Sitting of 21 June 1988

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

  AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday.

  UNIVERSITY OF WALES COLLEGE OF CARDIFF BILL [Lords] (changed from UNIVERSITY OF WALES CARDIFF BILL [Lords])
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Student Finance
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to publish his report on student finance; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The student support review has not yet completed its work. The Government's proposals for the future of student support will be published in due course.
    Mr. Buckley: As women are generally lower paid than men, what steps will the Under-Secretary take to ensure that there is no discrimination against female students applying for loans under the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government have not yet announced any proposals, so it is hard for me to comment. There has been a great deal of rather imaginative speculation in the press. We are determined that there will be no discrimination in the system of student support and that that system will promote access to higher education for everyone who is qualified for it.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that I attach great importance to student loans? Is he aware that the majority of cases of hardship that come to me are caused by parents who do not meet their parental responsibilities? Therefore, if students had access to loans, they would be infinitely better off. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the repayment terms are such that the system does not turn into a reverse dowry against girls and does not disadvantage those on long courses?
    Mr. Jackson: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions, but many countries have a student loan system that does not operate to the disadvantage of women. In fact, it secures greater access to higher education than does our system of grants. Only 8 per cent. of our entrants to universities come from social classes 4 and 5, which is a lower percentage than that in countries that operate student loan schemes.
    Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister considered the American experience of student loans? Is he aware that defaults on loans are running high—at least 20 per cent. or, perhaps, higher? The American Education Secretary, William J. Bennett, said that the defaults are now out of control. Despite trying a number of methods to recover the loans, the Americans are now talking about withholding student loan grants from institutes that cannot reduce defaults to below 20 per cent. Is that the sort of future that the Minister envisages for education
    Mr. Jackson: I have already said that we are considering international experience. The United Kingdom is virtually the only country that does not have a loan element. We shall learn from the mistakes of other countries. Some of them—for example, Sweden—have a low default rate, so the evidence is not as conclusive as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that adults who have the vote should be fully prepared to take responsibility for financing their further education? Does he also agree that those who take loans would render themselves independent as adults, from both their parents and the Government?
    Mr. Jackson: We have carried out a survey of student income and expenditure, which has shown that many parents do not pay the full parental contribution. About 40 per cent. fail to do so. There is no doubt that the provision of additional resources to students would help them to secure the greater independence to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister look carefully at the American experience, particularly the indictment of the loan system in the New York Times on 8 June, which pointed out that 25 per cent. of students were now defaulting in the United States, it was costing about ․2 billion from federal funds to meet the defaults, there was pressure for checking on the credit rating of students to stop defaults, and perhaps the most damning of all, over a 10-year period, from one in three students having to depend on loans rather than grants, three in four students were having to depend on loans? Surely we should not follow the United States and make the same mistake of bringing in a loan system that will be unfortunate for students and for national finance.
    Mr. Jackson: We can learn a great deal from studying the experience of other countries, which have variegated systems of student support. The American experience in respect of defaults on loan payments is anomalous compared with the experience of other countries that have loan systems.

    Head Teacher
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is in a position to make an assessment of the number of vacant head teacher posts; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): My Department estimates that at January 1988 approximately 300 head teacher posts were vacant. That is only slightly more than 1 per cent. of head teacher posts.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Secretary of State recognise that we have a growing problem with head teachers leaving the profession, many through early retirement, and that there is great difficulty in recruiting replacements? I understand that 50 per cent. of all head teacher jobs advertised in London have to be readvertised because of the lack of suitable applicants. Even in my constituency of Carlisle, for which Cumbria is the education authority, we now have a staff turnover of 10 per cent. Will not the new Education Reform Bill, with its ideas of turning head teachers into managing directors, add to that problem? We are likely to lose many of our best and most experienced head teachers. Will the Secretary of State make available £35 million to train head teachers, as requested by the National Association of Head Teachers? Will the Secretary of State meet the head teachers union to discuss their problems?
    Mr. Baker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's many questions, the interim advisory committee found no evidence of serious recruitment problems affecting head teacher posts. Certainly I have never heard that head teachers and teachers do not want to work in Cumbria —that is one of the more popular areas for teachers.
    As for training, there will have to be extra training for teachers, particularly in managment skills. I am setting up a task force to plan and arrange that. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in that regard, but I can assure him that he is taking far too gloomy a view. Many head teachers are looking forward to the opportunities that the Bill will provide in giving them much bigger and better responsibilities.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am certain that head teachers are looking forward to the Education Reform Bill becoming an Act, because of the additional opportunities that it will provide. To what extent do premature retirements figure in head teacher vacancies? Will my right hon. Friend also say a word about indiscipline in schools? In his opinion, is that preventing recruitment?
    Mr. Baker: There is not a great deal of convincing evidence that there are a large number of premature retirements. I reported that there were 300 head teacher vacancies in January 1988—the first time that we have collected the figures. That is against 30,000 head teacher posts, and it is a very small figure indeed.
    I and the Government are very conscious of the problems of violence and indiscipline in schools. That is why I have set up the Elton committee. Lord Elton and his committee are making rapid progress and I look to them to report by Christmas.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report that showed that many hundreds of head teachers are seeking early retirement? Is not the Government's
    954
    brutal approach to salaries and conditions of service creating that problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman not creating a legacy of and bad morale in our schools that will affect the education of our children for many years to come?
    Mr. Baker: I do not agree. For the first time in the history of the teaching profession head teachers of the large comprehensives in our inner cities can earn as much as£32,000 a year. There is now effective career progression for teachers, with incentive allowances. There is no doubt that that will attract many people into the profession.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these vacant headships are mainly in politically perverse LEAs?
    Mr. Baker: I do not have the figures, but I am sure that there is some connection.
    Mr. Fatchett: Has the Secretary of State noticed a recent survey by Oxford polytechnic, which showed that half the head teacher posts vacant in London and the south-east were not filled on the first advertisement and that schools had run for some time without a head teacher? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the recent comments by the National Association of Head Teachers, which has expressed its concern about the increasing burden placed on head teachers by the Education Reform Bill? The association has predicted that there will be an increase in the number of early retirements and suggested that Government action is needed to prevent head teachers from leaving the profession. In particular, the association has proposed expenditure of £35 million to establish a staff college for head teachers. Will the Government react positively to that proposal?
    Mr. Baker: We shall certainly improve the quality of head teacher training. The task force, which I shall establish later in the year, will plan that. I want to involve the private sector, because private sector management training will be important. In those authorities where budgets have been delegated to heads, the heads have welcomed that move. They have found their jobs more interesting and their control of their schools better. I am sure that head teachers across the country are awaiting the implementation of our Bill.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no higher vocation than that of head teacher or deputy head teacher? Is he aware that they require reasonable sanctions with which to deal with difficult and recalcitrant pupils? Has my right hon. Friend seen last week's report by the National Association of Head Teachers, complaining that there have been no proper substitute discipline sanctions for corporal punishment since its abolition about two years ago? Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend was a deputy head teacher who decided to become a Member of Parliament, and teaching's loss is our gain. He brings great experience to the House. The power of head teachers to control disruptive behaviour is an important matter. Some head teachers feel that their powers have been undermined, and that is one reason why I have set up the Elton committee to report on the matter.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the variability of the level of nursery education provision offered by different local authorities.
    George HowarthTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what planned programme of expansion of educational provision for children between the ages of three and four years he expects to occur over the next three years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)The variations in education provision for the under-fives across the country reflect differences in local authorities' needs and priorities. The Government's current expenditure plans provide for the number of three and four-year-olds in nursery and primary schools to increase in line with the projected increase in their age cohorts up to 1992.
    Mr. Cummings: Will the Minister reflect on the statement by the Prime Minister, who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1972, called for nursery provision for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds within 10 years? Has the Minister changed his mind? Does he intend to make the necessary resources available to meet this pressing need?
    Mr. Dunn: Since 1979 the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery or primary schools nationally has increased from 37 to 44 per cent. The proportion of four-year-olds in such schools now exceeds 75 per cent. compared with 55 per cent. in 1979. The proportion would be much higher if rising-fives were included.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the improvement, but does my hon. Friend agree that there are many areas where the playgroup movement makes an important contribution and that many people welcome the variation in provision and would by no means agree that universal nursery school provision is the right approach?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. The Government regard the playgroup movement as an important form of provision for under-fives and we always encourage it.
    Mr. Flannery: Is there not a great and deliberate gap in the answers that the Minister is giving about nursery education? Throughout the country, and especially in the south, Tory authorities have practically no nursery education, because they want to keep the rates down. Last week members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts were in Dorset, which has virtually no nursery education, and where they have preschool playgroups which are cheaper in every way. Is it not apparent that Tory authorities are trying to educate ordinary children on the cheap, and that only in Labour areas do ordinary children go to nursery school?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman goes too far. The Opposition have plenty of ideas for spending other people's money, but not one sensible idea about how to create wealth. It is clear to me that nursery education for all would be very expensive and, furthermore, would not be appropriate for all children. How do the Opposition propose to pay for nursery education for all?
    Mr. Thornton: Does my hon. Friend accept that variation in the provision of nursery education is to be welcomed and that the content of the curriculum is more important than the definitive form of the provision? Does he accept, however, that there are considerable misgivings about the number of four-year-olds who are being taught in primary schools and for whom the timetable and curriculum are wholly inappropriate to their years'' Will he consider that point?
    Mr. Dunn: The admission of under-fives to reception classes is at the discretion of local education authorities. It is important that the provision for those pupils should be appropriately and adequately resourced. The Government are aware that the presence of significant numbers of four-year-olds can give rise to problems in some areas and, through the agency of Her Majesty's inspectors, we are closely monitoring the situation.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Surely the Minister is not disagreeing with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who favours—or favoured—nursery education for all. The Minister spoke about costs. In the past 10 years, however, total public spending on child care services, including local authority nurseries, has hardly increased, despite the increase in the numbers of women going out to work and the increasing demands for provision reflected in survey after survey. Surely the truth is that the Government have no targets, no standards and no concern for the needs of the under-fives. The Minister apparently has no comment to make about the vastly differing provision available in the LEAs. What does he have to say about Labour Hounslow which provides 64 per cent. of its children with nursery education, and about Gloucestershire, which provides no nursery education?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to be brief and to ask a question?
    Mrs. Clwyd: It is a simple question. Why do the Government continue to ignore the needs of the under-fives?
    Mr. Dunn: I remind the hon. Lady that the Government plan to provide for an increase of about 5 per cent. between now and 1992 in expenditure for the education of the under-fives. That is on top of a 25 per cent. increase in expenditure over the past five years.
    Mr. Rathbone: I reject the Opposition's criticisms, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is increasing awareness of the importance of pre-school education for children, not least so that they can take advantage of the improved teaching standards that the Government are bringing about in primary and secondary education? Will the Government therefore plan for an extension of nursery education for all children?
    Mr. Dunn: The Government have always accepted that some pre-school experience is beneficial for the under-fives, both at the time and later, but this sector must compete with others for the resources that are available. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    Inner London Education Authority
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent assessment he has

