk to each other?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we became aware of the problem last September and have been working on it. In March this year, we ran a cross-check of all sentenced prisoners against benefit records. It indicated that 2,600 prisoners had received some benefit payments during the past year and since entering prison. Investigations have been opened on 1,450 of those cases where benefit is still being paid. Procedures are now in place to check benefit records of all newly convicted prisoners; those procedures will in the future include the use of information technology. All the cases of fraud are being investigated. In each case prosecution will be considered and recovery pursued. Efforts are being made to catch and charge any accomplices.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not the case, however, that the National Association of Probation Officers reported fraud in 1988, as the noble Baroness mentioned? Why is it that the DSS only appears to have taken action in the past six months?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have taken action in the past when fraud has been brought to our attention and there have been successful prosecutions. The recent survey, matching all records of prisoners with the records in the Contributions Agency, went a stage further than we had been able to go previously.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, although there seems to be no real evidence, does it not appear, according to what I have read, that there have been occasions when employees and their employers have been conniving so that those employed can draw unemployment benefit?
1380
There seems to be no hard evidence but from responsible reports it seems that it may be worth examining the matter.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are investigating allegations of involvement by third parties, including allegations of involvement by employment service staff. Of course, in many cases the prisoners themselves do not benefit from, and may be unaware of, the fraud. It may be carried out by third parties without the prisoner's knowledge. However, I can assure the House that we are investigating all the cases that have come up and will prosecute any cases where we are able to do so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is this not just another example of the failure to computerise the administration of prisoners, as recommended in his report in the early 1980s by Lord Justice May? Is my noble friend aware that recently, if one asked the prison service where a prisoner was, the only information was "the last recorded address" of the prisoner. The service did not even know in which prison every prisoner was. Are all prisoners now on a single computer register? Does that register show the national insurance numbers of prisoners?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, all I can tell my noble friend is that on 3rd March there were 34,428 sentenced prisoners serving sentences in the 127 prisons in England and Wales. There is also a turnover of around 1,500 sentenced prisoners entering and leaving prison each week; that is apart from remand prisoners. I can tell my noble friend that liaison between the Contributions Agency and the prison service has not been adequate in the past and that steps have been taken to address the problem so that the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency are notified of the names of new inmates when they enter prison.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is not a matter of prison records but of records of the social security payments system? If there were an automatic means of identifying people on the payments system through the national insurance number of any person who had been given a prison sentence, we would not have the problem in the first place. We could stop it arising.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure that one necessarily knows a person's national insurance number when that person is sentenced. However, when anyone receives a sentence, the prison service now informs the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency of that person's name, address and national insurance number, if the service knows it. That is then checked against the records.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any system at all under which the centralised, computerised records of prisoners are sent to the relevant department that pays unemployment benefit? Is there a system? And how does it work?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that there was not a system. The parts of the

1381
existing system that were in place did not work as well as they should have done. There is a system now. We hope that it will work better so that information can be passed on and that not only will departments talk to each other but also perhaps computers will be able to talk to each other.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Question mentions "unemployment and other benefits". Can the Minister say what those other benefits are and how substantial they are?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, they could be any benefits to which someone was entitled when entering prison. There are some benefits which prisoners are entitled to receive while in prison—for example, family credit. That is because entitlement is for a fixed period and is based on customer circumstances at the date of the claim. Housing benefit is also available in limited circumstances. For example, it may be paid where there is need to safeguard accommodation until a prisoner is released.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the Minister to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Is not the strength of the noble Lord's point reinforced by the inability of Home Office Ministers to give any adequate answers about the number of prisoners returning late from leave? If there were an adequate computer system, perhaps we might get better answers out of the Home Office.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, for as long as I have been in this House I have felt that the one thing upon which one can always rely is my noble friend Lord Ferrers giving an adequate answer at the Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do the "other benefits" include constant attendance allowances?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. I believe that people get "constant attendance allowance" free of charge while they are in prison!

Drama Schools: Funding
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that drama schools are as much national education providers as music and visual arts conservatoires.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we consider it desirable that there should be a range of public and private education and training provision designed to meet the needs of students. Drama schools have an important role to play nationally in providing diversity and choice, as do the music conservatoires and visual arts institutions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that
1382
several leading members of the theatrical profession are concerned about the discretionary awards system? Does she feel that some local authorities could be doing more to help?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that I am aware of that. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was visited by a number of very distinguished people, including the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, and Sir Anthony Hopkins. They had a very constructive meeting. My right honourable friend explained that he wished to give close consideration to the findings of the Gulbenkian survey which has recently been published, and that he would look at their representation in that context.
As to the other part of my noble friend's question, it is for local education authorities to determine their own priorities. But we are aware of anxieties about the decline in local authority discretionary awards for drama students in particular. Again, my right honourable friend will take that into account when he looks at the Gulbenkian survey. We hope that the local authorities will take note of it as well.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1987, 83 per cent. of local authorities made full discretionary awards, whereas last year the proportion had fallen to 39 per cent? Will the Minister agree that drama is one of the richest heritages of this country? It is a sphere of our national life for which we are held in very special esteem in the international community. Will she give an undertaking to the House that she will do everything within her power to ensure that all those students of calibre who want to attend drama school are able to do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that it is a matter for local authorities to determine their own priorities. But I can also say that both the numbers of awards and the expenditure on awards have risen. In 1990–91 it was £209 million; in 1991–92 it was £239 million. Although there has been a slight drop by just over £1 million—it was £238 million in 1992–93, the latest year for which we have figures—that means that while the rise in the number of awards and the overall expenditure peaked in 1991–92, the amount of money that is spent is still higher overall than the amount that was spent in 1990–91. Whether it is a question of drama, music, catering, or any other subject, it must be a matter for local authorities to determine how to spend their money.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am encouraged by what my noble friend said earlier. But how does she justify a situation whereby those students who are in music conservatoires get funding from central government and a great deal of certainty in that way, whereas students at drama school are dependent upon the uncertainty of local government discretionary awards?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. The music conservatoires and the visual arts schools have a history of public funding. I believe that my noble friend may already know that. With present constraints on higher education student

1383
numbers and resources, there is no prospect of additional public funds for private drama schools. While any institution can apply to be publicly funded, we would certainly need some convincing at this time in regard to even more new applications from private establishments either for incorporation into further education or for designation into higher education. More fundable institutions would mean spreading more thinly the resources that are presently available to the funding councils.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, following the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will my noble friend agree that the provincial repertory theatre provides the cradle of experience from which so much of our great acting talent is both derived and developed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question. I cannot argue with the point made by my noble friend. The repertory companies on which I certainly cut my teeth—not as a performer but as a participating member of the audience—are very important to the world of theatre.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the discretionary awards from local authorities have fallen off in respect of drama schools. Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons may be that, while in musical conservatoires there are certain obvious attainments which students have to reach before they can be accepted, in drama schools there may be no such tests available at all? Is it possible that local authorities have in mind the advice given by Noel Coward some time ago: "Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. I have sat on a discretionary awards committee in my own local authority. I know from the numbers of students who came forward for music awards and those who came forward for drama awards that it was much more obvious that there was recordable, measurable talent on the part of the music applicants than necessarily appeared on the part of drama applicants. That is not to say that people would not make very good use of the places. To put the matter in context, both discretionary and mandatory awards are being made to people studying drama, particularly vocational drama—performing arts. They are there in some numbers. We are talking here about additional and mostly private institutions to be added to the list.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I have noted the wonderfully high standard displayed during the "Young Musician of the Year" award. Would my noble friend give an assurance to the House that musical education will continue to have the highest priority in her department?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an absolute assurance on that point to my noble friend. This Government have made music a central subject in the national curriculum. We shall continue to support it as a compulsory subject in the national curriculum.
Lord Rix: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to explain what she means by "private" establishments for training in drama? Does she agree that the majority of drama schools could be classified as private?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the definition would be "that not provided by the state". There are many drama and performing arts departments in our universities and colleges which are state funded. I make the distinction between those and the privately funded establishments to which sometimes financially assisted students are referred.
Lord Rix: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a further question. Does the Minister agree that the majority of people who go to university to study drama are studying the theatre, whereas the majority of people who go to drama schools are studying to be actors? Does she further agree that it is the acting side of the profession which is worrying noble Lords in regard to discretionary grants?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an important distinction to make when talking about acting. I am talking about the performing arts, which is an umbrella for music, dance and acting as well. But the private institutions often are vocational and about the craft of acting.

Computer Chips: Theft
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that special measures are needed to counter thefts of computer chips in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. We are not aware of any peculiarity about chips which would require special measures to be taken to provide against their theft.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that as these chips are small, valuable and equivalent to an international currency, a series of attempted robberies was to be expected—robberies such as the one in Greenock recently in which £2.5 million worth of chips were removed? While close co-ordination is needed between international police forces, can he say whether it is possible for manufacturers to leave identification marks on the chips so that they can be traced even after they are in computers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend quite rightly points to the fact that chips are small, valuable and might be used as an international currency. But so are diamonds and they are very much more readily tradable. My noble friend said that there had been an outbreak of stealing. In fact, there has only been one theft in this country, in Greenock. The police and Interpol have no knowledge of any concerted efforts being made to steal chips. My noble friend asked

1385
whether it was possible to identify the chips. My understanding is that there is the possibility for them to be marked and that is done, but they are marked in batches because chips are sold in batches. It is therefore not possible—or at least it is not done—to mark individual chips. When a chip is located it is possible to tell the batch from which it was purchased and where it was made. The business of the police then is to decide whether or not it has been stolen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of my earlier derogatory remarks about Home Office Answers, will the Minister accept from me that I entirely applaud his sturdy refusal to take specific action about theft of particular high value items? He is quite right that the law must cover all high value items and no special provision for particular items is desirable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord changes his colour like a chameleon. I am very grateful to him for agreeing with my Answer. I like to think that all my answers would be subject to the noble Lord's agreement, if only he would look at them in the right way.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, lest there should be any misunderstanding, will the Minister accept that my Question and supplementary question were not aimed at altering the law in any respect? Further to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the law must of course apply equally for all items. But the police are required to take special precautions when it is known that there will be attempts to steal specific items of property, particularly valuable ones. I stick to that. I thank my noble friend for his assurances. Will he continue to make sure that everything is done to stop a positive trade in stolen chips and the temptation for professional criminals to steal them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point. Of course the police will take steps if they believe that there are any concerted efforts being made to steal the chips. But that is not the case at the moment. A group, including representatives of the force in whose area there was recently a major theft and a number of major electronics companies with manufacturing bases in Scotland, has been operating since last year to try to provide crime prevention advice and collate intelligence on crime against the industry.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that I may not be the only Member of this House who would like to know from my noble friend what these computer chips are and why anyone wants to steal them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that somebody would ask a nasty question such as that. The fact is that a chip can be very expensive. I understand that when they are used in guided missiles they can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and carry out many different tasks. On the other hand, they can carry out only one action, in which case they cost 15p. Perhaps that is the type of chip that my noble and learned friend would
1386
purchase if he wished to have one. The fact is that chips contain silicon and a number of complicated bits and pieces which enable them to do many things which my noble and learned friend would not be able to do without such a wretched chip.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the negotiations between this country, Spain and Portugal, does my noble friend agree that the Government might be better looking after our fish than our chips?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a different type of question and a different type of chip.

Government Science Laboratories: Review
2.58 p.m.
Baroness White Baroness White asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the objections expressed by the Royal Society against the way in which the Office of Public Service and Science is handling its current review of the 53 government controlled science laboratories, announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3rd March.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, following the White Paper Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, which foreshadowed that efficiency scrutiny, the terms of reference were announced on 2nd February and the bodies to be covered by the scrutiny team on 3rd March.
Baroness White: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Has she read the special press release on this matter issued by the Royal Society? It states:
"The current way that the scrutiny exercise is being conducted does not give us confidence that it can provide a secure basis for decision-making".
Is the noble Baroness aware of the emergency meeting for senior officers of our own parliamentary and scientific committee as they were going into Recess, to discuss with Sir Peter Levene and the Government Efficiency Unit their deep concerns as to the haste with which this scrutiny exercise has been conducted, the failure to consult any senior scientist and that the 90 working days which are to be allowed for public comment after the report is received —I understand that that is likely to be early in May—will bring us well into the Summer Recess? There is considerable anxiety in the scientific world as to the way in which the scrutiny is being conducted and how it will affect the work of thousands of our best scientists in government employ.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of the press release to which the noble Baroness referred. I agree that it is a demanding timetable but we believe that it is achievable. I do not accept the other points made by the noble Baroness. It is an open exercise well foreshadowed in the White Paper and the terms of reference and the bodies that were to be subject to the review were subsequently announced.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor cannot in any way be accused of lack of openness. On 16th June

1387
1993 my right honourable friend informed Parliament that the scrutiny would be undertaken by the Efficiency Unit in conjunction with government departments. He gave quite clearly and openly the methods that should be used, and that also was made public. There is a feed-in from all the institutions and the scientists within them. The Chief Scientist, Professor William Stewart, will have an input into the exercise. Members from the Royal. Society have been to see Professor Stewart and corresponded with my right honourable friend, and their concerns will be taken into account. Finally, on each occasion my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that it would be normal practice for the Efficiency Unit reports to be published.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the magazine New Scientist when it makes the point that the public may not like the idea of a laboratory owned by the cattle industry advising Ministers on whether or not British beef is safe to eat after BSE? Can she assure the House that it will be impossible for such a situation to arise?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not always agree with the magazine New Scientist. However, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is an important one. This is an efficiency exercise and will not do anything to inhibit the mission of each of the bodies. If their mission is that they be required to give advice to any Whitehall department, then nothing in the efficiency reviews should inhibit their ability to do that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it not time that the Government thought again about whether efficiency is in fact efficient?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, extremely large sums of money are being spent on this aspect of research. It is important that the maximum possible efficiency is squeezed out of the system in order to ensure that the resources available go towards making sure that we have better science.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is anxiety that a reduction in the budget could result in the loss of several hundred skilled jobs? That would be a considerable loss to the country, to commerce generally and to the academic field. Can the Minister say whether there is any justification for that anxiety?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the scrutiny team's work and the reports that will flow from it. However, the whole exercise is about making sure that every pound spent through these bodies or any subsequent bodies that arise from the scrutiny reports is spent to good effect. It is about extracting as much value as possible for the money that is spent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the idea of an Efficiency Unit in this Government is rather laughable? Is she further aware that 30,000 scientists are involved in the institutions which are being investigated by the
1388
Efficiency Unit? Is it the case that the team has told unions that because of the timetable there is no time to consult the unions at local level? What does that mean?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I totally refute the first comments of the noble Lord. Each of the establishments, the people within them and indeed the trade unions within them will have an input into the whole exercise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the, noble Baroness will kindly answer my last question. Have the unions been told that there will be no consultation at local level with trade unions because of the haste with which the exercise is being conducted?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what is appropriate at local level is that local people within the establishments have a proper input. At local level some of the members. of staff of the establishments will be trade union members. As always, input from trade unions will take place at national level.

Race Relations (Remedies) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Teacher Training Agency") and insert ("Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 22, 23 and 24 which are also in my name. Amendment No. 1 seeks to change the name of the agency proposed by the Bill from the Teacher Training Agency to the Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training.
I hope that your Lordships will not feel that it is too late in the day to attempt such a change, especially as there appear to be very good reasons for doing so and for accepting the rest of the amendments in this group. The main reason for accepting this group of amendments is that the Bill as it stands is unclear as to the powers which the agency will enjoy in perhaps the most vital area of its intended activity towards higher education on the one hand and school-based teacher training courses on the other. That vital area is accreditation.
At the moment it is not clear—despite, or perhaps because of, some of the amendments accepted in Committee—whether the power to accredit school-based teacher training courses (which, as I understand it, normally resides with the Secretary of State) has been passed via the new agency to institutions of higher education, whether it is to be shared by the institutions of higher education with the new agency or whether the

1389
Secretary of State still retains his power which, as the Bill now stands, could be shared with the agency and with the institutions of higher education as he sees fit.
I am not a lawyer. However, I was sufficiently worried as to exactly what the Bill said when it left Committee and Report proceedings that I took independent legal advice. That confirmed my impression that the Bill is in a muddle. Indeed, it would seem that the mover of the two amendments which were accepted at Committee stage and which caused some of the confusion to which I refer—or at least left the Bill less clear than it was before—may agree with me. I say that because new paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who successfully moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 68A during Committee proceedings, seeks to clarify the very point that I am making.
We shall be debating Amendment No. 4 later. It is sufficient to point out for the purposes of this group of amendments that Amendment No. 4 intends to put a duty on the new agency to ensure that all courses of initial teacher training provided by schools are accredited by institutions of higher education. I believe that that is what Amendment No. 4 seeks to achieve, though I am not sure that it does so as I shall mention when we come to debate it. Be that as it may, I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that he would not have tabled paragraph (a) of his Amendment No. 4 if he were entirely confident that all courses of initial teacher training were already to be accredited by institutions of higher education, and by no one else, under the Bill as it stands. Indeed, I believe he would be right not to entertain that confidence.
It came as something of a shock to me to realise—and I confess that I did not do so until I saw Amendments Nos. 62 and 68A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, tabled during our Committee proceedings—that the Bill as originally drafted did not make it clear that the new agency would indeed be vested with the Secretary of State's present power of accreditation in the same way as the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education now is vested with that power. I fear I was guilty of oversight, as perhaps were other noble Lords, because I understood from all the descriptive material circulated by the Department for Education that the new agency was to replace the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education—or CATE as she is known—and also the Teaching as a Career Unit, or TASC. I therefore assumed that the agency was to possess CATE's powers of accreditation.
This impression was formed by what was clearly in retrospect too casual a reading of the Bill, and particularly of Clause 13. Indeed, I have to suggest that Clause 13, even as it now stands, amended by Amendment No. 68A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at our Committee proceedings, is not entirely clear in the area to which my amendments seek to bring clarity. I say that because, as your Lordships will be aware, Clause 13 deals with the qualification of teachers. As I understand it, it sets out the guidelines under which the Secretary of State may make regulations to confer the power to accredit courses on
1390
the new agency and perhaps others. It seems beyond doubt that those who successfully complete an accredited course achieve QTS—qualified teacher status —and we should remember that those who achieve QTS at our school-based courses will already hold a degree. But it is not clear from Clause 13 as it now stands whether the new agency may by itself grant QTS to a school-based course, perhaps with the Secretary of State's blessing, or whether it can only do so if the course is accredited by an institution of higher education.
On page 7, line 31 of the Bill—that is to say, the fourth line of Clause 13—we see that regulations "may" make certain provisions. I am advised that the word "may" is important and may have the effect of diminishing the strength of Amendment No. 68A in our Committee proceedings which seems to seek to ensure that all school-based courses have to be accredited by an appropriate institution of higher education. Be that as it may, the confusion appears to grow when we come to subsection (2) of Clause 13, which defines those people who may qualify for QTS. At the top of page 8 of the Bill as it now stands we see that this extends to those who have,
"successfully completed a course of initial training for teachers in schools at an accredited institution in England or Wales".
Clause 13 (2) goes on to define what it means by an accredited institution. In paragraph (c) it says:
"an 'accredited institution' means an institution accredited by the Teacher Training Agency or, in Wales, by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales as a provider of courses satisfying such criteria as may from time to time be specified by the Secretary of State".
Clause 13 (2) concludes by declaring:
"The above amendment shall not be taken as prejudicing the power"—
by that I assume the Bill means the power of the Secretary of State—
"to make further regulations revoking or amending the provision inserted"
That seems to me and those who advise me to cause further lack of clarity.
Perhaps I may pause there, with that part of the Bill in front of us, to explain my Amendment No. 24. This would extend the caveat which I have just quoted to both Clause 13 (2) and, very importantly, to Clause 13 (1). Following on from that—I apologise if I am taking my amendments in reverse order but since the confusion seems to intensify towards the end of Clause 13 as presently drafted it may be a logical way to do it—I come to my Amendments Nos. 23 and 22. These are intended to remove the duty which Amendment No. 68A may—I emphasise the word "may"—put on the new agency to ensure that all school-based courses would be accredited by an appropriate institution of higher education. That brings me to the heart of this group of amendments. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and those who have supported his amendments wish to perpetuate the virtual monopoly which higher education enjoys in training and educating teachers. I use the word "virtual" because I am not entirely sure whether the licensed and articled teacher schemes require the approval of higher education apart from the fact that potential teachers under these schemes do, I believe, have to have a degree.
The stranglehold of higher education on the training of our teachers is also not entirely complete, I am glad to say, when one considers the private sector. I am aware, for instance, that Eton wisely eschews anyone with a Bachelor of Education degree and has found that some of its best teachers are former businessmen with a reasonable degree but without what I regard as the negative experience of having had to undergo one of the postgraduate certificate of education courses offered by higher education.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would leave school-based courses free to be accredited by an institution of higher education but do not attempt to compel them to do so. Likewise, Amendment No. 13 would clearly bestow on the new agency the function of accreditation of eligible institutions. That is not to say that Amendment No. 3 would give a monopoly either, or anything approaching it, to the new agency. In practice, of course, the vast majority of school-based courses might well choose to go on working with, and even being accredited by, institutions of higher education. But the amendments would at least allow such courses not to be accredited by what I regard as the malign monopoly or quasi-monopoly of higher education. Also, the malignant nature of higher education teacher education departments would surely start to become more healthy, less biased, more genuinely academic and therefore more helpful to aspiring teachers than is at present the case if the institutions to which they are attached knew that the agency was in the background with the power to support school-based and other courses which wished to avoid higher education.
As I said, this really seems to me to be the heart of the matter. Do those who supported Amendment No. 68A and indeed Amendment No. 62 at our Committee stage really wish to see school-based teacher training remain as much as possible with higher education, or are they prepared to see at least some reduction of higher education's present quasi-monopoly? I would be most interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and other noble Lords who speak in the House for higher education in this regard, if they care to contribute to the debate on these amendments, as to exactly where they stand on what seems to me such a vital matter.
That brings me finally to Amendment No. 1 and my proposal that the name of the new agency should not be the Teacher Training Agency but should instead be the Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training. I apologise again for introducing such a novel concept so late in the day but it seems to me that the name of the agency as proposed by the Bill became inappropriate during our proceedings at Report stage. As a result of that debate my noble friend the Minister has tabled Amendment No. 27 today which brings the expression "teacher education" in line with the expression "teacher training", as currently used in the Bill. I imagine that the amendment will find favour on all sides of your Lordships' House, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has been one of the strongest advocates in our debates so far of the use of the expression "teacher education" as opposed to "teacher training". I trust that he will be supporting Amendment
1392
No. 27 when the time comes. By the same token I dare to hope that the noble Lord and others who support the use of the expression "teacher education" will agree that it should appear in the name of the new agency.
Certainly, the expression "teacher training" is not much in current use among the institutions and departments which purport to teach our potential teachers how to teach. The normal expression is "teacher education", often shortened simply to "education", which can be very confusing for the uninitiated. Indeed, even I, no friend, it will have been gathered, of our system of teacher training, believe that we should use the expression "teacher education" at least on a par with the expression "teacher training". However, my reasons for supporting its use may be somewhat different from those which have inspired the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
I support the use of the expression "teacher education" precisely because, alas, so many people who now enter—particularly our Bachelor of Education courses—do so with such poor qualifications at A-level that one has to suggest that they have not really completed any sort of adequate education which might equip them to be teachers. So I do not believe that it would do any harm to emphasise that there are aspiring teachers who still need to be educated rather than simply trained how to teach.
So that is the reasoning which got me as far as wanting to change the name of the proposed agency to the Agency for the Education and Training of Teachers. Then I thought that if we are changing It we might as well go the whole hog and make clear in its name what it is that—
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: My Lords, "go the whole way".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friend. I say the "whole way" or "all the way". The name should say what we want this agency to do, hence the name I suggest in Amendment No. 1. We want this agency to promote teacher education and training. Some of us—I trust most of us —also want us to be able to accredit courses leading to qualified teacher status. Taken together with the other amendments in this group to which I have now spoken, I believe that my suggested change of name would make the position very much clearer than it is at the moment in the Bill. I trust that other noble Lords may feel able to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps it may be helpful if, in responding to this amendment, I were to make a couple of observations. First, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. We are at Third Reading and he will only have one opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box. I am minded to ask one or two questions which he might be minded to reply to later. Therefore, would he be willing to wait for those questions or should I give way during my speech to allow him to answer them?
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am always extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his guidance on these procedural points. I want to intervene at this moment if that is acceptable. There are two points as regards the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on which I would like to dwell for a moment or two. First, he will not be surprised when I say that I believe that there is a lot of merit in half of what he says about the title of the agency. I wish that he had given the House an opportunity to approach this in a slightly different way so that we could have taken seriously the point about "education" in the title. I commend him on having made that point because it is a good one.
Secondly, I want to make it quite clear, so that there is no misunderstanding, that as far as I and my noble friends are concerned, we see it as appropriate for the accreditation to remain with institutions of higher education. The noble Lord has obviously given this matter a great deal of thought. I would like him to consider for a moment some of the phraseology which he used in putting his case forward. He talked about the monopoly of higher education. That is a very misleading concept because within higher education there is a great variety of centres of higher education. I believe there will be very little difference between the two Front Benches as regards the importance of having that variety.
Therefore, where the preparation of teachers is being undertaken there will be a number of different institutions of higher education related to those centres which will be undertaking the accredited task. Therefore, there is not the monopoly in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, may have suggested that there might be. However, we feel that because of the importance of the professional status of teachers; and because of the very point which he made about the importance of education not only in subject matter, but in the process of preparing to be a teacher; and because of the need to have a demonstrable independence of ministerial diktat under a government of any persuasion, there is a great deal to be said for putting the accreditation clearly in the hands of the institutions of higher education. That is how we see it and how we interpret the amendments which have been put forward and approved by the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I find it very difficult to follow what my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is getting at. He is apparently concerned and worried—I suppose that if he is worried I should be too—but I do not understand what his worry is as regards the devolution of power of accreditation by the Secretary of State.
I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that that may be done by regulation and not primary legislation. There is no provision proposed for primary legislation to do this. If that is right then the Secretary of State retains total responsibility and is answerable in Parliament for what he has done under the regulation. For the life of me I cannot understand—no doubt somebody will explain—why a change of name from the TTA to an,
"Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training",
1394
could be conceivably relevant to resolving this problem of devolution and the effect that it will have.
I was totally unable to understand—again, as all your Lordships know, I do not know much about teacher training—what the monopoly of higher education was or is or whether it exists. I was gratified when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he did not understand it either. He did not use those terms, but of course he is far more diplomatic than I. He speaks from the Front Bench when I speak from the Back Benches and with a little more licence, perhaps. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, gives my noble friend half marks or half merit on the title. That was generous because in the circumstances it is not understood how there can be any merit in a proposition which could not produce any explicable result. As I cannot find any result perhaps somebody will explain what it is all about. For the life of me, I could not support any of these amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I at least am grateful to my noble friend for this opportunity for clarification which is one of the functions of Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for what he said, as far as he went. While I am still a little confused about what my noble friend proposes, I am a good deal more in the dark than I would wish to be about what will be the result, and what the Opposition intend to be the result of their amendments to the Bill at the previous stage. One can get a grasp of the general intention from what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said; namely, that there should be some form of diversity.
I seek to find out the extent to which the Secretary of State will be bound and the extent to which he will be free in this matter as regards the new amendment. I also seek to find out what balance the members of the Opposition think it is proper to hold between the training and education of teachers by higher education institutions and by other institutions such as schools and groups of schools which I believe are well qualified to carry them out. Yesterday I was at a conference of 100 teachers in a partnership of 11 primary schools. I was very much taken by their grasp of the issues about the proper management of schools and their fitness for bringing up others in their tradition, which is not the tradition which is so often attributed to teachers as a result of the activities of their collective leaders in negotiations and arguments with central government.
I hope to use this opportunity also to reassure your Lordships that the state of the profession as a whole is a good deal better than the state in which the profession is represented as being by the media as a result of the shrill and sometimes discourteous interventions of its leaders. But that is besides this point. What I was hoping to elicit from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and now, I presume, from the noble Baroness, Lady David, is further clarification of exactly what in their eyes we are sending to the other place.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this has turned into a rather complicated Bill. Some of us are not entirely clear exactly who is accrediting what as the Bill now stands. However, I do not feel that it becomes any

1395
clearer by changing the title of the agency in question. In fact, one of the few points of which we can grasp hold at present is that the agency in question is called the Teacher Training Agency, or TTA for short. It is not an agency for the promotion of Christian knowledge, or whatever, but it is suggested that it be called the Agency for the Promotion and Accreditation of Teacher Education and Training. However is one going to refer to such a body? If one uses an acronym, one gets APPETITE—APATET—or something of that kind, which makes me feel distinctly anorexic. It seems an absurd proposal. Whatever the agency's limitations as the Bill has been amended and whatever our doubts about its role, at least we can call it the TTA. If we were to amend the Bill as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, what on earth would we call the agency for short?
Although I fully understand that the noble Lord's intentions are for the best and that, with his other amendments, he is trying to clarify the role of the agency—I am sure that he is leading us in the right direction there—I cannot feel that the proposed amendment to the agency's title does anything but increase the obfuscation which surrounds the difficult issue of accreditation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the questions that are buzzing around the Chamber at the moment. First, my noble friend Lord Pearson referred to higher education's monopoly of teacher training. That is absolutely true. Indeed, it is even more true under the Bill as now amended because higher education has full control over all courses through its accreditation rights. It has further control through compulsory participation in all courses. The amendment to the Bill now denies an opportunity to a consortia of schools which may wish to provide school-centred teacher training in their own right. My noble friend is absolutely right on that point.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was concerned about accreditation powers and whether they are enshrined in primary legislation. He is absolutely right: they are not. It is right that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have powers under the regulations. The powers for those regulations are provided in Clause 13. Those regulations would be used to confer accreditation powers upon the agency.
I concur with many of the positive remarks that were made by my noble friend Lord Elton about teachers and the teaching profession.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, says that accreditation is to remain with higher education institutions. However, accreditation cannot remain a function of higher education, as the noble Lord suggests, because higher education institutions have no such function at present. They were given such a function for the first time under an amendment to Clause 13, but that function is not defined. In fact, the function of the higher education institutions is merely added to a defined function of accreditation which the Bill already gives to the agency. It really does not make sense.
My noble friend Lord Pearson referred to accreditation and powers of approval. Currently, no one
1396
has the power of accreditation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the power of course approval which he exercises on the advice of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. As I have just advised my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, Clause 13 first allows the Secretary of State to confer the power of accreditation upon the agency through regulation and then goes on to confer it on the agency. Under Clause 13, the agency has a clear power of accreditation, although amendments have muddled the picture by giving a parallel power to higher education. I am referring to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had passed in this place. The whole thing is in a dreadful muddle.
However, I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to set on record yet again, at this final stage, the wide and important role of the Teacher Training Agency. I fully understand the spirit in which these amendments were moved and I hope that my noble friend will in due course equally understand the reasons why I cannot support their inclusion in the Bill.
If agencies, like Bills, had a long title as well as a short one, I could see the case for a formulation like that in Amendment No. 1—although not perhaps in exactly the same terms. We certainly want the agency to have a promotional role in the widest possible sense, ensuring that teacher training (including teacher education) grows and develops to meet the demands and needs of the nation for a thriving, well-trained teaching force. This goes wider than but encompasses the work of the Teaching as a Career Unit, to the work of which I have paid tribute in earlier debates. The unit has the current responsibility for promoting teaching as a potential career for those leaving school and university. That is important work. While there is no current problem over teacher supply, we are not complacent, and we need mechanisms in place to make sure that the supply of well qualified applicants to teacher training courses continues at the necessary level.
Promotion of teacher training in its wider sense—although I am not sure that this is immediately clear from the amendment—also involves ensuring that the best courses of training flourish and are adequately resourced for their vital role. It involves working to establish and preserve a network of high quality training institutions able to meet current needs and respond to future demands.
Most of that role is currently embedded within the wider responsibilities of the Higher Education Funding Council, but it is not something which it has been possible or appropriate for the council to pursue with great vigour. Promoting one aspect of higher education would not be consistent with the wider role of the funding council across all of higher education.
It is also because of the funding council's distinct remit that there is currently no single body required to look across the piece and apply on a consistent basis the same funding and quality judgments to schools and to higher education providing training. Schools must currently be funded separately by the Secretary of State himself.
Promoting both the demand for and supply of high quality training is therefore a key part of the agency's

1397
role. So also is accreditation. Clause 13 of the Bill gives the agency an accrediting power which will in due course replace the Secretary of State's current power to approve individual courses of teacher training.
There has been some confusion over current and intended powers and duties in this area, and I should like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. Currently, qualified teacher status—widely known as QTS—comes from completing a course approved for the purpose by my right honourable friend. The power of course approval is conferred by the teachers regulations, currently made under Section 218 of the Education Reform Act. It is exercised by the Secretary of State on advice from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and Ofsted.
Clause 13 adds a new power for the agency to accredit institutions in its own right, and provides that all courses of teacher training at an accredited institution shall lead to QTS. In due course, once all institutions have been accredited, we shall no longer need the Secretary of State's course approval powers and shall be able to repeal that part of the current regulations.
The power of accreditation will be the agency's own, not exercised on behalf of my right honourable friend. The agency will have to use as a basis for accreditation the criteria published by the Secretary of State for this purpose, and will look at inspection evidence from Ofsted, but the decision as to whether to grant accreditation is the agency's alone. This all holds good whether or not there is any other body carrying out a parallel but undefined process of accreditation under the Bill as now amended, which, as I have said, makes a nonsense of the Bill as it now stands.
It is therefore clear, as I noted, that the long title proposed for the agency by my noble friend can be said to cover its most important functions and the way in which it draws together a group of linked activities now carried out by a range of separate bodies. It also reflects the fact that teacher training includes education. However, as noble Lords know, I shall be moving an amendment later to secure that all references to teacher training throughout the Bill include teacher education to put that beyond doubt.
So I welcome the spirit of Amendment No. 1 but feel that I must oppose its substance because, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn said, it would saddle the new body with a pretty unwieldy and possibly misleading mouthful of a name. As I have noted, it leaves "funding" embedded in the general descriptor of "promotion". If we are to go into this amount of detail, it would be odd not to see funding given its separate mention. And then what about research—the subject of later amendments? We do not want to devalue any part of the agency's role by singling out particular aspects for its title.
Difficulties over how fine to draw the detail on the face of a Bill are common in legislation and we have met them in many of our earlier debates. I believe that in this case the title we have given the agency covers all that is needed without fear of confusion and without seeming to prejudge the relative importance of any aspect.
1398
I must also oppose Amendment No. 3 for a rather different reason. It is certainly not necessary to give the agency the function of accreditation in Clause 1; it is given the power by virtue of Clause 13. Accreditation is therefore one of the functions referred to in Clause 1 as being conferred on the agency "by or under this part" of the Bill. That is beyond doubt.
The idea of promoting the reference to accreditation into Clause 1 certainly has a good deal to commend it. It will, as we have noted, be a major factor in the agency's work. But I am afraid that a free-standing reference to the function in Clause 1 such as Amendment No. 3 offers us would not work. We should need to do some more serious reshaping of the Bill so that the function of accreditation conferred in Clause 1 was defined in more detail in a later clause—in effect, disentangling Clause 13 which now both confers and defines the function. That would follow the model of the agency's functions as a funding body, which are conferred in Clause 1 but defined in detail in Clauses 6 to 10.
There would clearly not be time for us to make the necessary internal readjustments at this stage of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Since the amendment is not necessary and would, for the reasons I have given, leave us with a defective piece of legislation, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw it and leave further reflection on this point for those in another place.
With Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 we turn to another aspect of the accreditation issue, namely, the degree to which higher education institutions should be involved in accreditation. I am grateful to my noble friend for his concern to clarify this important subject. Indeed I believe, as I shall seek to explain, that his amendments throw helpful new light on—although they do not resolve —tensions which stem from some amendments accepted by the House at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would have the effect within Clause 13 of providing that courses of initial training for schoolteachers may rather than must be accredited by an appropriate institution of higher education. If we replace "accredited" by "validated" (a point on which I shall have more to say later) that would be a fair reflection of our intended policy. We have always said during the debates on this Bill that there will be a continuing involvement of higher education institutions in initial teacher training, and indeed they will remain the monopoly providers of undergraduate training courses. But we have also argued that nothing should undermine the initiatives already under way, in which schools are able to form partnerships with one another to provide postgraduate courses, which are often but not always validated by higher education institutions.
We want schools to have the right to decide whether to work in partnership with, or have their courses receive a seal of approval from, a higher education institution. We look forward to a steady increase in school-centred training. Numbers will certainly grow beyond the current pioneers, in secondary schools in particular, though neither the Government nor the

1399
agency will be forcing schools to take on extra duties. The schools will have to meet the Secretary of State's criteria, meet Ofsted's inspection standards and meet the accreditation standard of the Teacher Training Agency.
Given all that, there is simply no need in the approach we have advocated for schools to pass a mandatory further test of approval by higher education.
My noble friend's Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are therefore in tune with our own thinking. But in tabling them he has highlighted what more would need to be done to ensure that schools have the rights I have described. To see this we need to look again at Clause 11(1) as amended in Committee.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would create the possibility that, as now, there can in future be school-centred courses that do not need to be accredited by a higher education institution. But, given Clause 11(1) as it stands, these amendments would not help. School-centred courses would still face the barrier of compulsory partnership with, and "accreditation" by, a higher education institution, albeit that that is superfluous to what is already in place. These amendments would add to, rather than overcome, a tension within the Bill.
As I mentioned, there is a further difficulty in that these amendments as drafted leave intact the notion which we currently find in both Clause 11 and 13 that higher education institutions can in principle accredit initial teacher training. As the Bill stands, both the Teacher Training Agency and higher education institutions have an "accrediting" role—the latter not defined in the Bill. That could be confusing. I believe it arises from the use in Clauses 11 and 13 as amended of the term "accredited" in respect of higher education, when a more appropriate term would have been "validation".
Validation and accreditation are distinct processes. Validation is an internal process within higher education, involving peer review of courses. It is the process of recognising a higher education course or programme as acceptable for the purposes of making an academic award. It is concerned with academic content and level and not with professional or practical skills. We should clearly welcome validation within higher education institutions for academic courses offered at degree level, but schools will be training students who have already graduated from courses validated by higher education.
It is as well to remember that there will be that important safeguard. Quite apart from anything else, it means that students will themselves be well placed to judge whether a course run by schools without higher education validation is the right course for them; and the way is clear for schools which wish to seek higher education validation. As I have said, however, we want them to have the choice.
So what is accreditation, which is what we intend the Teacher Training Agency to do? Accreditation is the official approval of a qualification as an acceptable preparation for entering a profession. It is therefore about vocational rather than academic matters, although the required standards for achieving the qualification, and therefore entry to a profession, may include
1400
academic skills and qualification. Indeed, the Secretary of State's criteria for initial teacher training stress the importance of subject competence, and we have now said in terms in this Bill that all successful trainees must be graduates by the time they enter the teaching profession. Those rules must be met if an institution is to be accredited and its successful students awarded qualified teacher status.
Accreditation in that sense must cover all providers of initial teacher training. We have proposed, on the advice of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, that accreditation in future should be of whole institutions, not individual courses. That view is widely shared and has been welcomed within higher education.
It is vital that institutional accreditation, as we have proposed, is performed by a body that is external to the institution offering teacher training. Unlike validation, it is not appropriate for there to be self-accreditation by the course providers, whether they be in higher education or in schools; and that is what the amendment would achieve. That would not give the necessary assurances about quality; and that is why we need a Teacher Training Agency to take the decisions, and not merely advise, on both accreditation and funding.
The amendments have helped to highlight the need to sort out a tension within the Bill as it now stands. We need to be clear that accreditation as we have defined it in the Bill is done solely by the Teacher Training Agency and that validation is the preserve of higher education institutions.
Unfortunately, the amendments do not themselves sort out that tension. In a sense they perpetuate it by leaving intact the reference to higher education institutions as accrediting bodies. There has not been time, since I saw these amendments last night, for me to consider some appropriate alternative government amendments. I believe that the tensions which remain in the Bill will have to be resolved in the other place, although this House will of course consider later this summer the results of that resolution.
As Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—while helpfully intended—would further confuse what I believe to be an already muddled picture, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw them.
Finally, turning to Amendment No. 24, I can assure my noble friend that I am advised that it is unnecessary and indeed would have an untoward effect on the Bill. This is because there is only one amendment set out in Clause 13(2), and the words which my noble friend seeks to amend refer only to what is in that subsection. On that basis, I hope that he will again feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I hope that my noble friend is satisfied with this response and will not therefore seek to press these amendments. I have certainly welcomed the opportunity to have a constructive debate on these issues to put on record what I believe to be the present state of the Bill, and to thank my noble friend in particular for allowing me to rehearse again for the benefit of the House the important roles to be played by the new agency.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I have found at least one issue on which we can agree. It is the importance of using the expression "teacher education". When the noble Lord, Lord Judd, goes on to confirm that he wishes as much of school-based teacher education as possible to be entrusted to higher education, he and I part company. He refers to the variety which exists in many centres of excellence in higher education. My experience of that area is that there is not nearly as much variety as one would like to see. Indeed, my experience on the Council for National Academic Awards led me to believe that there is not nearly enough variety in that area and that too many of these courses are too similar. It is largely for that reason that I strongly support school-based teacher training courses being able to be independent of higher education.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway opined that the Secretary of State retains full powers by regulation. He wondered what monopoly I was talking about—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that was a mistake. If I said that, I did not mean to do so. I said that the Secretary of State was retaining powers but was devolving them by regulation. In fact, he would retain responsibility although someone else would exercise the powers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The problem is that at the moment the Bill is in a bit of a muddle in this area and my noble friend the Minister confirmed that.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew said that he was not clear what benefit there could be in changing the name. He asked what is in a name. I felt that at least by changing the name to what is suggested in Amendment No. 1, we would make clear to the world at large that this agency was to promote the education and training of teachers and also that it would have the power of accreditation.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew, who I am sorry to see is not in the Chamber, suggested that we might run into difficulties with the acronym that could come about. He suggested that the body might be called APETITE. I am afraid that I have thought of an acronym which might at first sight seem a little worse. If one were to include both the As in the middle of the suggested title and leave out the word "training" at the end, one might have APAATED, which might come near to sounding like "apartheid". However, I have to say to noble Lords that if the proposed agency acquired that name it might not be such a bad thing. I regard the situation in higher education towards teacher training as not being dissimilar to apartheid. There is something of a colour bar between the rest of higher education and teacher training. I think that the amendments that I proposed would do much to remove that.
Finally, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for agreeing with me that the Bill is in a muddle at this stage and at least welcoming the spirit of the
1402
amendments which I put down. I apologise for speaking at such length and for introducing such novel concepts, especially on Third Reading. I know that that is unusual in your Lordships' House but it is also unusual for a Bill which contains such a lack of clarity about one of its essential features to reach Third Reading in this House.
Despite what my noble friend the Minister said, it still is not clear to me at any rate who has what power to accredit school-based courses of teacher education and/or training. It actually is not clear to me any more what powers the Secretary of State has in regard to accreditation generally. I am fairly sure that he has the power to accredit courses of teacher education or training and that at the moment he allows CATE to exercise those on his behalf. But after what the Minister said, I am not as sure as I thought I was because I understand that the moment CATE accredits entire institutions or departments. Following the Minister's remarks, I am not sure whether this is a practice which has grown up for convenience or whether it is well-founded in law.
Be all that as it may, and although I accept that much of what I said may have seemed fairly obtuse, I hope that the debate will contribute to further consideration of the Bill in another place. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("exercise") insert (", in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 36. Perhaps at the outset I might be forgiven for saying that if in the process of our deliberations some small inconsistencies and confusions have arisen, I am certain that the combined efforts and expertise of the Department for Education and the draftsmen will be able to sort them out so as to ensure that in the other place there will be a possibility of giving effect to what is clearly the wish of this House on certain matters.
As regards Amendment No. 2, the Minister has recognised the important relationship between teacher education and training and higher education, not least with her acceptance that school-centred courses are postgraduate courses with the protection of the graduate status of teachers.
In Committee the Minister opposed the establishment of a sub-committee of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to provide teacher training. She argued that the teacher training agency would be a rationalisation of existing powers and responsibilities of the various educational quangos and the Secretary of State. In looking at Hansard, I am reminded that in Committee she said:
"The agency is also seen by some as an attack on higher education. Higher education is not in any way threatened by these proposals. It has a changing role, in partnership with schools. But it is not under threat".—[Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1580.]
Furthermore, I see that on Report, in response to an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, the Minister argued that Clause 9, as drafted, was:

1403
"designed to allow the range of funding bodies covering schools, and further and higher education in England and Wales, to work together where that would be more efficient or effective".— [Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 931.]
The teacher training agency takes over part of the funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. But as is acknowledged by the Minister, a special relationship between the two bodies will remain. Surely that relationship should be recognised on the face of the Bill, with consultation between the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the teacher training agency clearly required.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment No. 2. If she does not, whatever her intentions, there will he an anxiety that assurances that she has given during deliberations on the rest of the Bill are questionable because of a failure to make this an underlying priority spelt out in the early stages.
I turn to Amendment No. 7. Responding to an amendment tabled by me in Committee, the Minister said:
"Amendment No. 8 … seeks consultation on appointments with the Higher Education Funding Council for England … That would he very cumbersome. This is a relatively small body and it would have to be done every time the agency had an ad hoc vacancy. The funding council is in any case a body which itself is appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no logic in the amendment. It also overlooks that we have already, in Clause 2(2) (a), included a reference to experience in the provision of higher education as something to which the Secretary of State must have regard".—[Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1624.]
With the greatest possible respect, I suggest that the Minister's argument has no logic.
There is no reason why consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England should be "very cumbersome". The members of the Higher Education Funding Council for England need to discuss higher education issues on a regular basis. The Higher Education Funding Council could meet to discuss the important matter of the recommended appointments to the new Teacher Training Agency that it wishes to make to the Secretary of State. Moreover, there is no problem about the Secretary of State using the Higher Education Funding Council in an advisory capacity to guide him in making his ad hoc appointments.
The very fact that members of the Higher Education Funding Council are appointed by the Secretary of State surely means that he judges that they have a particular knowledge and have shown a capacity in matters relating to higher education. Therefore, it is entirely logical that the Higher Education Funding Council should be consulted arid should advise the Secretary of State on the appointment of members to the Teacher Training Agency.
Clause 2(2)(a) includes specific reference to members of the new Teacher Training Agency having experience of the provision of higher education. But that does not cover the point about consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council. Consultation does not mean Higher Education Funding Council representation; nor does it mean that the Secretary of State has to accept Higher Education Funding Council nominees. However, it would place on the face of the Bill the important link between higher education and its institutions with the Teacher Training Agency and its responsibilities for funding and providing for teacher
1404
training courses. The Higher Education Funding Council will have a valuable role to play in discussing and advising the Secretary of State on the appointment of members to the Teacher Training Agency.
Before I conclude my remarks on this amendment, it is perhaps appropriate to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that role was recognised by the Minister on Report when she said:
"In appointing members to this body"—
in other words the TTA—
"I imagine that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education will consider carefully the case for overlapping membership of the two bodies we have discussed. We expect them to work closely together and joint membership would be one way of securing that".—[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 865.]
It is surely in the spirit of that response that the Secretary of State should consult with the HEFC on appointments to the Teacher Training Agency.
It is relevant in that context to note one other point. At col. 882 of Hansard on the same day the Minister said:
"I should like publicly to reassure and place on record our intention to consult the Churches both about initial appointments and any future appointments in which the Churches might be thought to have a legitimate interest".
It is difficult to understand why the Minister was unable to give a similar reassurance with regard to the: HEFCE, especially when in the same debate she emphasised strongly its special relationship with the Teacher Training Agency. She said at col. 867:
"It is important not just that the members of each organisation should come together formally but that the two bodies should work together for the benefit of promoting good teacher training".
Formal consultation by the Secretary of State with the HEFCE on appointments to the Teacher Training Agency would be a recognition of the overarching higher educational responsibilities of the HEFCE and the importance of a good working relationship with the Teacher Training Agency.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 36. Representation by the HEFCE would help to ensure the retention of the vital link between higher education and initial teacher education. In response to an amendment tabled in Committee, the Minister moved an amendment on Report to provide representation for Ofsted at TTA meetings. She said at col. 884:
"The two bodies have complementary roles to play in ensuring that standards in initial teacher training are maintained and improved. Because of the closeness of that relationship, I believe it right that this should be written on the face of the Bill to ensure the free flow of information between the two bodies".
But those words of the Minister could be used equally well to describe the complementary roles and the importance of the free flow of information between the Teacher Training Agency and the HEFCE. They reflect the comments by the Minister about the special relationship between the two organisations, comments to which I have referred.
I know that in arguing against the formal overlap of the HEFCE members on the Teacher Training Agency the Minister said at col. 867:
"We are talking about busy people and if they were not prepared to take membership of the two national bodies under their belts, there would be vacancies on the agency and that would he unthinkable".—[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 867.]
But surely that problem would be overcome if the HEFCE were entitled to send representatives to attend

1405
and take part in any deliberations (but not decisions) at TTA meetings and if the TTA were to provide the HEFCE with copies of any documents distributed to members of the agency on the same basis as Ofsted. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a long time since I read my Sherlock Holmes but I seem to remember a story of an athlete, supposedly dead, whom Holmes discovered to have possessed one dumbbell. He called on Watson to imagine the type of figure that would develop doing the exercises only with the one dumbbell. Watson, of course, was quite unable to see the significance of that information, but ultimately that led to the discovery of the previous prime suspect dead in the moat.
The amendment is calling for the second dumbbell. Whatever way this works out, there will inevitably be a border area between the work of the Higher Education Funding Council and the Teacher Training Agency. I hope that it will not be a border like the Great Wall of China. I should much prefer it to be a border like the Welsh Marches, where influence spreads across on both sides—a constant meeting of people and a constant exchange of ideas and, indeed, perhaps a bilingual area along the border. In that way sometimes very amicable relations can be produced.
If we are to have that Welsh Marches border relationship, we shall need constant consultation. The three amendments which we are discussing produce that. They are intended as a serious contribution towards making the Bill work. I cannot see how it can possibly work unless there is such regular consultation. If it is going to happen in any event, I do not see why the noble Baroness should object to having it written on to the face of the Bill. I hope that she will see her way to accept the amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I remember our discussions at the last stage of the Bill as to whether there should be a member of the HEFCE by statutory right as a member also of this body. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in their disappointment at not achieving that have fallen back on the position of having an observer and giving the observer the right to have all the papers that the sponsor body should require. That is the effect of Amendment No. 36. However, the group goes much wider than that and in a sense I am rather surprised to find all three together. Indeed, I wondered whether there would be a third dumbbell, but I cannot quite follow the noble Earl's analogy in that regard.
The first amendment amends Clause 1 and requires all the functions of the Teacher Training Agency to be carried out in consultation with HEFCE—if it is correct to call it H-E-F-C-E. I suppose that my noble friend, who is our expert on acronyms, will correct me if I am wrong. However, HEFCE is to be a partner almost in all the functions set out, and they are all the functions of the agency in Clause 1.
Then we find the second amendment, Amendment No. 7, striking at Clause 2, with a second duty to consult
1406
about one of the functions. It seems to me that Amendment No. 7 must be superfluous if Amendment No. 2 is accepted. However, I notice that there is a difference in the drafting which may be significant. I say that because Amendment No. 2 talks about "in consultation with" and Amendment No. 7 talks about consultation taking place,
"before making any appointments under subsection (1)".
In other words, a deed is carried out after consultation.
The latter leads me to reflect, again, on Amendment No. 2 and to wonder what the effects of it would be with regard to the different functions to which it would apply. All the TTA's functions as a funding agency under this part of the Bill would be carried out in consultation with HEFCE. Therefore, presumably, all the working out, the inquiries, the calculations, the divisions and the distribution, would be carried out in consultation with HEFCE and subject to frequent correspondence and joint meetings.
However, what about the function under Clause 1(1) (b); namely, to provide,
"information and advice on teaching as a career"?
Should that not be as in the second amendment and carried out after consultation? If every function of that body is to be carried out in consultation with another body, it seems to me that they might as well be in one building and become one body. It is possible that that is what the noble Lord and his coadjutors would wish to happen. If so, I should like to know because it seems to me that that is not the intention of the Bill and that it should not be brought about by covert means. Paragraph (c) covers all,
"other functions as may be conferred on them by or under this Part".
Therefore, as I said, there would be no move, however small or insignificant, that the TTA could carry out without consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council.
The proposal presupposes a most cumbrous and elaborate form of bureaucracy. I should have thought that it would be a great mistake to incorporate it into the Bill with such consequences. If the amendments were to be separated, I suppose that there would be some consolation in the fact that they would not then be tautological because, as I said, Amendment No. 7 is otiose if Amendment No. 2 is passed. In view of the consequences as regards Amendment No. 2, I hope that noble Lords will reject both amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on Second Reading I asked my noble friend the Minister whether the Government would consider making the agency a sub-committee of the Higher Education Funding Council. That was an idea put forward by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and, to my mind, my noble friend gave a very satisfactory answer. I came to the conclusion that the purpose of the Bill was a good one.
It seems to me that the amendments attempt to put the agency back into a position very similar to that of a sub-committee. However, the Bill's purpose has been largely accepted by this place with a few exceptions

1407
which, as my noble friend said, need to be smoothed out in another place, and the House has accepted that it should be an independent agency. Quite apart from that, I should have thought—and the noble Lord may like to elaborate on the point—that such an amendment moved on Third Reading should be fairly precise. Presumably, it is not a probing amendment at this stage. To say that every function should be exercised in consultation with the HEFCE is a very vague statement as it clearly would not be possible for the bodies to consult one another about everything. What does the noble Lord mean by "consultation"? "Before making any appointments" the agency would have to consult the funding council. Would that apply to every appointment right down the scale? It seems to me that that is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.
There is another area where consultation has to happen all the time as regards all three amendments; namely, in the entitlement to attend as regards cross-representation. All those requirements would be enormously clumsy. The noble Lord needs to be much more precise in his definitions when making such amendments—that may be possible, unless he is simply making a general point—if he wishes to get back to the agency being a sub-committee, which was a question raised on Second Reading and in Committee. I do not believe that the amendments will do as they stand.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it will not come as a surprise to your Lordships that I should also like to speak against Amendments 2, 7 and 36. To me, the worst appears to be Amendment No. 2. So far as I can see, it would come right at the start of Clause 1 and would require the new agency, whatever it is to be called, to exercise all its functions and then carry out all its objectives in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council which, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is called HEFCE. If we are in the business of criticising acronyms, I must say that I am not sure that HEFCE is much better than apartheid or, indeed, appetite; but, still, there we go. I should have thought that that was not only undesirable, for all the points that I made in moving Amendment No. 1, and in speaking to the other amendments in the first group, but also because it would be so cumbersome as to be completely unworkable. I believe that one would need another agency, no doubt with another acronym, to handle the paperwork of the consultation process going backwards and forwards between the proposed agency and the Higher Education Funding Council.
I turn now to Amendment No.7. I suppose that I have less difficulty with it, provided that the consultation required was no more than that specified in the amendment. Indeed, I should have thought that it was probable that such consultation would, in any case, take place. As to the idea that the amendments follow on from—namely, that there should be joint membership of the HEFCE and the proposed agency—the only thing that I would venture to say is that I should have thought that someone who has time for all of that and to be a significant teacher in his own right (or in any of the other classes that are required) would not be all that
1408
valuable a member. However, that is, perhaps, my own feeling which comes from my experience on the Council for National Academic Awards.
Amendment No. 36, I should have thought, likewise is fairly superfluous, although I do not suppose that would much mind if a member of the HEFCE were to attend meetings of the new agency. However, in the second part of the amendment we are again in great administrative difficulties in distributing copies of documents between the two bodies.
I have one final point to make about the three amendments. They seem to me to put the new agency back into the maw of higher education more than would be healthy for the functions of the new agency, especially when one has regard to the new wording in Clause 2(2) of the Bill concerning those whom the Secretary of State must consider when appointing people to the new agency. In that subsection, we already have mention of people who "have experience of" and,
"have shown capacity in the provision of higher education other than the training of teachers",
and who have shown,
"capacity in any position carrying responsibility for such matters",
many of which are connected with higher education.
My overriding point is that higher education has already had a substantial bite of the cherry we are considering. Everyone who goes on to the new school-based teacher training courses will already have a degree. I believe that the slice of the cake—if I may mix metaphors—that the amendments now propose to give higher education are altogether exorbitant and unacceptable.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it rather appears that with this batch of amendments the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are taking a belt and braces approach. Whereas the braces are acceptable, perhaps the belt is rather otiose. Amendment No. 36 seems to me to make perfect sense. It proposes that a representative of the Higher Education Funding Council for England shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Teacher Training Agency and that the agency should provide appropriate information to the HEFCE. In that way there is an adequate flow of information. Amendment No. 7 refers to the appointments to the Teacher Training Agency and suggests that before making those appointments the Secretary of State should consult the HEFCE. I believe all of that makes good sense and I would be happy to support those amendments.
However, as other noble Lords have already indicated, Amendment No. 2 proposes that the entire work of the Teacher Training Agency shall be undertaken in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I believe that would create areas of confusion. For example, when we are considering the function of providing information and advice on teaching as a career, are we really considering that to be something which is central to the province of the Higher Education Funding Council? Noble Lords will remember that it was, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, himself and others on the other side of the House, and indeed myself, who said that as regards

1409
research we should be asking ourselves where responsibilities lie. We were making the point that in the field of research and in the field of education generally, not just teacher training, that is a matter that should be the province of the Higher Education Funding Council. I am happy to say that when we discuss later amendments today that will be the line which my noble friend the Minister will propose. She will propose broadly that there should be a proper division of responsibilities.
I am all in favour of a flow of information as indicated under Amendment No. 36, but Clause 1(2) states that the agency should secure that teachers are,
"well fitted and trained to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
Those matters relating to pupils are very much the province of the Teacher Training Agency. I should have thought that they are rather more remote from the concerns of the Higher Education Funding Council. Therefore, I find the belt—that is to say Amendment No. 2—to be a shade superfluous, whereas I would certainly be happy to support the two subsequent amendments as proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, have my doubts about these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be pleased to know that I agree with him half-way—or at least I think half-way—in saying that these two organisations, the TTA and the HEFCE will have to co-operate and indeed will have to work closely together. But I do not like the way in which he has approached that matter in these amendments. First, Amendment No. 2 goes far too far. To use the same words in a domestic situation, if I were to agree to cook dinner in consultation with my wife, that would mean that if she wanted to be able to eat it, she would be exercising extremely close supervision over everything that I did. The words which the noble Lord has put down in his amendment would mean a total confusion of responsibilities. It would mean that the HEFCE was involved in every little detail of the teacher training agency's business and that to my mind would be completely unworkable and would in effect wreck the Bill.
As far as the other amendments are concerned, I do not want to see this relationship laid down in that way as a one-sided, one way relationship. To use the illustration that the noble Earl employed, I do not think that Welsh local authorities would welcome having to have on their committees an observer from their neighbouring English authorities with no provision in the other direction. I think that these relationships work best if they come about naturally through co-operation, through Government encouragement, and grow up as a means whereby both institutions can better undertake their functions. Indeed the independence of the Teacher Training Agency is a very important part of its nature because independence as we have seen with the further education funding councils brings with it vigour and enthusiasm and status. Those are qualities which I would not like to see wasted by amendments such as these.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, invited the Government to sort out the muddle in this Bill. I think it is worth putting again on the record the fact that accreditation cannot remain—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said it should—a function of the higher education institutions because they simply have no such function at the moment. But they were nevertheless given functions for the first time under an amendment to Clause 13. But, as I said earlier, that function is not defined. The higher education institutions' function is simply added to an already defined function of accreditation already to be given under the Bill to the Teacher Training Agency. The noble Lords opposite did not succeed in opposing the proposal to establish a Teacher Training Agency, nor did they succeed in removing the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations to confer powers to accredit in Clause 13. Therefore the confusion is their own. We have no intention of removing the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations to confer accreditation powers on the Teacher Training Agency. Nor is it the Government's job to create a definition of higher education institutions' powers to accredit. As accreditation is covered already by the agency, why should we concern ourselves with the refinement of the noble Lord's amendments? It must be for another place to consider the proliferation of accreditation, but there is too much accreditation in this Bill as it stands.
This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 36—returns to an old theme in our debates on this Bill; namely, the theme of what needs to be said in statute about the relationship of the Teacher Training Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Earlier I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, criticised someone for talking about there being a monopoly of higher education. If there was not such a monopoly before, there certainly would be if the noble Lord had his way with this Bill because almost all his efforts and all his energies are absolutely geared to making sure that the schools take second place and that the agency takes second place to higher education in all matters.
The mistake common to each of these amendments is that they attempt to capture too much in statute as my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. We are all agreed that the agency and the funding council must work together in an effective and efficient way. But it does not necessarily follow that we should legislate to force that to happen. We have already gone as far as is necessary to facilitate co-operation in Clause 9, which provides explicitly for the agency to exercise its functions jointly with the funding council where that would enable it to work more efficiently or effectively.
Amendment No. 2 would be very damaging. It would prevent the agency from pursing any of its statutory functions independently. In every single case, the agency would be duty bound to consult the funding council before taking action. I recognise that the agency would not be obliged to take the funding council's advice on every occasion. But how would the agency know, from the drafting of this amendment, what would count as adequate and sufficiently frequent consultation? And where would accountability be in this

1411
arrangement? It would be very hard to disentangle if the agency were constantly working under such a constraint, of a kind no other funding body has to work under.
Neither can I endorse Amendment No. 7. We already have on the face of the Bill, in Clause 2, numerous membership provisions. We debated those at great length and a number of improvements have been written into the Bill as a result. I hope we shall make yet further improvements later today. Clause 2 already requires the Secretary of State to take account of experience and ability in providing higher education, both in teacher training establishments and elsewhere, when he is appointing people to the agency. There is also nothing to preclude the funding council from making suggestions to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, either about the type of members he might look for or individual names.
We should be content to rest on that. The statutory approach in this kind of area inevitably raises new problems. A particular difficulty with this amendment is that it would require consultation every time there was an ad hoc vacancy on the agency's board. That would be very cumbersome, and inappropriate too, if, as may be the case, the area in which the board needs strengthening is in experience of school teaching, or denominational or special needs matters. Those points were raised by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
It is true that in the case of the Funding Agency for Schools, the Secretary of State must consult the Churches before appointing any member. But the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has accepted that that provision goes further than the Churches ever intended. Amendment No. 36 would give the funding council rights of access to agency documents and board and committee meetings. Despite what noble Lords have said, I do not see the case for that. The other higher and further education funding councils do not have such statutory rights in respect of each other. The higher and further education funding councils jointly fund numerous institutions. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England helps to support some 80 further education institutions, while the Further Education Funding Council gives funds to some 50 higher education institutions. They do so without the need for statutory access to each other's meetings and papers. Nor does the amendment before us extend that right to the Teacher Training Agency. What is the argument in favour of the funding council having such a right which does not extend also to the agency?
I fear that this is another example of noble Lords opposite wanting the agency to work under the supervision of the Higher Education Funding Council rather than alongside it as an equal partner. If it were really essential for the funding council to have this right over a fellow funding body, then it would call into doubt the adequacy of the statutory arrangements for all other similar bodies.
The reality is that the existing councils all get along well and have no need of a statutory basis for seeking advice and information from each other. Nor do I think
1412
that any council would exclude another council's chairman if there were good reason for him to be present at a meeting.
It is true that Ofsted will have the rights to attend agency meetings and to request documents which this amendment seeks for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. But Ofsted and the agency will have a particularly close working relationship to enable them to improve standards in initial teacher training. In particular, Ofsted will continue its work in assessing the quality of teacher training to inform the agency's; decisions with effect from the 1995–96 funding year. Ofsted will be looking at all courses over a four-year cycle. That will be vital to the agency in its accreditation and funding roles. The funding council will have no comparable responsibilities with such a direct impact on the work of the Teacher Training Agency.
It would certainly not be right for the Higher Education Funding Council to offer views; to the TTA on the appointment of teachers. The Higher Education Funding Council might be one body with views on higher education, but the same might he said about the other bodies with an interest in the area. I should have more sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, if he wanted the TTA to be consulted about Higher Education Funding Council appointments. That would at least suggest an equal partnership. However, his one-sided approach—or to borrow a phrase, his one dumbbell approach—shows what is the crux of the amendments. He wants the Higher Education Funding Council to have the upper hand, as he has wanted throughout the entire process of the Bill through this place. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very grateful for the considerate reply by the Minister. I should like to deal with several points which have emerged in this exchange.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to the possibility that what we propose is, under another guise, a sub-committee of the HEFCE. I ask her to look carefully at Amendment No. 36. It is clear from that amendment that, if somebody is entitled to attend meetings, that does not mean that they are necessarily expected to attend regularly. They will be entitled to attend; they will receive papers; when they want to attend they can attend. However, if they attend they cannot vote. In my experience of administration that is not the characteristic of a sub-committee. It is an arrangement for ensuring adequate exchange of information and adequate consultation between two bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, raised the issue of joint membership. We do not refer to joint membership. We refer to representation of the HEFCE at meetings of the TTA. The representative might change. It is not the same as having a full member. We may not agree with it, but we accept the point made by the Minister that it was too much to ask people to undertake joint membership. I ask the noble Lord to look very carefully at what we propose.

1413
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were concerned about the degree of work on which there would have to be consultation. Again I come back to Amendment No. 36, which makes the matter very clear. If people receive the papers, are in the picture about what is happening and are entitled to attend meetings of the agency if they so wish, then if matters arise on which HEFCE feels it is appropriate for it to be involved there will be a means by which it can make its representations without having the responsibility for the decisions which are ultimately taken. I believe that that is sound.
That brings me to the observations made by the Minister herself. She asked how it would be known whether the consultation was adequate. I listened very carefully, and that is a fair question. Again I come back to Amendment No. 36. It would be known because the members of the Higher Education Funding Council would be receiving papers. If the council so wished it would be able to be represented at meetings. Therefore, the Higher Education Funding Council would be able to make it clear whether adequate consultation was taking place. That would avoid a situation which can so easily arise, not necessarily intentionally but inadvertently, whereby two busy organisations begin to drift apart. Then there is a colossal task in trying to bring them back together to sort out problems which can only be sorted out by the two bodies co-operating effectively.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My intervention is for clarification, which I believe is in order at this stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord is forgetting that this is a free-standing amendment. His amendment provides that:
"There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Teacher Training Agency to exercise, in consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England … their functions as a funding agency under this Part … the function of providing information and advice on teaching as a career,"
and also the function of accreditation of eligible institutions and such other functions as may be conferred on it under this part of the Bill. The amendment relates also to many other aspects. There is no choice. If those words appear on the face of the Bill that body must consult with the HEFC on every single aspect of its work. There is no qualification by which that shall be curtailed.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister intervened on that point because it seems to me—and I hope that she will forgive me for saying so—that she is proposing a novel approach to legislation. She seems to be implying that all the provisions of a Bill have to be included in one comprehensive clause in which all the points are brought together. As she herself knows from designing her own Bills, in any Bill certain principles are set out at one stage of the Bill which are then carried forward and made possible by subsequent clauses in the Bill. That is why the amendments are grouped. The Minister shakes her head. I always enjoy the enticing way in which she shakes her head. But she knows perfectly well what I am saying. We accepted the
1414
grouping which was proposed because we accept that there is a logical relationship between these three amendments.
Therefore, I put it to her that, if she is serious—and I have never questioned the Minister's seriousness in putting points forward—about all that she said during the Committee stage and at Report stage to reassure those who had anxieties as to whether there would be vigorous and consistent consultation between the HEFCE and the TTA, it is extraordinary not to include this provision as a basic principle on which the TTA will operate. It is because we took the importance of what she herself said at earlier stages of our deliberations that we believe the amendment is crucial to underpin in practice the spirit of what she said to us when anxieties were raised.
It is for that reason that we shall pursue the matter to a Division tonight. We do not do so in any sense of hostility whatsoever. We do so because we believe that this House has a responsibility to give effect to the means by which we shall achieve the ends which she herself so powerfully spelt out.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hunt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Judd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kennet, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cross, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parry, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ridley, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sherfield, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Healey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

1415

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Holderness, L.

Acton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Hothfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Knollys, V.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bumham, L.

Marsh, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleridge, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cowley, E.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cranborne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Prentice, L.

Dormer, L.

Pym, L.

Downshire, M.

Quinton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rennell, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Erne, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Flather, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strafford, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hacking, L.

[Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swansea, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Torrington, V.

Hertford, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

1416

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Westbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The agency shall, so far as relevant for the purposes of advancing teacher education and training under subsection (2) above—

(a) keep under review all aspects of teacher education and training to ensure courses of initial) teacher training provided by schools are accredited by institutions of higher education, as may be prescribed;

(b) advise the Secretary of State and the Higher Education Funding Council on such matters concerned with the accreditation of institutions as providers of teacher education and training:

(c) publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination of, information relating to teacher education and training;

(d) make arrangements with appropriate bodies for auditing the quality of assessments made in pursuance of teacher education and training arrangements; and

(e) be responsible for administering funds made available to them by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing financial support for the provision of teacher education and training under section 4 below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill currently identifies the objectives of the Teacher Training Agency in Clause 1(2). But I think it is significant that it fails to spell out the responsibilities which the agency will have. Whatever our misgivings, it seems to me that for their part the Government see the Bill largely as a tidying up piece of legislation to rationalise functions and responsibilities of existing organisations. Any such intention surely requires that the new agency's responsibilities are explicitly spelt out. Indeed, on a previous amendment the Minister and others suggested that it was important to be detailed arid explicit. The amendment therefore specifies the remit of the Teacher Training Agency. It allows the agency to be properly monitored and establishes the areas of activity on which it could be expected to report in its annual report. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord may think me rather pedantic in making specific comments on the amendment which he has moved so briefly. However, I do not think I am entirely mistaken in feeling that it was very much this amendment or something close to it which was originally set down at Report stage but was not moved. Had the amendment been moved then, it would have been possible, I believe, for us to look at the wording in a little detail and perhaps make comments. Then if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had chosen, at that stage he could have withdrawn it and reintroduced it at this stage without the minor imperfections which the amendment seems to possess. Its larger objective seems to me to be broadly harmless, but perhaps at times otiose. But there are aspects of it that are really very peculiar. Let us look at paragraph (a):
"keep under review all aspects of teacher education and training to ensure courses of initial teacher training provided by schools are accredited by institutions of higher education".