    957
    made of the effects of his proposals for the funding of education in London, following abolition of the Inner London education authority, on the quality of education in London and the south-east.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: From 1990 LEAs in London will, under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill, be financed in the same way as other authorities in England. Our education policy in inner London is to improve the quality and increase the accountability of the education service.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not incongruous that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Minister who is responsible for these matters, should be begging me to go to the Inner London education authority to secure funds for the Merchant Navy college, Greenhithe, which is in his constituency, when he is cutting the money for ILEA and promoting its abolition? Can we not, on a more bipartisan basis, find some way forward whereby the future of this college, this national facility, can be safeguarded?
    Mr. Baker: When the hon. Gentleman talks about a bipartisan policy, that is the time to count the spoons.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Answer the question.
    Mr. Baker: I am about to answer it. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes a great interest in the future of the Merchant Navy college in Dartford. The future of the college is a matter for ILEA, and I understand that ILEA has been reviewing its future for many months. That is a quite separate question from the transfer of responsibilities to the boroughs. I understand that ILEA will be taking a decision shortly.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that when the Inner London education authority takes an interest in the Merchant Navy college in Dartford, all of a sudden it wishes to abolish it? Does he not consider that it is more than a coincidence that that abolition by ILEA, a Labour-controlled authority, should be in the constituency of one of the Education Ministers?
    Mr. Baker: As I have already said, I am rather on the sidelines, because it is a further education college. Therefore, it does not come to me in my role as the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that ILEA has been looking at the future of the college for a very considerable time, and it is for ILEA to decide whether it wishes to retain it.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State accept that the financing and future arrangements for the transfer of ILEA to the London boroughs is a matter of great importance? That is why, despite the fact that we profoundly disagree with the policy, Labour London boroughs, in the interests of the children of London, are co-operating with a will to secure an orderly transfer. Does the Secretary of State accept that he needs to measure up to his responsibilities? Since the service could not cope with cuts during the transfer, when does he intend to guarantee the finances of ILEA? If it is important to him, can he explain why twice as many civil servants are
    958
    working on the education of a few hundred children in city technology colleges as are working on a transfer of education that affects 270,000 children in London?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asks me how many of my civil servants are working in the unit. I gave him the reply to that question in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that many other civil servants in other parts of my Department, at middle management and senior management level, are concerned with ILEA. I am very pleased that since the decision of the House of Lords all individual London Labour boroughs have visited my Department's unit. It is quite clear that, constructively, and apparently with some relish in many cases, they are planning to become local education authorities in 1990, when the boroughs will inherit all the schools and colleges as going concerns and will have the resources to maintain them.
    Mr. Ashdown: HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?"—The House may be assured that I would rather have a leadership election in my party than no leader at all, as in the Labour party. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us return to the question.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Secretary of State say what estimates, if any, he has made of the extra costs to be imposed on London ratepayers because of the appointment of chief education officers and senior officers, some at £40,000 a year, in every London borough, and why he believes that that will reduce the cost of education in London, about which he has complained so much?
    Mr. Baker: We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. Clearly he is keeping the education portfolio warm, just in case matters do not work out.
    As to the cost being borne by inner London boroughs, I have already said that there will be grants for the current financial year of about million, and of about 10 million for next year, to assist them in meeting the expense of preparing for the 1990 transfer.

    Burnage School, Manchester (Inquiry Report)
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received a copy of the inquiry report concerning events at Burnage school, Manchester; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have now received a copy of the full Burnage inquiry report and of the legal advice Manchester city council has received. I am considering the implications of those documents carefully.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is vital that all schools promote racial harmony and tolerance, the anti-racist, doctrinaire policies adopted by the Burnage school in Manchester and by some Labour local authorities elsewhere are in danger of alienating the vast majority of parents and pupils, and thus of being counter-productive?
    Mr. Baker: What happened at the Burnage school was a very tragic episode, and anyone who reads the report cannot help but be moved by the tragic sequence of events. I agree that good race relations are not best served by the

    959
    clumsy application of anti-racist policies. Mutual respect and tolerance must be the key pillars of any race relations policy.
    Mr. Bradley: I hope that when the Secretary of State has considered the documents, he will publish them in the Library, so that everyone can read the report, and so that the unwarranted criticism of the school which has been made yet again in the House by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), can be put in its place. We may then have an opportunity to congratulate the school on the efforts that have been made over the past two years, and to congratulate the staff, governors and parents on their invaluable work in trying to enhance the school. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way forward is to recognise the valuable work done by Manchester city council on race relations policies and their implementation in Manchester schools? I hope that he will support such policies and provide adequate resources to ensure that they are continued and extended in Manchester and throughout the country.
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asks me to publish the report, but it raises complex legal matters on which I am still receiving advice. I must bear in mind that the inquiry was not the same as the judicial public inquiry held in the case of the Zeebrugge and King's Cross disasters. It is not a question of a cover-up, but of where the public interest lies in relation to the rights of those individuals named in the report. I must take careful legal advice on that point.
    Mr. Budgen: I remind my right hon. Friend that pernicious policies of reverse discrimination are wide-spread. When the local authority for Colton Hills schools in Wolverhampton wished to introduce the teaching of Punjabi to all children on a compulsory basis, and when some of the parents——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns Burnage school in Manchester.
    Mr. Budgen: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is about the principle there.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect, it is about events at Burnage school.
    Mr. Budgen: Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that such events may recur elsewhere, for such policies are being opposed in many schools? When parents protest, they are rudely and roundly described as racist, in a way that is counter-productive.
    Mr. Baker: Some of the report's conclusions comment on the application of anti-racist policies. However, the incidents mentioned there relate very much to Burnage school. There are other schools in the Manchester area where similar policies have been pursued, but not with such tragic consequences. I make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that there is no place in our schools for any manifestation of racial antagonism or intolerance. We are pursuing a range of measures to overcome racial disharmony.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the working parties established in relation to the national curriculum.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend is expecting final reports from the mathematics and science working groups by the end of this month. These reports, together with my right hon. Friend's comments, will be published in due course. Working groups for English and for design and technology were set up on 29 April. The English working group has been asked to report on the primary stages by 30 September and on the secondary stages by 30 April next year. Interim and final reports of the design and technology working group are to be submitted by 31 October and 30 April respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: To avoid any confusion about the teaching of history as part of the curriculum, will the Minister make it clear whether she supports the Secretary of State's view that the teaching of history is an integral part of the curriculum foundation course, or whether she supports the Prime Minister's view, expressed in the Oxford university magazine last year, that the teaching of history is a luxury?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is perfectly clear from the way in which the Education Reform Bill is formulated that history is regarded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, by the Government, as one of our foundation subjects. Therefore, history will be taught within the foundation subjects in all schools as and when the working party reports to us.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend proceed at a leisurely pace on the setting up of the working group on foreign languages, since it is not immediately clear from where the staff to teach that discipline are to come?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's comments on that matter. It is our intention ultimately to set up a working group on the teaching of foreign languages, and the supply of teachers will form part of our considerations when the working groups have reported and the national curriculum is introduced into our schools.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State ensure that some of the working parties consider health education? Will they support the view of the Minister for Health that anti-smoking campaigns should be pursued in schools? If so, will the Minister consider what will happen in city technology colleges? Will the Government make sure that the basic curriculum is followed there as well as in other schools?
    Ms. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will fund the city technology colleges when he is satisfied that the core and foundation subjects are being satisfactorily taught as part of their curriculum. We expect health education to be part of the schools' curriculum outside the core and foundation subjects, and also part of the cross-curricula themes, of which we would expect the science working group in particular to take note.
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he is taking to ensure that head teachers and governors are adequately trained for their expanded duties under the Education Reform Bill.
    Mr. Dunn: We propose to give priority within the local education authority training grant scheme to training which will support heads and senior teachers in implementing the initiatives introduced in our Bill. My right hon. Friend has also recently announced proposals to establish a task force for management training. We further propose that education support grants should be available in 1989–90 on £5 million of expenditure on the training of school and college governors, and £25 million of expenditure to ensure that head teachers and governors are properly supported during the introduction of financial delegation to our schools.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Education Reform Bill opens new perspectives for head teachers and gives school governors a proper job to do for the first time? Does he further agree that the training opportunities that he has outlined today, and the Government's publicity campaign, may and should alert many more people in all walks of life, including business, to the opportunities that they will have to influence education at the level of the individual school?
    Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir. To that end, over 3·5 million copies of "Shouldn't you become a school governor?" and nearly 750,000 copies of "School governors—a new role" have been distributed. The leaflets have been widely welcomed and there is continuing demand for them, especially from schools. The opportunities ahead are exciting.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that many people who are concerned about education are worried that head teachers, rather than being involved in education, will increasingly become business managers, and feel that this will be detrimental to the education of our children? Can he give an assurance that we will be able to find governors who are able to give the time that is necessary to deal with the new responsibilities that will be laid upon governors? It is not all about training. We need people who are able to give the time that is necessary as well.
    Mr. Dunn: In the context of the first part of the question posed by the hon. Member, I believe that the reverse is the case. All our provisions, especially financial delegation, will allow head teachers to devote more time to the improvement of education in their schools, rather than constantly banging on the doors of the education office to get minor things done which are time-consuming. With regard to the second part of the question, it is incumbent on all of us in this Chamber, and many outside, to ensure a supply of highly motivated, enthusiastic individuals who are ready to serve as school governors, irrespective of the source from which they might come.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that before one can train school governors one has to find them, that one of the most effective ways of finding them is by increasing the use of volunteers at all levels within the schools, and that people can graduate from being volunteers helping the school to being school governors? Will he undertake to
    962
    look very seriously at the possibility of expanding the use of volunteers to assist in the education of our children? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: They have sacked all the governors in Kent.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: And they have sacked all the governors in Staffordshire.
    Mr. Dunn: If I am allowed to answer the question, I should like to point out that the reforms upon which we have embarked are giving governors more say in the management of their schools. This should make the role of a school governor, and school government, much more attractive to many people who have previously not considered it. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) goes on about the county of Kent. I ask him to address his interest to what has taken place in the county of Staffordshire.
    Mr. Cryer: If the Minister has a moment, may I ask whether it will not mean a massive increase in expenditure to train these heads and governors, with no educational advantage? Head teachers and governors in my constituency of Bradford, South are desperately pressing for money from the Government to increase the number of buildings. As the Minister knows, there are 500 temporary classrooms. All this training will not get round the enormous problem of making sure that there are adequate premises, which is the Government's responsibility. When will they face it and provide money to replace some of the 500 temporary classrooms in my constituency and elsewhere in Bradford?
    Mr. Dunn: I am absolutely horrified by the question posed by the hon. Member. I know that he has been out of the House of Commons for some time, and will undoubtedly be so again, and I must point out to him that our capital programme is much improved and that most of what he said is both rubbish and irrelevant. Secondly, the reforms on which we have embarked will encourage a more positive attitude from those who are, and those who wish to become, school governors under these reforms.

    Open Enrolment
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to introduce open enrolment in schools.
    Mr. Dunn: From September 1990 all secondary schools will have to be prepared to admit as many pupils as they can accommodate. Many admissions authorities should be ready to respond to parental demand before that date and we shall give them every encouragement to do so.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that this policy of open enrolment in schools has been widely welcomed by parents in south Buckinghamshire because of the increased choice that it will give them? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that there is no slippage in this programme? Could it not be brought forward to 1989?
    Mr. Dunn: We considered the question of timing during our deliberations, especially in Committee. It is clear to us that this policy can be adopted by schools and local authorities now. Many local authorities follow a policy of

    963
    open enrolment, much to the satisfaction of parents in the communities that they serve. Because we recogniseed that open enrolment would pose an administrative problem and place further demands upon local education authorities and governors, we decided to introduce it from September 1990.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the financing of city technology colleges.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Overall planned expenditure on the city technology colleges programme is £86 million in the present public expenditure planning period. To date more than£20 million has been pledged by sponsors towards the capital costs of establishing CTCs. The normal running costs of CTCs will be met by Exchequer grant.
    Mr. Turner: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State still believes that the substantial cost of CTCs should be borne by the private sector, especially since he made that speech to the Conservative conference last year? Also, if there is to be fairness, what contribution is he prepared to make to state-maintained schools in those areas where CTCs are being set up? What funds will be available for state-maintained schools to advance their science and technology teaching?
    Mrs. Rumbold: In the first place, this is the greatest amount of money ever pledged from the private sector to support schools. Private sector money is most welcome to support my right hon. Friend's inspired initiative in setting up these new schools for children who live in deprived urban areas. The Labour and Alliance parties could have assisted in the initiative had they been more willing as local authorities to give planning permission so that buildings that are no longer required could have been used for this extraordinarily good initiative, to enable children to gain from the education that their parents want for them.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is in Toronto for an economic summit meeting. N
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Leader of the House take time today to consider the grave security implications arising from three letters by Airey Neave to a former active officer in MI5, recruiting that officer to do freelance work for the Conservative party, updating disinformation and propaganda exercises against the Labour Government? Will he set up an inquiry to consider how it was that Airey Neave knew that this individual had been working for MI5, how he knew how to contact him, and how he was aware of the existence of that black propaganda exercise if he was not involved in it?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with this subject. I have nothing to add to the many answers that have been given on the subject already.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister our congratulations on the leading role that she has taken in the economic summit on the important subjects of the world economy, drugs, and terrorism? Does he agree that under her stewardship Britain is now recognised as a world leader and not the sick man of Europe, as we were known under the Labour Administration?
    Mr. Wakeham: It is clear that under the Prime Minister and this Government Britain plays a leading role in world affairs. The value of the sound and sensible policies that we have pursued has been recognised throughout the world. Only on the Opposition Benches do hon. Members; cling to out-dated and unworkable policies.
    Mr. Kinnock: Do the consequences of the policies of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking include the revised estimate for the balance of payments deficit for the first quarter and the anticipated £10 billion deficit for this year, despite massive oil revenues?
    Mr. Wakeham: The 1987 current deficit is less than half of 1 per cent. of the GDP, compared with 3 to 4 per cent. during the mid-1970s. The cumulative surplus of £211 billion from 1980 to 1987 compares with a deficit of over £5 billion from 1975 to 1979.
    Mr. Kinnock: It would only be confirming with the right hon. Gentleman's customary fairness to set the massive oil revenues against the figure that he now produces. As he cannot be content with the possibility of a £10 billion balance of payments deficit and a £20 billion trade deficit, will he tell us what the Government intend to do to close those gaps?
    Mr. Wakeham: The economy has come through major fluctuations in the price of oil without crisis and, because of our sound economic policies, the prospects remain excellent. The stock of United Kingdom overseas assets at the end of 1987 were provisionally estimated at £90 billion, or 21 per cent. of GDP. Our invisible surpluses are the largest in the world.
    Mr. Aitken: On a rather more important security matter, will my right hon. Friend find time today to go down to GCHQ and find the Government's top code breakers and cryptologists and ask them to provide an English translation of the incomprehensible gibberish that appeard in this morning's Independent, under the headline "Labour's defence policy: Neil Kinnock explains"?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have the greatest admiration for the effectiveness of our security system, but I do not believe that the people concerned could understand the gibberish coming from the Labour party.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Michie: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to distance himself and the Government from the statement that was made in another place last week suggesting that lotteries should be produced as an inducement to people to pay their poll tax early, in a lump sum? Does he agree that such a blatant bribe will be anathema to many people, and that in Scotland it is nothing more than a bribe, or, at best, a gimmick that would in the end benefit only the well off?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not one of those who are very enthusiastic about lotteries. I believe that the community charge introduced in Scotland is a much fairer tax than we have had before and will be seen to be a much better basis of paying for local government than heretofore.
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanley: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), will my right hon. Friend do all he can tonight to secure the successful passage of the motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties, because I, and no doubt the whole House, need good research from the Labour party so that it can explain the differences between its defence policy at the general election, last week, this week and no doubt next week?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he has set an ambitious target in seeking to follow all the variations in policy proposed by the Labour party. I fear that even the significant increase in financial assistance to Opposition parties which I have proposed and which I hope my hon. Friends will support would not be sufficient to enable them to explain all their policies.
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister how she reconciles the policies of two of her Ministers? One of them has urged a smoking ban on all teachers to ensure that at least half the children who might take up smoking will not do so, and the other is accepting money from British-American Tobacco for the establishment of a school when the chairman of that company says he would expect that the school would not have in it any anti-smoking campaigns.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government's policy on smoking is well known. Health warnings are clearly given, with the support of the Government. British-American Tobacco is a company with a wide range of interests, and the Government welcome its support for education.
    Mr. Rathbone: In the light of the Government's magnificent lead in tackling international drug trafficking, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the
    966
    Government plan to support the international day of action against drug misuse and illicit trafficking, which was approved by all members of the United Nations last November and will take place on Monday?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government attach high priority to international co-operation against drug misuse. The international day of action against drug misuse has been re-scheduled for Monday 27 June. The Government's anti-drug strategy is kept under review by a ministerial group on drug misuse, and it will meet on that day to take stock of progress and to make plans for future action.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: When the Prime Minister returns from her journey abroad, will the right hon. Gentleman please refer to her for her personal attention the plight of children with special needs who are being educated in special schools throughout the country? Will he especially ask her to look into the reason why, with the cuts in the Health Service and the mix-up in the Department of Education and Science, thousands are unable to walk or to use their facilities as they cannot get the physiotherapy that they need? Since April thousands more have lost the free school meals that they should have. Why are these resources being taken away from the children who need them most?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government have provided substantially more funds for the disabled and for education than in the past. It is up to local authorities to decide how best to spend their resources.
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very encouraging to hear the words of Mr. Hammond, the leader of the EETPU, extolling modern work practices? Does he also agree that it is rather depressing that the Trades Union Congress and leading unions do not appear to share Mr. Hammond's views?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am certain that among the millions of our citizens who are members of trades unions many want to see Britain prosper, work practices improve and outdated practices disappear. It is a pity that some trade union leaders do not seem to reflect the views of their members. Mr. Hammond is reflecting his members' views.
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haynes: Will the Leader of the House be honest with the House and the people about supporting the private Member's Bill concerning ports in Yorkshire? Will