1417
It comes down to the issue of accreditation which continues to confuse a number of us. But then the paragraph continues: "as may be prescribed". Here a phrase drops from the sky which certainly confuses me entirely: prescribed by whom, for goodness sake? We may make the assumption that if anything is ever prescribed it is prescribed by the Secretary of State. I suspect that that may be what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, intends. But there are many in this House who are very eager indeed to insist that the Secretary of State should not be given powers to step in and prescribe this or that when he chooses to prescribe it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd—perhaps when he sums up in relation to this amendment he will be good enough to say—who it is intended will make this prescription, and what entirely does it entail?
If we turn to paragraph (b), perhaps we find a clue:
"advise the Secretary of State and the Higher Education Funding Council on such matters concerned with the accreditation of institutions as providers of teacher education and training".
What is the grammatical role of "such"? I ask that as a rhetorical question. I have the suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, intended "as may be prescribed" to be in paragraph (b); I suspect that (b) was intended to read, "such matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe". I may be wrong, but if we are talking about an amendment at Third Reading we may respectfully hope that the wording is correct. I apologise profoundly if I am implying error on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and if the error is in fact my own. But the noble Lord will have the opportunity of explaining the grammatical role of "such" in that paragraph and who is to make that prescription.
I may add that paragraph (c) appears to add very little to the powers. To be able to,
"publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination",
is not a power, it seems to me, which needs to be prescribed in this specific way.
Paragraph (e) refers to being, "responsible for administering funds". Surely that responsibility arises when there is a power to receive funding anyway.
Finally, there is a question in relation to paragraph (d):
"make arrangements with appropriate bodies for auditing the quality of assessments made in pursuance".
Am I right in thinking that it is Her Majesty's Inspectorate that makes these assessments? If so, are we talking of auditing Her Majesty's Inspectorate? I should be very grateful for elucidation on that point. It seems to me that this amendment is a bit of a concatenation, and I am doubtful whether this House would be wise to approve it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like briefly to support every word that my noble friend Lord Renfrew has just said. If I had any wish to disagree with him it would be on the ground that he was excessively kind to the wording of the amendment. In paragraph (c) the requirement is to,
"publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination of, information relating to teacher education".
1418
I cannot help feeling that if my noble friend were to accept the amendment it would perhaps be the death knell of the agency. It would not have a hope. I am very confident that my noble friend will reject it.
The same could be said about paragraph (d). One must be very sympathetic with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who proposed the amendment. After all, the disease is catching, and the Government have on occasions produced the most ghastly legislative horrors. But I beg the noble Lord to be more careful in future, and perhaps to go into quarantine for a bit to make sure that he does not catch anything horrid from the modern fashion in legislation. I wonder what on earth the Teacher Training Agency would make of the instruction in paragraph (d) to,
"make arrangements with appropriate bodies for auditing the quality of assessments",
if it were ever laid upon the agency.
While I am on my feet I should just like to say to my noble friend—and I mean this—a word of congratulation on the skill with which she has handled this Bill. If I am entitled to a view at all I would say that it has been vastly improved as a result of her handling.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will forgive me if I savour the moment to have my noble friend Lord Peyton on my side. I thank him most warmly for what he just said.
When this amendment was laid at Report stage and was then not moved so early in the day, I thought (and rather hoped) that it was in order to take it away and deal with all its flaws. But we have the amendment back at Third Reading. Inexplicably it was not moved at Report. It was spoken to with such brevity today that I really do wonder whether the noble Lord has his heart in this particular amendment. And we are left bemused and puzzled. The word that my noble friend Lord Renfrew used; namely that the amendment is a "concatenation", is apt.
The noble Lord has taken a very good piece of legislation—that which establishes the remit of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority—and has sought to adjust it for the purpose of redefining the role of the Teacher Training Agency. The fit is not a good one, and the adjustments which have been made add to the confusion over what the amendment would in fact achieve.
At the heart of this confusion is the question that was addressed in our first debate of just who will accredit whom. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, wants a higher education institution to accredit schools. He also wants the Teacher Training Agency to advise the Secretary of State and the Higher Education Funding Council about accreditation. But —unless I have missed something —nothing in the noble Lord's amendments changes the import of Clause 13, which also gives the accreditation function to the agency itself. So we would have the agency, the council, the Secretary of State and higher education institutions involved in accreditation in some way. There would also of course, I assume, be a continuing role for Ofsted.
I leave your Lordships to count up quite how many layers there are in this particular bureaucratic entanglement. I believe the fundamental problem is the

1419
noble Lord's confusion over accreditation and validation which I mentioned earlier. This area was the subject of much discussion at Committee stage, on Report, and earlier today. I have to say that I prefer the straightforward and clear-cut approach of our original proposals.
Turning to the amendment in more detail, under paragraph (a) the agency would have to keep all aspects of teacher education and training "under review"—a laudable aim, although a pretty daunting one for a funding and accrediting body. But it would do so "to ensure" that all courses are
"accredited by institutions of higher education".
Like my noble friends, I am assuming that "as may be prescribed" in paragraph (a) should in fact be at the end of (b) where it makes a bit more sense. Ensuring anything requires a good deal more than keeping it under review. This paragraph does not hang together at all.
Paragraph (b), to which I have already referred, requires advice on "such matters" concerned with accreditation to be given to the Secretary of State and the funding council—but to what purpose? If this is indeed where "as may be prescribed" is designed to fit, it is not clear which body is to do the prescribing—perhaps both?
If that is not so, then "such matters" are not defined in any way at all. So the paragraph as it stands makes no sense. As my noble friend Lord Peyton said, paragraph (c) on the publication of information adds absolutely nothing to what is already in the Bill. I repeat his question: What would the Teacher Training Agency make of it as an instruction?
The drafting of paragraph (d) is very odd indeed. It requires the agency to make arrangements for auditing the quality of assessments. In the case of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, that paragraph was specifically designed to allow for schools' assessments of pupils against national curriculum targets to be monitored so that standards could be assured.
There has been considerable debate about the number of layers of quality assessment within higher education. In this one area, where Ofsted has the lead role and visiting by independent outside observers is therefore regular and universal, it would be very odd indeed to impose yet another layer of "moderation of assessments". Can higher education institutions, which, under the Bill as it stands will have a role in every course, not be trusted? Or is the agency simply to "make arrangements" for Ofsted and other bodies to carry on doing what they are already doing?
Paragraph (e) adds nothing to the funding powers which the agency has already under Clause 4 as drafted.
But I must return to paragraph (b). The agency is to advise the Secretary of State and the funding council on accreditation. Yet under the Bill as it now stands neither body has any role in accreditation as such. The Secretary of State will set out the criteria on which accreditation is based. He will consult a range of bodies, including no doubt the agency and the funding council, before doing so. But the process of accreditation as defined under Clause 13 is a matter for the agency; and, as a result of
1420
the amendments to Clauses 11 and 13, there is also an undefined, parallel role for individual higher education institutions.
The amendment before us is designed to tinker with the functions of the agency to underpin a very different system from the clear and open one that we proposed. But it does not as drafted seem to underpin even the: system implied by the Bill as it stands. It would almost certainly increase bureaucracy. It appears to imply new and unclear roles for the Secretary of State and the: funding council. It would apparently multiply, and certainly not reduce, the number of bodies involved in accreditation.
The amendment is not a logical or sensible consequence of the amendments passed in Committee. It would compound uncertainty rather than clarify it. Its impact is at best unclear and certainly unacceptable. I hope that it will not be pressed. If it is, I must ask the House to reject it.
5 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have participated in this exchange. I should like to say to the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew, and Lord Peyton, whom I greatly respect and to whom I always listen with great attention, that in a sense I stand admonished and accept their admonishment on detail. But I ask them to consider that we on these Benches have been placed in a rather invidious position.
We are concerned about the gigantic, gaping hole in the Bill whereby the objectives are spelled out but the responsibilities are not. This House has debated at length the anxiety which exists about the developing trend towards more and more quangos in our society and the implications for the quality of our democracy. If we are to be able to monitor what those quangos are doing and judge the effectiveness with which they deliver the services that they were established to provide, it is absolutely essential that we see in the Bill the agency's responsibilities. They are conspicuously absent in the Bill as drafted.
It is for that reason that we have tried to fill the gap. We may have done so very imperfectly. Indeed our attempt may be greatly improved. But this afternoon I should be very much heartened to hear from the Minister that she takes the point about the need to be able to monitor and evaluate the work of quangos, which conduct very important tasks on behalf of society as a whole, and that when the Bill is introduced in another place she will make sure that the issue of responsibilities, as distinct from the vague "objectives" to which the Bill refers, is there for all to judge. That is the first point.
Just to underline that point, I must tell the House that, having read the first part of the Bill, I turned to Schedule 1. I thought that within the schedule we might see more detail. The schedule specifies how the Teacher Training Agency will operate, but not its responsibilities relating to its functions and objectives as set out in Clause 1. Our amendment attempts to provide that information in a way that is similar to Section 245 of the 1993 Education Act and Section 2 of the 1992 Education Act, which specify the responsibilities of the School Curriculum

1421
and Assessment Authority and Ofsted respectively. I cannot for the life of me see why, in a Bill of such significance, the good practice established in those two Bills is not followed in this Bill, if we can do so, for although we talk about it as good practice all things are relative.
I accept the criticisms made about detail and do not wish to pursue unreasonably the imperfect draft. Therefore, I seek leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I hope that the Government will take seriously the anxiety which exists and rectify the drafting of the Bill when it comes to be considered in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("exercisable") in line 2 and insert ("Except where corresponding functions in relation to Wales are conferred on another person or body, the functions of the agency are").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which clarifies the division of responsibilities for functions under Part I of the Bill in relation to Wales. The current draft recognises the divisions between the agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales set out under Clauses 3 to 10. But there are also functions under, for example, Clause 13, which may be carried out by either of the two funding bodies. The amendment therefore ensures that the agency has the statutory power to carry out any function in Wales, but only where that function has not already been conferred on another person or body, and only at the request of the Secretary of State. I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that this is a simple clarifying amendment which removes any misunderstanding about the extent of the power of the agency to deal with matters relating to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership, &c. of the agency]:
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("of") to ("members") in line 7 and insert ("between eight and twelve").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. They deal with further membership issues and are government amendments which have arisen from all noble Lords' concerns in previous debates. I shall take each in turn, trespassing in advance on the amendments in this group in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford (Amendment No. 11) and my noble friend Lord Pearson (Amendment No. 9). My comments on their amendments will not preclude any debate on those amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, raised at Report stage a drafting point on the section to which the government Amendment No. 6 applies. I am grateful to her for that. The new formulation does not use the words "less than eight … members" to which she objected. It also removes the word "or" to which objection has also been raised on grammatical grounds by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. This is therefore a technical amendment
1422
which I hope will command general support, including support from the noble Baroness, Lady White. In the light of her concern I went back to counsel and took advice. I am assured and am prepared to put on record on the basis of counsel's advice that "between eight and twelve" does not mean "nine and eleven". It does in fact mean eight, nine, 10, 11 and 12. I am told that there is no confusion whatever in terms of what it means.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 tabled in my name meet a point addressed in other amendments that we discussed at the Report stage, brought forward by my noble friend Lord Pearson and by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Clause 2 as originally drafted required the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including on the agency's board members with experience of the provision of education in schools and higher education. I made clear at the Report stage that "provision of education" in this context referred to teaching, which was the point addressed in the amendments by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. But I am pleased to put it beyond doubt by these amendments, which set out in detail what was already implicit in Clause 2.
My noble friend Lord Pearson again tabled Amendment No. 9, which removed the reference to "current experience" from the list of factors that the Secretary of State may consider when appointing members to the agency. My noble friend will know from our previous debates that I agree entirely that we should not limit consideration of the membership to only those who have current experience or responsibility. I have already placed on record my support for the part retired persons with the appropriate experience could play. But I am also concerned to ensure that the agency has the right mix of current experience. That will be vital if it is to respond constructively to the effect of our recent reforms, and be well informed on current issues.
I would therefore be reluctant to delete that reference. I should like to set on record again that this section does not require all members to have current experience and that the Secretary of State will be free to appoint retired people as well as current practitioners. He has recently done so to bodies governed by exactly the same requirement. Indeed, as I also said at an earlier stage, the greater availability of retired people for public appointments makes it most unlikely that they will be overlooked. The now conventional addition of the requirement to have regard to currency of experience has I suspect grown up to ensure that the retired do not have a monopoly of appointments. I hope that that further assurance is sufficient for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford tabled Amendment No. 11 which raises again his concerns about consultation with the Churches over appointments to the Teacher Training Agency. I know from discussions that representatives of the right reverend Prelate had with my officials that careful thought has been given to possible ways in which to achieve the understandable aim of requiring consultation with Church bodies over certain appointments.
As I made clear at Report, we would wish to consult the Churches over appointments where they might have

1423
a direct interest. I therefore welcome the principle behind the amendment and would welcome any advice the Churches gave on specific qualities and experience appointees might possess. Such advice would be invaluable when considering initial appointments and certain ad hoc vacancies. However, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
There is a fundamental dilemma here which I do not think the amendment of the right reverend Prelate resolves. If the Churches were to be consulted by law about those appointments in which they had a "legitimate" interest, we should need to define those appointments by law as well. That would require us to define one or more denominational members and take us down the slippery slope of representation. There are many more interested bodies waiting in the wings for just such a move.
On the other hand, I think we are also agreed that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to consult the Churches on every vacancy—indeed the right reverend Prelate himself does not want that outcome.
It is not in my view possible to reflect a sensible solution to this dilemma in legislation. The current amendment seeks to resolve it by referring not to any particular appointments, but to occasions on which the Secretary of State has regard to denominational experience when making an appointment. However, under the wording of Clause 2, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the stated experience and expertise in the case of all appointments. So in fact we are back to requiring consultation on all appointments and every ad hoc vacancy.
I am happy again to make it a matter of public record that we will undertake to consult the Churches, in the way intended by this amendment, when making initial appointments and any future ones where Church input appears relevant. I would hope that the right reverend Prelate can accept this public commitment which meets the principles of his amendment without creating in statute the difficulties that I have outlined and which I believe he also wishes to avoid. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to ask counsel's opinion on the matter. I still believe that the grammar is incorrect. When it says "twelve", I cannot see how it can be "between" eight and twelve. However, we will not discuss it. I still think that, although counsel may make a good lawyer, his grammar is incorrect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 9 which is in my name perhaps I can take the opportunity of thanking my noble friend the Minister for her Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 which seem to me greatly to improve the various categories of people whom the Secretary of State may appoint to the new agency.
Turning to Amendment No. 9, I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. I believe I can take it from what she said that people who have recently retired from teaching, especially in schools, will be seriously considered for membership, or even perhaps that there will be at least one member of the agency in that
1424
category. I do not believe that there will be any difficulty in persuading people who are currently engaged in the softer subjects of providing and teaching higher education to give quite a lot of time to the agency. Many of them already have too much time on their hands. However, it may be more difficult with a good serving teacher at the school level. I am grateful for what my noble friend said and I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage.
Lord Judd: My Lords. we should like to put on record how much we appreciate the fact that the Minister took the point in relation to teaching as such and spelt it out in the Bill. We want to say thanks for that.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in, speaking to Amendment No. 11 which is in my name I must apologise to the House for taking up more time on what must appear to be a small point, arid almost a point of special pleading. In my more hesitant moments I feel that I must be rather like a piece of grit in the well-fitting shoe of the Minister.
It is a small point, but it is a point of substance and I must speak to it again. I remind your Lordships that the Churches provide the higher education colleges in which over one quarter of teachers are being educated —the figure is actually 28 per cent. That is a significant stake in teacher education and it must be recognised that the Churches are in partnership with the state in the whole field of education. Looked at historically, it can reasonably be claimed that it was the Churches who pioneered the way in the whole matter of teacher education. That is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, drew attention at an earlier stage in our discussions on the Bill.
Although our role has very properly diminished, we are nonetheless still in business and are a significant contributor to the whole educational pattern. The Government recognised that—and I am extremely grateful to them—by producing their own amendment, which is now on the face of the Bill, in relation to the desirability of having persons on the Teacher Training Agency who have experience or responsibility for institutions of a denominational character. Not only that, but at an earlier stage and again this afternoon, the Minister gave an assurance that the Churches will be consulted over appointments to the Teacher Training Agency.
As I explained earlier—I am sure that the noble Baroness will not mind my rehearsing it again though I hope not in detail—consultation with the Churches is actually on the face of the 1993 Act. But the consultation that we experienced over appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools was plainly unsatisfactory. That was recognised throughout the House and was almost conceded by the Minister herself. Therefore our embarrassment and difficulty—I must put this plainly—is that when consultation was on the face of the Act, that consultation was not satisfactory. But I

1425
am now being asked to accept assurances which are in Hansard but not on the face of the Bill. That presents me with difficulties.
Of course I accept the assurances given by the noble Baroness the Minister. But what should I do? My representatives were in touch with hers in order to try to hammer out an agreed amendment which will achieve our purposes. Today is the first I have heard that it is not satisfactory. I do not for one moment hold the Minister responsible for that. When we tried to obtain an opinion on whether the Minister would accept the amendment in principle, she was out visiting schools, teacher unions or on some other much more important business. Nonetheless, at Third Reading I am left in the position that it was not until this afternoon that I heard that the amendments were not satisfactory. That puts me in a difficulty. I have no Whips. It does not even look as though I have many votes. Even if I had scorpions I would not be able to do anything. I therefore have no option. I cannot press the matter.
I am sure that the Minister understands why I am not really satisfied. I am grateful for her assurances. However, in view of the fact that we were able to put something on the face of the 1993 Act I am astonished that we cannot find a way of putting something onto the face of this Bill. I do not think it is too late because the Bill has to go to another place. I trust that the Minister will continue to give her mind to this matter in the hope that there may be some satisfactory solution.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether, for reassurance and also for some clarification, I may speak again. It proves a point that words in Bills that become Acts do not necessarily guard against human nature. The right reverend Prelate will know that I have conceded at least once publicly on the record and will do so again that that was a very unfortunate incident. I apologise again unreservedly for that and join my right honourable friend who did so too. That incident was unfortunate.
There was some misunderstanding about the nature of consultation and also about the point at which one consults. Once appointments are made, and some disappointments, it is very difficult to do anything other than allow that information to go out at the same time—it is quite difficult to do it otherwise. But I believe that there is scope for improving the consultation between my department and the right reverend Prelate's department. I do not think it is a matter of what is on the face of the Bill. We must see that human nature honours both the commitment in Hansard and the spirit of what I have said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, leave out lines 11 to 17 and insert:
("(a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in—

(i)teaching in schools,

(ii)teaching in higher education (other than training teachers), or

(iii)training teachers, or

(b) to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for—
1426

(i)the provision of education in schools,

(ii)the provision of higher education (other than the training of teachers), or

(iii)the training of teachers;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("the provision of education for") and insert ("teaching").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert:
("(4A) In carrying out his duty under subsection (3) (a) the Secretary of State shall consult the bodies referred to in subsection (4B) about the qualities and background which it would be desirable for persons with the experience or responsibility referred to in that subsection to possess.
(4B) The bodies referred to in subsection (4A) are such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and such other religions and religious denominations as he considers appropriate in matters relating to the provision of higher education in institutions of a denominational character.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I formally move the amendment if only to provoke a little further debate. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for providing this opportunity because I was unfortunately and unavoidably swept out of the Chamber during the debate on the group of amendments. I should like to say how strongly many of us feel the Church and the Churches to be involved both in the history and in the development of our education and how warmly we would welcome, whether in statute or by some other means, a mending of this very important fence which we cannot afford to have broken any longer. I was encouraged by my noble friend's words to believe that she believes this to be the case too. If between this place and another place it is decided that there is room for an amendment for this purpose, I hope that she will give it a fair wind. Otherwise, I hope she will do whatever is necessary to bring these two great institutions of Church and state together in one of their principal tasks.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said. Oral assurances are, I am sure, given in good faith, but the reality is that no successor government to the present Administration will for a moment accept that a commitment made by the noble Baroness this afternoon also commits them, whereas an amendment to the statute would in fact commit them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Elton has said. I hope that my noble friend will attempt to secure something when the Bill goes to another place. I felt rather sorry that the right reverend Prelate did not have available the Whips and scorpions which he thoroughly deserves to have at his command.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful that my Whips and scorpions are reaching further round the House than I had anticipated.

1427
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said earlier on in our discussions. I hope she will heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I still think that it would be a much more satisfactory and secure arrangement to have something on the face of the Bill, even though we know that that is in some measure fallible. However, I shall leave the matter at that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I may say that many of us are impressed by the lead he has given carefully in his wording to the principles which have been so important, certainly in the history of education, with regard to the co-operation between Church and state. Indeed, the lead in education given by the Church should be extended to other denominations and to other religions in our multi-faith society. We are very glad to see that lead corning from the Church and we commend the right reverend Prelate for the way he phrased his amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Qualifying activities and eligible institutions]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I have to call Amendment No. 13 before Amendment No. 12 because of the question of marshalling.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments consists of Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 19 coupled with Amendment No. 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. They address some very tricky issues which we have debated at length during the passage of the Bill. As I have made clear throughout these discussions, I had an open mind on the right way ahead. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Skidelsky and Lady Carnegy provided the focus for these amendments. I am grateful to them and indeed to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his place. shall take each of the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 19, in turn and, if I may, trespass in advance on the amendment in this group under the name of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky.
Amendment No. 13, and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which pick up cross-references, have the effect that the Higher Education Funding Council for England, not the Teacher Training Agency, will continue to fund courses of higher education which are not concerned with teacher training; and to provide formula funds for the generality of educational research.
I believe that these amendments meet the points raised in previous debates. So far as undergraduate and postgraduate education courses are concerned, there remains an argument in principle that it would have been constructive for one funding body to fund these, whether or not they were intended for teachers. But as we shall not be pursuing that approach, I trust that the individual higher education institutions will be vigilant in ensuring that the right cross-fertilisation takes place.
1428
The alternative to these amendments would have involved a complicated disentanglement of the contents of "Academic Subject Category 11/", some of which have nothing at all to do with education, despite the title of the category.
We have now defined the agency's funding powers in such a way that it will be able to focus tightly on its responsibility for teacher training. I should like to reassure those interested in special needs issues in particular that the powers left to the agency in the Bill cover in-service training as well as initial training—so the possibility of the agency having a role in a national system for funding certain types of in-service courses remains as open as before.
The arguments on research have always been slightly different. I gave a number of assurances as long ago as Second Reading about the continuation of current approaches to funding and quality assessment, whether the formal funding responsibility was with the funding council or the agency. Our amendments mean that the funding responsibility will remain with the council. There has, however, been a growing recognition that it is right for the agency to have its own power to commission research into areas clearly related to its other functions and objectives. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and other noble Lords have said in previous debates, if the agency is to fulfil its objectives of raising standards of teaching and teacher training, it must be given the means to ensure that its decisions are informed by research evidence.
Such a power was implicit but not explicit in the Bill as drafted. Amendment No. 19 establishes now on the face of the Bill the agency's power to undertake or commission research with a view to improving teacher training or the standards of teaching. That is entirely at one with the agency's other functions, and, I believe, in line with the consensus that began to emerge in the House at Report stage.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky has tabled Amendment No. 12, which would have the effect of including in Clause 4, as a qualifying activity for agency funding, research commissioned to improve standards in teaching and teacher training.
I do not believe there is any difference at all in the aim of the amendments put forward in my name and that in the name of my noble friend. Indeed, as I have always said, I make no secret of the fact that the amendments I am putting forward have been given focus by the amendments tabled by my noble friend at earlier stages.
I fully understand his wish to see the commissioning power reflected in the activities fundable under Clause 4. But there is an important if somewhat subtle legal distinction here between the activities which can be funded by the agency—essentially the subject of grants to institutions —and the whole range of activities on which the agency can spend money.
The funding powers in Clause 4 do not limit the agency to spending money only on the purposes listed. They must be read alongside its very wide powers in Schedule 1,
"to … do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of their functions".

1429
Those powers cover in particular entering into contracts for the relevant work. The same mechanism can be used to pay for research. Once we have the specific research power for the agency in our new clause, the agency will be able to use its powers under Schedule 1 to enter into contracts for commissioned research.
With that assurance I hope that these amendments will have met the anxieties of the House and will have gathered as much consensus as possible to support them. I also hope that the assurance will persuade my noble friend that his amendment is not applicable here. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I wish to address specifically Amendment No. 12 standing in my name. I apologise to the House that the amendment, as it appears in the Marshalled List, refers to the wrong line on the wrong page. I can assure your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord St. Davids, that it is not my intention to abolish the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. But it perhaps adds to the general air of incomprehension to which other noble Lords have referred during the course of this debate.
This is the third, and positively the last, appearance of this amendment to Clause 4. Connoisseurs of draftsmanship will note the improvement to the language of this amendment to its final state of perfection. Therefore, I am particularly sorry that my noble friend the Minister has been unable to accept it in the form in which it appears. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to her for all her efforts to meet the purpose of the amendment.
But I have a serious point to make. Clause 4 is the general funding clause. It lists the activities qualifying for funding at eligible institutions by the teacher training agency under this Part of the Bill—that is, from Clause 3 to Clause 10. If any research is to be funded by the agency, the power to do so should be stated here. That is what my amendment does. It replaces the proposed power to fund all educational research with a much more specific power to fund research commissioned by the agency to underpin its policy.
What we wanted to achieve could not be achieved by these means. Apparently, the activities qualifying for funding at eligible institutions cannot include commissioned research even though there would be such activity and it would certainly be funded, and it would have to take place at an eligible institution. Nevertheless, the funding cannot be given under that clause—such is the wisdom of the law, or of the lawyers advising the Department for Education.
Even though commissioned research cannot be a qualifying activity for funding under Clause 4, that will not matter, apparently. Money will be there in any case. My noble friend the Minister has already given notice of her intention to move a new Clause 11 which gives the agency the power to undertake and commission research. Where is the money for that to come from? I searched very extensively throughout the Bill to discover that, but I could not find it. But I was wrong.
1430
Noble Lords will find in Schedule 1, paragraph 1 some supplementary powers. One of them empowers the agency to enter into contracts. I bet commissioning research was not in mind when that was put in. But never mind; one can always find a power somewhere if one looks hard enough for it. The Minister has found one which apparently does the job.
That is not the way I would have done it. I would have preferred to have commissioned research listed as one of the qualifying activities and not tacked on to efficiency studies right at the end of this section and almost as an afterthought. That will seem an affront to the research community. We were trying to ensure high quality, policy-relevant research to underpin agency policy. This research function should have been upfront and proudly displayed on the agency's banner. Its funding should not have depended on a supplementary power in a schedule clearly intended for other purposes. However, I am not going to press this matter any further. The Minister has done her best to meet us and I am very grateful for that although I feel that the matter has been dealt with in the wrong way.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in generally welcoming much about these amendments, I wish to emphasise that in our view the TTA will not only have a legitimate need, but it must have the means to commission its own research into initial teacher education. The thought of some kind of ghetto quango, uninformed by good research, is an appalling prospect. So we welcome this. These amendments provide for such research defined by the parameters of the teacher training agency's remit. Therefore they are a welcome response to the anxieties that the research which is essential to inform higher education degrees or diplomas should at the same time remain part of the integrated pattern of studies which a university might offer.
Therefore these amendments respond to the debates at Committee and Report stages and we want to commend the Minister for that. In particular, they respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his earlier interventions. It may be that I am at fault, but I have looked at the wording of his amendment today and I am a little confused as to how it relates to what he put forward in our earlier deliberations.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke to an amendment to limit the teacher training agency to research commissioned by the funding agency,
"into the theory, practice and management of education".
He said:
"The purpose of the amendment is to give the teacher training agency the power to fund research into initial teacher training without depriving the funding councils of their responsibility for funding all other courses in education not connected with teacher training and also for funding educational research in general". —[Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1646.]
As I have said, it may be that I am at fault, but I am confused. The noble Lord seems to have slipped from this commitment to initial teacher training. Arguably, the amendments go further than we might wish in allowing the teacher training agency to carry out as well as commission such research related to teacher training.

1431
However, we all have to be realistic about this and recognise that in practice, given its membership and structure, the TTA will commission research.
Of more concern is the widening of the definition of such research to include research to improve the training of teachers and the standards of teaching. It does not seem to us altogether to reflect what I believed then to be the careful wording of the original proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which dealt with research into the theory, practice and management of education.
The question that we have to ask and on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Minister today —emphasise that I am speaking in the context of generally welcoming what she has put forward—is: is it intended that the Teacher Training Agency should have responsibilities for teacher training other than initial teacher training? I notice that a later government amendment defines teacher training under the terms of the Bill to be,
"any training or education with the object of fitting persons to be teachers"—
that is, initial teacher training—"or better teachers", which I presume refers to in-service training. The government amendments reflect Clause 1(2) (a) which lists the objectives of the agency's functions, including,
"to contribute to raising the standards of teaching".
However, as I understand it, your Lordships have understood that to refer to funding courses and research into improving initial teacher education and training. I re-emphasise the word "initial".
So far we have not had any convincing arguments for widening the remit of the new quango to cut across existing GEST funding and the in-service training responsibilities of government, LEAs, schools and the teaching profession which have been negotiated and undertaken by those bodies. Therefore, in the security of knowing that we shall certainly not oppose what the Minister has suggested—in fact, we endorse it—it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify those points.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, although they have made important points which require to be addressed, it seems to me that both the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, have perhaps not sufficiently emphasised that the amendments that have been tabled (whether by my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky) very much meet the earlier objections and concerns. This is the main point. Initially, we had the vision of the Teacher Training Agency not just commissioning but funding research—perhaps even funding research courses or higher education. It was empowered under paragraph (b), which will now be deleted, in respect of,
"activities qualifying for funding under this Part are … the provision of higher education in".
Happily, that is no longer the proposal. I believe that there is consensus and that both amendments recognise the fact that the general field of higher and research degrees is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council. However, Amendment No. 19 as proposed (the new clause after Clause 10) provides that,
"A funding agency may carry out or commission such research as they consider appropriate with a view to improving … the training of teachers, or … the standard of teaching."
1432
That seems reasonable. That is very much the bread and butter of the subject area of the teacher training agency.
I was a little confused by what seemed a rather arcane disputation between the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friend the Minister as to exactly where that similar wording should be placed in the Bill. I do not claim expert knowledge of where in legal terms it should be placed, but it seems to me that in proposing that those provisions should have a clause to themselves my noble friend the Minister cannot be accused of inappropriately tucking them away.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, emphasised the matter of initial and subsequent teacher training. That point had not previously seemed to me to be of overwhelming significance. I am sure that it is the business of the Teacher Training Agency to be concerned with the quality of teacher training, and research to that specific end seems entirely appropriate. Although I do not imagine that we shall have both the Minister's amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I feel that either adequately meets the case that was argued at an earlier stage when there was deep concern lest education research should somehow slip into the responsibilities of the Teacher Training Agency and away from the Higher Education Funding Council. That point has been admirably met by the amendments. I shall certainly support both, if both are moved.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, once again, at the risk of monotony, I must warmly thank the Minister for the amendment. She has accepted what was my amendment in the words in which I moved it. Had I by arty awful chance changed my mind, I would not have had the face to say so, but fortunately I have not. The amendment exactly meets the point. It will cause very great relief in the universities—not only in departments of education, but also in departments, including history. where research touches on education. It tightens and clarifies the Bill in an excellent way. I congratulate the Minister also on her judgment, on the way in which she has handled this issue since Second Reading and on the way in which she has allowed consensus in the House to evolve, to which she has now effectively given effect.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for seeing the point of compromise at a time when I was still thinking only of breathing fire and slaughter. His contribution has been extremely helpful. Of course, we have no objection to the Teacher Training Agency commissioning research. It will need to do so and obviously should have the power.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I have no views on exactly where in the Bill the clause should be placed. Since the noble Lord is an acknowledged expert on the drafting of legislation, perhaps I may suggest that the two of them present the apple to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and abide by his judgment. Wherever the clause is placed in the Bill, I am happy with it and I welcome it.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend the Minister for having so wisely judged the form of her amendments. I am particularly

1433
pleased that the funding of education as an academic discipline in its own right is not to be part of the Teacher Training Agency. I tabled an amendment on that in Committee.
However, I should like my noble friend's assurances on one point. In the debate on Report, while acknowledging the force of all the arguments for taking the funding of research out of the remit of the Teacher Training Agency, as proposed in the Bill, and putting it back with the Higher Education Funding Council, I said that, although the whole argument was finely balanced, I had some anxieties about cutting the seamless robe in such a way that initial teacher training might be left in —to take the word of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—a ghetto on its own. There is some concern, particularly among the smaller colleges which provide initial teacher training, that by having their initial teacher training facilities separated from their higher degrees in education and their research activities they will somehow find their initial teacher training downgraded.
I should like some assurance from my noble friend that when the world is divided up, as it will be, the quality of initial teacher training, its importance and its status within the field of higher education as a whole will not be diminished by the fact that the agency which funds it has no remit and no part to play in relation to higher degrees in education, which are a very important part of the further professional development of teachers —and nor will it have a part to play in the research, which is almost always undertaken by people concerned with the provision of initial teacher training.
One of the most important aspects of the training of teachers which has been pushed forward in the past 10 years is the fact that initial teacher training has been brought into the mainstream of higher education. That has given additional status and importance to the teaching profession. In their training, teachers are now the equals of those who are training as doctors, engineers, architects or in any of the other great professions. Therefore, I ask the Minister for some assurance that by removing the funding of what I might call the more straightforward higher education aspects, initial teacher training will not be seen to be downgraded but will remain an important part of the whole scene.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I had my name to amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky on previous occasions. I have not on this occasion because logistics have prevented it. My noble friend the Minister said in her opening remarks on this amendment that the ability to fund the commissioning of research was founded on Schedule 1 paragraph 1(b) which relates to entering into contracts. It is slightly surprising in legislation to have to look up a schedule which is about supplementary powers. I quite see that it is a way of fitting it into the Bill, and that my noble friend has been very ingenious. Is she certain that the commissioning of research will always be a contract? Is it possible that there may be a problem if commissioning is done in any other way? I realise that in the normal way the commissioning would specify the
1434
research required and it would be costed. It would then be put out to tender. Will that always be the case, and research will not be prevented from being commissioned in any other way?
If it is difficult to answer that question now, perhaps my noble friend will look at the issue before it gets to another place to be sure that it is in order. I also wonder whether the clause should be tucked away after Clause 10. It is a strange way of drafting a Bill. It is a serious and important business. It is an important part of the agency's work. It has arrived at a rather late stage of the Bill. These are matters at which my noble friend might look so that her right honourable friend in another place can ensure that the Bill is as well drafted as possible. I greatly welcome what my noble friend has done. It is an important point. She has done very well to achieve it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take first the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and address the point of initial and in-service training. He will notice that Clause 4 relates to the provision of teacher training. The amendments do not alter the agency's ability to fund in-service training as well as teacher training. We have heard arguments at earlier stages of the Bill from the special needs groups, in particular, that there may be some cases of in-service training being funded on a national basis as they are not being catered for effectively by current devolved arrangements. There are long courses for those intending to work in special schools. We have already mentioned courses for people working with deaf children, deaf/blind children, blind children and autistic children.
We have not prejudged the answers to that issue, but the Bill as drafted, and as it will remain following the amendments, will leave open that option, and that is in no way a threat to the generality of GEST funding which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, but will also be a useful additional option.
My noble friend Lady Perry mentioned the downgrading of ITT. I take her point. As I said earlier, there are some possible dangers in dividing responsibilities, as now proposed. That probably reflects too the agonising of my noble friend Lady Perry in our previous debates as to whether those changes should be made. I believe that we can look to higher education institutions to ensure that the necessary cross-fertilisation takes place. Indeed, in my initial remarks I stressed, first, that that would be an important function for higher education; and, secondly, that the attention of the agency and indeed Ofsted would be directed to quality issues. I do not believe that we need have any fears that standards will suffer. Indeed, I hope that it will be quite the reverse.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked some questions about commissioning research and thought that it was strange that one would have to look to the schedule for the funding mechanism for research. First, it is important—it was a point made on all sides of the House —that whatever the funding for general research, the agency should have specific powers to commission research, and that we have secured in the new

1435
amendment. So the agency is given the function, and the mechanism for funding is in Schedule 1 paragraph 1(b) and it is contractual.
The other question that my other noble friend posed was whether that would always be the case. If we are talking about commissioning research, first, there will have to be a specification for that research; and, secondly, there will have to be someone to do the research. To that extent, it will be a contract between the agency drawing up the specification and commissioning the research from an individual or a body, following the normal methodology for doing that. The relationship between the agency and those doing research will be contractual.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The agency will also be able to undertake research, and that does not involve commissioning. Is that also covered?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was going to come to that. Research commissioned will inevitably be a form of contract between the body commissioning and whoever does it. The other kind of research which is also allowed for in the Bill, both in terms of spending and in relation to its functions, is research that the agency will be able to undertake itself. It will be limited in scope because it will not have the expertise to do basic fundamental research. It will be able to do some survey work or something that will underpin information that will be valuable to it and perhaps valuable in advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is covered that it has, first, the power to do that work; and, secondly, has the mechanism for funding it.
I am advised, in answer to my noble friend Lady Carnegy who raised the point about Schedule 1 paragraph 1, that research will always be commissioned under contract. She asked whether that power will be adequate. I am told that it is adequate. The opening lines of the paragraph are probably worth putting on record. The preamble to Schedule 1 provides:
"The agency may, subject to sub-paragraph (2), do anything which appears to them to he necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of their functions, including in particular",
and it goes on to list some of its functions. I believe that the point is covered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or (b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants, loans and other payments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 37, leave out (", (b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provisions supplementary to s.5]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("the desirability of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to Clause 6. As it reads, Clause 6 encourages the TTA to introduce school-centred courses by suggesting that
1436
there must be a balance and that to promote such courses is desirable. This amendment does not prevent school-centred courses, but does prevent a subjective and politically biased approach being foisted upon the TTA which the Minister says will be independent and with proven experience relevant to teacher training.
Existing pilot schemes for school-centred courses have revealed problems with such an approach. Local teachers have recognised the benefits in terms of the professional development of teachers involved as mentors and in terms of working in partnership with higher education. But teachers have been concerned that, first, insufficient time has been provided by initial teacher training mentors to complete the necessary preparation and evaluation of students, and also have contact time with students in schools; secondly, sufficient funding has not been made available to implement the scheme; thirdly, the observation methods being used presented serious difficulties; for example, trying to fit to Ofsted criteria; and, fourthly, reservations about the lack of theoretical grounding for students have, been reinforced by the present experience, as have concerns about pupils' entitlement to quality teaching.
Those are legitimate concerns raised by teachers in schools providing largely school-based courses, which would be exacerbated in schools providing wholly school-centred courses. In Committee and on Report we debated and argued against wholly school-centred courses. We have argued against the provisions in Clause 4(2) (b) allowing listing of any school as an eligible institution for funding by the TTA.
As amended, the Bill entitles "any school" to funding under the terms of Clause 4 for the purpose of carrying out teacher training courses and gives schools the power to provide courses of ITT under the terms of Clause 11.
Given those provisions in Clauses 4 and 11, given the objectives and functions of the TTA, given the experience of its members and given the powers of direction by the Secretary of State, it is surely wrong for us to specify on the face of the Bill that the funding agency shall positively discriminate or promote an unproven form of teacher training courses over any other course.
The Minister has argued against unnecessary words being on the face of the Bill that add nothing of value; Clause 6(2) can be classed as such an example. At the very least the Minister has to acknowledge that the choice of the word "desirability" is inappropriate to this Bill.
The Minister has repeatedly emphasised that neither the Government nor the agency will be forcing schools to take on the extra responsibilities of school-centred courses. Clause 6 does leave some cause for concern. The TTA's ability to operate financial incentives, including for capital projects, must be faced honestly and realistically, as must its potential effects.
On the one hand, the Minister makes assurances that the TTA will fund courses only on the basis of quality; and yet, on the other hand, there appears to be an implicit belief in the inherent desirability of diversity, no matter what its consequences for the credibility and