    967
    he admit that it is related to the privatisation of the electricity industry? Why do the Government not be honest about the thing and let people know?
    Mr. Wakeham: Private Bills come before the House under the general direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government's position on the Bill will be made clear in the speech made by the Minister in the debate, and I look forward to listening to it.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some monents ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: Last night the Government intended that the House should debate regulations that would increase the price of concessionary television licences for old-age pensioners from 5p to £5 and reduce the number of old-age pensioners who could qualify for such licences. How do the Government justify such a mean attack on old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have agreed through the usual channels that the order that was unfortunately lost last night will be retabled on the Order Paper to enable the hon. Gentleman and others to make their points on another occasion. The point at issue was that the original arrangemens, which had worked for a long time, fell foul of some legal decisions, and the Government propose to put forward what they believe to be an equitable solution in a difficult area.

VAT (European Court Decision)
3.31 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the judgment delivered by the European Court of Justice today in the case brought by the European Commission on certain of our VAT zero rates.
The court ruled that the United Kingdom was not in breach of its treaty obligations by zero rating private housing, animal feeding stuffs, seeds and live animals yielding food for consumption. However, it ruled that the zero rating by the United Kingdom of a number of other goods and services was not permitted under European Community law. In broad terms, these items are: the construction of buildings for industrial and commercial use, water and sewerage services supplied to industry, news services supplied to other than final consumers, fuel and power supplied to other than final consumers, and protective boots and helmets purchased by employers. I have placed the full text of the judgment in the Library of the House.
I should make it clear that this adverse judgment is based on an interpretation of existing Community law to which the United Kingdom gave its assent in 1977. It has nothing whatever to do with the Commission's proposals for the approximation of VAT, which are not law and could not become law without the unanimous agreement of all member states.
The Government will study carefully the detailed terms of the court's judgment, against which there is no right of appeal and with which it is obliged to comply. The Government will consult interested parties, including trade and professional bodies, and also charities, on how the judgment can best be applied in practice. Legislation to implement the judgment will then be brought before the House for approval as part of next year's Budget. I can give the House an assurance that no changes will take effect before 1 April 1989.
In the meantime, I am concerned to avoid the damaging effects of a period of uncertainty for the construction industry and its customers, and to mitigate the effects of the extension of VAT to non-domestic construction. I therefore have the following decisions to announce.
Non-domestic construction, the sale of new non-domestic buildings, and the sale of building land for non-domestic developments will be taxed at the standard rate of VAT from 1 April 1989. All contracts entered into before today will continue to be zero rated. Public sector construction programmes will be protected by allowing, where necessary, compensating adjustments to the relevant central Government expenditure provision. Full refunds of VAT on non-domestic construction will be available to health authorities and local authorities.
Owners of non-domestic property will be given the option to charge VAT on rents, and on sales of used buildings, from 1 August 1989. This option will apply to existing buildings as well as new ones. Where it is exercised, landlords and tenants will be able to reclaim VAT on input costs in the normal way. This means that, where buildings are occupied by fully taxable businesses, neither landlord nor tenants will be worse off. To protect tenants who are not fully taxable, any VAT on rents will be phased in over two years. For charities, the transitional
970
period will be five years. I hope that it will be possible to publish draft Finance Bill clauses relating to non-domestic construction by January.
The estimated yield from the proposals that I have announced will be some £65 million for the initial year, 1989–90, rising to a full year level of £160 million in 1991–92. That compares with the full year yield of £425 million that would accrue from the tax if the measures of mitigation which I have just announced were not introduced.
A consultation document on the changes affecting non-domestic construction will be available in the Vote Office and Library when I sit down. A more general consultation paper on the other aspects of the judgment will be available shortly. Much remains to be considered and there will be full consultation by the Customs and Excise on the implication of the changes.
We find ourselves obliged by undertakings Her Majesty's Government gave in 1977 to impose VAT on non-domestic construction and certain other services. I have announced today measures to mitigate their impact and to minimise uncertainty. I assure the House that there will now be full consultation so that the necessary legislation can be properly considered and prepared for next year's Finance Bill.
Dr. John Marek: The whole country will be disappointed at the outcome of the European court's judgment. Yet again new taxes are to be imposed on the public against the wishes of Government and Parliament. However, is the Economic Secretary aware that we welcome the court's decision not to insist on the imposition of VAT on all building for housing, animal feed, seeds, and live animals used as food for human consumption. Before implementing the court's decision, will he consult all interested parties carefully so that appropriate transitional arrangements can be found and so that those with contractual obligations are not unfairly penalised?
As some building land is to become subject to VAT, how does the Economic Secretary propose to define it? Will he confirm that, although the construction of schools and hospitals will become subject to VAT, full relief will automatically be available for any and all VAT payable in the future by the authorities responsible for those schools and hospitals when constructing the buildings, and for any associated expenses?
Will the Economic Secretary undertake to ensure that any extra moneys necessary to pay VAT on fuel for schools and hospitals will be provided by the Exchequer? Will county councils be fully reimbursed for any VAT that they may have to pay on road construction? Does he intend that VAT to be paid on construction of railways will be paid for by the travelling public, or can he give an undertaking to the House that the Exchequer will reimburse British Rail for all extra VAT costs? Can he assure the House that the Channel tunnel construction, until completion, will not be subject to VAT?
Will the Economic Secretary go the Commission to try to obtain derogation for some or all of the items to be subject to VAT, or can he introduce a second lower tier? If that is not possible, will he try to obtain an agreement within the Council of Ministers for a fairer and more just interpretation of the sixth VAT directive so that items such as these and spectacle frames, which have been the subject of legislation in the past, can be free of VAT?

971
Does the Economic Secretary think it fair that the United Kingdom should pay all the costs of the court case, in spite of being vindicated in two important areas?
It is a black day when the taxation of the British people is decided by other than their Parliament. The Common Market can succeed, but it is not going about it the right way.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman suggested that there will be universal disappointment at the ruling. However, we have won on the most important issue of private homes, and that will be greatly welcomed. There will also be recognition that the fundamental commitment to the sixth directive was taken by the Labour Government in 1977. It ill behoves the Labour party to express disappointment now.
I have made it clear that there will be full consultation with all those affected by the decisions relating to the implementation of the points that I have made and the other items covered by the ruling. The definition that we propose on building land is that such land without planning permission for domestic housing will be subject to VAT, but we shall obviously consult on how that will be interpreted in practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that schools and hospitals in the public sector will be fully reimbursed for any VAT that they may incur. County councils likewise are automatically reimbursed for all VAT on all items that they purchase. That will consequently apply equally to roads.
I imagine that the constructors of the Channel tunnel will also secure registration for VAT and be able to reclaim VAT. However, I will confirm that and write to the hon. Gentleman if there is any difference.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about seeking derogation or a lower tier rate, any attempt to seek derogation from the European Commission would scarcely be credible since the Commission brought the case. As for the lower tier rate, we believe that it is far better to have a single positive rate and an extensive zero rate. We do not want to return to a complex system with multiple rates.
We understand that the Commission will not be seeking payment of its costs in the court case. That is the normal practice in the circumstances. We will have to pay our costs, the bulk of which are internal. Only some £7,000 of consultancy fees and counsel opinion costs were incurred.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is the Minister aware that he is absolutely right to stress that the decision does not affect the fundamental issue of zero rating? Will he take careful note of the court's view that the Commission does not dispute the legality of the zero rating system in general? May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on stating that the right system is one with zero rating and a single positive rate? Will he fight for that in the political negotiations which are to come? In general, I believe that it is right that my hon. Friend has abided by the rule of law, even though that is the consequence of a decision taken by a predecessor Government.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks. I confirm that we shall stick to a single positive rate and the extensive use of zero rating, as has been the practice. I believe that my right hon. Friend oversaw that system when it was introduced. It is correct that in the court case the Commission did not try to overrule our basic right to have zero rates. We welcome that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Economic Secretary to the Treasury accept that the judgment seems eminently reasonable and that the Government are to be congratulated on arguing successfully for an exemption for domestic housing, which clearly is a case on its own? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that now there is no VAT—a policy which has been upheld—on domestic house new building but that there is still VAT on renovation, restoration, and the like? Does he accept that in the next Budget the Government's inner city policy should require further tax changes, in addition to the changes that the Minister has already announced, to give incentives to people to restore and to build in the inner city rather than equal encouragement to build on green field sites?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will probably be in a very small minority in welcoming the judgment as a whole, although possibly he is harking back to the dead parrot manifesto of his erstwhile leader, who wanted VAT extended to almost everything. There will be no change to VAT on renovation and repairs in relation to domestic properties and we do not propose to make any changes.
Mr. John Biffen: When the legislation necessary to give effect to these somewhat contentious proposals is before the House and the House amends or rejects it, what then?
Mr. Lilley: Exactly the same consequences would flow as would always be the case if we failed to implement legislation passed to us from the European Community.
Mr. Peter Shore: We have heard not so much a statement as a mini Budget. Is this not another brutal reminder of the extent to which the House has ceased to be master of its own affairs? Is it not a clear breach of faith? Were we not assured that the existing United Kingdom zero rate would continue until the Council, by a unanimous vote, agreed to adopt what it called a "Europe without fiscal frontiers"? Have not the procedures laid down by the Commission for review under article 28 simply been flouted and ignored? Is not the court acting ultra vires? In those circumstances, what obligation has Britain to carry out the court's ruling?
Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the ruling is a brutal reminder of the decision taken by the Government of whom he was a member. He is also correct in saying that we will retain a zero rate. There is no question of the court acting ultra vires; it is intepreting the sixth directive that was agreed by the House and the Government in 1977. Any attempt to remove zero rates could be taken only with the unanimous consent of all member states, including this country.
Mr. David Curry: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be great relief that the Government have acted so promptly in outlining the precise measures that they intend to take in response to the judgment? Nothing could have been worse than a long period of delay with uncertainty. Does he also accept that the construction industry will be especially pleased by the offer of an option for taxation and that the public spending targets will be upgraded to take account of VAT that the Government will now charge on their construction projects?

973
Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the mitigation measures have cost the Treasury a substantial sum? Will he speculate on whether the Opposition would have been in a position to grant such generous mitigation?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, the last of which is very apposite. I cannot imagine that a party committed to such widespread increases in public expenditure would have been prepared to forgo the large amount of revenue that we have forgone by mitigating the measures. I hope that the construction industry will welcome the decisions that we have taken today, although it will not welcome the ruling itself any more than we do. It sought—and we have endeavoured to provide in the statement—a delay before its implementation so that there would be time for consultation, protection of existing contracts, the option to rent and protection of public sector construction programmes. We have provided for all those and more, because we have also suggested that the procedure be phased in over a couple of years—five years in the case of charities—which, in fact, goes beyond what the construction industry sought.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the ruling is a total routing of the Government by the European court? Is that why he has hidden the fact that the entire costs of the case have been awarded against the Government? Is it not true that this Parliament has lost because it has no option other than to accept the new legislation that the Minister will propose? Is it not also true that the people of the United Kingdom have lost because they will have to spend £160 million more per annum in higher costs throughout the land? Have not the Government surrendered their authority to an agency outside the United Kingdom?
As Northern Ireland has no local authorities other than district councils, what will be the position of education boards and of housing associations that provide ancillary facilities for elderly residents in their complexes? Will they, too, have to pay VAT?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that this is a complete routing. I have already said that we won on the crucial point of domestic housing. However, he is correct in saying that we have no option but to implement the ruling of the court, which is a consequence of the treaty obligations that we entered into in 1972 and the subsequent decisions taken in 1977 specifically affecting VAT.
In response to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I said that the costs were very small—only £7,000 of out-house costs. We do not expect to have to bear the costs of the Commission, which usually expects to bear its own costs.
I believe that education boards and housing associations in Northern Ireland will be protected in the same way as are comparable authorities in this country. We will, of course, be consulting as to the precise definition which is appropriate within the ruling for residential property, and what will constitute residential property in that context, and that consultation will apply throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome comments from Northern Ireland as well as from elsewhere.
Sir Richard Body: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), if we are to adhere to the principle of no taxation without representation, are we not now on the way to transferring the fiscal powers of the House to that supranational institution which the House, by statute, has elevated to a Parliament?
Mr. Lilley: The decision to transfer some powers of taxation to the European Community was taken much earlier. This is merely a consequence of it. No transfer of the House's powers to the Community can be made without the consent of the House. We have a veto in these matters.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Economic Secretary undertake to consult his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry as to the effect of the ruling, particularly in regard to VAT on new commercial and industrial construction, and on the level of investment forthcoming in the next few financial years in Britain? Does he agree that that will have a particularly harsh effect on regions of high unemployment such as Wales? Will he consult the Department of Trade and Industry and his Treasury colleagues about whether the level of investment will now drop because of the combined effect of this ruling increasing the cost of construction of new building, the national non-domestic rate in areas where it will increase such as my own constituency in Cardiff, plus the South American-style inflation in the building industry in the past year? If that has a devastating effect on the level of investment, will he agree to reconsider bringing in investment allowances to compensate for the effect of the EEC ruling and to preserve the level of investment?
Mr. Lilley: The level of activity in the construction industry in this country is extremely healthy; the industry is growing fast. We are determined that its prospects should be preserved, and that is why I have announced an extensive range of measures to protect its future. I believe that the industry will be able to continue growing well, nationally and in Wales. In particular, we have protected the position of the public sector.
The main burden of the extra tax which cannot be passed on or reclaimed from the Government will fall on industries such as the financial services sector, which is exempt from VAT and therefore cannot claim back VAT on the cost of inputs. That is an important industry, even in Wales, but it is not the principal industry in Wales, as it is in parts of England and Scotland.
Mr. Tim Smith: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, is it not clear that the impact of this decision on the final consumer will be very limited, mainly because of the victory on private sector house construction? What will be the effect of the decision on the retail prices index?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite right. The effect of the decision on the man in the street will be negligible and unnoticeable. There will be no effect on his housing costs, and the effect on the retail prices index will be extremely small. When £160 million of extra tax is spread across the whole of consumer expenditure, it is a fraction of I per cent.
Mr. Bob Cryer: If the Minister is right and Parliament has a lingering power of veto, why

975
does he not invite Parliament to use that veto, and, instead of producing legislation imposed by the European court, why does he not produce legislation to repeal section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which would place beyond any doubt the power of this Parliament to raise money and decide expenditure, instead of accepting the continuing drift and erosion of our powers so that this place becomes something like a parish council and the European Community strips away all our powers?
Mr. Lilley: It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to talk about losing our lingering power of veto since he voted in favour of that measure when it was brought before the House in 1976.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: No, he did not.
Mr. Lilley: That was on 29 November 1976. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who voted against the measure, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) voted in favour.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly welcome the extended introductory period in applying these measures to charity. Is my hon. Friend aware that the judgment's consequences for charities are serious and that the annual expenditure on unrecoverable VAT of the 45 charity organisations which are members of the Charities VAT and Tax Reform Group will rise from £6·2 million a year to more than £12 million a year? Is my hon. Friend aware that the effect of this judgment on charities is the same as if my hon. Friend had announced an increase in the rate of VAT from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent.?
Mr. Lilley: I pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played in voicing the concern of charities generally about the impact of VAT before this ruling. I recognise the important consequences for charities of that ruling. Naturally, we shall consult my hon. Friend, and the organisations which he represents, to ascertain how best to deal with the consequences of the ruling, within its scope and latitude.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that if, in 1975, the British people thought that tax would be levied on public facilities, such as roads, railways and water, they might have given a different answer? Does he recall that the Prime Minister has made no statement on taxation of domestic water, which is in the next package which awaits the House? When the hon. Gentleman talks about a veto, will he correct himself and agree that, although the Government may have a veto under the treaty of Rome, at the moment the House has not?
To stop such problems arising in the future, would it not be better for the House to pass a motion saying that any future VAT package should be passed by an affirmative resolution of the House and not be entirely in Ministers' hands, even if it is in the Prime Minister's name? Is not such a provision entirely within the terms of the treaty of Rome, retaining those few powers that the House has left in that respect?
Mr. Lilley: None of today's rulings has any bearing on consumers. I do not think that if they had been known at the last election—I hope that I correctly interpret the hon. Gentleman's question——
Mr. Spearing: At the referendum.
Mr. Lilley: I do not think that if the rulings had been known at the referendum they would have had any impact on the outcome.
On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Government and the House, I stand corrected. He is right. If any change were to be made, it would have to he made in the manner that he suggests; but it would not necessarily obtain a majority in the House.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the House agreed to the directive in 1977—without my support—a clear assurance was given in good faith that this kind of decision could not be made because we had residual powers under article 26 of the sixth directive, provided the Council of Ministers unanimously decided to abolish exemptions? As the assurances in this case and many others are being overturned and, basically, breached by the various institutions of the Community, can my hon. Friend, who has given a splendid answer today, give us an assurance that the Commission has said that it will not seek any more cases of this sort, or does my hon. Friend foresee the power of the House being slowly eroded, not by what we or the Common Market do but by the institutions taking more and more power and authority?
Mr. Lilley: Under the sixth directive, the British Government were entitled to maintain zero rating where it was for a clearly defined social purpose and for the benefit of the final consumer. The court has ruled that these specific items, on which we lost, were not for the benefit of the final consumer. The court merely made a legal judgment as to whether those items fell within the directive, to which the House assented with that caveat and definition in 1977. Any changes in exemptions from zero rates of VAT which are not made on that legal basis in conforming to the legislation can be made only by unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers and, therefore, with our consent. That applies to any wholesale changes that anyone might seek to make, including those proposed recently by Lord Cockfield.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Economic Secretary dealt at length with non-domestic construction. How closely has he analysed the impact of that, and the decision to impose VAT on fuel and power supplies, on industry? Will he undertake to examine the matter to establish whether particular industries or areas will be affected by the extension, and will he introduce measures in mitigation similar to those that he has announced for non-domestic construction?
Mr. Lilley: The overall impact of VAT on fuel and power supplies for industry is comparatively small. The vast majority of industries affected will be able to reclaim the VAT that they pay as an input cost. Therefore, the decision will have no impact upon them except possibly a small cash-flow effect. The only major exceptions are the financial services industries, which will have to bear the cost of VAT on their fuel and power; they cannot reclaim it because they are exempt from VAT.
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): My hon. Friend said that the effect of the judgment on the consumer would be nil. Does he not agree that, given time, the judgment will ultimately affect the cost of land upon which non-domestic buildings were constructed? In that context, will he reconsider whether two years will be long enough,