1437
quality of teachers' qualifications or for the infrastructure of the provision of educational studies in higher education.
If we eliminate the words "the desirability of", as the amendment proposes, there will, I am sure, be greater confidence in many quarters in the operation of the agency. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a curious amendment. It does not affect the main purpose of Clause 6 in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady David, intends. I am advised that as a result of the amendment the agency may have an even firmer duty to secure a balance between school-centred and other courses.
Perhaps I may read the clause as it would stand if the amendment were agreed to.
"In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for qualifying activities the funding agencies shall have regard"—
no longer to the desirability, but to,
"establishing and maintaining in relation to courses for initial training of school teachers an appropriate balance".
Therefore, they will be detailed to have regard to the balance without regard to the desirability of the balance. That is rather strange. The agency may also have a duty to avoid discouraging institutions from maximising their independent sources of funding. If it were clear that the drafting were adequate to guarantee those matters, I might even have supported the amendment. However, I am advised that even that is not possible because the amendment is defective.
I have already explained in previous debates why I consider these two functions in Clause 6 to be important. I believe it bears repeating that the balance between school-centred courses and other courses will to some extent be determined by schools themselves. Schools will not be forced by the agency into entering into such schemes. The agency will, however, need to have regard to the balance between the two sectors if it is to plan effectively. I remind the House that in setting the balance, the agency will have to have regard to its statutory objectives of quality and cost-effectiveness, and will have a long time horizon. The agency will, for example, need to ensure that it funds institutions which will be able to expand provision to meet future upturns in demand for new teachers. The setting of a balance may work to the advantage of higher education in such respects. It is interesting that noble Lords opposite can only imagine threats to higher education in the notion of balance, rather than welcome an even-handed approach devoted to the best quality of teacher training.
As regards the second limb in Clause 6, in an earlier debate I gave an assurance to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that there was no hidden attempt to pressure institutions into seeking other sources of funding. It is a protection to ensure that the agency does not automatically penalise them for any non-agency funding that they might receive. That is exactly in line with the provision which we already have
1438
in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in respect of the relationship of the funding council and higher education institutions.
For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment, which is in any case defective, and I hope that it will not be pressed.
As regards the issue of bias, I am advised that the Bill does not impose any requirement to promote any type of training. It is entirely neutral as to the balance that is appropriate. That there will be a balance is a fact of life; school-centred courses are here to stay. Two issues arise. First, now that we are no longer considering the desirability of obtaining the right balance, we have a firm direction that they should consider the balance. Secondly, the comments which the noble Baroness made in introducing the amendment confused not the school-centred-only courses but the courses that are run by higher education institutions with schools, where money passes from higher education institutions to schools. We have said time and time again that there certainly is scope for more money to pass from higher education institutions to schools. As regards the school-centred courses about which I am talking and the balance referred to in the Bill, the money is on all fours with that given to higher education.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, the Bill was not clear to the many people who asked for this amendment. The inclusion of the words "the desirability of" suggests that there is a preference and an enthusiasm to encourage school-centred courses when perhaps a school might not be ready to accept them. To a certain extent, the Minister has been reassuring.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that if schools are not prepared to accept the courses, it will not apply to undertake them. No school will undertake school-centred courses unless it, through the governing body, applies to do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. There was a misunderstanding, and perhaps the clause is not clear enough and is not drafted well enough. There has been a misunderstanding in a good many quarters about exactly what the intentions are. Perhaps the Minister ought to realise that and the fact that there will need to be guidance about what is intended in the clause.
Clearly, if the matter is to be followed up it will have to be followed up in another place and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 45, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("( ) In exercising their functions a funding agency shall require the governing body of any institution which provides a course of initial teacher training to publish and make available to each student—

(a) the profile of the academic content of the course, set out so that each student shall have reasonable expectations as to what he will be required to study in each fortnight of the course in question;

1439

(b) where appropriate, the amount of time which will be spent teaching students to teach children how to read and write English. and by what methods;

(c) the reading list which is proposed for the course in question;

(d) the names of any external examiners appointed to report on the course to the institution at which the course is proposed;

(e) the publications, if any, of those who are to teach the Course;

(f) the teaching workload of those teaching the course, giving the number of hours per week and the number of weeks per annum that teachers on the course are contracted to leach their students either in lectures or in tutorials or other small groups;

(g) the workload of those teaching the course in any other activities related to the course, such as the marking of students' papers; and

(h) the amount of time which the course teachers have spent teaching in schools, together with the names of the schools in question.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for tabling the amendment that was agreed on Report. It now appears as Clause 6(5) of the Bill. However, I hope that my noble friend will not think me churlish for tabling an amendment similar to that which I spoke to on Report and in Committee.
I have done so because I have carefully read Hansard for 28th March to see what my noble friend said in cols. 920 and 921. As a result, I am also grateful for what she said on that occasion.
However, the full detail of what she said on Report is not reflected in Clause 6(5) of the Bill as now drafted. I am still unhappy to leave the detail of what is to be published by institutions running teacher education courses entirely to the decision of the new agency.
My reticence in this regard is inspired by my experience on the Council for National Academic Awards. When we were sometimes in possession of some of the information which this amendment seeks to make public, I am afraid that we judged that it should remain confidential between the institution and ourselves. That was especially true when the information reflected badly on the institution concerned.
I accept that this may be one of the faults and temptations of self-regulation. In saying that, I make no special criticism of academe. Indeed, my experience of self-regulation in the City merely underlines my distrust of self-regulation in general. That, unfortunately was confirmed by my experience of higher education. That is why I am unhappy to leave the detail of what is to be revealed publicly—what one might call the "citizen's charter aspects" of the agency's activity—entirely to the agency.
The majority of the active members of the agency will be representatives of academe. There will be some difficulty —I think that there usually is—in getting businessmen and others, as recommended in the Bill, to be sufficiently active in the agency. I may be wrong and I hope that I shall be proved wrong. But be that as it may, I wonder if I could ask my noble friend whether she can say any more now than she said on Report as to which details of this amendment will indeed be accepted by the new agency as being for public consumption.
On Report my noble friend said that this aspect of the agency's work would be addressed in a remit letter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State
1440
would send to the agency. Upon reflection, I have to say that I believe that all the information requested by this amendment should be made public and I wonder if my noble friend can go any further than she did on Report to give me some comfort as to how this may be achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not accept this further invasion into the running of institutions.
Noble Lords may remember that the most eminent person who ever held the old office of President of the Board of Education and subsequently became an academic, as he had been before, was extremely proud of his period as a member of government. He used always to regale his visitors with reminiscences of his activities as a Minister. When they were foreign, he addressed them, in his somewhat imperfect French, with the words, "Quand j'étais dans le Cabinet", which, as noble Lords will understand, was not precisely what he had in mind.
I recount that agreeable anecdote not merely to raise our spirits after a very long period of technical debate but also to draw the obvious analogy with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. For him, his experience on the CNAA was obviously as important in his life as his experience as a Minister was in the life of Warden Fisher. Why it figures so largely and why it has obviously induced in the noble Lord a hatred of higher education is something which, if he attains the eminence of a biography, a biographer, perhaps with Freudian assistance, may be able to explain.
Over and over again, the noble Lord has interrupted our proceedings by venting his bile upon higher education and its institutions. I hope that in this case, the House will have no more of it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to add to the castigation offered by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I hesitate to criticise, but I feel that I must criticise the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has tabled the same amendment in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading.
I spoke against the amendment in Committee. I well understand that that had no effect on the thinking of my noble friend Lord Pearson. I cannot say that that is a matter about which to be surprised or concerned. However, I have before me his own words on Report.
He said at col. 918:
"I confess that some of the detail which my amendment asks for may be a little too exact. I shall be quite happy not to see displayed the teaching workload of those teaching the course",
and so on, because there was some criticism of that kind. I remind the House, as did my noble friend Lord Pearson, that in the same debate on Report, the Minister's amendment was carried with the intention of meeting at least some of those points which are now contained in Clause 6(5) of the Bill as presently drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, went on to say in relation to paragraph (b)—and I expect that it is still paragraph (b) because it seems to be obdurately unmodified —that:

1441
"Although it is very important, it is perhaps inappropriate in this particular amendment".—[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 918.]
If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, had had the courtesy to modify his amendment in the light of the debates in Committee and on Report and in the light of his own observations on the amendment, we might have had a better amendment before the House at this stage. As it is, I take exception to being obliged to speak against an amendment in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading when the noble Lord himself accepted some of its imperfections. It seems to me that he asks for everything except the maternal name of the grand-mother of the engine driver. That is excessive and I should be happier if the noble Lord would take such points a little earlier in the life history of a Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I was not conscious of being obliged to speak against my noble friend's amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. But I feel under some obligation to do so now.
It seems to me to be carrying eccentricity a little too far to place upon a funding agency a duty, which it may not want, to tell the governing body how to carry out its business. I am not quite sure whether it is my noble friend's intention to start a violent struggle between the two bodies, but I believe that this would be a good way in which to achieve that. I cannot really believe that that is his intention. I hope that the Minister will have no hesitation in rejecting the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, it certainly brought some life to the debate anyway, which is perhaps an improvement. I rather hesitate after three noble Lords on the Government Benches have criticised their noble friend's amendment to do so, but I certainly cannot help but do so. I think it is monstrous, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, to have the same amendment three times and against all the rules. I am surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted it.
The noble Lord himself said that perhaps it might be difficult to get governors to come in with business experience, but if the governors must have all that, and the heads and the teachers, their workload will be even worse than it is now. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will not waste much time in dispatching the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suspect that the Public Bill Office accepted this amendment in the way that it accepted a number of amendments which are on the Marshalled List today which are verbatim copies of those tabled at previous stages of the Bill.
Subsection (5) requires the funding agencies to take steps to ensure that all providers of initial teacher training make available such information about their courses as the agencies think appropriate. I accept, in line with the principles of the Higher Education Charter, that institutions should provide clear and detailed information about their provision to students and to applicants. My noble friend's amendment covers only students already enrolled on courses. It is equally important for potential students to have access to full
1442
and accurate information if they are to make an informed choice between courses at different institutions. Subsection (5) is open about the recipients of the information, allowing requirements about the manner of publication and intended recipients to be determined by the agency and adjusted as necessary in the light of experience.
As I said on Report, I support the principle behind many of the detailed points covered within this amendment. However, we have deliberately not specified the precise information to be provided to various recipients because I do not think that in the narrow confines of our debates on the Bill it would be possible to arrive at exactly the right list of information. In any case, specifying a precise list in primary legislation would not give the agencies the necessary flexibility to alter the list in the light of experience or discussions with the institutions concerned and other interested bodies.
As I also said on Report, it would not surprise me if the requirements set by the agency have much in common with my noble friend's suggestions. However, I hope that my noble friend will accept that the existing subsection (5) allows the agencies to require all the information that his amendment covers to be made available, should they wish, without the unhelpful constraints of a list in primary statute.
I am sure that the agency will look back at our debates in order to understand the aims of this provision of the Bill and ensure it is applied in the way that has commanded general agreement in this House, although it was not such general agreement. But, in any event, my right honourable friend will most certainly make known to the agency his strongly-held views about the importance of good information to students undertaking teacher training. That will be reflected in his initial remit letter to the agency, which will also stress the importance of the Citizen's Charter approach and therefore of addressing the information needs of students. My officials will stand ready to discuss this, as with other aspects of the agency's remit, but it must be for the agency to determine that in its own way.
We must beware of shackling the freedom of such an independent body. I cannot say that the full list of information requirements which my noble friend favours will be set out in terms in a formal remit letter. Indeed, there are one or two aspects of the amendment about which it would be rather difficult to be very definitive. Such a letter will have a wide scope and must beware of trespassing on the agency's autonomy. We have set up an independent body and must allow it discretion to pursue its broad objectives without undue interference. But I can say that I will ensure that these debates, and the support which specific aspects of my noble friend's amendment (and the principle behind it) have received, will be drawn to the agency's attention. We shall watch very carefully how the agency chooses to follow that up and offer further guidance if there are problems.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend, whom I thank again for raising the issue on the importance of information about courses to students, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I certainly found it more exciting than some of our earlier deliberations this afternoon. However, I should like to tell my noble friend Lord Beloff that I believe that he makes very well for me one of the points that I often make about those engaged in higher education when he says that he regards the amendment, and the spirit which lies behind it, as an invasion into the affairs of education. My amendment does not invade anything: it merely asks for various items to be set out publicly so that students and, shall we say, the taxpayer (who very often is funding such courses) can see exactly what is going on.
I have no issue to take with my noble friend's foray into the French language, except to disagree with him and say that I certainly do not have a hatred of higher education. I must tell him that, unfortunately, my experience as a representative of commerce who actually turned up at pretty well every academic meeting that I was supposed to attend over a period of 10 years is rare. I believe chat I have an unusual insight into higher education as a result which, of course, does not accord with the views of those who work in it. I actually have an enormous respect for higher education, especially for what I call the "harder" subjects, and I should like to put that on the record. However, I have a different view of what I call the "softer" subjects in higher education, particularly the social sciences and the humanities. Now is not the time to dwell on the subject, but in view of what has been said by noble and academic Lords, I have quite a mind to bring the matter back as a subject of separate debate on a later occasion.
I turn now to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It is true that in moving the amendment on the last occasion I felt that some of the detail of it was perhaps too prescriptive. However, in moving the amendment today I thought that I made it clear when I said that, upon reflection and upon receiving quite a lot of advice from people who think as I do in higher education and who know about higher education, it would be very helpful if all the proposed requirements were publicly displayed. They would not be invading anyone; they would simply be on public display.
As regards the two requirements which my noble friend picked on, I believe that the business of showing how much time will be spent in teaching students to teach children how to read and write English and by what method lies at the root of our teacher education problems. For example, if the phonic method of teaching children how to read had been more widely espoused by the teacher education establishment over the past 30 years, it would have been very much better for the standards of literacy and numeracy in our society today.
Likewise, the teaching workload of those teaching the course is something that I believe ought to be on display. Again, I have a very different view of that workload when referring to academics in teacher training—or teacher education as it is usually called —or in the social sciences and the humanities, than do noble and academic Lords who speak for higher education in this House. However, I am afraid that I am
1444
not in the least bit chastened by the broadsides that I have received. I believe that it would be helpful if we were to return to the issue on a later occasion to discuss such matters in greater detail.
Having said that, and being entirely unrepentant, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her speech which came as a considerable comfort to me in the circumstances. I accept what she said about the pressures that could be put on the agency to make public the matters raised in the amendment. In that spirit, I have great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Efficiency studies]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 6, after ("person") insert ("approved by the Audit Commission").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for returning to the subject. However, during the Report stage the Minister and I had, one of our livelier exchanges on the matter. I believe that we rather came to cross-purposes late at night and perhaps unnecessarily misunderstood each other.
As I understand it, the Minister did not want the Audit Commission to have a monopoly in the area. For our part, on this side of the House we were concerned about the proper accountability and recognised the experience and insight already gained by the commission. We see that experience and insight as being highly relevant. After careful consideration, it still seems to us to be very clear that the public will be best reassured if there is provision that the Audit Commission should at least approve the people proposed to undertake studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in management.
The more that I look at the wording of Clause 10 —and I have spent some time doing so—the more concerned I am by its ambiguity. Frankly, at the very least it seems to me that it may just be a case of bad drafting. Subsection (1) reads:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person of [such] studies".
However, it is far from clear who will be responsible for the appointment of the person to undertake the work. I believe that that underlines the importance of our amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to take the point and reassure us this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I made one or two remarks which might have been thought to be a little harsh about an earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, he has now given me the opportunity to balance things and to say that not only do I congratulate him on the wording of the amendment but that I do so also on its substance.
Perhaps I may take my noble friend the Minister back to some of the arguments which took place on the subject of grant-maintained schools in debate on another Bill. I then gained the very strong impression that there was a certain departmental hostility towards the Audit Commission. I believe that one of the most sensible and commendable things that the Government have done in

1445
years was to establish that commission which in many ways is far more effective than any other body I know in checking the way that public funds are spent.
I am astonished by the looseness of the wording of Clause 10. Subsection (1) says:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person",
of such studies. There is no reference to qualifications or some sort of examination or external test; indeed, there is nothing. It just refers to "any person". In other words, there is no reason why I should not be asked to undertake the task, although I believe that my contribution on the subject would be absolutely useless.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships that there is no deep-rooted prejudice against the Audit Commission in her department. The only way that my noble friend can do so with ease is to accept the amendment. I very much hope that she will.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment seems to be extremely reasonable and on listening to his argument my opinion of it has improved. If the noble Baroness does not think the Audit Commission is a suitable body, will she when she replies tell us exactly who would be suitable? Unless we know which body is considered suitable, surely it would seem sensible to have the Audit Commission as a bench-mark.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again there is some confusion as regards what this whole exercise is about. We are talking about value for money studies and not about audit. Once again I am obliged to explain the Government's position on this small but potentially important area of the Teacher Training Agency's work.
Clause 10 empowers the agency to commission value-for-money studies to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management and operation of funded institutions. We remain convinced that this is best achieved by the agency being able to choose between competitive tenders. This is in line with the wider policy that open competition should be encouraged wherever possible. It is also a freedom that the Higher Education Funding Council for England enjoys and has made good use of. It is inconceivable that if the agency wants a value-for-money study to be undertaken it will give it to an unqualified body to carry out.
It is entirely right that the Audit Commission, with its expertise in this area, should be able to tender for such work. However, the noble Lord's amendment would create a monopoly and that cannot be in the interests of improving value-for-money, which is after all the aim of this work. Although the amendment refers to persons approved by the Audit Commission, a monopoly on approval is still nevertheless a monopoly. Furthermore, there is no precedent for such a restriction being placed upon other non-departmental public bodies. This is more than a matter of historical interest: the bulk of the agency's funds will go to institutions which will also be funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for
1446
England. It is entirely possible that the two bodies will wish to commission joint studies; this is the kind of co-operative working that we would wish to encourage between the two bodies. Not only does this amendment restrict the agency's choice, but it will limit its chance of working with the funding council to commission joint studies of this kind. Moreover, other bodies are not restricted in their choice of agents. They would be unlikely to agree to suffer a restriction just to allow for joint working with the agency.
The noble Lord seems to be under some confusion as to what this clause deals with. The clause empowers the agency to commission value-for-money studies across all or some of its funded institutions to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is not concerned with the auditing arrangements of all the individual institutions that it funds. These will remain unchanged. What we are dealing with here is whether we should restrict the decisions of one body—the Teacher Training Agency—in its choice of agent to carry out these studies. I do not believe that such a restriction is necessary or desirable.
The noble Lord is concerned about propriety and accountability in the way the agency's funds are used; the need for this is not in dispute. I do not understand why the noble Lord doubts that the agency can be trusted to ensure that it uses appropriate bodies to carry out this work. Ultimately, the agency's use of public funds will be audited by the National Audit Office, and the agency will of course be accountable for all its decisions to the Public Accounts Committee. I have promised this House that an annual report will be made available to Members of Parliament, as the agency is a transparent organisation. For the reasons that I have given I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to the drafting of the Bill. One clause exactly repeats the provisions of Section 83 of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked who will make the appointments we are discussing. The appointments will be made by the agency using its own money or jointly by the agency and the Higher Education Funding Council. For all of those reasons—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope I can intervene. The fact that one clause of the Bill repeats the provisions of a section of the 1992 Act does not make it any more acceptable to me—very much the reverse. I believe that my noble friend is doing violence to language when she refers to the Audit Commission—set up by the Government —as having a monopoly on approval. That seems to me to be inappropriate language and reveals what I suspect is a deep-found prejudice against the Audit Commission within her department.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that I am my own person as a Minister in this House and I believe I have proved that beyond doubt during the course of the passage of the Bill through this House. Further, I am on record as being the one person —I believe this is so—in the whole of local government who wrote to Sir John Banham to welcome his appointment to the Audit Commission. My colleagues

1447
in local government viewed the Audit Commission as a kind of policeman and did not welcome any interference by it in their affairs. However, I viewed the Audit Commission as a positive adjunct to our local government affairs. Indeed, I invited Sir John Banham, as one of his first duties, to examine what we were doing in my local authority and to give us either his blessing if he thought we were doing things properly or to instruct us, through his audit, how we could improve the way we were doing things. I have no prejudices whatsoever and if I detected a prejudice among my officials I certainly would not allow them to influence me at the Dispatch Box.
I should refer to the schizophrenia of this place. This House did not impose this kind of constraint on the Higher Education Funding Council, which is spending billions of pounds more than the agency will be spending. We have chosen not to put a constraint on that expenditure. I do not know why there is such prejudice in this House not against the Audit Commission but against the Teacher Training Agency. It would appear that noble Lords believe that the agency cannot be trusted in what is an important but in financial terms a relatively minor part of its work; namely, to appoint persons or bodies to carry out value-for-money studies. There is no prejudice on my part. I believe the arrangement in the Bill is a perfectly sensible arrangement. We must not confuse value-for-money studies with audit arrangements because there are plenty of audit arrangements in place. Indeed, the National Audit Office will be interested in the operations of the Teacher Training Agency.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she will clarify the words "by competitive tender" which she used. Does that mean that the cheapest option will be adopted? One could understand it if that were the case, except that I should have thought it was highly inappropriate to choose the cheapest option with regard to the matter we are discussing. Since when has cheapest been best?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed again to be so presumptuous as to pray in aid my record on this matter. To choose between competitive tenders does not mean that the cheapest option will necessarily be adopted. It means that the agency would prepare a specification and as long as a company could meet that specification—in other words, the standard set in the specification for the work—and could do it cost-effectively, then clearly the most cost-effective tender would be accepted. However, a tender would not necessarily be accepted simply because it was the cheapest option if it was not felt that work would be delivered to the quality set out in the specification. Therefore I repeat that competitive tender does not always necessarily mean that the cheapest option will be taken.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I really cannot say just that I find that reply disappointing: I am disturbed by it. I refer again to what I mentioned earlier in our proceedings today. There is a growing and deep anxiety in this House at the degree to which the responsibility for public
1448
administration is moving to non-accountable bodies outside our democratic system; namely, to quangos. We are talking here about the whole sphere of operation of a quango.
The Minister tried to reassure us this evening by saying that the Government believed that the best approach to this matter was through competitive tendering. My noble friend Lord Dormand questioned what the Minister meant by competitive tendering. I hope she will forgive me if I say that we have yet another example in this ill conceived and ill prepared Bill of the Government thinking on the hoof when the Minister gave an interpretation of what she meant by competitive tendering. Clearly there has been no detailed consideration of it. Furthermore, in looking at this clause again, one finds that the wording just does not stand up. Clause 10(1) states:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person of studies designed to improve economy".
However, the clause says nothing about how the person performing this function is to be appointed and what is meant by making arrangements. That could mean anything. It seems to me that there is another reason for anxiety as regards the approach of the Minister. I hope she will forgive me if I am doing her an injustice, and if I am she will no doubt tell me and I will apologise if she persuades me that I am doing her an injustice. But it seems to me that she lives in an artificial world of theory. In reality we have hard-pressed people trying to run schools. They are trying to improve the quality of education. In addition, they are being given more and more responsibility for the detailed administration, for which they may or may not be qualified. Now they are being encouraged to take on responsibility for preparing teachers as well, on top of everything else. There comes a breaking point. There are not groups of people all over the country who have all the skills which the Government expect to be deployed in the tasks which they are now putting upon the schools.
Then a problem arises. It is thought that it would be good to have a review of the situation to see how economy, efficiency and effectiveness could be improved. The Minister says that this is not a question of money and it is not an audit of finances. However, it is about money because effectiveness is concerned with ensuring that we get the best possible results for the public expenditure which goes into the operation. In the end everything relates to the public funds that are being provided. It is an artificial nonsense to pretend that it does not.
I am sorry to put it this way, but this is what will happen. Nobody doubts that there will be a genuine anxiety but there is a danger that a cosy and comfortable arrangement will be made. It will not necessarily be explicit but it will exist, and we will not be assured that the matter is being looked at as objectively and toughly as it should be.
It is not as though there were not already reason for anxiety, as I said at Report stage. There is already evidence of things going wrong in the school area. That is not because people are wicked or are crooks but because they do not have the skills, the understanding and the experience to do the job that is expected of them.

1449
It is not good enough to surrender responsibility to a quango outside the normal accountable arrangements which we have in our dispersed democracy of central democracy and local democracy and to move into this slovenly thinking about how matters should be administered. Even at this hour, and even if I inconvenience the House as we approach dinner, there is such a fundamental issue of principle involved that I must divide the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may intervene. This is not a slovenly act. This is a transparent organisation which has to be publicly accountable and produce public reports which will be made available to Parliament. It will be answerable to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. It will be answerable to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
With gay abandon, arms flailing all over the place, the noble Lord talks about schools being forced and imposed upon to produce these school-based teacher training courses. They are not. Can the noble Lord point to any single part of this Bill under which a school can be forced or imposed upon to produce these school-based teacher training courses? If he can I shall defer to his arguments.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister puts forward a perfectly reasonable challenge. I am saying that this clause is so badly designed that one could drive a coach and horses through it. I believe that it will give grounds in the future for endless dispute as to what was intended. Even simply on the grounds of drafting it is not good enough. However, there are much more fundamental issues at stake which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, put even more powerfully than I can. Therefore, I have no alternative but to divide the House.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bridges, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kennet, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lawrence, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Mulley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

1450

Park of Monmouth, B.

Serota, B

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Shepherd, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Quinton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Russell, E.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hooper, B.

Aldington, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Annaly, L.

Kenyon, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northbourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cranborne, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Prentice, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodney, L.

Dormer, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Downshire, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elibank, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

[Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Research
(". A funding agency may carry out or commission such research as they consider appropriate with a view to improving—

(a) the training of teachers, or

(b) the standards of teaching.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power of schools to provide courses of initial teacher training]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6. line 42, at end insert:
("(5A) (a) In relation to the powers conferred by subsection (1) the governing body shall prepare in writing a report of the proposals to provide courses of initial teacher training and a summary of the report.
(b) The governing body shall, without delay, send the report and summary to the Teacher Training Agency and to the local education authority, the Secretary of State and, in the case of a voluntary school, the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.
(c) The governing body shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the summary as soon as is reasonably practicable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 21. These amendments are another attempt to make certain that all involved, in particular parents, are well informed about any proposals for school-centred courses at the school their children are attending and the likely consequences of these proposals.
At Committee stage, the Minister said:
"In the light of our wider reforms … I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect was beneficial to their pupils".—[Official Report, 14/3/94; col. 36.]
At Report stage, she said:
"[The amendments] require consultation with parents and others, and make arrangements for a ballot to be requested, before a school can provide a course. We must not get the provision of a course for teacher training out of perspective. It is an important matter. But the way in which the school is run and funded, the number and nature of pupils it will accept and the obligation on governors to offer all children access to a curriculum which meets the requirements of the law and spend their entire school budget to that effect are all completely unaffected by the running of a school-centred course.
"It is those matters that require consultation before schools become self-governing or change their character … But in this Bill we are talking about activities which must not detract from the school's central purpose but can and will enhance its strength". —[Official Report, 28/3/94; col. 939.]
The Minister's statement was very subjective. The school's activities as listed by the Minister in the quotation I have just read will he affected by the running of a school-centred teacher training course. They cannot help being affected. The teachers will be performing a different function.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 20, ensures that such consultation takes place by, at the very least, providing those affected with information relating to the proposals so that comments can be made before final decisions are made.
The second amendment relates specifically to consultation with parents. The Minister has said that she thinks that no school. would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and, in due course, demonstrate to local parents that the effect would be beneficial to their pupils. So I can see no reason, in view of what she said before, why she should not accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is the first of the nanny amendments. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would explain what is meant by paragraph (5B) (a) (i) of Amendment No. 21:
"the parents of registered parents at the school".
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry, it must be a misprint. It should read:
"the parents of registered children".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is too late to alter amendments at this stage and therefore the amendment is as I thought and is effective.
Schools are already now more accountable to parents for their performance due to the publication of annual reports, examination results and the regular cycle of Ofsted inspections. Parents can act on this information via their representation on the governing body which again is stronger than ever before, and through the greater exercise of parental choice.
Parents also have clearer channels of information about the school's general activities—including an opportunity to meet the governing body at least annually to discuss school affairs. Under this Government, parents have more rights and more opportunities to influence what happens in their children's school than under any other government in history.
In the light of this it is frankly inconceivable that a school could undertake a school-centred scheme without the parents knowing about it, and therefore having had an opportunity to express their views on it. I therefore do not think we need add any more statutory, bureaucratic and time-consuming layers to the process of school involvement in initial teacher training.
We must be clear that—as I said at the last stage —what is at issue here is not a change to the status or funding or admissions policy of the school. The obligation to pupils is unchanged, the basic school budget cannot be used to support the involvement in teacher training.
Like countless schools before them, which have devoted time and energy without payment to supporting student teachers, schools may want to offer their own courses out of a sense of professional commitment and because they know that such involvement can enhance the whole school, its staff and ultimately the pupils. It has always been thus. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, thinks, this is not an imposed treasure, it is an opportunity where schools themselves believe they are suited to the purpose and pass all the rigours of accreditation.
But it is not the schools which are working without payment which are targeted by this amendment, nor is it the growing number which, as the reforms take effect, are now being given a share of higher education funding for their involvement in training. Noble Lords opposite do not want those schools to have to tell parents what is going on. These amendments would apply only to those schools which wanted to choose a school-centred option: "You can do anything you like in our schools, but if you want to do school-centred training, you must be subject to this amendment".
The narrow bias of the amendment is therefore clear. Of course, there is a real point to address about keeping

1453
parents informed about any school's involvement in teacher training. But that is another point best left to common sense rather than statute. The fact of the matter is that no school would volunteer to be involved,—and I mean "volunteer" to be involved—in a school-centred or any other scheme unless it firmly believed that it would be beneficial and could be demonstrated to be so to the parents.
The amendments are also technically deficient. I have already noted a technicality. They would impose a very odd duty without a timescale or any guidance as to what is intended. Does the "report of the proposals" to provide a course have to be prepared before or after funding has been secured? That is not made clear in the amendment. What must it contain? That is not made clear in the amendment. How long is the summary and what must it contain? That is not made clear in the amendment. When must the meeting with parents be held—before or after a decision is made? That is not made clear by the amendment. By borrowing the shape but not the detail of other provisions, noble Lords opposite have left us with a very odd set of requirements.
I believe that we should rest on the now much more firmly established arrangements for school accountability and not add another nannying requirement about one particular type of school activity. We should certainly not do so simply to pursue a vendetta against one particular type of teacher training course. For teacher training in schools with higher education, there are no information requirements whatever. School-centred teacher training schools, where the schools are in the lead, are subject to the rigours of this amendment. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could she say how the parents are going to know about what is happening—those who are not on the governing body?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the parents are on the governing body. The governing body must make the application, produce the plans, say how the course will be produced and be accredited as suitable to produce the course. It is the conduit for parent information, and parents will know about it. We know that most of these courses go over the full year, so the parents will know at the beginning, during or at the end of the year that teachers are being trained in the school.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do think that it is rather extraordinary after all that the Minister has said before about how important the involvement of parents is that she dismisses these amendments so summarily. I really am surprised at that after I quoted from what she had said before on two different occasions, in Committee and on Report. I am quite prepared to admit that the amendments are defective. But that, after all, could have been corrected either by the Government themselves or in another place. I am disappointed with the reply. It remains to be seen what happens, but I have
1454
the greatest misgivings that there will be a lack of information. However, at this stage of the evening I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Qualification of teachers, &c.]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Duty to provide information, &c.]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert:
(""training", in relation to teachers, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (3A) below.").
Page 10, line 17, at end insert:
("(3A) It is hereby declared that references in this Part (and elsewhere in the Education Acts) to training, in relation to teachers, include any training or education with the object of fitting persons to be teachers, or better teachers.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, you will know from previous debates and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that my concern has been to avoid introducing the term teacher "education" which could have an untoward effect on the interpretation of previous legislation. We have certainly never had any problem with the principle that the education element is every bit as important a part of a teacher's preparation as the element of training in, for example, classroom skills. Teacher training as a term in legislation, and in the training departments and institutions that provide it, has always spanned both these elements. These amendments put beyond doubt that the term "teacher training" includes teacher education. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are naturally glad that, albeit at the eleventh hour, the Government have accepted this principle about education, and we want to express our gratitude for that. I shall not go over all the arguments again. It would be quite inappropriate. In our view it is tremendously important and we are glad to see that this concession has been made.
There is just one small point on which I would appreciate the Minister's fuller observations. Amendment No. 27 properly defines teacher training as,
"any training or education with the object of fitting persons to be teachers, or better teachers",
thereby including all teacher training and not simply initial teacher training.
However, the amendment also makes it clear that that definition applies to references in this part, and elsewhere in the education Acts, to training. By clarifying the term "teacher training" the Minister seems to have indicated the ability of the Teacher Training Agency to fund teacher training courses and research beyond simply initial teacher training. We referred to that point in our deliberations earlier this evening. It would be good to have the Minister's interpretation of this situation. Is that the Government's intention?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I have given a very full answer in regard to the teacher training which goes beyond initial teacher training and in-service training. I wonder whether I could refer the noble Lord to the answer that I gave to a previous question covering this point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Requirements to be observed in relation to students' unions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 31, after ("office") insert (", or paid elected union office,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 28, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 33, 34 and 35; and they are coupled with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Pearson, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
This group of amendments implements the undertakings that I gave at Report to bring forward further amendments to apply the limit for tenure of major union offices to those who are no longer students and to consider how to secure that institutions should address the principle of maintaining access to services for non-union members.
During the Committee debates, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, noted that the requirement in subsection (2) (f) which limits the tenure of sabbatical officers to two years in total was couched in terms of those who are currently students at the establishment. Consequently, graduating students elected to sabbatical office would not be subject to the tenure limit. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to this point which Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 now address. They remove the reference to the period of study and provide a parallel definition relating to paid elected office, so that the position of people who do not need leave of absence and so cannot be described as on sabbatical is unambiguous under this provision. With these amendments the requirement for a two-year limit will apply as standard and will include those who are elected having ended their period of study. This limit has in itself been recognised as appropriate by the representative bodies.
Amendment No. 30 requires each governing body to set out and to bring to the attention of all students at least annually the arrangements made to provide access to services for students who opt out of union membership. This responds to the important question of continued access raised in a probing amendment tabled at Report stage by my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox.
As I explained in response to that amendment, we cannot compel student unions to provide services to non-members, as my noble friends then suggested, because the protection for the enjoyment of property in the European Convention on Human Rights means that student unions cannot be obliged to use any of their private resources for the benefit of non-members. There is, however, nothing to prevent the student union from providing services for non-members if it agrees to do so. We need therefore to provide every incentive for such agreements to be reached at the local level. Amendment
1456
No. 30 does that by requiring institutions to set out their arrangements for providing these services for all to see and so ensuring that such agreements are considered.
This requirement will promote a clear understanding of services which institutions make available and the basis on which they are provided. In itself, this will help students to understand the implications of opting out of membership of the union, a concern raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It will also clarify the position of those part-time students who may be excluded from membership of the union under current arrangements and for whom access to services may be uncertain as a consequence. The requirement is consistent with Citizen's Charter principles that users should have clear information on availability of services.
The method of notifying students should, in the Government's view, equally be a matter for local decision. Institutions' own student charters and their prospectuses will provide convenient vehicles. No doubt institutions will want to ensure that their prospectuses, in particular, include information about student union services so that prospective students are clear where they would stand. Indeed, Amendment No, 31 by my noble friend Lord Pearson would make it a requirement to include that information in prospectuses. I have some sympathy with that idea: it is just what we would expect any sensible institution to do. But I do not think that Parliament should regulate, as my noble friend's amendment would do, what information should be included in prospectuses when there is no statutory requirement that prospectuses should be published in the first place.
Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 are consequential on the requirement to make information available. They add references to the new subsection in two places: to the definitions of all students in subsection (5); and the explanation of the meaning of "members" in relation to student representative councils in subsection (6).
Also in this group is Amendment No. 32, in which my noble friend Lord Pearson proposes that, where the students' union does not make its services available to non-members, the Secretary of State should have the power to reduce the funds available to the institution concerned by the equivalent amount. I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend has to say. I sympathise with his concern about access to services for all students.
But I should make it clear at this stage that I see some serious difficulties with this approach. There are three. First, it is not the Government's intention to change either the amount or methodology of institutional funding on account of these reforms. I gave that promise to my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
Secondly, it is not our wish to interfere with institutional autonomy or to create a new bureaucracy; to impose the constraints that this amendment would entail would be the thin end of a very significant wedge.
Thirdly, there is a moral duty. Governing bodies will continue to receive the taxpayers' money with which they now arrange for services to be provided to all students. They are taken on trust to do that now, and we are continuing to take them on trust to look after all their