977
given the length of the planning process? Similarly, will he have regard to the effect that the judgment may have on inner-city renewal—on mixed buildings, shops, offices, houses and flats?
Mr. Lilley: I think that I said that the effect on the consumer and the retail prices index would be minimal rather than nil. We acknowledge that there is likely to be a full year revenue in 1991–92, when the charges are fully operational, of £160 million, which will obviously have to be paid for by someone. To the extent that it affects consumer goods, it will be paid for by the consumer. To the extent that it comes out of profit margins, it will be paid for by investors and shareholders. To the extent that it comes out of land values, it will be paid for by landowners. A two-year phase-in period is perfectly reasonable. The industry did not ask us for any phase-in period; we have gratuitously offered the two-year period, which we think will be beneficial. The period for charities will be five years to give them longer to adjust.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the Minister agree that the court's judgment as it affects protective boots and helmets is unreasonable, especially as to the final consumer—the employee—the equipment is vital? Will he assure the House that safety in factories and other places of work will not be jeopardised as a result?
Mr. Lilley: I do not think that there is much point in criticising the reasonableness or otherwise of the judgment. It has been made and there is no appeal, and we have to try to implement it as sensitively as possible, using such discretion as remains to us. By and large, protective footwear and helmets are required by health and safety legislation. There will not be a fiscal penalty on employers who purchase them because they will be able to offset the purchase cost against VAT and reclaim it. It will not make a great deal of difference to them, although we should have preferred to have kept the original system.
Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread feeling on both sides of the House that we have already surrendered too many powers and that we have gone too far in allowing the sovereignty of this House to be removed? Will he assure us that, unlike their predecessors, the Government do not plan to give away any more powers in negotiations on tax harmonisation?
Mr. Lilley: It is manifest from the response to my statement that the sentiments expressed in the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks are echoed on both sides of the House; that is a simple fact. I recognise that there is concern about these matters. We are certainly jealous of the powers of the House and, as regards the proposals on the table from Lord Cockfield, we have no intention of acceding to proposals that would restrict the right of the House to retain zero rates.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister made a clever debating point. He has been briefed well. Can he tell us how the Tory Opposition voted in 1977, when the matter came before the House? Before he tells me that I also voted for the measure that night, may I confirm that. Having reversed the results of every other vote cast during that Labour Government's period in office, why do not the
978
Government reverse that vote as well? I assure the Minister that he has my full permission to reverse that vote, and I shall help him to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) made a specific point about safety helmets and footwear. Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will watch developments carefully and that no damage will be done to health and safety at work? The Minister speaks eloquently about the construction industry, but some of us have a greater feeling for those who work in the industry than for those who own it.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments on the quality of my briefing and his revelations about the inconsistency of his voting habits. The Government are not in the habit of standing on their heads that frequently and we do not intend to do so on this occasion.
The hon. Gentleman asked about how the then Opposition voted in 1977. From my examination of the records, they appear largely to have abstained.
I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the health and safety implications of the protective clothing and helmets item and we shall make sure that health and safety objectives are not undermined.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that the permitted derogations for zero rating are not time-limited in any way? Will he also confirm that there will be no more court cases and that the unfortunate legacy of the last Labour Government is finally behind us?
Mr. Lilley: As far as we know, the Commission has no further disagreements with the existing structure of zero rates in this country. The Commission has clearly brought forth in this case all the aspects of the present structure with which it disagrees on legal grounds. My hon. Friend asked about the durability of our zero rates. As long as we insist on the retention of zero rating for exports, we can retain zero rates domestically as well. We have no intention of conceding that point while we wish, as we do, to keep the right to retain zero rates.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Minister alluded to the Labour Government's bringing in VAT. Does he not agree that it was a Tory Government who almost doubled it and that the recent Budget made matters substantially easier for the rich? In face of his difficulties, would it not be a good idea to recommend to the Chancellor that in his next Budget he cuts the rate of VAT substantially? He should restore high income tax for those in the higher income bracket and substantially cut consumer taxation which affects the poor.
Mr. Lilley: One thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1979 was to simplify the system so that we had just one positive rate of VAT instead of two rates of VAT and the multiple rates of purchase tax that we had prior to that. I am determined that we should not go back to a multiple-rate system of VAT. Whenever I think of it, I almost feel the shade of Sir Gerald Nabarro hovering over the House and imagine him raising all the absurdities that arise from multiple rates of indirect taxation. I entirely reject the proposal of the Labour Front Bench

979
spokesman, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), that we should have a lower rate of VAT alongside the present rate. I do not think that that would be helpful.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, regardless of the merits of the arguments about migration of powers, it would be far simpler to have VAT on everything at a lower rate than 15 per cent., and thus do away with all the contradictions and anomalies?
Mr. Lilley: That might have a brutal simplicity, but it is not a policy that appeals to the British Government.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Minister recall the manifesto of the Government in office at the time of the referendum, which said that no new tax would be levied on the British people without the support of British Ministers and the British Parliament? Is he not humiliated that this Parliament is being robbed of its powers over taxation? As that comes on top of Common Market interference with the Government's industrial policy in relation to the Rover Group, should we not increasingly seek the repeal of section 2 of the European Communities Act to bring those powers back to the House?
Mr. Lilley: It was the Labour Government who in 1975 held the referendum and gave the assurances. It was the same Labour Government who in 1977 gave their permission to the sixth directive under which this court case was heard. They fulfilled the claim that there can be no changes to the tax system without the assent of the British Government, but they then gave that assent.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the ruling shows that the British Government achieved a considerable success in winning their case for the exclusion of domestic housing construction, particularly as I understand that VAT rates are applied to that sector in other continental countries? Will my hon. Friend confirm that no VAT will be levied on private individuals for fuel and power? Will he also note that the judgment seems to comment favourably on the principle of zero rating, which is this Government's policy?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He is right to point out that domestic heating was the big and potentially painful item had we lost this case. I never doubted that we would win it. The position is now clear and the whole House and country will be relieved to know that on that issue we won. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the European Commission never sought to impose VAT on fuel and power for individuals. He is also right in saying that during the case the European Commission accepted Britain's right to have zero rates and did not contest that right. The court seemed to endorse it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Minister wants to complete the history lesson, why does he not refer to the fact that on 28 October 1971 it was a Tory Government, supported by the present Prime Minister, who dragged an unwilling Britain into the Common Market, along with such allies as Lord Jenkins, Shirley Poppins and the rest of them? Is he aware that some of us fought against that decision, which turned out to be an unmitigated disaster, and that in 1977 the Labour Government, bogged down with the Lib-Lab pact, went along with it? If the Minister wants to take the history lesson a bit further, it is no use rabbiting on about vetoes and all the other technicalities.
980
The truth is that the only way to stop this happening is to get out of the Common Market and prevent this bureaucracy, this bankrupt Common Market—£5 billion in the red once again and wanting another £900 million loan from the British people this autumn—from running our lives.
Mr. Lilley: I admire the hon. Gentleman, first, for his consistency and, secondly, for his willingness to criticise the Labour Government. I think that we can learn from both aspects.
Mr. Michael Latham: Can we please not have any talk about this decision being welcomed by the construction industry? The industry will be appalled by the rate of 15 per cent. Why has my hon. Friend agreed to impose VAT on contracts as from tonight, although that provision is to be included in a Bill that will not be introduced until next year? That was not done with beer, and there is no possible justification for it.
Mr. Lilley: I certainly did not suggest that the construction industry would welcome the ruling. I suggested only that it would welcome the decisions that we have taken to mitigate the impact of the ruling. The industry made mild allusions to the possibility of a lower rate, but only as an alternative to the option to tax, which was the first preference and the one for which we have opted.
Mr. Latham: But why impose it as from tonight?
Mr. Lilley: If we had not made it clear that contracts entered into before tonight are zero rated and that those after tonight by implication will not be, there would have been a tremendous incentive for people to bring forward contracts and there would have been a boom and bust in the construction industry.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: So what?
Mr. Lilley: The construction industry was very anxious to avoid the possibility of a boom and bust because of people rushing to complete contracts ahead of the next Budget or introducing new contracts ahead of the next Budget. We listened very carefully to the industry and introduced this provision at its request.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that all other countries run more than a single rate of VAT and that it would be possible for the Government to introduce a lower band of VAT? Is he saying that the Commission's proposals for the single market will be vetoed all along the line and all the time? Does he not believe that it would be far better if charities were given a complete derogation of VAT? The only reason for that not being done is that the Government do not want to do it rather than because there is a legal impediment to that process being undertaken.
Mr. Lilley: It is true that virtually all our partners in the Common Market have more than one positive rate of VAT. However, we consider that our system is simpler and more desirable. Also, it has a social benefit, in that certain supplies that are more likely to be consumed by those who are on low incomes tend to be zero rated. It is not, therefore, a regressive tax.
We shall not assent to Lord Cockfield's proposals on tax approximation because we do not approve of them. There is no question of having to introduce a veto because

981
the proposals have failed to gain the support of other countries. They have been extremely widely criticised by other member states, many of whom have a range of difficulties over them. There is certainly no question of the Government vetoing the proposals on some occasions but not on others.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the assurances that he has given that the Commission is now well satisfied with our system of value added tax, following the decision of the European court, Treasury Ministers will come to the Dispatch Box again and again over the coming months and tell the House that VAT is to be altered or extended in a way that is not approved of by Her Majesty's Government?
Is my hon. Friend further aware of the inconsistency of his statement? He said, first, that we are required to implement the judgment of the European court, and, secondly, that that implementation requires the approval of the House. There can be no requirement to implement if there is also the right of this House to reject what the Government propose.
Mr. Lilley: I am sure that I did not express a view about the European Commission's mental state about our zero rates. I have no idea about its internal state of satisfaction with them. We are well satisfied with the present tax structure and we intend to retain it. Proposals for change may emanate from a variety of spheres, but they will always remain proposals unless they have the assent and the consent of this Government and this House. Under the European treaty to which we gave our consent—some willingly and some unwillingly—in the early 1970s, this House must consent to legal measures that are agreed to by the combined countries of the European Community. If the House failed to do so, there would be a constitutional impasse, the consequences of which would be very serious.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister confirm that when we accepted the sixth directive in 1977 we were assured that it precluded changes in zero rating without the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers? Will he accept that this is a change of what is loosely called the Commission's mind? That change has been ratified by the European court, which is essentially just an instrument of European unity. Will the Minister confirm that we can throw out the legislation without it coming into force under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972? If that is so, why does he not give hon. Members a free vote so that he can test how his hon. Friends feel about this grovelling abdication of Britain's rights?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member must take up with the Ministers who were concerned with the matter in 1977 any assurances that they gave in respect of the sixth directive. However, it has always been the case that it is only possible for us to introduce zero rates under that directive that conform to the criteria that they are for clearly defined social purposes and for the benefit of the final consumer. It is solely on their alleged failure to fulfil those criteria that the European Commission was able to take this country to court and, in some respects, win its case. In others it lost. It was unable to alter the law of the land or of the Community unilaterally, and any changes in the law
982
will require the Government's consent and that of Parliament. It has always been the case in this country that laws emanating from this place must be interpreted as is appropriate by courts when there is any dispute as to their meaning.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In view of the Minister's comments about the effect of this measure on the financial services industry, was it correct for him to say that there will be no effect on housing costs? Is it not likely that banks, insurance companies and building societies will pass on their VAT commitments on the supply of gas, electricity and water, which will result in at least marginal increases in borrowing costs for those of us who are buying our houses on mortgages?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct and there could be a few arithmetically detectable implications of the kind he suggests. I do not believe that they would be detectable by the consumer because they would be so small as not to be measurable against all the other changes. The total revenue collected as a result of this measure, when it is fully implemented, is likely to be about £160 million per year. When that sum is spread over all the industries which will bear it, the overall effect will be very small, and it will not seriously alter the cost of housing or anything else.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us have a genuine personal respect for the fact that he has made for our country the best that he can out of a very difficult situation? However, we keep on being told that we are jealous of our powers, but in the next breath we are told that we must consent to this, that and the other. As the country is now being run, week after week, another regulation is brought before the House and hon. Members are told that there is nothing they can do about it. Ultimately, Parliament must decide who runs the country. Are we to be the United Kingdom or are we, by stealth and by the death of a thousand regulations, to become the "United States of Europe", which is something for which this country should not and will not vote?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I agree that there is an excessive passion in some quarters of the Community to introduce harmonisation measures that are not always necessary and to pursue legalistic points which make no effective change to the amount of tax which people bear but merely alter the name by which it is known and from whose pockets it comes and to which it is then returned. We deplore such unnecessary changes, but they are the consequence of our adherence to the treaty of Rome. Unless my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should resile from that treaty, we must accept those consequences, while arguing with the Commission that it should not pursue too vigorously unnecessary harmonisation measures.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not my hon. Friend deprecate the fact that, as fast as the Chancellor simplifies and reduces taxes, the Community appears to frustrate his efforts?
Mr. Lilley: I am not sure that this measure vastly complicates matters, although it creates a certain amount of tax churning, which is to no one's great benefit. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's basic point that it is far more important to simplify and reduce taxes than it is to