1457
students in future without discrimination relating to individuals' choices about union membership. As we are not proposing to reduce the funding made available to institutions, the moral obligation is, I believe, all the stronger on institutions to be fair in their service provision to members and non-members alike.
I am sure that no one in this House would want to suggest that the choice not to belong to the union should have no consequences. We cannot guarantee that every student who opts out will have access to the same services as union members; that is part of the choice the student must take. But Amendment No. 30 will ensure that all students can see what services are available to them if they decide not to join the union. I look to the institutions to safeguard their access to services and to protect them from any victimisation which might arise from the exercise of that right.
This is the Third Reading of the Bill and at this stage it is not possible to change the wording of any amendment. With regard to the wording of my noble friend's amendment, where there is reference to prospectuses, perhaps it might be possible, via me to my colleagues in another place, to consider the possibility of publishing the information and making it available but leaving the methodology to the institutions. My noble friend's amendment is inappropriate, but perhaps he would agree that I should convey to another place the proposal that it might like to give consideration to the idea of publishing this information. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I agree with what my noble friend said just now about my Amendment No. 31. I should have thought that a form of words along the lines of:
"the governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall publish and bring to the attention of all students, and perhaps potential students, at least once a year".
Some wording of that kind might fit the bill. I feel that the amendment as it stands at the moment only brings these matters to the attention of all students. Clearly it should include potential students and others who may be interested in how these arrangements in fact are working.
With regard to Amendment No. 32, I have to accept what my noble friend said, although I personally do not have much confidence in the hope that a moral obligation will be met by a number of student unions in this country. In that regard, once again no doubt I shall find myself in a minority of one in your Lordships' House. But such is my fear. I shall join my noble friend in watching with considerable interest exactly how that moral obligation is met.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I feel that we should put on record from these Benches that we appreciate the work that the Minister has put into this part of the Bill. We particularly appreciate the way in which she has met our concerns in Amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments and express appreciation of the way in which anxieties have been met. I fully take the point of my noble friend Lord
1458
Pearson that there is good sense behind Amendment No. 31, although the precise form of it remains to be considered.
The problem with Amendment No. 32 is that the direct intervention of the Secretary of State would set precedents which might not be welcome. I feel that it would be difficult to accept that. We take the point there. However, these are welcome amendments.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly thank the Minister once again for meeting the concerns in this part of the Bill of all those who have expressed an interest. I am also glad to hear the Minister's attitude toward the amendments, especially Amendment No. 32. I believe that to start taking away lumps of money would dramatically affect the amount of services that would be provided to the entire student body, under no matter what circumstances. There is a simple reason. For example, one cannot run half a gymnasium when there is a whole one already there.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness. She has come as near to getting this matter right as can possibly be done. It is heartbreakingly difficult to handle it in exactly the right way. It is a little as though I should announce that I had decided to opt out of the non-smoking section of your Lordships' Library. Obviously it would be unreasonable of me to go there and be a nuisance. On the other hand, I should be a little disappointed if people were not prepared to allow me to read the books which happened to be shelved there. I think that that just about makes the point. With good sense on all sides, I believe that we can handle this matter perfectly well. I thank the noble Baroness for setting us a very good example in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("during the time he is a student").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13, line 39, at end insert:
("(4A) The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall bring to the attention of all students, at least once a year, details of any arrangements it has made for services which a students' union at the establishment provides for its members to be provided for students who are not members of the union.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 31, as an amendment to Amendment No. 30, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 30 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("and (4)") and insert (", (4) and (4A)").
Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("In") to ("the") in line 6 and insert ("this section").
Page 14, line 9, leave out from ("in") to end of line and insert ("subsection (2) (c) (ii) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
At Second Reading I highlighted how much the Bill rested on fundamental principles which have inspired so many of our reforms: quality, efficiency, choice and accountability. Though the Bill contains relatively few clauses, it deals with key issues in the organisation of teacher training and in the conduct of student unions. We have debated those principles with the thoroughness and openness that the public have come to expect from this House.
Throughout our debates I have, indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted at the last stage, had to take the smooth with the rough. The smooth passage of Part II of the Bill, as amended, followed a stormy initial reception. The way in which, with the help of a number of my noble friends and other noble Lords, we have managed to build consensus confirms my view that on this matter there was very little dispute between the various sides of the House on the objectives of these reforms. There was, however, some disagreement—indeed, considerable disagreement—about the means to achieve them. The Government were persuaded by the arguments advanced by your Lordships. We have determined on a new mechanism to achieve our shared aims of choice, democracy and accountability in student union affairs.
Our debates from Committee stage on student unions have therefore concentrated on fine-tuning the package of reforms. We have agreed on a number of detailed requirements which together will secure fair, democratic and accountable conduct in our student unions. With your Lordships' support we have clarified the membership and franchise arrangements, provided for greater information and democratic control on affiliations and sought to ensure that the reforms are workable with minimum disruption and bureaucracy.
This approach builds on the best practices in our universities and colleges and seeks to bring all student unions up to the same high standards that students should be able to expect. At the same time it shifts the balance of responsibility for implementing the reforms to the institutions themselves where it properly belongs. The reforms will apply in further education just as much as in higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, stressed that point when moving an amendment in Committee. Perhaps I may say how very pleased I am that the importance of the further education sector is increasingly acknowledged in your Lordships' House.
The reforms will bring important new benefits to students in our further and higher education institutions. All students will for the first time be able to choose whether to belong to their student union and be associated with its political activities. They will also be assured that student unions, which after all depend largely on public money, operate democratically and are accountable.
I have to say that the reason we have continued to find the going less smooth on Part I of the Bill is that there are real philosophical differences of view on both
1460
sides of the Chamber. We believe that accountability and choice are just as important in this area of policy as in the context of student unions. We do not accept limitations on choice, or the confusion of accountability. We resist in particular any argument which rests on the preservation of the status quo for its own sake.
The Secretary of State's criteria, with which all initial teacher training must comply, set high standards. The encouragement we have given to new course models and new providers, in the shape of groups of schools, allow for choice and competition in achieving those standards in practice. And we want to see those arrangements backed by monitoring of, and public accountability for, the standards reached. That is why we need a teacher training agency, with its vital twin, functions of funding and accreditation. And that is why accreditation must be informed by continuing published evidence from HMI that the necessary standards are being achieved.
It is important to remember that Part I of the Bill has as its main and central purpose the bringing together of all the important functions which affect the quality of teacher training and which would benefit from a concerted approach. The Bill brings together work done currently by four bodies —the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, which advises the Secretary of State on individual courses; the Teaching as a Career Unit, which promotes teaching as a career; the Department for Education, which approves all courses of teacher training; and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds all higher education courses.
Noble Lords will recall that an alternative to our approach, which would have been as fractured as the current arrangements, was debated in detail at the very beginning of the Committee stage. I was heartened by the scale of your Lordships' support for the creation of the Teacher Training Agency. And while I commend any attempt to increase the professionalism of teachers, I was pleased also that our very full debate on a possible model for a general teaching council ex posed very clearly that, as proposed, such a body would have served to bolster vested interests rather than enhance professionalism.
I accept that in one respect the Bill we shall be sending forward to the other place may not meet the objective of allowing schools to play a full and equal part in teacher training. We must of course let the full parliamentary process take its course, and allow the other place to consider the desirability and workability of that aspect of the current draft. We listened carefully to the anxieties raised about particular aspects of the Bill; and where they were well-founded, we acted to amend it. We have, I hope, dispelled some myths about our intentions. And we have made some constructive changes to the Bill, in both parts. I believe that we have done our job well and I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Judd: My Lords, first I must pay tribute to all those who participated in the work on the Bill; to those noble Lords in all parts of the House who have striven to contain its worst excesses and most especially to my Front Bench colleagues. But I must pay tribute also to

1461
the officials of the House and to the many people in the world of education who lent their expertise and experience. In particular, I must place on record my personal thanks to Clare Cozens, our researcher, and the team of advisers who worked tirelessly and closely with her throughout our proceedings. I also readily pay tribute to the Minister for her fortitude and industry. If those qualities had been equalled by imagination, sensitivity and vision, it would have made a powerful combination.
I must be candid. The Bill remains a wretched enterprise with which the Minister should never have allowed herself to be associated. She certainly worked overtime to build bridges with the alienated critics behind her. And in fairness it must be acknowledged that she conceded a number of important points argued from all sides of the House. But the best that can be said is that the Bill leaves your Lordships' House for the other place in a less damaging condition than when it came here. It is still the Bill that should never have been; a Bill inexcusably introduced as fodder for Conservative Party militants at their annual seaside jamboree as distinct from a Bill to enhance the quality of education, without doubt the most precious investment in our nation's future.
The Bill remains a potentially sinister piece of legislation motivated by party tactics rather than by statesmanship. Yet another non-accountable quango is to be spawned with all the scope that gives for the crude manipulation of political patronage which has become so characteristic of the Government opposite. As we saw today, the Government have even arrogantly avoided spelling out in the Bill the precise responsibilities of the Teacher Training Agency, thereby making it still less accountable as it will be virtually impossible to monitor its activities and its effectiveness.
The story of the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House has been extraordinary. First we were all told to clear the decks to be ready for a blitzkrieg in January. But then in December came the Second Reading—a devastating occasion. There were more than 30 speeches with, at my count, barely three in full support of the Minister. The Bill then totally disappeared only at last to re-emerge in March after countless behind-the-scenes agonies and furtive consultations. A confident government, committed to providing education in the best possible way to meet the needs of all our children and our nation's future, would put a premium on constant consultation, building up a positive consensus with all those concerned—teachers, pupils, parents, governors, administrators, local authorities, industries and the professions.
What is so disastrous about the present Secretary of State is his bunker-like mentality; his failure to communicate or listen before he wildly fires his next salvo of half-baked, ill-conceived ideas causing maximum anxiety and distress and taking God knows how much time and resources to keep the ship afloat at all. When the Bill eventually re-emerged it was emasculated. Part II, dealing with student unions, had collapsed. The vitriolic prejudice of the Secretary of
1462
State had been pricked by your Lordships and shown to be the partisan populism that it was. No wonder that at the Committee stage the rejoicing was so great. However, I must confess that it was not rejoicing into which my colleagues and I could throw ourselves with any great enthusiasm, for the basic issues remain as disturbing as ever.
Why were the Government trespassing onto this territory at all? Why was the long-standing independence and trenchantly defended freedom of our higher education establishments—a precious hallmark of the quality of our democratic society —being breached, especially when the law of charity was more than adequate to meet any genuine anxieties that might exist? Once started, where would the erosion end? That remains the question that none of us can dodge. We ignore it at our peril. The danger in our national life, the sickness in our national life, is that the unthinkable increasingly takes the centre of the stage aided and abetted by our efforts to disguise it as less unacceptable than it essentially remains. We are trapped increasingly into dancing to the tune of what should never have been, and step by step our society is transformed and diminished into something more narrow, more nasty and altogether more threatening.
On Part I, despite the successful and vital amendments insisting on partnerships between schools and institutions of higher education, despite the Government's concessions on research, graduate status and, most importantly, on special needs, despite the concessions on consultation and, for example, co-operation between Ofsted and the new TTA, the fundamental question remains as so eloquently phrased by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, during our deliberations: does this Bill enhance or does it not enhance the status of the teaching profession?
Whatever the structure of our educational system, in the final analysis it is the quality of our teachers that matters most. Buildings, facilities, equipment—indeed, the curriculum and the tests—are inanimate. It is how they are used and brought to life to stimulate the young that matters most. If they are well designed, they can help. If they are badly designed, they can hinder. But it is the knowledge, the confidence, the understanding and the skills of our teachers that is the catalyst. Of course in their preparation training in technique is essential. In this respect the importance of classroom experience for student teachers cannot be over-emphasised. But to make the most of that experience, the opportunity to reflect on it, to analyse it, to learn from it, with the benefit of the resources available to higher education, is equally essential. It is not an either/or situation. Both are required.
Knowledge without technique can be intellectually musclebound or worse. It can be helpless or damaging. But technique without knowledge is like an engine without fuel. We need a graduate profession because we need to be certain of the fuel supply. Hence the importance of education as well as training for our teachers. If anything has alleviated just a little my concern, it is the belated at least partial recognition of this by the Minister today. And I thank her for that.

1463
But education as distinct from training cannot be in the subject matter alone. It must also be about the process of teaching itself. We must have teachers who understand what they are doing and its interrelationship with the whole development of the pupil as a person —not simply conveyor-belt operatives. That is why the self-perceived and externally perceived significance and status of the profession is so vital. That is why it has been so sad to witness yet again the Government rejecting the concept of a general teaching council. The positive engagement of the profession in responsibility for the provision and development of education rather than merely the application of concepts designed by others is long, long overdue if we are to do well by our children. Failure to recognise this inevitably leads to alienation, playing into the hands of manipulative extremists.
Whatever the damage limitation—it can be little else —to Part I of the Bill that we may have managed to secure, it is its entire thrust which remains so depressing. Try as the Minister may to put a brave face on it, I suspect she knows perfectly well that what she has been asked to deliver from your Lordships' House is a Bill designed to reduce the significance of higher education in the preparation of our teachers, to reduce financial demands which must be met if we are to invest effectively in the future of our children, and through them in the future of our nation; in effect, she has been asked to start a retrograde movement towards classroom instructors in place of teachers, with all the fullness that professional title should imply.
As we approach the next millennium with all the challenges it will present to the United Kingdom, we need as never before confident, well educated, inquiring, critical, resourceful young people leaving our schools; young people able to shoulder positively the huge responsibilities of citizenship in a free, democratic, excitingly multi-racial society, a society whose destiny is inextricably interwoven economically, environmentally, strategically and politically with that of the world as a whole. That will require the highest calibre of our teaching profession. There is nothing new in this Bill which begins to meet those challenges. It is, I fear, as shallow, unimaginative and ultimately dangerous as the Government who produced it. Following as it does the damaging irrelevance of last year's Education Bill, it provides still more ample evidence of the terminal political senility of the Administration opposite. It is time they went; and the sooner the better.
7.34 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the middle of March I was approached by a postgraduate law student from the Netherlands who was working on the extent of this House's powers as a revising Chamber. I told her to come to the House for the third day of Committee on this Bill and I told her to listen with particular care to the speeches from the Government Back Benches. In all the time that I have been in the House, which is not yet that long, I cannot remember any occasion which would have been a more suitable one for her to hear with that
1464
question in mind. This is a proud day in the annals of the House because the House as a whole has made a really remarkable contribution to the improvement of the Bill.
I have paid tribute to the noble Baroness on a number of occasions already. I mean those tributes, but since the hour is late and since the noble Baroness tends to lose patience with repetition, I hope that she will take them as read if I do not go on. She had a really distinguished Bill but such successes go to the House as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has always said when talking about the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which is another of the heroes of this occasion, such successes are only possible when the House works on an all-party basis. The Government Back Benches, including a number of people who would, I think, prefer not to be named, so I will not do so, have contributed with great distinction to this. I am deeply grateful to them.
When that happens it is essential that those who speak from the Opposition side of the House, come a long way to meet them. The gravity of the occasion, however seriously we may take it, is nothing like the gravity of the occasion when Leo Amery called out to Arthur Greenwood, "Speak for England". But the spirit of the injunction that is needed has something in common. I have tried to hear that injunction. Whether or how far I have succeeded is for others to say.
Part II of the Bill has been improved beyond all recognition. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it now represents best practice in the universities. That is also the view of the leadership of the NUS. They, university staff and all parties may attempt with a really good will to implement that and to make it work. I hope it will do a great deal of good.
The concession we have had on research today is of almost equal significance. It prevents the dismemberment of research in universities. That is something of great importance for which we are truly thankful. But when we get to Part I of the Bill, this agreement does at least diminish. The key point of the debate in Committee was the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. She drew attention to the decline in standards of literacy. We agree that that is a fact. There is no point in disputing it. It certainly concurs with my own experience. Noble Lords on the Government Benches have then gone on to assume that that is the fault of British teachers. So far as I can see, that is only an assumption. It may be in part true—none of us is without fault—but it is at least an assumption that deserves a good deal more testing than it has had so far.
I happen to think that this is a worldwide phenomenon with causes a good deal wider than any we can find in the British education system. I think in fact it is the result of the onset of television and therefore the change from a verbal to a visual culture. Twenty years ago my head of department said to me, "If you have any books to write you had better write them quickly. It is an obsolescent art form". Fortunately, so far he seems to have exaggerated, but I understand perfectly well the point that he was making. That is something too big to be blamed on British teachers.
If there is doubt whether British teachers are to blame for the decline of British literacy, there is also at least

1465
room for doubt whether Part I of the Bill will do anything to raise the standard of British teachers. I have heard what the noble Baroness said about quality, accountability and choice. What I cannot see is any way in which the teacher training agency may do anything to improve those very desirable qualities. It is simply beyond my comprehension why the Government believe that these things will be improved by this agency.
When we discussed it in Committee, I relied on the remark of the Prime Minister in his interview of 17th February in the Daily Express when he said that it was to take influence away from fashionable theory. That worried me. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness's reply to that which I found, in a large measure, reassuring. But my difficulty is this: if that is not the agenda, what is? I understand perfectly well why the noble Baroness does not like us looking at hidden agendas; but there is nothing that tempts us more to look for a hidden agenda than the entire absence of any visible agenda. Since I cannot find a visible agenda and since the change will necessarily cause a good deal of upheaval, I cannot help wondering whether this is really a case for Burke's maxim that where it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the briefest of words from these Benches. In the great succession of Education Bills which this House has considered over the past few years, this is the first one to have considered directly the education and significance of teachers. In many respects, I regret that we did not have a Bill on teacher education before we had some of the recent Bills which we have considered. My own conviction is that we shall not do much to improve further the quality of education until we recognise that at the end of the day we are in the hands of the teachers.
Although there are some bad teachers, just as there are bad clergymen and bad politicians, for the most part the teachers have done a creative and thorough job in circumstances where they often feel that there has been a change in the educational system every weekend. It seems to me that the merit of this Bill is that it brings together under one body all the principal responsibilities for teacher education, although I fear that in the process of trying to introduce that coherence, we may inadvertently have introduced some new fragmentation.
I should like to place on record my admiration for the way in which the noble Baroness the Minister has not only shown her mastery of the subject and of the Bill, but has matched her skill at arguing robustly with a readiness to listen carefully. Even though Homer nodded, the noble Baroness has never once been caught out. Although there was a long pause between Second Reading and Committee stage, from that stage to Third Reading we have moved very rapidly. The noble Baroness has gone out of her way to keep us informed by correspondence of the work which she has been doing between stages. All of that has been most helpful. Although I cannot say that the Bill is all that I would wish, I have no hesitation in expressing my admiration
1466
for and gratitude to the noble Baroness for the work which she has done as regards the whole Bill. I hope that she will be able to secure in the future that continuing partnership between Church and state to which allusion was made earlier in the day.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, at an early stage I felt uncomfortable with one or two aspects of this Bill. The way in which most of those aspects—perhaps all of them—have been dealt with says a great deal to the effectiveness of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. That is a point already well made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There have been two particular factors on this occasion that have made this so. The first is the care which has been taken on all sides of the House to debate the majority of the amendments thoroughly, constructively and thoughtfully. I would particularly like to commend the very warm way in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has responded to some of the constructive amendments set down by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It is the most effective way of proceeding to be very severe indeed when there is something to quarrel with but once the quarrel is over, then to announce the fact and express satisfaction.
When the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has been in his constructive rather than his polemical mode, matters have moved constructively. I was not expecting to say this but I have to as regards the speech which he just made. I felt that he was often less than generous. I felt that he was addressing a gallery which was not visible to me, but which was clearly very visible to him. I felt that he was saying things which he had to say in a manner which, fortunately, he did not employ throughout the debate. Of course it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, so I would not presume to criticise. I merely observe that I felt that there were moments when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, must be a difficult man to please.
Part II of the Bill in particular has been amended to the general satisfaction, I believe, of the House. But he did not go out of his way to point out that it had been amended to the satisfaction of, as I understand it, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and of the National Union of Students, which is one of the cases where a great many people have been pleased. I have to point out that the Opposition did not table any substantive amendments to Part II of the Bill at Report stage or at Third Reading. I make no criticism there. I infer from that that they were broadly satisfied already at Report stage and at Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, might have said so on that point. I felt that the speech which he has just made did not enhance the constructive atmosphere with which he discussed most of the Bill throughout its course. So the first factor has been the care taken on all sides.
Noble friends on this side of the House have been influential. The important amendments laid down by my noble friends Lady Perry and Lord Skidelsky along with the noble Earl, were of significance. Another factor has been the great skill, thoughtfulness and constructive approach of my noble friend the Minister. We owe a great deal to her. I made a rather severe speech at

1467
Second Reading. I was enormously heartened and a little surprised by the constructive response to the concept which has underlain her approach that a Bill can be improved at an early stage, as indeed it has been. So I believe that both sides of the House have worked together to make this a better Bill with the aid of the Minister. The fact that it is a better Bill speaks volumes to the hard work and skill with which my noble friend the Minister has approached it. We are very grateful to her.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, at this late hour I would not wish to delay the House very long except to say that I believe we have every justification for celebrating for a few moments the passing of this Bill from our House. Probably there is no more important stage of any young person's life than the three or four years that they spend in higher education and the experience for the brightest and best of any generation of their undergraduate courses during which they learn about managing their own affairs and democracy. Very often their ideas and values for adult life are very much set during those years.
Therefore what we were dealing with in Part II of this Bill was no light matter. It is extremely important that we got it right and I believe that we did. I wish to add my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she was so determined to get that part of the Bill right, recognising its importance. We are very fortunate indeed to have had this particular Minister in this particular place and at this particular time.
On Part I, which deals with teacher training agency, I agree entirely with those noble Lords who have said that the quality of the teachers in our schools is the single most important factor determining the quality of education. It is enormously to be welcomed that we now have one body with the responsibility of promoting teaching as a career and which is able to bring to bear quality judgments and the process of accreditation of courses and institutions on to funding decisions which it makes. We can but hope that that potentially tremendously powerful agency will have a real bearing on the quality of teachers and teaching, although the timescale of such change is very long and it will possibly take a very long time for the change in the initial training of teachers to begin to bear on the quality of education in our schools.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, the Education Bill has seen the House at its best. I have most particularly welcomed the Cross-Bench contributions as well as those from noble Lords on both sides of the House who have worked together. One of the great strengths of this House is when we do not play politics but show a genuine concern for the great issues such as education. I am glad and pleased to have taken part in these debates.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful for all the generous comments that have been made. This debate, the last before the Bill passes to the other place, has maintained the standards of our earlier debates, both for insight and courtesy.
1468
Before we take our temporary leave of the Bill, I should like to thank my noble friends and the many noble Lords who have contributed to our debates since last December when we debated the Second Reading. More than 50 noble Lords have taken a close interest in the Bill. I cannot thank all of them in person, but I believe that the Bill has benefited from their careful and constructive scrutiny, often buttressed by many years of personal and professional experience of the matters we have been discussing.
For my own part, I have been fortunate in the sterling support I have had from my noble friend Lord St. Davids and our colleagues in the Whips' Office. They have worked tirelessly to ensure the Bill's smooth progress through this House.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who has contributed to our debates with his characteristic energy and flair. The noble Lord would riot have expected me to endorse everything that he had to say, especially the rather colourful account of the Bill that he has just given. But he must agree that there has been a measure of meeting of minds, and for that we should be grateful. I am also grateful for the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord has approached cur debates. He has been ably supported by his Front Bench colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both for his determined probing—sometimes into the very corners of the Bill—and for his much-appreciated wit. He has also been ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I continue to be embarrassed by his effusive and almost poetic flattering comments to me during the passage of the Bill. I count that as the smooth which, with some relief to me, tempered the rough which I experienced in great measure.
I am grateful to all of those who have contributed to the valuable consideration of student union reform. My noble friends Lady Young, Lord Renfrew, Lady Perry and Lord Campbell of Alloway were among those whose contributions were vital in helping to shape the reforms. I also thank those other noble Lords who raised important points in debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who respectively represented so ably the interests of further education colleges and the very important Open University. I thank also my noble friend Lord Beloff for his witty but down-to-earth examination of the implications of the reforms.
On the teacher training side, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made important points about teachers being equipped to promote pupils' spiritual, moral and other development, and to prepare them for the demands of adult life. All this is properly now reflected in Clause 1.
A number of noble Lords raised important points about the composition of the new agency. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made strong representations on behalf of denominational institutions, and we amended the Bill accordingly. The right reverend Prelate also made points about consultation with the Churches, to which we were sympathetic,

1469
provided that we could keep to a non-statutory basis for reasons that I explained. My only doubt is whether I might have done more at the Committee stage to reassure him how much we value his advice and advice from the Churches—recent experience notwithstanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, highlighted the importance of provision for people with special educational needs, as did my noble friend Lord Radnor; and we were able to reflect that, not least through the membership provisions for the agency.
My noble friends Lady Carnegy, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Beloff homed in on what should be the research powers of the agency, and we have today arrived at the resolution of that issue. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lady Perry for the close interest she has taken and the wealth of experience she has brought to bear on our debates. That is especially evident in her very helpful amendment, clarifying that eligibility for school-centred training courses will be limited to postgraduates. Her constructive interventions have added weight to our proceedings throughout the course of the Bill.
I thank my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Renfrew and Lord Pearson for their detailed and positive contributions on a host of subjects within the Bill. I am especially glad that we were able to meet the points of my noble friend Lord Pearson about the teaching experience of those being considered for membership of the agency, and about the need for students to receive good information about their teacher training courses. On the student union reforms, I was also grateful to my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for focusing attention on the question of access to support services for all students, which we debated earlier today.
I thank most warmly my noble friend Lord Elton for his numerous contributions, bringing long and broad experience to bear in many of our debates. We have also managed to reflect his particular anxieties about the agency's information and advice-giving powers.
I must also thank other noble Lords who brought their wealth of experience to our discussions. My noble friend Lady Cox has given us the benefit of her practical experience of leadership in higher education as Chancellor of Bournemouth University; while the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has reminded the House of industry's needs and priorities and of the importance of taking due account of those in our teacher training reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, added to our debates with his expertise in equal opportunities issues.
I also thank Parliamentary Counsel for his incredible patience, my Private Office and my officials for all of the hard work behind the scenes which is reflected in the amended Bill which is now before the House.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Renfrew have said, the whole House has subjected the Bill to thorough scrutiny. But the main principles behind the Bill which I described at Second Reading have not changed: securing higher quality and more effective use of resources in teacher training, and more choice and democratic accountability in student unions. I am confident that these principles will be supported in the other place. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Inter-Governmental Pillars of the European Union: ECC Report
7.57 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the House of Lords Scrutiny of the Inter-Governmental Pillars of the European Union (28th Report, HL Paper 124).
The noble Lord said: Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It is—rather remarkably—nearly 20 years since the House first appointed the European Communities Committee and since that committee first made reports to the House on Commission proposals raising important questions of policy or principle. Perhaps I may say that it is a pleasure to see here this evening a number of Members of the House who have made such distinguished contributions to the work of the committee in recent times, such as my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I think that there would have been more, but for the somewhat advanced hour.
Over the years, of course, the development of the Community —the Single European Act, for example —has led the committee to adapt its methods of work. We took the view in the committee some 12 months ago that potentially ratification of the Maastricht Treaty would involve particularly profound implications for parliamentary scrutiny. Whereas Community legislation (in the form of familiar regulations, directives and so on) would continue under the first pillar—and let me say that at this late hour I will not pursue the rather mystifying architectural analogy of the pillars—the second and third pillars, (concerned respectively with the common foreign and security policy and with co-operation on justice and home affairs), would cover areas which were legally outside Community competence. They would not produce Community law under the familiar legislative procedures. But they would lead to important treaties and agreements—sometimes, though not always, requiring national legislation before implementation and often placing significant constraints on the United Kingdom's right of individual action.
It is true that a declaration was attached to the Maastricht Treaty emphasising the role of national parliaments in the affairs of the Union—for which our own Government were largely responsible. Even so, we were conscious that there was, in fact, no machinery by which Parliament could make its views known to the executive before those treaties and agreements were agreed. And since the procedures leading to their agreement would be inter-governmental, they were bound to be very largely confidential, and conducted behind closed doors.
With those considerations in mind, the committee decided to hold an inquiry into the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the pillars. I take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their contributions and also those who gave such good

1471
evidence to us, notably the Home Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The report is the result of our endeavours. I want, too, to thank most warmly our legal adviser, Mrs. Eileen Denza, for her immense help on the inquiry and in preparing this report, and to thank our Clerk, Mr. Michael Pownall, for all his help, and other members of the committee's staff. We are indeed fortunate in the quality of the staff of the House.
The report sets out a good deal of explanatory information which I hope will be of interest and help to the House. Part 3. for example, describes the relevant titles, Titles V and VI, of the treaty while Part 4 gives the views of witnesses on the pillars and on the need for scrutiny. At this hour I shall do no more than sketch out our conclusions and say a word or two about the Government's response to the report.
Our principal recommendation—set out in paragraph 48—is that it is absolutely essential that work under the pillars should be scrutinised by national parliaments. After all, the European Parliament's powers concerning the pillars are distinctly limited, and we see national parliaments as being the central players in this respect. We felt too, that the key to effective scrutiny was to obtain the right documents—that is to say, draft texts and conventions—at the right time—that is to say, before they have been finalised at international level, so giving this House the opportunity to make a constructive input. As in the past, however, we would wish to be selective in our scrutiny—we are rarely short of work or short of paper anyway—and we accordingly set out three criteria to determine whether a document should be provided to Parliament. Those criteria are: its general significance; the eventual need for UK legislation; and the imposition of legal commitments on the UK. We were pleased that in connection with those, our central recommendations, the Government have on the whole responded positively.
The Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, has agreed to provide us with documents more or less in line with our criteria, and I should like to acknowledge the forthcoming way in which he has approached this whole matter—not least in volunteering to provide material before being pressed to do so. Indeed, the first three pillar documents are with us already and have been referred to sub-committees for scrutiny. I hope that the House will not regard that as pre-empting the outcome of this debate.
I have to say, however, that so far as concerns foreign and security policy documents, the Government have emphasised the significant differences between the work of the two pillars and have suggested that very few draft foreign and security policy texts will, in fact, be laid before us. We were a little disappointed by that. After all, as we say, we would not wish to monitor the details of confidential diplomatic negotiations, and we recognised that the need for secrecy would often restrict what could in practice be disclosed. I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, to confirm that there will be circumstances when draft texts arising from the common foreign and security policy will be deposited, and perhaps say a word about what those circumstances might be.
1472
At the same time, I welcome the Government's offer to brief the committee through hearings and evidence sessions. And I was much encouraged by the wish of the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, to have what he suggested should be a "continuous dialogue" with Parliament. The noble Baroness has already been most helpful in her contacts with the committee, and I have no doubt that we should make such sessions a regular part of our scrutiny procedures.
A brief word, my Lords, about our other recommendations. We took the view that whenever possible our scrutiny of pillar documents should take place in public using our normal procedures for receiving evidence and questioning Ministers.
We were in favour of national parliaments and the European Parliament consulting together and exchanging information (and perhaps even documents) arising from work under the inter-governmental pillars. It is, I suggest, undeniable that we all have the same duty of holding governments to account.
We hoped, too, that the Government would agree to extend to pillar proposals the existing parliamentary scrutiny reserve whereby they undertake not to agree to a proposal until parliamentary scrutiny has been completed, except of course, when special circumstances make that impracticable. The Government have, in effect, rejected that recommendation; and perhaps the noble Baroness could say a word about that. My own view is that the scrutiny reserve works extremely well, very rarely holds up agreement in the Council, and cannot see that the speed of events under the home and justice pillar would prevent a reserve from operating successfully. Perhaps the Government will at least keep an open mind about this and agree to review it in the light of experience. As I shall explain in a moment, we shall be reviewing our procedures again soon; so there is a strong case for reflecting further upon this, and not closing the door. Indeed, the Home Secretary told us that he was,
"not ready to accept that the Committee should have a formal scrutiny reserve",
which plainly implies that he might be ready later.
Finally, we hope that the Government will in due course, agree detailed arrangements for the provision of pillar documents to Parliament, although I recognise that that may need to await further consideration and discussion in another place. For our part—as indicated in the report —we much value current co-operation between the two Houses over European scrutiny and it is important, too, that we should avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
Increased scrutiny will inevitably have consequences for our own sub-committee structure and we shall need to give this further consideration later in the year, in accordance with our commitment to do so. Noble Lords will have noticed, too, that we have put forward a possible amendment to our terms of reference. That is also something which your Lordships may feel does riot call for immediate decision but could be considered later as well. Perhaps I should also note that there have been some suggestions (though not by the committee

1473
itself) that the committee's name should be changed. Those are all notoriously difficult matters upon which I do not intend to detain your Lordships now.
The proposals that we are considering this evening are another example of ways in which your Lordships' House is constantly seeking to develop its procedures and to keep them up-to-date; and they mark, I hope, yet one more instance of the ways in which the House makes a unique, and, one hopes, a significant contribution to the work of our parliament. If this additional step to provide greater vigilance helps to protect the interests of people generally —for that is our prime purpose, after all—it will serve further to enhance and justify the role of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the House of Lords Scrutiny of the Inter-Governmental Pillars of the European Union (28th Report, HL Paper 124)—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the report before your Lordships' House contains a mine of useful information and elucidation relating to the provisions of Titles V and VI of the Maastricht Treaty. I join the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, in thanking most warmly the legal adviser, Mrs. Denza, for her valuable work in preparing the report. I also thank the clerk, Mr. Michael Pownall. Gratitude is owed not least to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. He was most skilful in eliciting valuable comments and information from witnesses and tonight has given a valuable introduction of the report to your Lordships.
It is not necessary to emphasise to this House the great significance of these two titles dealing with CFSP (common foreign and security policy) and home and justice affairs in relation to sovereignty. Under international law, the two major attributes of a sovereign state are its independent right to conclude treaties with other states and its inherent right to decide and control who enters its territory other than its own citizens. Consequently the two titles touch closely on those two aspects of sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Hence, it is evident that there is a clear need for parliamentary scrutiny.
However, the House could welcome some of the aspects of the treaty. Of course, it is clear that the treaty contains many aspects which are unacceptable to a lot of people; certainly, all of it is unacceptable to some people. What was being carried on in the areas of foreign policy and home affairs and justice under, for instance, the European political co-operation in the first instance and the Trevi group and a multiplicity of working groups in the second has at last to some extent had its shroud of secrecy removed. Again to some extent, it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that that must be welcomed by all sides of the House.
Secondly, the Home Secretary and his predecessor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary were
1474
most willing to give helpful evidence to the Select Committee and to explain as far as possible the areas in which they are able to co-operate fully. Their recognition of their accountability to Parliament under these two new pillars is also to be welcomed.
Thirdly, the implementation of policies under home and justice affairs must be in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision firmly exists and links membership of the European Union to the necessity for all applicants to have ratified that convention. Presumably before joining the European Union applicants must become members of the Council of Europe, which is a threshold to entry to the Union. Consequently, they must accept the obligation upon applying member states to implement the provisions of the convention in their internal affairs. Failure to comply would render them obliged to go before the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
Many issues were raised during the taking of evidence and have been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. I wish to make one or two comments not on points of priority or importance but on points that I want to bring to your Lordships' attention. It was pointed out that under the CFSP new commitments imposed on member states by adoption of common positions and joint actions would be binding in international law—not EC law—and would not be subject to national ratification or approval procedures. Articles J.7 and K.6, which relate to home and justice affairs, make provision for a duty to consult and to inform the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP. The Select Committee would rightly expect to be consulted and informed by our own Government at least to the extent that the United Kingdom is concerned. It would be wrong for the European Parliament to be consulted and informed to an extent that would not apply to our own national Parliament or any other.
In answer to Question No. 112 on page 141 of the report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary stated that a convention existed whereby he was summoned in advance of every European summit to appear before the Select Committee of another place. It might be appropriate if a similar arrangement could be made either by requesting my noble friend Lady Chalker to come to the Select Committee on such occasions or, after agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the relevant authorities, by calling a joint meeting of the two Select Committees of both Houses, either fully or with representatives of each. In view of the pressures on Ministers, it would be unreasonable to expect the Foreign Secretary to come to both Houses. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Boston, emphasised the need not to duplicate where that is unnecessary. Nevertheless, if this is the most convenient way, this House is justly entitled to have a briefing from the Foreign Secretary or from my noble friend Lady Chalker before each European summit. I hope that my noble friend will reply to that point.
It is appreciated that speed and confidentiality are entailed in negotiating foreign policy. However, several areas of foreign policy could be made open to scrutiny

1475
before final decisions are taken. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, emphasised, as do I, that, as regards the Government deciding when disclosure is appropriate, timing is of the essence. As the noble Lord so rightly said on page 41, Question No. 123:
"Our main aim as a committee has always been to seek to influence rather than to bind".
That is the spirit in which, under his chairmanship, the committee will continue to act.
While accepting that under CFSP it is in many situations necessary for the 12 member states to stick together—the Foreign Secretary gave the example of the former Yugoslavia — it must also be accepted that it is sometimes necessary not to take action. Sometimes that is just as important as recognising that it is necessary to take action. After all, we might recognise that it was the growth of a need for a foreign policy system that saw the improvement and development under European Political Co-operation from the early 1970s, when it was recognised world-wide that the economic strength of the Community was great but that there was no equal balance in political and foreign relations policy. The economic strength of the EC was not reflected. That is why this new aspect of the treaty is so important for both the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole.
This approach also reflects the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I hope that I have understood him correctly. He recognised the importance of openness and scrutiny, which could provide parliamentary and political support for Government policy. That aspect has been greatly neglected because the Government have taken a position behind a shroud of secrecy and there has been no preparation of Parliament or any part of it in discussing and reviewing the proposals. The element of surprise would be removed, which could be of great help to the Government.
I wish to refer to the committees of the European Parliament. They too have undertaken positive work in preparing ways of dealing with the presidency of the European Union, obtaining information and being consulted on these aspects of policy, whether foreign or home and justice. We must recognise, perhaps with regret, that the European Parliament has exercised with some effect its powers in relation to international agreements. As far as can be ascertained—and we have some great historians on our Benches—the United Kingdom Parliament has never prevented ratification of an international agreement once an agreement has been signed under the Crown's prerogative. But under provisions introduced in the Single European Act, on at least three occasions, the European Parliament has opposed on human rights grounds and possibly prevented, at least for a time, ratification of separate protocols with Turkey, with Syria and with Israel. So far, the British Parliament has never done that, although in theory it would be possible for it to do so. That emphasises the need for close co-operation with the Government and either the Select Committee or whichever vehicle i s chosen for that consultation.
It must be recognised that Parliament needs to be consulted on issues which may appear to be in the European interest but may not always be in the interests
1476
of the United Kingdom. Decisions have to be unanimous, at least for the time being, although the proposals might appear to some European states to be unwise. It is not necessarily that such actions are not in our interests; it may be that they are merely unwise. I can think of one or two recent examples of that; for example, in my view, the recognition of Croatia, which emanated from European Political Co-operation. Parliamentary processes which give a signal to other member states of the government's position may be welcomed. That situation arises in regard not only to the United Kingdom but also to other governments which might object to certain lines being taken.
I turn to scrutiny matters under Title VI, which raise different issues, mainly because the end product of the decision-making process may well include the adoption of conventions which would involve changes in domestic law. Those have an increasing effect on the rights of individuals. I do not consider that it would be appropriate for such conventions to appear suddenly out of the blue without a prior opportunity to discuss the texts. I suggest an arrangement whereby a Select Committee—whether or not in confidence—could consider a draft text before it is negotiated. At that stage one can foresee what may develop and there will not necessarily be any interference with the negotiating powers of the Government. It is extremely important that draft texts should be considered before the: decision-making process is completed.
Many political and legal issues are raised in the report, not least the need for national parliaments, perhaps in co-operation with the European Parliament, to ensure that the measures adopted, mainly under Title VI, are implemented and applied throughout the member states. We must remember that Article 155, which endows the Commission, as guardian of the treaties with the powers to ensure that measures that are adopted are implemented, does not apply to Titles V and VI. Therefore, it is extremely important to work out a system, perhaps through the various committees which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, attends on behalf of this Parliament, to ensure that the right processes are set in place in order that co-operation is available.
It is hoped that this House can look forward to flexible co-operation both with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and with my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who speaks on behalf of the Foreign Secretary in this House, so that. Parliament can be informed without hindering or weakening the United Kingdom's position in the various fora of the European union.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this lucid, vigorous and enlightened report is as important for the citizens of this country and of the European Union as any to have been made to this House. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, to his committee and to the staff for their opinions and recommendations. They consider a crucial question for our times: how can Parliament really influence what Ministers do ever more actively on the international plane, notably within the European Union, especially

1477
where what Ministers do may affect the rights and duties of the individual? The report provides practical, workable means of making Ministers more open and accountable to Parliament.
Even before the creation of the European Union, and the greatly increased scope for concerted inter-governmental action, the relevant principles of British constitutional law and government practice did not ensure proper and sufficient accountability to an increasingly marginalised Parliament and to the rule of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has so clearly explained, with the building of the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union in Maastricht the problems of effective accountability will become still greater unless national legislatures can enhance their scrutiny and supervision.
With the permission of your Lordships, I should like to give a few examples in the international human rights field of the conduct of successive governments to show the pressing need to heed the moderate and proportionate recommendations in the committee's report in the face of what I can only describe as the Government's narrow and unenthusiastic response. These examples illustrate the need to make the Government's activities under the CFSP pillar as accountable to Parliament as under the justice and home affairs pillar, in accordance with the committee's three criteria, and by laying draft rather than final texts before Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, rightly referred to the relevance and importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall take that as one of my main examples. After the Attlee Government had signed that convention in November 1950, it was formally laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, but in breach of the so-called Ponsonby rule, and despite the convention's great importance, the Government did not submit the convention to Parliament for discussion. The same was true when the first Wilson Government took the momentous step, in December 1965, of accepting the right of individuals to complain to the European Commission of Human Rights of breaches of the European convention by the Executive, the courts or Parliament itself. Parliament was not consulted at all and did not discuss the implications of ratification or of acceptance of the right of individual petition.
Those implications are of obvious importance to individuals and to public authorities alike. Increasingly, our own courts, understandably restive at having their decisions reviewed by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, without being empowered by Parliament to give direct effect to the convention in this country, use the convention to interpret ambiguous legislation and to develop the common law. This is a most welcome approach by our senior enlightened judges because it reduces avoidable inconsistencies between our law and European convention law. But it means that UK ratification of the convention and acceptance of the right of individual petition are more and more affecting existing law and private rights without parliamentary authority; that is, without incorporation of the convention. That position is
1478
contrary to well-established British constitutional principles because Parliament is being bypassed by the Government and the courts, but there is no sign that the Government intend to seek a legislative mandate for the use of the convention by our courts.
There is also a lamentable absence of parliamentary debate or scrutiny about the Government's periodic reports to the various international monitoring bodies under the international human rights treaties to which the United Kingdom is party; for example, bodies such as the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
These periodic reports by the Government affect our rights and duties, for through them the Government seek to persuade the international bodies that the public authorities of the UK are fully complying with the international obligations imposed by the human rights treaties—and so to shield the Government from the need to introduce legislative or administrative measures to give better domestic effect to those obligations.
When they make these reports, the Government inform the international agencies of such matters as Parliament's likely attitude towards the incorporation of the European convention or the international convenant into our law; but they do not seek the views of Parliament, whether before or afterwards.
The periodic reports are argumentative as well as factual. They tend to give only half of the picture—the half that reflects the Government's policy and British law and practice in a favourable light. In the knowing words of Mr. William Waldegrave, the "Minister for Open Government", to the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott:
"Much of government policy is much more like playing poker than playing chess. You don't put all your cards up at one time".
That is certainly true of the poker-faced government reports to the international human rights agencies.
But my point is not that the Government are playing poker in dealing cards to these international agencies but that they do not put their cards up at all for Parliament, and that Parliament has no proper opportunity to participate as a significant player in the international dialogue, which is dominated by the Home Office and the other home departments. The Government do not show drafts of these reports to the relevant specialist statutory bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the two Equal Opportunities Commissions. Apart from their recent first report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Government's reports are not published by HMSO; nor in the past have they or the international bodies' responses to them even been routinely placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Moreover, they are never submitted in draft or final form for parliamentary consideration.
Perhaps I may take another example. For the past nine years, the Government have been participating in discussions within the Council of Europe about the reform of the dilatory and inefficient enforcement procedures of the European Convention on Human Rights. For years the Government opposed the creation

1479
of a single permanent European Court of Human Rights in place of the present two-tier Commission and Court. When they became isolated, the Government reluctantly agreed, last year, to work on a reforming protocol to the convention. Now, alone among the 32 European Governments—except for Turkey—the Government threaten to block the reform process because of the Home Secretary's objection to creating an automatic right of individual access to the European Court.
The Government must decide whether to sign the Eleventh Protocol at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers next month. The outcome of that decision will be of very great practical importance to everyone in this country and to the European reform process as a whole. Yet at no time have the Government ever consulted Parliament about the issues that I mentioned or, still less, sought a negotiating mandate; nor will they do so before signing and ratifying or refusing to sign and ratify the Eleventh Protocol. So much, if I may say so, for a commitment to real and effective accountability to Parliament.
I suggest that those examples show that the Foreign Secretary was much too complacent when he told the European Communities Committee that existing arrangements for influencing and controlling the way in which Ministers conduct foreign policy are "about right". They may be about right for Ministers and their advisers, but they are far from adequate in terms of parliamentary accountability. Unless they are strengthened in the manner recommended by the European Communities Committee, these loose procedures will continue to cede far too much power to our Government and to the other governments of the European Union to act in our name without real parliamentary scrutiny and supervision, just as they now do when the Government negotiate within the Council of Europe and beyond.
The Committee is surely right in asserting that work under the inter-governmental pillars must be supervised by national Parliaments; that the committee intend to be vigilant in holding Ministers to account in these areas; and that the key to effective supervision is to obtain the right documents, and to obtain them in time to influence the outcome. That means, as the committee indicates, that it is essential to see the texts in draft. The committee is also surely right in calling for documents to be provided for Parliament not only where there will eventually be a need for primary legislation but also where they are significant —particularly where the rights or duties of individuals are affected—and where they might require secondary legislation or the imposition of legally-binding commitments on the UK. Further, the committee is surely right to recommend that national Parliaments and the European Parliament should consult and exchange information. Greater inter-governmental co-operation must also be matched by greater inter-parliamentary co-operation—an important subject not, I am afraid, mentioned in the Government's response.
Despite the narrow and largely negative response by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and to a lesser extent by the Home Secretary, I very much hope that the committee's recommendations will be implemented in their entirety. They are measured,
1480
appropriate and necessary measures to tackle the democratic deficit in this country and elsewhere within the European Union. The time is ripe—over-ripe—for much needed reforms to ensure that, except for good reasons in exceptional cases, government will consult with Parliament, and when government do consult Parliament they will do so with the cards face upwards on the table. Unless and until that happens, we have a duty to be sceptical about the Government's commitment to effective accountability to Parliament for decisions taken under the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union or, indeed, elsewhere in concert with other governments.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I was a co-opted member of the Select Committee when it prepared its report.I speak to support the conclusions and recommendations that the committee made as outlined by our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. My comments relate mainly to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP); that is, Title V of the Maastricht Treaty.
There are two aspects to the subject: the procedure to be followed, and the substance to be discussed. My suggestion is that we need, first, to look at the issues to be discussed, examining briefly the kind of topics that are likely to arise before forming a judgment about the best procedure to put in place.
The common starting point is that we have had the benefit of an excellent procedure in past years for dealing with proposals emerging from the Commission. Of course, that will remain in place for the same type of business in future. What we have to do now is to build upon that past success so as to create an equally effective method of scrutiny for the new matters to be discussed under the two inter-governmental pillars. It is indispensable that we do so with the agreement of the Government and of all sides of the House. It is an important debate. I hope that we may emerge from it with a common understanding of what is required.
The memorandum provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that the CFSP will evolve from the existing work on European political co-operation. While I agree that evolution is a helpful way of looking at the new CFSP, I note that there is some difference between the views of the Select Committee and those of the Government about the category of documents on Title V work which we would like to see. Members of the Committee had hoped that the three tests which are mentioned and spelt out in paragraph 53 of the report would apply to both pillars, but the Government evidently do not believe that that would be appropriate as a general rule. As I believe there may be some misunderstanding here, it is worth looking at that point in rather more detail.
Up to the present the large majority of texts emerging from political co-operation have not required scrutiny either because they related to current international business often of an urgent or transitory character, or because there was often no time, and perhaps sometimes little need, for the Government to inform the House of discussion between member states about, for example, the exact wording of an imminent Security Council

1481
resolution. The same could be said of many other declarations made by the Community in the past, for example expressing moral solidarity with groups whose human rights are being threatened, as they are today in Rwanda, or urging states involved in conflict to settle their dispute by peaceful means.
I do not think that Members of the Select Committee were looking for procedures to scrutinise activities of this kind. They would not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 53. If, exceptionally, they were significant, no doubt means could be found to cover them, although I would not expect this to occur in the ordinary course. I think that we have adequate means of asking questions and arranging debates about business of this sort. I believe, however, that Members of the Committee were looking ahead to other types of activity which we suppose may engage the European Union in the future. To illustrate this I wish to refer to three areas of foreign policy where the European Union could have a significant role and where a form of scrutiny in Parliament would seem to me to be appropriate.
First—this is becoming a current political issue—there is the problem of security in Eastern Europe. There are now six states in that region without any adequate form of collective security since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Some of these states are to take part in a loose, non-binding relationship with NATO. It is not clear at present whether this will meet their needs or indeed ours. The European Union, or its arm the Western European Union, could seek to play a more direct role in this area, or become obliged to do so. The French Prime Minister made an interesting suggestion last year that a new security treaty might be negotiated between the states of both East and West Europe and I can see the attractions of that. I suggest that this whole subject may become more active and when it does, and preferably before that happens, it would be appropriate for the Government to inform Parliament of their intentions in good time rather than to wait until a treaty is worked out and ready for ratification. I had this in mind when I suggested at one of the meetings of the Select Committee—in the words that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, used just now—that scrutiny could provide a means of securing a degree of understanding of government policy and political support for it.
A second issue which may well involve us in future years concerns the policy of the Union in the Mediterranean. Members of the Union in Southern Europe feel the need for such a policy as they have close political and economic ties with the states of North Africa whose citizens have emigrated in large numbers to France and Italy in particular. We ourselves have policies of a pragmatic nature with each of the North African nations individually, but we do not now, I think, have a Mediterranean policy as such. Historically we have had in the past such a broad policy when we were worried about Russian expansion in the area at the expense of the Ottoman Empire, when we needed sea routes to India and when the southern flank of the Soviet empire needed to be contained. A European Mediterranean policy now would involve considerable
1482
expense and costly trade concessions although it could also provide member states with some important benefits. If a negotiation of this kind is likely—I think it may occur before very long—it would be wise for Parliament to be informed and for its opinion to be sought before new and permanent obligations were entered into.
My third illustration is, I admit, more speculative and concerns the Far East. The relationships between the four major states in that area are, I suspect, due for a change to reflect the very different strategic situation and the decline in the economic strength of Russia. I believe that this could prove to be an important test of the new European Union in world affairs. If the Union is to fulfil its responsibilities as a major unit of political strength, it will need to reach a fresh, broader understanding and deeper co-operation with both China and Japan, and to do that without damaging our essential relationships with the United States and with Russia.
I mention these issues simply as illustrations of the kind of topics in which I expect the Union to become involved in the future. The matter that we are discussing goes a good deal wider than the simple transfer to Title V of questions previously handled in political co-operation. The existence of the Union in the form that we have created by the Maastricht Treaty will itself generate new areas of activity in foreign affairs that will be wider in scope, longer in range and which will have more significant consequences. Of course this will not all happen at once but we need, I suggest, to recognise the likely scale of change which is about to occur. It was this recognition which I did not readily perceive in the Government's response to our report.
I am not suggesting that the Government should be involved in numerous seminar-type discussions about hypothetical future events, nor do I propose anything resembling a full-blown foreign affairs committee. But I do see the need to enlarge somewhat the present area of scrutiny to cover the work of the CFSP as it develops. There is a case, I believe, for the Government to look again at the three tests listed in paragraph 53 to see whether they could not be applied to both pillars. The test of significance listed there is of real relevance and could be used to confine scrutiny to matters of importance. What we do need is an instrument for informed discussion in a relatively small group, on the basis of a document and supplemented by oral evidence as appropriate. Some minor adaptation of the existing procedure seems to me to be ideal for that purpose. If we could do this, we could make full use of the knowledge and experience available to this House and continue the invaluable contribution made by the Select Committee in the enlarged area of activity before us.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken this evening, I warmly welcome the important report which my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham has presented on the scrutiny by this House of the two new inter-governmental pillars of the European Union which were established in the Maastricht Treaty. I congratulate him and his colleagues

1483
on the Select Committee on their clear account and careful analysis of the complex issues that these profound changes will involve.
I was also glad to see in the Government's response to the report that they are committed to national parliaments playing a pre-eminent role in accountability in these two areas of inter-governmental activity. Indeed as my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham reminded us, it was to the great credit of the British Government that they took the initiative in writing the need for improved scrutiny by national parliaments into the Maastricht Treaty through the declaration on the role of national parliaments. There is therefore no argument, as I see it, that there must be effective parliamentary scrutiny of inter-governmental activity both under the CFSP and the justice and home affairs pillar of the European Union. So the question before us and before the Select Committee is, I submit, not whether but how and in what depth.
On any reading of the Select Committee's report and the oral and written evidence it received, it is clear that both pillars present difficult and sometimes awkward problems for timely and effective parliamentary scrutiny both at national and at European level. The report also rightly reminds us of the need for co-operation between the two Houses of this Parliament to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. The long-established machinery of scrutiny in this House is relatively straightforward in that the responsibility for systematic scrutiny is delegated to a single Select Committee with broad and flexible terms of reference acting in concert with its five sub-committees with their competence over particular aspects of Community activity.
In the other place there are at least three Select Committees and two new Special Standing Committees with interests in these new areas of inter-governmental activity. The Foreign Affairs Committee has recommended to the other place in the report Europe after Maastricht that the Government make it their policy to consult the House before important decisions under the CFSP and the home affairs and justice pillar are made. The Legislation Committee, having produced a valuable report on the new co-decision procedure under the Community pillar, is now preparing to bring forward proposals for the scrutiny of the two new flanking pillars.
Since their inception in 1974 the scrutiny systems in both Houses, although they have operated in different ways, have been designed to give Parliament the opportunity to influence Ministers before they participate in decisions which by treaty have passed from Parliament to Ministers and from national to Community level. That principle of parliamentary reserve has rested on an undertaking given by government and embodied in a House of Commons resolution that, except in special circumstances, Ministers would not agree to any proposals in the Council until parliamentary scrutiny had been completed and the reserve lifted. Adapting that long-standing and well-tried principle to the work of the
1484
new pillars is no easy task. However, in my view i.: is fundamental to the objective of timely and effective scrutiny.
The Select Committee recognises in paragraph 62 of its report that there may well be situations when the need for speed or secrecy, particularly in the case of the CFSP pillar, could make it necessary to restrict what may be disclosed to Parliament or to override the scrutiny reserve, provided an explanation is given once the matter has become public knowledge.
We must also remember that this is but one of 12, and possibly in the not too distant future 16, national parliaments and that other governments may well disclose to their parliaments documents and proposals which have not been made available by cur Government to the British Parliament. I well recall the situation in the spring of 1991 during the Luxembourg presidency when that Government passed the first working text of the draft Maastricht Treaty to the European Parliament but the Foreign Office did not disclose it to our Select: Committee until after we had managed to convince the, Foreign Office that it was already in the public domain. In the event, disclosure at that stage enabled Our Sub-Committee E to undertake a speedy and systematic study of the proposed law-making powers and procedures which was then welcomed by everyone concerned, including the Foreign Office.
In the case of the justice and home affairs pillar, where all the decisions must be taken by unanimity and no qualified majority voting will apply, I doubt whether progress will be other than slow. It will probably be much slower than some of the proposals the Select Committee has had to deal with in the past.
After careful study of all the material provided in the report, it seems to me that the three criteria which have already been mentioned in the debate tonight, which are set out in paragraph 53 of the report and which should determine the documents to be deposited are reasonable and practicable for both pillars, given the long experience of the formal and informal relationships which have been built up over time, the expertise which exists among the Members of this House and the flexible working arrangements which the Select Committee has had to develop in recent years to take account of the speeding up of decision-making in the Community.
I therefore support my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham and urge the Government to reconsider their reservations about depositing documents and applying the traditional scrutiny reserve where possible, as the Select Committee has recommended in the report. If they cannot accept those recommendations they should at the very least agree to review the position after a short period of the working arrangements. I urge the Minister when she replies at the end of the debate to agree to review the position and report back to the House after that short experimental working period
There are several other aspects of the report which I should have liked to comment on, particularly those relating to links with other parliaments, but the hour is late. I shall therefore confine myself briefly to one further point, but nevertheless a very important one. It

1485
relates to the Select Committee structure and its staffing. My noble friend Lord Boston touched on that subject in his opening remarks.
Noble Lords who are present in the Chamber tonight may well recall the rather unique occasion in December 1992 when the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on the first report of the new liaison committee failed, but only on a tied vote of 106 to 106, to allow the Select Committee to reappoint its then existing six sub-committees instead of the five sub-committees recommended by the liaison committee. As a result, Sub-Committee C on social policy and Sub-Committee F on the environment were amalgamated under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham. The committee now has to cope with an extremely wide range of post-Maastricht topics. Although the Select Committee itself could well decide to undertake the work arising from the CFSP pillar, the scrutiny resulting from the justice and home affairs pillar would undoubtedly be too heavy an additional workload for the present Sub-Committee C, even if, as is likely, some of the subject matter would fall within the remit of Sub-Committee F on law and institutions.
There are also bound to be consequential implications for the staffing of the Committee Office, on which so much of the quality and quantity of the Select Committees' work depends. I see from the report—and my noble friend Lord Boston has confirmed tonight—that the Select Committee intends to review these matters after a short period of operating the new procedure. I hope that the review will be completed in good time for the liaison committee's forthcoming review of its sub-committee structure.
I conclude by once again by thanking my noble friend Lord Boston and his colleagues for this valuable report which I believe will have considerable and long-term implications for the future scrutiny work of the House.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just spoken is the fifth speaker on our list this evening, and the first not to be a member of the committee that drafted the report. That is not uncommon. She is a member of what one might call our European family in this Chamber. As someone who does not belong to that family, I propose to take a rather different view of the report and what it teaches us.
It seems to me that we must call into question at some point the value of having a European Communities Committee at all. It does a great deal of work. It takes up the time of a great many useful, active and important Members of your Lordships' House. But what is its effect? Looking over the past 20 years, its main effect has been to help to disguise from Parliament and from the country the major changes that have taken place in Britain's position in Europe and in the world. We have witnessed, and are still witnessing, a continued erosion of this country's capacity to make laws for itself or to raise funds for its needs through its own procedures of
1486
taxation. That is to some extent slid over by the assumption that in the last resort there are parliamentary controls on that process.
Therefore, there are continually debates about procedure and suggestions for improvements in procedures such as the noble Baroness has just referred to, which seem to be an exact parallel to what is very common in other aspects of the British constitutional process. For example, as is manifest at the end of every Session and sometimes more often, we still have the necessity for Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament. For about 300 years that has been a pure affectation: no Clerk of the Parliaments has ever had the courage to say, "La Reine s'avisera", instead of, "La Reine le veult". However, what it has enabled the country to do is to go from a monarchical to a parliamentary system of government, without noticing it or without the pain which has accompanied similar events in other countries.
It seems to me that the accent on procedure rather than content—and here I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to some content of possible problems—is quite dangerous. It is not as though we had reached a terminus in the process or that we could say, "Well, we've given away much, a lot of sovereignty has been removed in one field or another. But now there is a stop and anything which is added to the competence of the European Union will be wholly inter-governmental and therefore naturally it will be under our Parliament's control".
That seems to me to be doubtful and one of the most interesting pages in the report is the evidence of Mr. Amédée Turner, MEP. He said that all this inter-governmental stuff where the justice and home affairs secretaries are concerned is merely transitional, it is cumbersome, wasteful. We must as soon as possible devolve it all into the sphere of the Commission or the Community because that is a proper functioning machine. If that is held by MEPs of this country, I suspect that it is held even more powerfully by MEPs in the European Parliament. Therefore, we must regard the present stage, in that respect at any rate, as precarious. We ought perhaps to be giving more thought to what it would imply.
However, I would rather concentrate in my few remaining minutes on the even more difficult problem of foreign policy. The whole notion of a common foreign and security policy of the present membership of the Union or of that membership when expanded is—as anyone thinking about it or reflecting on recent events knows—the most arrant nonsense. There is an admirable document in the report by Mr. Philip Allott of Trinity College, Cambridge. He points out that we are enmeshed in a whole range, an alphabet soup, of international organisations of various kinds which command us to do this or insist that we do that or enable us to do the other. None of it is logical, none of the memberships is identical and we can, therefore, see that there is a great problem merely from the fact of trying to find what is the European core at which we might look.
The other point which I think is brought out by Mr. Allott and to some extent in the other evidence is the

1487
absurdity that for the foreign policy and security policy pillar we do not even rely on—not my favourite body, but it is a body which can be discovered in one place—the Commission, but on whichever member happens to be the president for six months. At the moment, as noble Lords will be aware, the presidency is held by Greece. That is a country which has embarked on the blockade of a friendly government—a blockade denounced by the other 11 members of the European Union—taking no more notice of that than it normally does of the activities of the European Union, except when it comes to extracting money from it. The Greek Government are now in charge of our foreign policy. That seems to me to exhibit an element of farce, if not of tragedy.
There have been various suggestions about rotating the presidency less frequently, making it more likely that some responsible government will be president. But fundamentally, it is difficult to believe that we would ever have arrived by any process of logic at a system which states that every six months some new government will be in charge of deciding how we cope with such problems of foreign policy as we identify as common to us.
Indeed, in his important and interesting evidence, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out that, in trying to frame such a common policy, the foreign ministers lacked all the sustenance which they would have in their own countries. They have no apparatus for assessing reports as to what is happening in the part of the world to which their attention is being directed, let alone access to similar secrets. None of even the ordinary analysis which is provided in the Foreign Office by its senior staff is available. So the ministers are framing foreign policy—in so far as they are framing it—in a material, intellectual void.
That again is difficult to take seriously and it is difficult to see how improved scrutiny by committees, either in this House or another place, could possibly improve it. There are things which are incapable of improvement.
I do not wish to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and his cohorts of valuable work. I am sure they wish to occupy their energies and their talents. I suggest that the European Communities Committee could usefully—and this takes up a point which was briefly touched on, the recognition of Croatia—investigate what Europe has done in the sphere of common foreign policy as regards the Visegrad 4 and ex-Yugoslavia. Let us find out how they came to their decisions and what those decisions were. It is only by giving this House some feel of the reality that we can escape from what otherwise seems to me a somewhat academic—I use the word advisedly; we have been talking about academic matters all day—pursuit of proper procedures, instead of acting, as I think this House should, as a beacon to the rest of the country about where the pro-European policy of successive governments has landed it.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he discusses European Community
1488
matters. I cannot forbear from informing the House that in the course of the remarks that I shall venture to make I may occasionally dissent from the attitude of both Front Benches to this vital question.
Before I embark on a controversial theme, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston, for the report that the committee has produced. The noble Lord has invariably been most courteous to me, in spite of the fact that if frequently expressed my convictions with some extra emphasis with which many noble Lords may be accustomed. I regret that owing to the consideration by the House of the Maastricht Treaty last July, I was unfortunately unable to be present at most of the committee meetings that took place arid examine the witnesses concerned.
I am in no doubt that the proposals in regard to scrutiny made by the committee are absolutely first-class. I am in no doubt either, having read through the Government's response to the committee's, proposals that—save in one particular instance that I shall mention later—that response is equally satisfactory to me. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has already indicated, what we have been through is a ritual dance. We made all the right noises. I am quite sure that no noble Lord who gave evidence gave the slightest offence to the European Commission. Indeed, that would be most controversial. The sentiments that were expressed were most admirable; and the Government replied accordingly.
The whole trouble is that, although the exercise was carried out with diligence, it has had very little effect in practice. Indeed, the Government know that. With the patriotic fervour with which one often associates Her Majesty's Government in office, they have taken good care that this debate takes place very late at night, after the papers have gone to bed and after the media have closed down, and indeed are not represented here tonight, leaving the population to pay some £4.20 for tomorrow's Hansard (which in 1975 cost 45p) or alternatively to extend their extremely lush incomes after tax on paying some £16.60 for the report itself. Unfortunately therefore, tonight we can be quite (if I may say so) "palsy-walsy" about this matter. We can talk it over all together in the complete assurance that the public will never know about it. That is of course the way things go. I can quite understand the Government finding it convenient.
I made the statement that, in spite of all the scrutiny and all the good wishes and affirmations of the Government in regard to the recommendations that were made to them, there have been one or two difficulties. Those may be exemplified, and perhaps the House will bear with me while I give a specific example to prove my point. The difficulties are nowhere more obvious than in the Select Committee's attitude, for example, towards the European budget and the Government's response to the Select Committee's requests after scrutiny. Some might almost say "demands", but that would be asking too much of the Select Committee—it never "demands" anything; it merely "requests" and puts it in very polite terms.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of the slippage that takes place. I shall give it only in regard to

1489
the European Community budget. Some little time back—in November last—I asked the Government a Question on whether they would provide to Parliament copies of the preliminary draft budget in good time for it to be properly scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee. The Government were most forthcoming. Indeed, at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"The Government will continue to press the Commission and the Council Secretariat to produce English language versions … as quickly as possible".—[Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 132.]
He gathered that his reply did not meet with a good response and after consultation gave a formal undertaking by the Government in the following terms:
"All I can do is to repeat the assurances given by my noble friend Lord Caithness that in future these documents will be put in front of the House in adequate time to allow the House and the noble Lord to scrutinise them".—[Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 134.]
That was such a firm undertaking that I could barely believe my ears. However, my optimism was speedily dissipated. There was a slight slippage.
I come to the Government's response to the Select Committee's report in February. The Government said that:
"it is the Government's intention to deposit it quickly and to supply an explanatory memorandum as soon as possible. The Government propose that this should be on the same timescale as for deposited EC documents, ie within ten working days of deposit".
I regarded that as a further considerable advance. But on 23rd March, in reply to exactly the same questions that I put in November, all that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could say was that the Government would do:
"all that we possibly can to ensure that all the documentation is made available to this Parliament, so that it can exercise adequate scrutiny as early as possible".—[Official Report, 21/3/94; col. 494.]
So the firm date shifted and shifted imperceptibly until we are left with the situation that they have no obligation at all to do anything other than try to ensure that the information is supplied to us as soon as possible.
We are not talking of something trivial; we are talking of the European budget which comprises one of the most important proposals made by the Commission every year to all the powers. It is of particular importance to us because in the foreseeable future it will at least involve a net contribution from our taxpayers' pockets of £2,200 million —according to the figures which have only recently been supplied by the Government in their Expenditure Estimates. So already there is a slippage.
The fact of the matter is that the Government cannot deliver. They would like to do so. They will continue to affirm that they wish to do this or that. What they cannot or apparently dare not do is follow that up in the council itself. They decline to do that. They say that they will do it, but they do not do it. Therefore, all the existing arrangements in regard to scrutiny will merely record a ritual dance.
Exactly the same considerations apply to the European Parliament. From 1962 right through to 1986 the European Parliament was officially the European Assembly. From 1962 onwards it called itself the European Parliament, clearly with one eye on the future of enlarging its own share of responsibility.
1490
The Commission is responsible for the interpretation of the treaties and the enforcement of their provisions. Was there a squeak heard from the Commission, refusing to acknowledge the European Assembly's new title that it had assumed for itself? There was not a squeak out of the Commission. Likewise, the British Government made no squeak at all. They did not like to feel that they were being anti-communautaire. So they went along with that. At the time when I was in the European Parliament, I had a European passport which, strictly speaking, in European law was illegal because it was an assembly rather than a parliament. It was an assembly until 1986, when the change was officially made by the Single European Act.
I fear—and I am afraid that I shall be held to be right—that all the steps that are being taken are merely a prelude to the 1996 inter-governmental conference, by which time the European Parliament and the Commission will have manoeuvred themselves—with our consent, because no effective and enforceable scrutiny has taken place—into a position whereby in 1996 they will try to install verbally a federal Europe, whether we say yes or no. All the interim steps being taken by Parliament and the Commission are designed to that end.
It is not as though the second of the two pillars is any longer on its own. I am talking now of the home affairs and justice pillar. There was a time—indeed it has been treated so by my noble friend Lord Boston—when it was a completely separate branch of European Union activity under Article K of the new treaty. But we know already that the treaty provisions in relation to fraud have now become entangled with and will shortly become indistinguishable from action taken under Article K as announced by the Home Secretary recently in connection with the enforcement of the various fraud provisions in member states.
So already there is a merge between Article K dealing with home and justice and the ordinary provisions of the treaty, notably under Articles 188 and 109. Exactly the same is happening under the foreign affairs treaty. Under the CFSP provisions a new committee has been established. The Commission also has an interest which is established, and before long the personnel of that new committee dealing with common security problems will be merged with COREPER. Once again COREPER, which has no responsibility for reporting publicly on anything, will do exactly what it is doing today: is ruling the Community in so far as the existing provisions permit.
Those are the prospects and they are all part of the drive towards a federal Europe to which the Government are officially opposed but to which, by their acquiescence in the Council of Ministers and their tolerance of the various events that take place in the member states, they are contributing. When I first came to this place 20 years ago it never occurred to me that probably the most undemocratic assembly in the world—to wit your Lordships' House—should have as its principal task the defence of the liberties, rights and responsibilities of another place. It is your Lordships' House which is trying to rescue the other place from the

1491
results of its own indifference to what is happening in Europe and the powers that are being taken away from it.
That is an agreeable role, but I shall not pursue it further at this stage in case I cause a ripple of dissent, and I would not wish to do that. But I give your Lordships this assurance. When I repeat what I have said today—on the assumption that I am spared to repeat it—in years to come, it will be seen that it shows a greater approximation to the truth than the alibis put forward on behalf of the European Union.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and ended with a fine climax in the two speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Bruce of Donington. I agree with much of what they say, though I find that from what they say I draw exactly the opposite conclusions.
Before embarking on my remarks I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for the way in which he chaired our Select Committee and for his introduction to our debate this evening. I thank also our legal adviser, the clerk and, almost above all, the witnesses, who gave extremely interesting evidence which in itself justifies the work of the committee. In particular, I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that Mr. Améedée Turner's evidence was extremely significant and the written evidence of Mr. Allott of Trinity College, Cambridge was something which should not be forgotten.
The job of the committee primarily was to inquire into the nature of decision-making under the two inter-governmental pillars. It seems to me that the committee, either deliberately or just in the ordinary course of its investigations, has given an extremely vivid example of how that decision-making takes place and, in my view, how deeply unsatisfactory it is. What we have at the moment is a quasi-federal state. It is said that we are moving towards one without it being recognised that we have a centre with powers and we have other parts with other powers. That is the definition of a federal state. We have a quasi-federal state already. But what we have is an extremely undemocratic one in which a large number of the decisions are taken in secret. That is one of the most significant points about the report in indicating just how those secret decisions are taken.
What we are discussing today, or should be discussing, is how we can keep tabs on the European Union, which was created at Maastricht, and what part national parliaments can play in that process, bearing in mind—a point which has not been mentioned so far—that the European Union is about to be enlarged. What we are talking about is what is popularly known as the democratic deficit. Central to that —this point is discussed far too little in your Lordships' House—is the decision-making process of the Council of Ministers.
Ministers giving evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee or to its sub-committee constantly reiterate and emphasise their accountability to Parliament. But Ministers who serve on the Council of Ministers meet in private. Since we do not know what they say, or how
1492
they said it, or even how they voted, that kind of accountability to Parliament is of a rather tenuous nature. Again and again in the evidence which was submitted to your Lordships' Select Committee, the secret way in which decisions were reached is emphasised.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence of Mr. Amédée Turner, a Conservative MEP, chairman of the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs, talking about the role of his committee in supervising the legislative work of the inter-governmental council responsible for the third pillar. Mr. Turner tells us that his committee will know of the legislative agenda coming before Ministers. It will discuss it. But what it will not know is the nature of the ministerial debate or the position adopted by individual Ministers or individual countries. I quote Mr. Turner:
"It is a very tenuous form of legislative democracy".
Nor indeed is there any reason that either he, or for that matter I, can see why deliberations about legislative matters should be in private. Indeed, at Edinburgh we. were delighted to learn that it was decided that the proceedings of the Council should be published. But, says Mr. Turner, and I quote him on page 28:
"these councils"—
under the inter-governmental arrangements and the two. Pillars—
"are not within the Treaty of Rome, they are the Union, so no doubt",
said Mr. Turner,
"they will say: 'Oh, no, that is quite different here'"
If Mr. Turner is right, then Maastricht, far from marking an advance towards greater transparency, openness and less secrecy, will in fact be a retreat from the position adopted at Edinburgh. It will be a retrograde step, making oversight by this Parliament, other national parliaments or the European Parliament more rather than less difficult.
As regards the third pillar, the justice arid home affairs pillar, as my noble friend Lord Lester pointed out, we are dealing with issues which touch on the daily lives, rights and liberties of citizens, where transparency, openness and democratic control are absolutely essential but where under the present arrangements they are absent. The fact is that the inter-governmental system, the adoption of which is the pride of the British Government as one of their great achievements at Maastricht, in the words of Mr. Turner, has,
"a good deal of all the sins of an inter-governmental system. that bureaucracy, secrecy and administrative discretion which is also a good description of the home offices".
That is the truth about the inter-governmental system. He went on to indicate that he thought that there must be a better way of doing things.
Perhaps I may point out to those who are critical of the Commission's bureaucracy that the bureaucracy under the inter-governmental system which will control all matters, if one looks at Article K4, will be the bureaucracy of the national governments.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he quite accurate not as regards what Mr. Turner says but in connection with the previous system? Under the European political

1493
co-operation nothing came out at all either to the Parliament or to national parliaments. Similarly, as regards justice and home affairs and issues raised in the Trevi group and the multiplicity of working groups, nothing was known outside. Does the noble Lord agree that there is a slight improvement under the new system of pillars—that something will come out which hitherto has been completely shrouded both from Parliament and the public?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, there may be something in what the noble Baroness has said, as there often is. But what we have gained is very little. I believe that we put at risk a great number of other things by the inter-governmental arrangement—to which I shall return.
The weakness of the inter-governmental approach in foreign affairs is even more obvious, as has been made apparent in response to events in Yugoslavia. What it has demonstrated is weakness, lack of leadership and procrastination and then settling for the lowest common denominator.
Once again I quote from the evidence which we received, this time from Mr. Mcmillan-Scott, a member of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs and Security. He described the failure of the European Parliament to get in on the Yugoslav business, having been told by the Council of Ministers that this was strictly an inter-governmental matter and nothing to do with it. He said:
"the diplomatic process was done on a traditional basis and if I may say to you the League of Nations is a good model".
Indeed, the League of Nations results are very like the kind of results which it seems at times this process was achieving. It was said that it was very difficult for a group of 12 nations acting on the unanimity principle to show any particular leadership unless, as is the case in NATO, there is a dominant partner. It is here that the matter of enlargement—which has played a very small part in our debate this evening—comes in.
The weaknesses in the decision-making process devised at Maastricht will, when the Union is enlarged from 12 to 16 or 17, become even more acute. As Mr. Allott of Trinity College, Cambridge, demonstrates in his written evidence to the committee, the European Union as constituted at Maastricht is a kind of legal and constitutional mess of almost unrivalled proportions. If one wants an example of that, I suggest that noble Lords look at page 51, paragraph 9(1), which I shall not quote, about the various structures in European foreign policy at the moment, the enormous number of organisations involved and the cats-cradle of complication which has been created.
During and ever since the Maastricht debates, noble Lords have commented on its institutional consequences. The institutional consequences of enlargement demand urgent and serious study. One of the virtues of the report is that it makes that obvious. The fiasco over voting and the blocking veto before Easter made that point even more obvious, and enlargement emphasises it even more. If it is difficult to get 12 countries acting on a unanimity principle to show any practical leadership in a difficult situation, surely it is even more
1494
difficult to get 16 or 17 countries to do so. It is difficult not to conclude that as a consequence there will be increased pressure for greater majority voting.
However, the report does not seem to recognise or face up to the problem that, if there is increased majority voting, the authority and power of the national parliaments is automatically diminished. Not surprisingly, the report attaches great importance to the role of the national parliaments in supervising the two pillars. That is evident in the conclusions given in paragraphs 65 and 71. However, might not 16 parliaments make the old Polish Diet look like a model of parliamentary efficiency?
One of the most important things about the report is that it raises issues which are moving towards us at very high speed and which it seems to me that the Government refuse to face up to, to consider or to consult on. The IGC in 1996 must face up to those major problems and reach some conclusions about them. Although people will not like to say so, that IGC will be a kind of constitutional convention. It is important that before it meets our Government should know where they stand and where they want to go and that they should consult the people and Parliament of this country. However, the Government show no signs of having taken these matters into consideration or of having taken any steps to deal with them.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like all noble Lords, even the critics, I begin by complimenting my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham and his colleagues on their work.
I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that it is all very nice and academic, but essentially a waste of time. I should like to deal with that point initially because, as a former member of the European Commission, I can tell the House that the noble Lord's belief that such reports are simply ignored and have no notice taken of them is palpably wrong. I cite three cases. The recent debate on a report on the enforcement of competition law followed other reports on exactly the same topic. Not only did the Commission note many of the issues that had been raised, but it actually took firm action on them. There have been other reports on questions affecting the environment. As a former Environment Commissioner, I can tell the House that those reports were carefully read, perused and, in many respects, acted on also.
Although the Commission has not, by any manner of means, satisfied my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on the question of fraud, a number of propositions that have been advanced in reports from your Lordships' House have also been acted on—but, as I have said, not, I know, to the total satisfaction of my noble friend. It is as well to record that such reports are not mere academic exercises.
I noted with some interest the speech of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, as always, extremely entertaining, and of course he put forward his view with great force and good humour. I am sure that he is right to assert that too few people take note of the proceedings in Parliament generally, let alone this House. One can

1495
scarcely find a reference to the proceedings in another place, even in the quality newspapers these days. Perhaps if someone had the temerity, Heseltine-like, to seize the Mace tonight, the press would come swarming in and something would happen; but it would take that sort of thing to cultivate any great interest in this debate, and yet it is an important debate. The speeches, even those that have criticised the debate, appear to have come from people with a great wealth of experience.
The criticisms are worth making because they enable us to concentrate perhaps a little less complacently upon some of the issues which have emerged. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about some of the dangers of inter-governmental control, because much of that inter-governmental control is based upon secrecy, a point to which I shall return in a moment. I am mostly disappointed with the Government's response to the propositions that have been advanced by the report. Yes, I know that they pay lip service to the value of the report, but, in truth, they have moved scarcely at all from the position that they adopted in the evidence of Ministers and civil servants, which is scarcely a good augury of parliamentary scrutiny committees on the deliberation of Ministers at the Council of Ministers.
I believe that the committee was right to repeat a preliminary point which had been made in an earlier report on the draft treaty, which is as germane to the considerations of today as they were then. It said:
"The Community is not yet based on 'open covenants, openly arrived at—"'.
That of course is the democratic deficit. There are issues which give rise to great confidentiality; but I am convinced that what the European Union requires is far fewer assertions about the need for secrecy and confidentiality and far greater transparency; less hostility by governments to effective parliamentary scrutiny and better supervision by and accountability to Parliament as a whole.
We are living in dangerous times. It is the first time since the end of the war that neo-fascists are likely to secure a hand on the levers of government in one of our member states—Italy. I believe that that arises in substantial measure from cynicism about politicians, political institutions and decision-making that is not related only to Italy. Then, the four countries seeking accession to the European Union will have to undergo referenda. The opinion polls show that the people of those countries are worried about that very issue. Who are we to talk about parliamentary control being effective in relation to European Union issues when less and less parliamentary control is effected over so many elements in our domestic political life?
I believe that openness and effective parliamentary control must be part of the essential weaponry against these catastrophic inclinations—certainly potentially so —which flow from the democratic deficit. That is especially true of the functions of the Council of Ministers and most emphatically in relation to issues which lie at the heart of this report.
As I said in previous debates—it may be anecdotal but it is worth repeating—I attended many meetings of the Council of Ministers. I also attended many meetings
1496
which followed the council meetings when Ministers addressed the press. I am not talking only about British Ministers, but I certainly include them. Frankly, representations were made about what had happened that were somewhat different from what had transpired in the secret conclave of the council. That is not good for democracy.
There can be no question that in effectively scrutinising an ever increasing body of European Union legislation which emerges from the council Parliament is put to even greater tests. Those burdens will become increasingly heavy. In essence, the response from government should be to appreciate the problems in all their complexities and to resolve to co-operate to mitigate those problems and, as far as possible, to remove obstacles which stand in the way of Parliament in carrying out these functions. In my view, that has riot been the measure of the Government's response as far as reality is concerned. Yes, my Lords, the words may be there, but the spirit is not always willing.
Where has there been any recognition that inadequate resources are available to this House and to the other place to undertake the tasks which are increasingly burdensome? If it is critical to parliamentary democracy, which Ministers in which departments of state have suggested that we need more not fewer Select Committees or sub-committees to do the job? That point was made most eloquently by my noble friend Lady Serota. Why do the Government take such a dismissive view of the role of the European Parliament? Why, if their bona fides are intact, do the Government not recognise that parliamentary scrutiny can best be achieved without duplication by the European Parliament playing a complementary role to that of national parliaments in carrying out these necessary functions? My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington characteristically laughed; he has no belief in the European Parliament. But, of course, things have changed since he was there in 1979, which is a long time ago—
Lord Bruce of Donington: They have changed for the worst!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how does he know? He has not been there!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, yes, I have.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if he has been there, he has not studied it very well. But as I must be the arbiter on this occasion, I shall call an end to this. Essentially, what was said in 1985—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hesitate to correct my noble friend, but he has mentioned me. However, I was in Brussels for two days in the middle of February. I rejoined my old committee, the Budget Committee, which I can assure him has not improved in the slightest.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that he enjoyed the food while he was there. I shall not enlarge on the matter. I happen to believe that the European

1497
Parliament does a lot of invaluable work. Its scrutiny of many issues, in particular those relating to judicial and home affairs, has been extremely good.
In 1985 the committee reported on the external competence of the European Communities. It concluded:
"the current machinery for parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate in relation to treaty making by the European Community. There is no effective democratic control. The influence which Parliament can bring to bear is less than that which it has on international negotiations undertaken by the Government and the opportunities for scrutiny afforded to Parliament are less than those offered to the European Parliament".
I believe that remains true, and it will apply with equal, if not greater, force to scrutiny of the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union, unless governments are more accommodating to those requirements for a more democratic process.
Inter-governmental co-operation in the justice and home affairs field has been put, for the first time, on a firm treaty basis following Maastricht. Many of those issues, including asylum policy and immigration, vitally affect civil liberties and human rights.
As regards the Trevi and Schengen groups and the ad hoc group dealing with inter-governmental affairs on immigration, my view is—and I speak as the chairman of the Refugee Council—that Parliament has not been adequately informed of the detailed work carried out by those committees. Previous international agreements on human rights have not been given proper weight. There has been no judicial authority competent to ensure the uniform application of the new obligations which are to be undertaken.
The basic reason for that is that those groups operated in virtually total secrecy. Secrecy is tantamount to amounting to the exclusion to the views of people who should have a role in decision making. Experts in different fields of immigration law and practice, consultants in various fields, non-governmental organisations and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have all been effectively excluded from the processes of thought of those various inter-governmental groups.
It may be highly convenient for governments to behave in that way and to exclude outside interference or pressures, including the attention of the public. However, that is not good for human rights, civil liberties or democracy. I very much applaud the point taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his contribution.
Rather than brushing aside the role of the European Parliament—and that is how it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, when the Home Secretary was giving evidence—it would be more appropriate to compliment the capacity of the European Parliament to do extremely useful work in many of the fields that it has undertaken. It has a committee on civil liberties and internal affairs which was established under the chairmanship of Mr. Amédée Turner in 1992 to afford some prospect—albeit limited; and that is not the fault of the European Parliament—of democratic scrutiny of those matters.
1498
The European Commission does keep the European Parliament informed, and the European Parliament does interrogate a Minister representing the presidency, for the time being, in office. The European Parliament does receive final texts of resolutions and recommendations from the presidency of the Council. Naturally, therefore, that work should be taken on board and not simply overlooked as if of no consequence by our own parliamentary scrutiny in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that it would be appropriate to look at the German experience in this regard. In the Bundesrat (the Senate) Members of the European Parliament join in the deliberations with senators in the work of scrutiny and other committees without, of course, having a vote. That might be looked at with some approbation for our own parliamentary procedures; but that has not figured in the report's conclusions which we are now considering.
The work that has been done by this committee has been extremely useful. It should have received a more generous and positive response from the Government. That would have been the best way in which to ensure that the Government really believe that the role of parliamentary scrutiny is vital to our democratic processes. I believe, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who made such a forceful and intelligent speech, that we have much more to fear from the secret and furtive nature of decision making that has characterised so much of the work of ministerial councils than there is to fear from the widening of the possibilities of proper scrutiny and invigilation of what happens in our name.
9.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his introduction to the debate, and the European Communities Committee as a whole for the thorough report that it produced on the role that the House should play in the scrutiny of the inter-governmental pillars of the European Union. I should also like to thank all speakers for their contributions to tonight's interesting and very wide debate, which has ranged a good deal further than the scrutiny report—and that is no bad thing.
There was one moment a short while ago when I thought that I might have to rush to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He has been absolutely vigilant in seeking to find out what committees are really doing in the European Parliament. While the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talks of an. ideal world of people working together, it is sad to find that very often the reality is quite some distance from what the noble Lord is saying and, sometimes, a little nearer to the criticisms that are made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Of course, neither noble Lord is right in his condemnation of the situation; but there is an element of truth in what each of them says.
Perhaps I may make a few scene-setting remarks and then respond briefly to some of the points raised, as the hour is late. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary made absolutely clear in their observations

1499
submitted in response to the committee's report that we are fully aware of the great interest of both Houses of Parliament in the work of the two inter-governmental pillars of the European Union. The Government have made a clear commitment to find arrangements for parliamentary supervision which are appropriate for the work carried out under each of the inter-governmental pillars and their accountability to the British Parliament in those areas.
I should emphasise that it is accountability to Westminster that we are talking about tonight. However, in the future, there may be ways in which members of the European Parliament can work better in the scrutiny with Members of the Westminster Parliament. Certainly, the German experience is not a bad one. Indeed, I well remember when we were in the presidency some eight years ago going before a committee of the German Parliament made up of MEPs and members of the Bundestag. It was a remarkable experience—partly because it had to be done in German —but it was also very interesting to see that many of the same misconceptions that prevail here were also, at least at that time, prevalent in Germany.
As the Government emphasised in their observations on the committee's report, we believe that the arrangements for the involvement of Parliament should take account of the substantively different nature of the work conducted under the two separate pillars—the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs. I turn first to the CFSP. I realise that there is a difference of opinion here, but I believe that there is a very good reason for it. We believe that the arrangements for parliamentary involvement in CFSP should broadly follow the model of involvement in other areas of foreign policy. The Government are committed to pursuing an open and substantive dialogue with Parliament on foreign policy issues, including on CFSP. That must be reflected in the arrangements. There are regular opportunities for Parliament to debate foreign affairs issues and to question Ministers on particular aspects of government policy. Those general policy debates set the framework within which the negotiations on CFSP will take place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said, I believe that it is right and proper that Parliament should monitor closely the development of CFSP, which is an important element in our national foreign policy. After all, we are contributing to CFSP and I can say that we have frequently been in the lead in getting initiatives adopted by our fellow member states which have been all the stronger for the support of 12 than they would have been simply with our support and, perhaps, that of one or two other member states.
We believe it right and proper that Ministers should work closely with your Lordships and with Members in another place to ensure that we achieve satisfactory arrangements. However, this has to be balanced against the flexibility and discretion which every government needs in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations on detailed policy, which often require both confidentiality and speed. I can assure your Lordships that this is in no way an attempt to keep from noble Lords that which they feel they should know but it is absolutely vital in
1500
these negotiations to have room for manoeuvre and also to have confidentiality because on many occasions we are dealing with a third country or with another international body. It can be exceedingly difficult if the total mandate has had to be discussed in advance openly and without any confidentiality.
I disagree profoundly with the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, as regards the following matter. In non-CFSP areas of foreign policy Parliament has worked out how it will relate to its Select Committees. Here we have a slightly different situation, particularly where we are moving towards discussions and agreements. However, I believe we can work this out. We may not have got it right at the first response. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, asked me to review the matter. We will certainly monitor our practice most carefully and it could well be that within a few months both sides will find a better way of working. However, I believe we should give the initial arrangements at least a chance and then review them as the noble Lord has suggested.
Unlike business under the Community pillar and the justice and home affairs pillar, not only does CFSP discussion often involve third countries but it often involves other bodies whose papers are kept confidential. That is one of the reasons why I believe that probably the majority of draft documents produced under CFSP, although not all of them, will need to be kept confidential. I am convinced that our national interests are as secure in CFSP as they are in other areas of foreign policy such as NATO and the United Nations where the Government have to enter into negotiations. That is the reason why the Government do not believe that substantially new arrangements are necessary for parliamentary involvement. We should try to build on our existing arrangements which were developed for European political co-operation but which will be much more open—as my noble friend Lady Elles said—than they were in the days of ETC, when discussions were held behind closed doors. Certainly common foreign and security policy is not in the same league as that and it will be more open.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum to the committee included the Government's decision that Ministers should offer to give briefings to the relevant Select Committees in both Houses. The noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Bridges, and my noble friend Lady Elles referred to that matter. We are open to suggestions from the relevant Select Committee as to how often this should occur. However, we do not believe that we should tie ourselves to some inflexible specific dates but rather that the dialogue should be regular. The Government view such Select Committee briefings as valuable opportunities not only for informed discussion but also for two-way dialogue, because there is much that can be learned. I hope that these briefings will constitute open sessions because I believe that to be the most useful format. However, there may be occasions when, if the subject matter is particularly delicate, it would be better for the sessions to be held in confidence. I anticipate that sessions held in confidence would be the exception rather than the rule.

1501
I hope that that shows the Government's recognition of the vital interest which the Select Committees will take in CFSP. I also hope that when we come to work through such sessions we can look ahead a little so that issues are not taken simply because it is anticipated that they may arise in the Foreign Affairs Committee in a month or so but because they may come up in the months or years ahead, since there is a need to look forward in this debate.
The work under the justice and home affairs pillar is important and touches on many aspects of justice and law enforcement. These are at the core of the citizen's relations with the state. They are intimately linked with the question of national sovereignty. In the Government's view, the duty of holding the Executive accountable for the way this form of co-operation is carried out naturally and rightly falls to national parliaments.
The Government believe that their proposals for the conduct of parliamentary scrutiny of work under the justice and home affairs pillar provide the right kind of framework and balance of information to secure effective supervision of this important and sensitive area. Clearly it is essential for the purpose of constructive parliamentary oversight that the right documents are identified and deposited at as early a stage as possible. The wide nature of the work envisaged under the justice and home affairs pillar means that there will be a broad selection of documents for Parliament to see, and the Government's proposals are framed with that objective in mind.
The Government intend that Parliament should receive the first full text of any convention or proposal which would, if accepted, require primary legislation in this country, as well as other documents which are judged to be of significant importance. Noble Lords will appreciate that that is a broad undertaking, and from time to time it may be necessary to qualify it to meet the demands of security and confidentiality. However, again, we hope that that will be very much the exception.
The Government intend to interpret the criteria in an open way conducive to dialogue with Parliament. We do not anticipate that security and confidentiality considerations will apply frequently. We accept the need to give the term "significant importance" a wide interpretation to include the type of document identified in the committee's report. For example, proposals which might require secondary legislation or would otherwise impose legal commitments on the UK would certainly be judged to be of significant importance, as would other documents which helped to provide an overview of the work—for example, work programmes or progress reports.
If the Government conclude that a document produced under the justice and home affairs pillar meets the criteria for submission to Parliament, it is the Government's intention to deposit it quickly, together with the explanatory note to help Parliament's consideration of it.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked what would happen once the Select Committees have received draft
1502
justice and home affairs proposals. Clearly it will be for the committees themselves to decide how they exercise their responsibility. However, I believe that, as in the case of EC scrutiny, the committees will be able to examine the nature of what is being proposed, call for further evidence from the Government or elsewhere, and recommend debates to make Parliament's views on the matter well known. That will be a real step forward.
Perhaps I may now deal with the difficult matter of those draft CFSP documents not to be submitted to Parliament. We noted very carefully the suggestion in your Lordships' European Communities Committee report that documents under both inter-governmental pillars which fulfil one of the three criteria set out in paragraph 53 of the committee's report should in principle be provided to Parliament. The Government will continue to make available to both Houses of Parliament the text of CFSP statements, declarations, common positions and joint actions once they are agreed. However, as I hinted in my earlier remarks, we think it may not be appropriate in a large number of cases to lay drafts of CFSP texts before Parliament because of the need for speed and confidentiality. I have noted the strong comments that have been made during the debate tonight and I shall bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Perhaps I may further assure noble Lords that if certain CFSP documents fall within existing scrutiny guidelines, there is no question that they should be deposited. Where any CFSP documents are not subject to confidentiality considerations and meet at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 53 of the report, the Government will consider making those available to Parliament at an early stage. It may be that we should work out some long-term guidelines, but I believe that we need to keep the matter under review and perhaps return to it some time in the future.
One of the things I should hate to see happen is that in those cases where CFSP documents had not been laid before the committee we could not proceed because of the scrutiny reserve. I think that that is something on which we need to work in a little more detail and I shall be in contact with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about it.
I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in regard to his wishes for the future. Of course, we have all read the Euro-manifesto of his party which states that inter-governmental arrangements among member states should be incorporated into the European Community framework. Because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should be reassured, I say that the Government oppose the view put forward by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. We particularly wanted common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs to be under the separate pillars because they should be the responsibility of the member states of the Union. They should not come under the aegis of the European Commission. Perhaps I may turn to the examples of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. While she is dealing again with the question of a common foreign

1503
policy and security considerations, will she tell the House whether any documents that come under that heading deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in relation to the activities of the Greek Government and the Greek presidency in recent weeks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I speak from memory, but I do not think that anything that has happened under the CFSP has come up under the Greek presidency. If I am in error, I shall write to the noble Lord, but I am fairly certain that there has been nothing of the nature to which he refers.
I turn now to the examples of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in the debate. They were understandably taken from the field in which he is so distinguished a practitioner, human rights. Perhaps I may point out to him that subjects dealt with under CFSP are certainly not of that character and, if I may use the noble Lord's words, which I think I noted correctly, they are not likely to affect the rights and duties of individuals, particularly under our domestic law. Human rights questions are matters of traditional foreign policy. On the other hand, we have said that where activity under the pillars is likely to lead to changes directly affecting individuals—which will almost certainly be the case under the justice and home affairs pillar—draft documents will be supplied so that scrutiny can take place. That has already begun to happen. For example, the draft Europol convention documents have already been deposited with the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Boston. I do not think that the question of incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights and the right of individual petition, important though they are, is directly relevant to the present issues. However, when I read the debate I shall go carefully over what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as he normally does in our debates, referred to the European Community budget. I know that he has been extremely concerned that documents should come to this House and to another place as soon as possible. He knows also that I happen to agree with him on this matter. Just as he does, I sometimes get frustrated at the timing of the delivery of documents. But I say to him that we really will try to ensure that the Commission's overview as regards the preliminary draft budget is made available to Parliament, provided that we can get our hands on it. We also intend to try to get it well in advance of the publication of the preliminary draft budget in mid-June. If I have any more news for the noble Lord I will convey it to him directly. I understand his concern.
The noble Lord also spoke of the future and made prophecies that the pillars would collapse. I assure him that under a Conservative Government the pillars will not collapse. But I warn the noble Lord, given that his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said that he agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had said, which included bringing the pillars under the European Commission, that he needs to be extremely careful about the way he is going to vote in the future. There is no merger between the political committee and COREPER, and we do not intend there to be one. There is no merger of action on fraud under
1504
Title VI and under the EC treaty. In both cases, action under the pillars and action under the EC treaties is complementary, but it is separate. We intend that it should remain that way. We certainly do not feel that there should be any—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister give way? Since she has said positively that she rejects the idea of the pillars merging into the Community arrangements as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, does that mean that Mr. Améedéee Turner will not be supported by the Conservative Party for re-election to the European Parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I had understood that he was not even to be a candidate. But perhaps that may have something to do with it.
The other point that I wanted to make on the question of merging the pillars—it is an important point to get absolutely clear—concerns the justice and home affairs pillar and the Community. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the Home Secretary's initiative is for a joint action under the third pillar. No Community legislation is proposed, and the action is intended to be implemented under the national law of each member state, not in any other way. 'That is why we have the pillared arrangement: in order to maintain those matters of justice arid home affairs under our national law.
We have had a long debate, and there is yet another debate to come. So perhaps I may finally say this to your Lordships' House. The conclusion in the Select Committee's report is that, wherever possible, a proposal made under the inter-governmental pillars should not be agreed until parliamentary scrutiny is complete. Such a scrutiny has up to now been exercised only in the context of proposals for Community legislation. We hope that it will not be necessary to replicate this procedure in the area covered by the two inter-governmental pillars. No Community legislation will arise under either inter-governmental pillar. In the event that domestic legislation is required as the result of an agreement negotiated under the justice arid home affairs pillar, then Parliament will, of course, have the opportunity to consider the issue in full during the requisite national legislative process. I believe that by proceeding with the committee as far as we can, we can incorporate into our considerations the very points for which the noble Lord's committee has asked.
The provision of a scrutiny reserve would not enhance parliamentary accountability. But the Government's principal objective is to ensure that Parliament has sufficient time in which to consider and respond to proposals before any decisions are taken in the Council. There may be times when decisions have to be made quickly. But that should not be the rule. In those cases the Government do not believe that it would be justified that outstanding scrutiny requirements should preclude us from signalling agreement where it would be appropriate to do so. That is something that we should monitor as the months go by.

1505
The Government wish to co-operate fully with both Houses in ensuring arrangements for appropriate and effective supervision of the CFSP and justice and home affairs pillars. We will keep under review all the arrangements that have been discussed so far and will try to respond to the needs of Parliament.
I thank your Lordships for an interesting debate. I look forward to future debates on CFSP and on justice and home affairs issues, to which I am sure that this House will make a valuable contribution. Maybe in future debates we should take those matters separately. The issues are so wide and the arrangements complex that I believe they deserve more time than your Lordships' House has been able to give them tonight.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we have been debating at a late hour what my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis called an important matter. But at least one can say about the timing that such has been the quality of the contributions from all parts of your Lordships' House—contributions which have been critical and those which have been not critical and in other ways positive—this has been a debate well worth waiting for.
It would be imposition upon your Lordships at this hour, especially with another debate to come, if I were to embark upon a detailed survey of what has been said. So I shall confine myself to a few remarks. First, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their kind words about the committee as well as personally. In particular, I want to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, for her contribution to our debate. Perhaps she will forgive me if I do not go over all the various suggestions that she made tonight.
I should like to seize upon one of them that she touched on early in her remarks and to which she returned to a certain extent in her closing remarks; namely, her suggestion that the procedures for examining what are in many cases most momentous matters affecting people individually and generally are to be monitored—that is a significant word which she used. Another part of her very helpful undertaking tonight was her assurance to your Lordships that the procedures will be reviewed in the light of experience. I noted her words that there may well come out of the discussions that will take place between Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships' Select Committee the possibility of a meeting of minds. That is promising.
I realise that the noble Baroness can go no further in her commitments this evening. But, after all, it depends on how the practice works out and how we believe that we can obtain what she has described as a commitment by the Government to finding the most appropriate method of examining these matters and scrutinising them properly. As I said, all the contributions tonight have been significant. The point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about draft texts to be seen. That was also one of the points taken up by the noble Lord,
1506
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his powerful speech and persuasive arguments. Again, that matter was touched on in another way by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, indicated her anxiety to ensure that what she described as the powerful points made in the debate are taken into account. One of those points was on scrutiny reserve, made by my noble friend Lady Serota, who has a great deal of experience in this field. As with so many discussions and debates in your Lordships' House, there were differences on all sides. But there is almost always common ground; and there is common ground between what my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had to say about keeping watch on the effectiveness of the committee. The committee does that itself and, as the committee said, it also needs to be done by this House generally.
Again, other important matters relating to effectiveness were touched on my by noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who also referred to the democratic deficit and the part that this scrutiny plays in offsetting it. That is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, too, referred.
We have had a wide-ranging debate and we in the Select Committee can draw some comfort, as I said earlier, from the observations and pointers given by the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies
10.25 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of responses to the consultation paper Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies, they will reconsider their proposals.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that a subject so important to so many people has come so late at night. What are we doing with this Green Paper? Many of us will remember "Cathy Come Home". As late as 1974–75 nearly 3,000 children were taken away from their parents and into care simply because their parents were without a home. Some local authorities housed the homeless, others, as I remember, put them on a bus. Norwich ended up housing most of the homeless of Norfolk.
In 1977 the late and good Stephen Ross introduced his homelessness Bill which drew on Conservative Party drafting and Labour Government time. That 1977 Act required all housing authorities to house those who were vulnerable and not intentionally homeless. It provided the safety net for some of the most disadvantaged and fragile people in our society.
The 1977 Act was reviewed by Michael Heseltine in the early 1980s; it was consolidated by the Conservative Government in 1985; it was reviewed again by Nicholas Ridley and Chris Patten at the DoE in 1989 and at each point it was found to be working broadly satisfactorily. As Chris Patten said in 1989,

1507
"We believe the Act remains important … the present terms of the Act strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the genuinely homeless and others in housing need".
It concluded that current arrangements should, "remain in place".
That comment reflected a wise and humane all-party consensus; until now, when an ugly party conference in many ways made the homeless an easy political target and destroyed that consensus. The result is this Green Paper which asserts that there are grave shortcomings or "a growing belief" that there is abuse; that present methods of allocation are unfair; that homeless families jump the waiting list queue; that emergency homelessness should be met in future only by offering temporary help and that the private rented sector can and will house most families who now present themselves as homeless.
No evidence is offered for the truth of those assertions for the good reason that none exists. The AMA, the ADC and the Association of London Authorities—the major housing authorities—refuted them. Indeed, of 37 Tory shire districts whose responses we know as at 30th March, only one was in favour of the proposals; six had divided views and the remaining 28 were strongly opposed. One of them said,
"It is the opinion of this council that the proposals are generally ill conceived and if adopted they would cause unnecessary trauma to many families and individuals in genuine housing crisis".
That was said by a Tory shire district—Suffolk Coastal, the constituency of the Secretary of State.
The professional institute of housing as of this afternoon continues to denounce the Green Paper, to say nothing of all the Churches, county councils, charities, housing associations, voluntary organisations, CABs, Shelter, MIND, the Spastics Society, Stonham, Age Concern, Barnardos, the Children's Society, the Law Society, who all insist that the proposals will worsen and not resolve homelessness. As the Catholic Housing Aid Society says:
"Legislation must address the long-term needs, not create them",
as it believes these proposals will do.
It is sadly true that homelessness has doubled since the 1970s. More and poorer households are chasing a dwindling supply of socially rented housing. But the Green Paper thinks this is because the 1977 Act encourages homelessness by encouraging families to jump the queue—paragraph 2.7. Really? An increasing problem? Well, no, actually. The Minister has acknowledged that the number of homeless has fallen for the past seven quarters. If the homelessness route is as attractive as the Green Paper asserts, why is a reducing number of families using it? If the problem is diminishing, why change the law? But perhaps there is more abuse—families manipulating the system, as the Green Paper asserts in paragraph 2.9. Well, no, actually. Local authorities now have no duty to house those who intentionally make themselves homeless. If the Government believed that there was abuse they would tighten up the notion of intentionality. They are not proposing to do so precisely because there is not abuse. As the 1989 DoE review said:
"Despite anecdotes to the contrary there is little or no evidence of abuse".
1508
But perhaps the homeless are displacing equally deserving and needy people on the waiting list, as the Green Paper asserts in paragraph 2.6. Well, no, actually, As DoE research shows, only 29 per cent. of all council house allocations go to the statutory homeless. Crucially, the waiting time for a family now on the general waiting list is on average 1.8 years. In 1986 it was 1.7 years—almost exactly the same. If families on the waiting list are being housed at the same pace as always, how then can the statutory homeless be said to be displacing them?
It is of course true that the statutory homeless get: housed more quickly. But that is because their housing need is greater, as is the need of those in sub-standard housing or overcrowded housing or those with medical need. Is that unreasonable? Is the waiting list nonetheless a fairer way of allocating housing, as the Green Paper asserts in paragraph 2.4? Well, no, actually. Not according to the DoE itself, nor the Audit Commission, which for years has wisely advised local authorities not to rely on waiting lists as indicating housing need since, at any one time, under half of those on the list—43 per cent. at the last snapshot—actually want to be housed.
As for waiting lists, if the new proposed waiting list is simply in date order, the less needy will be housed ahead of the more needy. That is wrong. But if there is a points system then the homeless will be near the head of the queue, as now, and the proposals in the Green Paper will be redundant. Will the Minister please tell us what sort of waiting list he has in mind? One that is wrong, or one in which these proposals are redundant?
In any case, three-quarters of those housed as statutorily homeless are already on waiting lists. They are not different sorts of people. As the 1989 DoE study of homeless people concluded:
"In many local authorities, those who are homeless are simply people on the waiting list with nowhere to wait".
Quite so, my Lords, quite so. Why then has homelessness increased? I chaired Norwich housing committee through the 1970s. Comparing the city's homelessness in 1977 before the Act and now, what has changed? Homelessness is still desperately traumatic: the result of a crisis; mortgage repossession; eviction, legal or illegal; marriage break-up. But there are striking differences between then and now. There are new pressures. Homelessness has come for some who have been discharged from long-stay hospitals as part of inadequate care in the community policies.
Sadly, a growing problem is domestic violence which has doubled as a cause of homelessness for women and children in my city. But above all, it is because homeless families are being evicted from the private rented sector. There were only a handful in my city in the 1970s, but now they are over a quarter of all our homeless. They have come from six-month short-hold tenancies and in any dispute with the landlord over rent or repairs, tenants are now powerless to retain their homes past the six months.
As regards housing for rent, together with adequate funding for care in the community, for the support of refuges and the increase in security of tenure in the private sector, these measures will usefully reduce

1509
homelessness. Is that what the Green Paper proposes? On the contrary; it says and does nothing about why people are homeless. It merely cuts the help which they will get. It makes rationing more stringent rather reducing the need for rationing in the first place.
Under these proposals, local authorities will aid not those who will become homeless in order to prevent it, but only those who are already roofless. As the Victorians said, it puts an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff when what is needed is a fence at the top. Any accommodation, however temporary, such as staying with a friend, will rule them out. If they are homeless and get emergency help, that will not mean a permanent roof, but merely temporary shelter. That temporary housing itself will largely be found in the private rented sector which is the very sector, incidentally, which has created much of the homelessness which it is now supposed to resolve.
What are the implications? Perhaps I may cite a very typical family and not an extreme case of hardship. It is a family which I knew in my ward in Norwich. It concerns a middle-aged couple living with their son in work and their daughter at school in a three-bedroomed council house. Their married, elder daughter had to give up her home when she and her husband could not keep up the mortgage. They had nowhere to live. So he went back, temporarily, to live with his parents and she, with their two small children, to hers—the three of them moving into the middle bedroom occupied by her brother in the past.
Separated, the couple's marriage began to crack. Meanwhile her brother had now to sleep on the sitting room sofa. Her mother's nerves began to suffer. The children reverted to bed-wetting; and the teenage daughter started staying out late at night. Stress and misery mounted. We rehoused her and her husband, and both families began to heal. Under these proposals, she would have a roof over her head but we could not rehouse her. Her parents would have to remove her by court order and those families would probably fracture. Does anyone believe that family or friends would help out for a few weeks in future if they then had to go to court to regain possession of their home? Yet if she had left her parents without a court order, she and her children would not in future be helped. What then? Would it be "Cathy Come Home" again?
One of the most chilling things about a chilling Green Paper is that the welfare of children is never considered. Indeed, children are not even mentioned. I believe that the word "child" or "children" appears once in a summary of the 1985 legislation. Their pain is air-brushed out. The Children Act 1989 is blandly ignored. How can we do this?
There are not only children but other vulnerable groups such as those living in refuges and the halfway houses of the Churches and voluntary organisations. They too will be refused help if they have a roof over their heads until they have served their time on the list. Because they cannot move out and on, other frail people in the community cannot in turn be helped and moved in. It all silts up and "care in the community" becomes even more of an empty phrase.
1510
Even if homeless families are eligible for housing, the Green Paper says that should be in the private rented sector. Private renting makes sense for the young, mobile and childless, but most homeless families have children—although they are ignored in the Green Paper. Most homeless families are unemployed and on benefit. Many are from ethnic minorities or have special needs. Private landlords do not want them. We have all seen the adverts that read, "No DSS claimants". As the OPCS 1991 figures show, 10 per cent. of private tenants have experienced harassment.
The private rented sector is not a suitable sector for the vulnerable. It is of poor quality. A fifth of its dwellings are unfit according to the English House Condition Survey. The dwellings are in short supply, with fewer such units than in 1981, and it is hard to enter. It requires several hundred pounds of deposit and rent in advance. Think of a mother in a 'phone booth, Evening Standard in one hand, l0p coins in the other, two children at her feet and having to trail across London not once, not 10 times but perhaps 20 times to find a flat ! Private renting is costly. The average council rent is £30; the average housing association rent is £45 —but the average private rent is £105 per week. That drives up the housing benefit bill, which has already increased by £3 billion in 1992 alone to cover private sector rents, and it exports costs on to the DSS. How then can the DSS cap its budget except by cutting housing benefit for all families?
Worse still, in 40 per cent. of cases rent officers now fix ceilings for housing benefit that are well below the actual rent charged—£29 per week on average in London—and the homeless family on income support has to find the difference somewhere, somehow and does it by getting into arrears or debt, whereupon the family is evicted, again, because private rented tenancies are insecure. The six-month shorthold therefore means, for the most fragile, a revolving door, a cycle of placements which disrupts the family, uproots the children, interrupts their schooling and adds to their misery. A homeless family, already under intense strain, needs stability and security to rebuild their lives. That is what the 1977 Act, consolidated in 1985, offered. This Green Paper will exacerbate their stress and, I fear, turn homeless families into broken families.
At the core of the problem is a shortage of social housing to rent. Selling off a quarter of all council houses on the one hand while simultaneously cutting the building programme, which is down from over 100,000 units a year to around 30,000 a year now, guarantees a housing crisis—a crisis of rationing. The homeless are being forced to compete with the waiting list simply because the supply of social housing has been deliberately reduced.
What is new is that the homeless are blamed for the lack of housing, just as those on invalidity benefit are blamed for being sick and the unemployed are blamed for having no jobs. Having first made social housing scarce, the Government are now seeking to make it harder for the most desperate, the homeless, to gain access to it.

1511
Let me give the last word to the Department of the Environment itself. As the review stated in 1989, referring to those classed as statutory homeless:
"That the number has been increasing is cause for concern, but this is not evidence that the legislation is inadequate or local authorities performance ineffective—rather the reverse".
Quite so. If your Lordships share the view that the DoE held in 1989, you will be asking the DoE in 1994 not to proceed with the proposals in this chilling Green Paper.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for introducing this important and timely debate—timely because we are debating the issue after the responses to the Government's Green Paper and we can properly ask them for a response to those comments. I shall do so tonight. We could talk all night about the issues raised in the Green Paper, but I do not propose to go down that path.
There are two questions at the heart of the debate. The first is to ask the Minister for a commitment that the Government are treating this consultation as a genuine consultation; in other words, that they are listening and will act accordingly. The second is to ask the Government to address the issue of supply—supply because the question of priority, of how to meet demand, would not be an issue if sufficient affordable accommodation were available.
I wondered what the Conservative manifesto for the last general election said. I looked up the index. I thought that the issue of homelessness would be in the section headed "Opportunity for All". That was not so. In fact it comes under the heading "A Brighter Britain". Half of that section is about home ownership, and the part on meeting housing need is largely about improving local authority housing. The issues are important. Of course tenant management and the improvement of stock are vital, but there was little in that quite thick document about affordable housing and homelessness.
The manifesto did, I must acknowledge, have the grace to admit that there is a need to bring into use empty properties owned by central and local government. Your Lordships will have seen the reports in today's press about the research for the Joseph Rowntree Trust on the number of homes standing empty, which in England has grown by a quarter in the past 10 years, while the number of households recognised as homeless has doubled.
Local authorities have reduced their stock of empty houses from 114,000 to 70,000. With 1.9 per cent. of their houses empty, they are described by the report as being England's least wasteful landlords. The number of empty homes in the private sector has risen by over one third. It is well known that central government, with their substantial housing stock, are one of the worst offenders in leaving housing vacant.
I turn now to the Green Paper. Some of the premises upon which it is based are questionable. The noble Baroness referred to the private rented sector. I share the wish that there should be a greater private sector contribution to reducing homelessness, but is that a realistic proposition? May not an upturn in the private
1512
rented sector be due to the current depressed owner-occupier market? There have been huge fluctuations in the property market over the past few years. The private sector is fragile. I do riot believe that we should be building a policy on a sector whose permanence is not proven.
The CML has warned that the very use of the sector as an alternative to mainstream social housing is likely to deter potential investors. That may be for the sad reason that there are negative, stereotyped views about homeless people as tenants, but I believe that its comments are realistic. In any event, rent levels in the private sector are not generally affordable. It caters predominantly for single people and for sharers, not for families.
Shelter, in a typically robust response to the consultation, has expressed concern that homeless families will be directed to a more expensive sector which it says presents two specific problems:
"High rents place homeless families in a vicious poverty trap".
I quote the words of that organisation, and it should know. It continues:
"According to the Department's own figures, more than 80 per cent. of homeless applicants are eligible for housing benefit to meet the rent. In many cases, if someone in the household gets a job the problem of affordability becomes acute as housing benefit is withdrawn at the rate of 65p for each pound of increased income".
I continue to quote from the. Shelter response:
"A second and increasingly common difficulty concerns the restriction of housing benefit by local authorities. Under Regulation 11 … local authorities have a duty to restrict housing benefit if they consider the rent to be unreasonably high, or the accommodation unreasonably large".
It is invariably the tenant who has to meet the shortfall. In 1992–93, 29 per cent. of private tenants whose rents were referred to the rent officer had them reduced for housing benefit purposes.
I refer also to the response of the National Federation of Housing Associations. It refers to forthcoming research which confirms that the match, or mismatch, between supply and housing need varies enormously up and down the country. Its figures suggest that the phenomenon of homeless households dominating access to social housing in some areas stems from regional imbalances between need and supply and not from abuse of the present homelessness system.
It refers also to the supply of private rented dwellings. The consultation paper states that there are 800,000 empty private sector homes and implies that these can be brought into use instead of building new homes. But, as the NFHA states, unfortunately there is no evidence to give confidence in the assumption that substantial numbers of properties will be available. It rightly states that the paper does not address the practical problems that such an initiative would face.
It gives three examples. The first is the relationship between the distribution of dwellings arid the distribution of need. The second is the willingness of private landlords to make the stock available, in particular given anxiety about the future availability of housing benefit. The third is the suitability of stock, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady

1513
Hollis. The results of the English House Conditions Survey suggest that much of the vacant private sector stock is in very poor condition.
The provision of stock as between local authorities and housing associations—which should supply—is not a matter in respect of which I have a particular political hang-up but it is an issue which is riddled with political dogma and quite proper political concern. From the start there have been warnings that the right-to-buy scheme must be accompanied by the replacement of stock. I know that the Government hate local authorities having a capital base and that that is one of the reasons why there have been restrictions on the spending of capital receipts from the sale of local authority housing. But one of the pieces of economic logic that this has produced is that opportunities to create both jobs and houses have been lost.
I turn to the proposals to change the system. The question has been asked about whether there is a need. Many respondents have referred to DoE research. It shows that 74 per cent. of those rehoused as homeless had in any event been on the council's waiting list. In other words, there are not competing groups. Is there evidence of widespread abuse? Is there evidence that different categories of household are treated unfairly? I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of producing that evidence tonight.
The Government's stated objective of ensuring that subsidised housing is equally available to all who genuinely need it is particularly,
"for couples seeking to establish a good home in which to start and raise a family".
That is an admirable objective but, I fear, is in moralistic, judgmental language which I do not find helpful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, it is reminiscent of the debates at last year's Conservative Party conference.
But what will be the effect on families? Proposals that somebody who is asked to leave by his family or friends is no longer automatically entitled to assistance and legislation which requires a court order to prove that family members cannot live together are likely to be divisive and will hardly unite members of a family. In the stressful situations which underlie those applications, support and keeping the family together may actually mean helping members of the family to live in separate accommodation.
There have been many comments about the need to consider housing in the broader social context. It is quite extraordinary that there is no mention in the paper of the community care legislation or the Children Act which introduced powers and duties to keep families together and to avoid children being taken into care. It does not require a great deal of imagination to see the effect if applicants must be literally roofless before they can qualify.
What about the victims of domestic violence? My noble friend Lord Russell will refer to refuges for women and their children who are such victims. It must be obvious that refuges, which are already full, will not be able to assist future applicants if there is no turnover of their own residents.
1514
What about those who are forced to sleep rough? I spoke today to Shelter Nightline and it tells me that the demand has increased substantially. Indeed, over the past week it has been unable to find accommodation for 30 people, compared with 20 in the whole of February.
The purpose of the Government's rough sleepers initiative was to make it unnecessary to sleep rough in London. The agencies have seen the problems coming with the closure of cold weather hostels and the RSI hostel closures without permanent accommodation coming on stream. I take this opportunity to ask the Government to acknowledge the need for an urgent review of that initiative.
I make a personal plea to the Government that they should consider reviewing their use of language. I find "rough sleepers" a most distasteful term. They are, first, people, and, secondly, they are people who find themselves sleeping rough.
Removing the "cost" of homelessness and replacing it with a substantial burden through social services provision will not solve the desperate problems which are experienced in many parts of the country. The detailed proposals in the paper have provoked many expert, detailed and thoughtful responses. I may have missed those which support the paper. No doubt the Minister will tell us if there is support. By that I mean general support and not merely support for some of the more narrow proposals such as the amalgamation of the local authority and housing association waiting lists. In many places that is dealt with quite separately and those agencies do not need to be told how to behave by the Government. The Government have had since the middle of March to consider those responses and by now they will certainly know the balance of the reaction.
In summary, I believe that these proposals will do nothing to lessen the socially and emotionally damaging reality of homelessness for many thousands of people. We do not need changes in definitions or in responsibilities; we need a change in attitude towards social housing. The proposals will deprive homeless people of the existing statutory guarantee of a secure, affordable home. They do not provide an adequate safety net for people in acute housing need. Little will be gained by introducing a system which may bring more perceived fairness to the allocations process if that in itself undermines the principle of providing homes for vulnerable people.
It must be said that this is yet another centralising measure by a Government who cannot bear to allow local discretion, even by local authorities run by members of their own party. The Government seek to justify their proposals by claiming that homeless people are jumping the queue and being housed ahead of families on the waiting list who are in worse conditions. It ill becomes the Government to blame the queuers; they should shorten the queue. Again, I ask the Government to show that they do know the meaning of consultation and that they are mature enough to acknowledge that the paper is misconceived and to thank the respondents for demonstrating that that is so. Otherwise, this will be a very sad memorial to the late Stephen Ross, so soon after his death. As the noble

1515
Baroness said—and, indeed, as other speakers will say —his Bill was a landmark in dealing with the problems of homelessness. It should not be overturned in the way proposed.
11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, my immediate reaction to the consultation paper can be summed up in the pithy phrase of an old Scottish friend of ours who talks about people "improving worse". That is exactly how I should like to summarise it. I feel compelled to voice something of the widespread and universal concern about the proposals which I have been picking up all over my own diocese and throughout the country.
I know that that concern is felt by the Churches and Church bodies overwhelmingly and also by secular voluntary bodies engaged in seeking to help the homeless families and, above all, the children. I can assure Her Majesty's Government that anyone involved with homeless families would want to make a plea on their behalf to reconsider the proposals radically and totally. I genuinely believe that they would represent a serious backward step for a civilised, humane society to make.
Of course, one must welcome the aim of a decent home within the reach of every family and, I would add, within the reach of every household. I recognise a benign intention here and there, amidst what seems otherwise to be a remote and forbidding document, balancing the demands of groups of people, adjudicating between the needs of households in allocating a sadly scarce resource and trying to do so by ingenious rejigging of the problem and the changing of definitions at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
That is not the way forward. The only way, as has already been said, is by ensuring an adequate supply of decent, affordable housing to everyone. Her Majesty's Government supported the Housing Corporation in its reconstruction of new dwellings and in the rehabilitation of run-down properties. However, they continue to cut the level of the housing grant. That, itself, limits the ability of housing associations to provide. I have seen evidence of that only recently. There is no sign of property owners responding to the new 1988 Housing Act provisions. Even if they do, good reasons have already been stated—to which I could certainly add—for us not putting our faith in the private sector. I appeal to the Government to allow councils to build new homes for rent, especially where the demand for such housing is high.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 is, indeed, a landmark for all of us who are concerned about the situation. We look back on it, as other speakers have said, as an Act which established a framework which needs developing and which can only really be consolidated by the provision of new stock and an opening up of more houses to people.
It is disingenuous of the paper to try to deny the desperate need actually to build new homes, referring to the environment in that rather mealy-mouthed way, or to resort to a costly, often arbitrary and exploitative private
1516
sector. I have seen the suffering of families closely at first hand among private landlords. Homelessness has tripled since 1977. We are considering vulnerable and needy families and children, some of whom I personally know.
Research shows the importance for children to have a stable setting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, there is very little reference to children in the document. That is part of its strange remoteness which, as I said, I found quite forbidding and daunting. There is no hint of the shattering of relationships, the shifting of schooling and the stress on parents to which many such provisions or limitations—for that is what is really involved—would lead. The proposals would have the opposite effect to what one might hope.
Families claiming to be homeless will now have to wait while inquiries are made. What happens while that is going on? That is not stated. Accommodation may well be provided for a limited time only. A drastic sense of insecurity comes through the pages of the document. There is no suggestion that temporary accommodation will be provided until permanent accommodation is secured, for instance, and I find the reference to a fixed period or limit sinister. The document seems to evoke a spectre of delays leaving families with children roofless for one or more nights and a vision of children sleeping on the streets or being admitted to local authority care. If this seems over-dramatic or exaggerated, I can only say that that is the impression which comes through the lines of the document.
Meanwhile it is difficult for any local authority to establish a need quickly enough or to assess the likely stress that will be experienced by families or friends in the search for permanent accommodation, or to assess how easy it will be for families to find permanent accommodation. We shall be confronted with private rented, costly, poor quality provision and more people will be dependent upon housing benefit. Above all, there is no real, strong, central emphasis on a permanent home with built-in safeguards. Above all, there is no suggestion that people will be kept in the locality where they need to be, or that children will not be torn from their families, their schooling, their doctor, the health service or their relationships. No overriding family needs have been taken into account in this document. The proposals would seem to deny homeless families in many places any access to permanent accommodation. The proposals seem to achieve the opposite of what they set out to achieve in that they set up the homeless in a most unhelpful way to compete with couples seeking to establish first homes.
I can see our hostels and temporary provision for families —I am personally involved with that provision —silting up in exactly the same way as has been described, because once families have any kind of accommodation provided they cease to be the responsibility of the local authority. Indeed there is a kind of encouragement to local authorities to abdicate responsibility for homeless families. The duty of local authorities in this regard is restricted to providing temporary short-term accommodation or to relying upon an ordinary waiting list which may not be accessible to many of the urgent homeless.

1517
The views that I have voiced are shared by many others. There is a mistaken assumption that demand for new lettings can be met almost exclusively from the private sector. Many of us are beginning to fear for the state of the family in the most vulnerable sectors of our community where it is subject to so much disruption. The Rowntree Foundation has, in addition to examining housing issues, demonstrated how children whose families undergo disruption and changes of the kind that I have described are suffering from health problems and a lack of self-esteem. They suffer from all kinds of difficulties. The Children's Society has a mass of evidence of dreadful bedsitters, rented accommodation, disgusting conditions and unsuitable landlords. A picture comes to mind of a shifting and vulnerable section of our population which needs to be cared for in a different way. The document concentrates too much on toughening criteria and on reducing such slender rights as people have in this area. The proposals seem to address the problem from a bland distance and treat the people concerned as if they were not part of society and as if they were a different race. Surely we long for a society in Britain in which the least matter the most and in which those most at risk are those whom we specially care for and for a society in which the children in greatest need will be allocated the greatest resources. I can see no evidence of a plan for such a society in this document.
Housing runs through society like a luminous thread revealing all its injustices, hurts, sorrows and needs in their darkest form. The only way to begin to tackle this problem is not to alter definitions and rules in a way which leads more human beings to be exposed to insecurity and suffering, but to provide substantial help to build affordable and accessible homes and so to begin to build for a really better and brighter future for us all. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw this paper and to think this matter right through again from the beginning.
11.09 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is to be congratulated on asking this most important Question today.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, while acknowledging the legitimate claims of statutory homeless to permanent accommodation, is nevertheless aware of the very real hardship faced by other groups. One of the most acute needs is that of single homeless people, who have no entitlement to accommodation. The CAB does not consider that the proposals outlined in the consultation paper will ensure fairer access to local authority or housing association tenancies. The present homelessness legislation seems already to provide stringent tests which ensure that only households in greatest need have a priority claim on permanent social housing. These include households with children, elderly or otherwise vulnerable people.
It has been found that single people in rural areas as well as in towns find that they are unable to overcome the difficulties of obtaining affordable rented accommodation in the private sector. This apparently has
1518
recently been exacerbated by difficulties faced by landlords to obtain insurance for properties let to claimants. Would the Minister not agree that there is something wrong here, and perhaps it should be looked into? Otherwise surely the accommodation situation will get worse rather than better.
Centrepoint, the charity for housing young people at risk, says that around 62 per cent. of the young people it assists come direct from their families, other relatives or friends. One-third come from friends alone. Young people move from place to place until they have exhausted all their options. The provision of short-term assistance by friends and other relatives provides a valuable safety net for young people. If the proposals in the consultation paper are implemented to eliminate young people evicted by their family there will be a real danger that they will fall through the safety net.
One other point of concern is the amount of discretion that would be given to local authorities. Centrepoint has researched into how the Children Act was being implemented and found that because of the discretionary nature of the Act some local authorities were not carrying out their duties to assist children in need. It appears that the majority of homeless young people, including care leavers, were not being provided with accommodation. I wonder why this is happening when local authorities have a statutory duty to provide such assistance under the Children Act 1989. Surely homeless young people, and particularly those very vulnerable young people who have left care, are a priority need. Can the Minister say how the Government plan to ensure that local authorities tend to the needs of these very vulnerable young people?
MENCAP is very concerned that many people assume that people with learning disabilities or mental handicap are looked after under the community care heading. I wish I could be confident of that. Perhaps the Minister could tell me that I can be.
Many people who suffer from learning disabilities live at home with their families. They therefore, by definition, have a home. Community care will provide residential homes for those with intensive support needs often only when parents become ill or die and there is a crisis. But what happens to those whose parents have become old and tired but are still trying to manage? Their son or daughter could best be provided for by their own tenancy, with their parents' continued interest and some professional support. It would appear that most community care priority lists will exclude these people as not being in an immediate crisis. They will not be on a housing list, but they are homeless in the sense of not having a home appropriate to their needs but having a roof over their heads. Therefore they would seem to fail the new test. If they should pass the new test, since they are dependent but not highly dependent, they seem to face the prospect of many short-term arrangements rather than a permanent home, which could add to their problems.
Could the Minister say in respect of people with learning disabilities who will need a home of their own one day, whether they should be put on the housing waiting list as soon as they leave school? If he is unable to answer this tonight perhaps he would write to me.

1519
This is the International Year of the Family and attention is focused on policies to promote family life. The first step towards this is surely as permanent a home as possible so that the children will not have the stress of moving schools, having to make new friends, and the family will still have the same social work support and other welfare provision. Let us hope that this International Year of the Family will bring about less homelessness and a more stable family life.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in a civilised society, homelessness is a sign of failure and so I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hollis for alerting me to the Government's consultation paper that we are discussing this evening. Sadly and surprisingly, the paper proposes a radical watering down of the existing homelessness legislation.
For example, it suggests that the so-called permanent housing duty owed to those who are homeless and in priority need should he restricted to merely securing accommodation for a limited period. It recommends that even this temporary duty should only be offered to those without any form of current temporary accommodation whatsoever, and only if, in the local authority's view, there is no suitable alternative accommodation available in the region.
The consultation paper also proposes to water down the emergency, or interim, housing duty. The new temporary duty will operate only after a local authority has made all its inquiries and decided whether an applicant meets all the criteria. And, in the case of someone who has been asked to leave by family or friends, an authority might be entitled to refuse any help until it is presented with a possession order.
These are the major changes recommended in the consultation paper. According to the paper, they are justified because the homelessness legislation creates,
"a perverse incentive for people to have themselves accepted by a local authority as homeless".
In short, the statutory homeless are said to be jumping the housing queue. As my noble friend Lady Hollis said, where is the evidence for that? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Nowhere in the document is there any evidence to support this claim. Indeed, as is so often the case with this Government, recent research conducted by their own officials suggests quite the opposite conclusion.
Routes into Local Authority Housing is a study of local authority waiting lists and new tenancies published by the Department of the Environment at the same time as the consultation paper. This study shows that those facing the more urgent and desperate housing needs are re-housed more rapidly by local authorities, whether or not they are homeless. Indeed, there is some evidence in this research that becoming homeless is far from being the fast track to an ideal council home that the Government allege.
The pressure on local authority housing is well known. The number of secure lettings available to new tenants has declined over the past decade. On the other hand, the number of households accepted as homeless has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Yet, in 1992–93, as other noble Lords have mentioned, only 29
1520
per cent. of secure local authority lets were allocated to the homeless, with the remainder going to waiting list and transfer applicants.
So it does not follow that the homeless are automatically housed ahead of those on the waiting list. In 1990, about 140,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities, and only half were re-housed in secure lets. Finding accommodation for only half the households accepted as homeless hardly supports the claim that those on the waiting list in urgent need but not homeless are being pushed behind the homeless in the queue.
The research also shows another major reason why those in more urgent and desperate circumstances are likely to be re-housed more rapidly. They are less choosy about where they are prepared to live and more likely to accept an offer. Of those on the waiting list who described their need as urgent, six out of 10 were prepared to live almost anywhere, compared with two out of every 10 of those who were looking to be housed in the future. Of those who were made an offer, people with a more urgent need were four times more likely to accept it than people with a less urgent need. That distorts the statistics.
The Government's own research shows, then, that their claims about queue jumping are not supported by the facts. The proposals in the consultation paper therefore have little to do with ensuring fairer access to local authority and housing association homes. If they had, they would look honestly at the root cause of the problem, which is the demonstrable need for decent, affordable housing. Instead, the Government blame the victims, who are the homeless, and continue their prejudiced attack on local authority housing.
Finally, the paper makes brief reference in paragraph 2.3 to the environment, and implies that building too many public and housing association dwellings could use up too much of our scarce natural resources. It is a measure of the uneven balance of the paper that it is careful not to apply this argument to the private sector also. Present and future generations will certainly not thank us if we fail to devote enough of our scarce natural resources to producing enough dwellings.
I hope that the Minister will recycle the consultation paper, and that a new version will emerge that takes account of the Government's own research and the comments and proposals that have been made in this debate.
11.21 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for introducing this topic I do not merely make the conventional utterance. I am particularly grateful to her for starting a debate on a subject on which one was needed very badly indeed.
I remember when I was in my twenties reading an interview with my late noble friend Lord Grimond. He said that he had made it his policy never to express a stronger feeling on any issue than he actually had. That struck me as a good principle, and I have tried to follow it. But sometimes—and this is an extreme example—I

1521
have found it much more difficult to pretend to have an opinion less strong than I actually do for the sake of the decencies of debate.
This is a particularly back-handed tribute to my late noble friend Lord Ross of Newport. The matter has not been more than touched on so far, but it would also be disastrous to the future of the growing movement for women's refuges. I put this issue first because it is one that I think I can discuss on an all-party basis. It is a subject on which I have had much kindness and understanding from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who was responsible for it before her. Refuges are vital, not only for the safety of women who are victims of domestic violence but also to their chances of rehabilitation, of getting back into normal life and regular employment.
I do not think that there is any particular desire in these proposals to put an end to women's refuges. The Government were simply thinking about something else. But the whole thrust of the proposals, and a lot of particular paragraphs, are entirely incompatible with the nature and purpose of women's refuges. I refer in particular to paragraph 10.1, which requires a local connection. I understand the point of that connection in normal homelessness. But it is essential to a woman who is fleeing from domestic violence that she should go where she cannot be pursued or recognised. That means that to be safe she must be outside her local authority area. Since local authorities are very resistant to housing people from outside their area, it is particularly important that there should be a specific duty to women in that situation and indeed to ensuring the provision of refuges within the area.
There must also be an exemption from paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 about people not being homeless if they are required to leave. If they are required to leave at the end of a boot, bleeding severely, one cannot regard that framework as applicable.
There is a real need for an exemption from paragraph 5.2, which states that the local authority has no duty until an assessment has been carried out. When it happens—as it has done in the local refuge in the area from which I come —that a woman arrives in her nightdress at three o'clock in the morning bleeding severely, one cannot ask her to wait while an assessment is carried out. Something has to be done.
There should also be an exemption from paragraph 3.4, which excludes refugees. I do not believe that sending back a woman in that situation is the kind of thing that one should do to anyone whatsoever.
There also has to be an exemption for women's refuges from paragraph 6.1, which states that the homeless are entitled to temporary accommodation only. The danger of silting up has already been touched on. But it is also true that women who have to leave their area, contacts or any friends through whom a vengeful husband might track them lose their whole support systems. If they are to get back into regular life, they need permanent accommodation. I shall confine myself to asking the Government whether they will consult
1522
those in the Home Office who are responsible for women's refuges and ask them what they think about the impact of these proposals on refugees.
However, I cannot speak any more warmly of the proposals as a whole. In fact, they have some claim to be regarded as the worst government proposals since the poll tax. That is not just because of their inhumanity; it is also because of their immense cost, most of which will fall, as usual, on the unfortunate Department of Social Security. People know that I am prepared to spend public money for good reason. But to one who regards public money as water in the desert, it is offensive to see it run into the sand.
What has happened is that there has been a diminution of supply. Since 1981, the amount of family-size rented social housing has diminished by 21 per cent. As there is a falling supply, inevitably an increased share of what there is goes to the homeless. It is very much as though on Thursdays we had only two Starred Questions instead of four. The resentment against whoever gets the topical Question would be rather greater than it is. But the problem would not be caused by the topical Question. It would be caused by the reduction in the number of untopical questions.
In fact, those on the waiting list and the homeless are not altogether different groups. Some 74 per cent. of those homeless in 1989 had been on the waiting list. In 1979, the Department of the Environment described the homeless as,
"simply people on the waiting list with nowhere to wait".
In 1989, the Department of the Environment was not in the hands of raging Left-wingers. It is a good illustration of how difficult it is for this Government to go on with the line of "no turning back". If one goes on to the Right from the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale one tends to go out of sight.
The difference is not that extreme. Those who are homeless take, on average, 0.7 years to obtain permanent housing, compared with 1.2 years for those who are simply on the waiting list. And the waiting list is not just a queue; it is and has always been a points system. In that context I do not believe that that difference is unreasonable.
The Department of the Environment's press release said that homelessness was becoming increasingly "attractive". If I were redrafting the test for mental illness for incapacity benefits, I might well include in it the question, "Do you find homelessness attractive?" If the answer were "Yes", I would regard that as much better evidence of mental illness than can be obtained from many of the questions that are asked. This really is the doctrine of perverse incentive taking off into Cloud-cuckoo-land. One cannot help wondering whether they reduced criminal injuries compensation because they were afraid that it was a perverse incentive to get oneself raped or mugged.
It is proposed to deal with the problem by cutting out the homeless from the waiting lists for permanent accommodation. It is a little like 1066 and All That's description of the Zulu war. Cause: Zulus; Zulus exterminated: peace with Zulus. In using that example I must say that I hope that history is not about to repeat itself.

1523
It leaves us also with the question of what happens to the entitlement to permanent accommodation of the 74 per cent. of the homeless who were on the waiting list. If, because they have become homeless, they are to be deprived of the priority to permanent accommodation that they had beforehand, it really will be adding injury to Insult. I hope that that is not the intention of the proposals.
The redefinition of "homelessness" is also rather curious. Anyone who is asked to leave by friends or family will now not be classed as homeless. That really is a perverse incentive. Suppose when I am 90 and am in a small flat, one of my sons becomes repossessed and asks me for shelter. If I give it to him I will permanently deprive him of his chance of being rehoused. I am being put under a perverse incentive to turn him away. Is that the way to keep families together? I cannot see it.
Under paragraph 8.3 the local authority is asked whether the people involved could continue to live together without "undue strain". I wonder whether they have any idea what they are taking on. Domestic hatred is usually concentrated on the most apparently irrational things. I do not see how anybody can come in from outside and assess it without going away with at best a bloody nose. I quoted that last night to my wife, who said that if anyone were to come to her and ask her such questions, she would slam the door in their face.
That provokes me to ask, will there be any duty to co-operate with the local authority when it turns up attempting to make this assessment? Nothing like this has been tried since the Church courts before the Civil War when they used to deal with judicial separation cases. It left us with a case like the one in which it was said that the couple were so unhappy that nothing but the power of religion could make them live as man and wife. The local authority is not equipped with the power of religion. It is being put into a situation with which it really cannot cope, and if that paragraph is not cut out, there will be murder committed.
We are told also that there is to be no duty until the local authority has carried out an assessment. That reminds me of the Englishman who dropped his hat down a well. He arranged for an Irishman who was with him to hold on to the top of the well; a Welshman should hold on to the Irishman; the Englishman should hold on to the Welshman and he could just reach the hat. But just as he reached for it, the Irishman exclaimed, "Hold on nah while I spit on me hands". So, of course, they all ended at the bottom of the well. What are people going to do while this assessment is being carried out? They will have to go somewhere else, and what they do there may not be honest. If this goes ahead the Government may find themselves labelled "Fagin's factor" and "pimp's pander". Those are not enviable titles. The Government really should think twice before seeking them.
Under paragraphs 6.1 and 6.6 of the Green Paper we are told that accommodation for the homeless shall be temporary only and at the same time that the duty could recur. The homeless are being made into sort of Flying Dutchmen. They are being perpetually recycled. This is where the cost comes in, and most of it will fall on the Department of Social Security. It costs on average
1524
£14.24 a week more in housing benefit to house privately than with the local authority. It is a lot harder to get a job from temporary accommodation, especially out of your own area, so there will be another large addition to the bill for income support. We do not need to increase that bill. There will also be a considerable addition to ill health, which is common in temporary accommodation. The Crisis survey this Christmas, reported in the Independent on 8th March, found an alarming increase in TB. In fact among the homeless it was found to be nearly 200 times more prevalent than in the general population. A representative of the Public Health Laboratory Service said:
"There is a danger of it becoming epidemic in hostel conditions. Hostels with poor ventilation create conditions which are absolutely right for transmitting the disease, as we have seen in New York".
TB is an expensive illness. The Government are pickling another rod for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's back. I really do not think he needs any more.
The local authority is being given a discretion which creates a conflict of interest. The local authority is under very severe pressure because of shortage of housing, so it is being given a discretion which it has every incentive to use against the claimant. That is likely to lead to more judicial review; and that means more cost. It will cause a great deal of difficulty for schooling. A succession of temporary placements is very hard to combine with regular schooling. In fact, before the Government go ahead, I really would advise them to read the famous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on the cycle of deprivation. I have not always agreed 'with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, but he is a person whose ideas one has to take seriously. On this occasion, I very much hope that the Government will take those ideas seriously.
But what is to be done instead? Obviously we must look to supply. This is not only a matter of building —on that I do agree with the Government. Et is a matter perhaps of help with repairs; it is a matter of help with deposits; it is a matter of trying to get housing benefit to cover the whole of the rent, because if it does not, as many of us have explained, one simply sends the Flying Dutchman round the cycle again.
I wrote to Sir George Young just after Christmas to ask whether he would consider the proposal in the Shelter/NACAB report to allow a level of housing benefit to be fixed and a certificate to be given before a tenancy begins. That would suit the landlord. He would know what he was getting. It would suit the tenant. It would give him security. But the reply I received was as follows:
"An important principle of the deregulation measures introduced in the Housing Act 1988 is that a landlord and tenant should be free to negotiate the terms and rent of the tenancy without interference. Any prior rent fixing might be interpreted as leading the market".
So, for the sake of an abstract principle, they are inflicting hardship on both parties. It makes me understand how my father felt in 1920 when he met Lenin and asked him why, in the middle of a famine, he did not allow catching fish in the river Moskva. Lenin

1525
said that he feared that this might encourage private enterprise. It is that same hard, ideological note that I hear here.
I do not usually go in for rhetoric, but these proposals have the breadth of vision of a rhinoceros, the sense of direction of a lemming, the perception of an ostrich and the financial prudence of Lambeth Borough Council and I hope we hear no more of them.
11.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, despite the hour, this has proved a welcome opportunity to give this important and very topical subject our attention and we have had interesting contributions from all parts of the Chamber. There is much for the Government to reflect on here.
The Government are clear that the prime responsibility for establishing and maintaining a home rests with the individual or family concerned. The role of the state is to assist in this, not to lead. We want to encourage owner occupation wherever it is appropriate. Where renting is the proper solution, we want to make best use of both the public and private sector to meet the housing needs of different sections of the community.
From this flows the central theme of our proposals. It is the introduction of a fairer system of access to local authority and housing association tenancies. Were it not for this objective, we would not trouble to make these proposals. And it is from this objective that there follows the need to alter the present homelessness legislation so that it ceases to be a fast track into council and housing association tenancies. So while much of the debate has been about homelessness and how the homeless would fare under our proposals, we have to see that in the context of the proposals as a whole.
Local authorities have two functions in the provision of housing. One is as provider of last resort. The other is of gatekeeper for the queue seeking a long-term tenancy in social housing. Under the present régime these proposals have become confused. There is no good reason why those who are found to be statutorily homeless within the meaning of present legislation and who are then given temporary but adequate housing should also have priority in access to social housing ahead of others who may be living in more difficult conditions.
Consider the case of two families living in similar rented accommodation who find that their landlord is seeking repossession. On the one hand, family A go straight to the local authority and apply for assistance under the homelessness legislation. They are initially given temporary accommodation in a private rented sector property found for them by the local authority and then as soon as possible they are given the tenancy for life of a council or housing association property. Family B, on the other hand, prefer to try to fend for themselves if possible. They find a property in the private rented sector, possibly no different to that used by family A, on a temporary basis, and they put their name on a waiting list—or indeed several waiting lists in the locality—for local authority or housing association tenancies. But it is
1526
in the nature of the present system that they can only get re-housed after family A has been offered accommodation. Can this really be right?
By proposing to break the existing link between assisting homeless people and the allocation of tenancies for life, we are proposing a system that is fairer for everyone. We are not turning our backs on homeless people. Throughout the consultation period Ministers have made it quite clear that we are committed to ensuring that there will continue to be a full safety net for families and vulnerable people that ensures accommodation would be available to those who have lost their home through no fault of their own. I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, understands that point. There is certainly no question of families being split up or of children having to sleep on the streets. I make that point strongly to the right reverend Prelate. Your Lordships have our assurance on that. I hope that we will have no more alarmist propaganda on this subject.
Equally, there is no question of families being given only very short-term or insecure accommodation when an authority has a duty towards them. We have not yet reached any conclusion on how a new duty to secure accommodation might be formulated, but I can assure your Lordships that we envisage that authorities would be able to secure accommodation that provides a settled home; wherever possible the family would be able to stay there until a housing association or council house vacancy came up through the waiting list.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I realise that it is late at night. However, in the light of what he has said and given his guarantees about families not being on the streets, will he explain what will happen to a family who have become homeless but when the local authority's responsibility does not start until its inquiries have been completed and those inquiries take a week? What happens in the meanwhile?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is late at night and I shall be coming to that subject a little later. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said; perhaps she will listen carefully to what I shall say during the course of my speech.
The Government feel that much of the opposition to these proposals has been misplaced. We fully respect the sincere intentions and concerns of many of those (both within this House and elsewhere) who espouse the cause of the homeless. But I have to say that there are times when their commitment to the status quo has blinded them to the opportunities that our proposals present and has led them to put the most perverse construction possible on their possible effects.
Part of the way forward lies in devoting more effort to preventive measures. Early advice or assistance in finding alternative accommodation can prevent what is a housing difficulty from becoming a housing crisis. Advisory services currently tend to receive a low priority when local authorities consider how to deploy their resources. Yet timely advice can be very cost-effective in preventing a situation which might

1527
otherwise emerge as a homelessness case, with all the cost to the authority and trauma to the household that can be involved.
We want to make best use of the whole stock of rented accommodation in meeting housing needs. For many people, particularly those on low incomes, who expect to rent accommodation for the long term, a local authority or housing association tenancy may well be the best answer when it becomes available. But the private rented sector also has an important role to play, particularly for people just starting a home of their own or while waiting their turn on the waiting list. It is quite wrong to equate the council sector with a high quality and the private sector with low —despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says. Much of the property available currently used as temporary accommodation in the private rented sector is of at least as good a quality as the accommodation to which people subsequently move in council or housing association sectors. There are over 700,000 empty properties in the private sector, and we do ourselves a disservice if we fail to make better use of them wherever possible.
I turn now to some of the points that have been raised this evening. I realise that they are important points and I shall be as selective as I can in picking them out. I shall write to your Lordships on any points that I have not been able to cover this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked, "What is the evidence? Why are you bothering to do this? Why do we have these proposals?" Let us be clear. We are not talking about inefficiency or failure on the part of local authority staff; we are talking about the constraints of working with a system that was designed in 1977 to meet a real but specific need which has now come to dominate a substantial proportion of the allocation of social housing. Over the 14 years since 1979, the number of homelessness acceptances has risen from 55,000 to 134,000, while the number of new lettings has remained broadly the same. It takes someone twice as long to get rehoused through the waiting list compared to someone rehoused through the homelessness route. Many people on the waiting list never get rehoused. Indeed, there are some areas in which it is impossible to get rehoused unless the homeless route is used. We want to introduce a better balance and give local authorities more scope for meeting real housing need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said also, "Why not build more social housing?" Again, let us be clear. The consultation paper is about fairness in the allocation of social housing, not about how much housing there should be. Our main housing policy is that a decent home should be within the reach of every family and we are sponsoring a substantial house building programme.
The Housing Corporation expects that in the three years ending March 1995 housing associations will have built 178,000 new dwellings—25,000 more than we promised in our 1992 manifesto. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also said that everyone opposes the reform proposals, but the reform proposals have been welcomed by the London Boroughs Association whose members include some of the most hard-pressed local
1528
housing authorities. A number of commentators are so entrenched in the present system that they cannot stand back and consider dispassionately our reform proposals.
The noble Baroness concentrated on homelessness reforms, but our consultation paper also contains proposals aimed at preventing homelessness. I hope that we all support that objective. The paper makes proposals for improving the housing waiting list system, which I think that the noble Baroness acknowledged does not operate optimally at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the private rented sector will not be able to rise to the occasion. The consultation paper makes it clear that: accommodation in the private rented sector must be, suitable: the 700,000 empty private sector properties are a huge waste of resources, and the Government have a range of initiatives to bring those back into use, such as housing associations, managing agents and the flats-over-shops programme. Certainly the number of private sector tenancies has risen by 10 per cent. in the five years since the Government introduced the: deregulation of tenancies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, "Well, hostels will fill up". Of course we are alive to the good work carried out by hostels and refuges. We are aware: of the special position of refuges and other types of short-stay hostel, and of the importance of move-on accommodation for their clients. We do not see our proposals as changing the rule for this kind of accommodation. We are spending £180 million over six years on the rough sleepers' initiative in central London. The initiative will have provided over 3,000 units of permanent accommodation for people who would otherwise sleep rough in central London, and it has helped thousands of individuals to start a new life away from the streets.
A count by voluntary sector agencies last November found fewer than 300 rough sleepers in central London compared with 2,000 to: 3,000 before the initiative began. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry said that the proposals will make things worse and cause families to move from one set of temporary accommodation to another. Our aim is to make better use of the existing stock. "Temporary accommodation" is a misleading term. Many homeless households would prefer to have the tenancy of a private sector house with a garden rather than a high rise local authority flat.
The initial six-month minimum of an assured shorthold tenancy will often in practice be extended to several years, and during that period the family will gain priority on the waiting list. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, "What about young people?" We can assure the noble Lady that the proposals in the consultation paper will not disturb present arrangements which cater for such people under the Children Act 1989. The noble Lady went on to ask about people with learning difficulties. That is a matter which touches on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health as well as of my own department. I can assure the noble Lady that I shall write to her about whether school leavers with learning difficulties should go on the housing waiting list.

1529
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned the number of secure dwellings and said that it has declined during the past 10 years. However, taking together the new lettings of local authorities and housing associations, the combined total has risen slightly during the past 10 years, from 301,000 in 1982–83 to 321,000 in 1992–93.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of victims of domestic violence. Certainly we recognise the importance of present provisions for such victims. We assure the noble Earl that the proposals will continue to ensure suitable settled accommodation for victims of domestic violence. We are discussing proposals with colleagues in the Home Office and elsewhere.
I recognise and respect the genuine concern for the homeless and other less fortunate members of the community that has been expressed tonight. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring those noble Lords who have spoken that we have no intention of allowing the interests of people who really need assistance with accommodation to be adversely affected. And I hope that I have shown how we hope the new proposals will
1530
ensure the fairer distribution of what people should properly regard as a valuable and cherished asset; the tenancy of a council or housing association property.
We have just completed a major consultation exercise. Ministers are still considering the 9,000-plus responses we have received and are reflecting on the points that they make. I hope noble Lords will understand that this is the reason why on a number of points I have been unable to give the detailed response that some might have wished. The discussion that we have had today gives us further food for thought. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this is genuine consultation. Several of the specific lines for modifying the proposals suggested by noble Lords deserve close consideration. We shall certainly be studying the report of this debate with interest.
I cannot at this moment say when the Government will announce their reaction to the responses that we have received but I can assure your Lordships that when we do it will take full account of the interesting and topical discussion that we have had today.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.