983
harmonise items for which there is no international trade. After all, I do not imagine that many people export houses or buildings from this country, or that enormous distortion was introduced by our having a different system previously for taxing protective helmets from that which applied on the continent.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that a problem arises as a result of the Labour Government failing in 1977 to understand the implications of their own legislation, or that it is a consequence of the European Commission subsequently changing its grounds in a way that could not be foreseen? If the latter is true, that is certainly a matter of constitutional importance. If the former, what other problems remain unresolved in this area as a result of the Labour party's inability to understand its own policy?
Mr. Lilley: It is always possible, with the benefit of hindsight, to have 20/20 vision. However, at the time it could have been foreseen that some cases might be brought under those aspects of the legislation specifically stating that any zero rating had to be in respect of a clearer defined social need and for the benefit of the final consumer. It might not necessarily have been possible to predict absolutely the court's ruling on all the items, but to avoid the possibility of any such court cases it would have been necessary at that earlier stage to have agreed to a wider permission in the sixth directive than that to which we assented.
Mr. John Watts: While undertakings entered into by a former Labour Government may oblige the present Government to seek the House's consent to extending VAT in accordance with the judgment, can my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the judgment requiring us to apply VAT at the current standard rate? Could we not comply with the letter of the judgment by introducing a rate of 0·00001 per cent.? In this instance, are not the merits of the simplicity of a single rate system outweighed by the importance of the House insisting that its will to maintain zero rating as near as possible shall prevail?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct, in that the court has not ruled that we must apply the standard rate. It is up to us to choose, but the law applies a constraint in respect of which low rate will apply. It is stated in the directive that the low rate must be sufficient to cover all the VAT likely to be reclaimed on the inputs into the industry to which that low rate applies. It is difficult to calculate what the lowest rate could be, but I recently saw a study by Arthur Andersen and Co. suggesting that the lowest rate we could apply in those circumstances would he as high as 10 per cent. We see little advantage in having a second tier rate of 10 per cent. alongside one of 15 per cent. That would cause difficulties for business and industry, as well as boundary problems.
Mr. Barry Field: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern there is in private industry and commerce at the inability to recover VAT, particularly among service industries, and the considerable privilege that local government enjoys in being able to recover VAT? Are not the concessions that my hon. Friend has announced this afternoon another example of the Treasury erecting a fence of privilege around local government and public enterprise to the detriment of
984
private enterprise, which completely contradicts the Government's policy of privatising local government services?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct, and those who are exempt from VAT often regret that they are unable to reclaim the tax on their inputs—though they probably welcome the fact that they do not have to pay the tax on their outputs. Local government has long enjoyed exemption. Many years ago an assurance was given that services financed from the rates would be reimbursed their VAT. That continues, and it automatically applies to the measures announced today. We have not given local authorities any special new privilege but have merely taken advantage of an existing one.
Mr. Tony Marlow: The Government are proud, and quite rightly so, that they have made life simpler for business and industry, but what my hon. Friend has announced today is a bureaucratic nightmare. My hon. Friend says that it is a small one, but it is a bureaucratic nightmare none the less. The only businesses that will benefit from it are the legal and accountancy professions. My hon. Friend is also a democrat, and he knows that right hon. and hon. Members will vote for what they feel is correct.
Can my hon. Friend expand on the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)? What happens if the House votes down a Government proposal on VAT? Will we all be clapped in irons by the European court? What will happen about the tax? Will it be applied or will it not be applied? Is the House sovereign or is it not sovereign? The House ought to know.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend goes a little far in describing this measure as a bureaucratic nightmare. It extends the VAT system—which has its complexities, but which in other ways is a simple, structural tax—to an area where it did not apply before, or where it did not apply in full. We have introduced a number of transitional measures, which always creates a certain amount of complication. However, it will be possible for industry, by and large, to cope. It would certainly prefer the kind of measures that I have announced to automatically proceeding without the measures of transition and mitigation that I have announced.
As to the constitutional consequences of the hypothetical circumstances in which the House should vote against a fiscal measure required of us by the European court, the whole House must be aware that such action would create a constitutional impasse. I may be a democrat but I am not a lawyer, so I cannot elaborate. If I did so, you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is now genuine confusion because it is only during the last two or three questions and answers that it has become apparent that legislation is to be introduced into the House to back up the Economic Secretary's statement. In certain circumstances under the treaty of Rome all that is required is the Government's agreement and not that of the House. All I am asking is that it should be reinforced that legislation is to he introduced into the House and that it will be a House of Commons matter rather than purely a Government matter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the House. I listened carefully to the statement and I understood the Minister to say that new clauses would be introduced in the Finance Bill next year.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was out of the Chamber during the later exchanges on the statement because I went to obtain a copy of the Customs and Excise document. It is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, but the document was not available in the Vote Office until 4.22 pm whereas the Minister implied that it was available while he was speaking or would be available when he had concluded his statement.
On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you again guide and help the House? You may agree with me and other hon. Members that during education questions and Prime Minister's questions, and now during the statement, although the subjects are important, the questions and answers have been of exceptional length. Is not that a growing tendency that is preventing other hon. Members from asking their questions? I think that on this occasion I speak with the moral authority of someone who was not seeking to catch your eye.
Mr. Speaker: I judged the statement to be of such importance that every hon. Member who wished to ask a question should be called and I did not curtail proceedings in any way. I cannot always promise to do that.
Mr. Biffen: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), Mr. Speaker. I believe that what is promised for the Finance Bill next year is probably a pioneer in these experiences where the House is invited to validate a judgment of the European court. The point that I had in mind was not necessarily that it should be rejected, but that the House should make amendments, the House being satisfied that those amendments were within the spirit of the European court's ruling.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—obviously not now, but at some future moment, although the earlier this is resolved the better for the House—on how it is determined whether an amendment that is put down is within the spirit of the court's judgment and whether the House is entitled to take a view that that decision is consistent with the court's judgment without merely accepting the say-so of the Treasury Bench. May I leave the matter there, Mr. Speaker? It is a matter of substance for the House that should be resolved and adjudicated earlier rather than later.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether I can help. All I can say is that I shall consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, the potentiality of the tax will be imposed on contracts signed after midnight tonight. Are we to assume that there will be no Ways and Means resolution, or any other vote of the House, before next year's Finance Bill Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer such a question.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should have asked the Economic Secretary these questions when he was in a position to answer them. I am afraid that I cannot do so.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a procedural matter, if not for you, perhaps you could tell us for whom, because it cannot be for the Minister. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), if the Minister is to try to impose a tax from midnight tonight, surely there must be either a constitutional provision or a Standing Order, which we have for the Finance Bill and the Budget resolutions, as I recall, which gives power for such executive action to be taken in advance of legislation.
The question that arises from the exchanges—not the Minister's statement—is what sort of constitutional mechanism exists, or what Standing Order there is in the House, which permits that executive action to be taken consequential to a European court judgment rather than consequential to a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he opens his Budget. I think that that is the point.
Mr. Speaker: The House heard what the Economic Secretary said. I think that he said that new clauses were to be circulated to obtain the opinion of the House on this matter. I do not think that I can answer that question.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking is by what authority is taxation raised. The Treasury Bench tells us that the authority will come forward next year by amendment to the Finance Bill. We should like to know by what authority a tax is raised as of midnight tonight.
Mr. Speaker: These are all questions that should have been put to the Minister rather than to the Chair. This is not a matter of order.
Mr. Skinner: I think that your last remark, Mr. Speaker, was correct. You have been placed in some difficulty because one would have thought that by this time the Minister responsible, or his mate on the Front Bench, would have jumped to the Dispatch Box to remind the House how the Government will get over the 12-month period between the potentiality of taxes being raised from tonight and permission being granted by this sovereign House next year. If you will just cast your eye round the corner, Mr. Speaker—I know that you do not want to —there is a fellow there with a bit of paper in his hand who is anxious to tell the Minister something. He has now put that paper below the parapet. He has the answer that the Minister wants but he does not know how to get it to him and the Parliamentary Private Secretary has not been looking over there.
Mr. Speaker: We had better move on.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

987
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1056), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Maclean.]
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several hon. Members have approached me because they have received a writ that has been served on every Member of the House of Commons and upon every Member of the other place from a litigant in Sheffield's High Court. I have been in contact with the High Court in Sheffield and I am informed that the writ is genuine and that we shall all receive a copy of it. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how we should deal with the matter.
Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, I do not appear on the writ.
Mr. Hind: You do.
Mr. Speaker: My copy must have gone astray then. The hon. Gentleman had better let me look into the matter.

British Identity Card
4.37 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a British identity card; and for other purposes.
With the British passport due to disappear in 1992, the time has come for us to introduce a British identity card and I intend that it be British passport blue. There can be few people who are not asked to supply proof of identity from time to time and many are regularly obliged to do so. These days we cannot enter most clubs, as well as many places of work and Government buildings, without having to identify ourselves. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to cash a cheque without a cheque card.
The identity card that I propose will be issued to everyone over 18 years of age. It will be the size of a credit card and will contain the holder's photograph, his or her name and address, date of birth and signature. It will be computer readable which will minimise fraud.
An identity card of the type that I propose will help in the battle against football hooliganism. It will enable immigration authorities to identify hooligans upon whom I hope the courts will soon be able to impose travel restrictions. It will assist football clubs in identifying those whom they wish to ban from their grounds. It will also help in the fight against terrorism and crime in general.
One of the problems in identifying the IRA is that its members are free to enter Britain from the Republic of Ireland without a passport or, indeed, any form of identification. After a terrorist attack such as the appalling atrocity at Lisburn last week, it would greatly assist the security forces if those manning road blocks could readily ascertain whether people had come from far afield or were merely going about their normal day-to-day business.
Some of the nastiest crimes today are those inflicted on the elderly. It is now commonplace to read in the newspapers of crooks and thugs worming their way into old people's homes, often posing as gas men, meter readers or council officials. An instantly recognisable identity card from which details could be taken before admittance would help to deter those who prey on the most susceptible members of our society.
I recognise the fear that an identity card system could be seen as an intrusion on the privacy of the individual. An important part of my Bill will limit the information included on the card and limit those who will have access to that information. Clearly, the Revenue and the DHSS will be able to insist on its production to help eliminate fraud, the police will be able to ask for it when a crime has been committed or is anticipated and immigration authorities will be entitled to inspect it. That will help in the fight against terrorism and should eliminate the need for passports to travel to other countries in Europe.
It will be up to the holder to decide whether to show the card to private individuals. If he does not, the person asking to see it will be able to draw his own conclusions, in the absence of a reasonable explanation.
I know that some will oppose the introduction of an identity card on the ground that it will infringe civil liberties. But the liberty of law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland is already infringed by terrorists, the liberty of the elderly is infringed by bogus officials and the

989
liberty of decent football fans to watch a football match free from violence and obscene gestures should be maintained.
My Bill will be of great benefit to honest, law-abiding citizens, which most British people are, and I commend it to the House.
4.42 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I oppose the measure which the hon. Member seeks to introduce. The introduction of identity cards is a wholly undesirable practice, far more associated with dictatorships than with democracies, except in wartime. There are, of course, various kinds of documentation relating to national insurance, health services, and so on, which are for specific reasons. However, such documents do not have to be carried on a daily basis, and one can be pretty certain that once an identity card is necessary it will be a requirement that the citizen carry it around with him on all occasions; he will be so required by the police. As I have said, the practice has far more in common with Eastern Europe than with Western-type democracy.
This is part of an authoritarian tendency in the Conservative party to try to control the lives of citizens as much as possible and have records on everybody in the country. I suppose that it is not surprising that a party which showed no concern and made no protest when Cathy Massiter exposed what was happening in the security services, when people were being questioned, had files drawn up on them and had their telephones tapped, should want to continue down a road that is completely undemocratic.
It is nonsense, as the hon. Member knows full well, to say that the issuing of identity cards will stop the football hooligans who are such a disgrace to our country, or stop crooks entering the homes of elderly people. The hon. Gentleman is certainly misleading the House when he makes such remarks.
I believe that this country requires less documentation and less control over the citizen. That is why I believe that acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's proposal for an identity card in peacetime would be a retrograde step. Tory Members who vote for the Bill—there will be no Opposition Members—will show clearly that they want to continue down the road of further controls on the private citizen. We have said that it is the Conservative party, not the Labour Opposition, which is so keen on Eastern Europe practices and the hon. Gentleman, by his Bill, make our point very well indeed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 172.

Division No. 369]

[4.44 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bendall, Vivian

Aitken, Jonathan

Benyon, W.

Alexander, Richard

Bevan, David Gilroy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Boswell, Tim

Ashby, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Aspinwall, Jack

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Atkinson, David

Brazier, Julian

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bright, Graham

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

990

Browne, John (Winchester)

Knapman, Roger

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Budgen, Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Butler, Chris

McCusker, Harold

Butterfill, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Marland, Paul

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Marlow, Tony

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Colvin, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Curry, David

Mates, Michael

Day, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Devlin, Tim

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dicks, Terry

Mills, Iain

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Evennett, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Favell, Tony

Moss, Malcolm

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Mudd, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Forth, Eric

Page, Richard

Fox, Sir Marcus

Paice, James

Franks, Cecil

Patnick, Irvine

Fry, Peter

Pawsey, James

Gale, Roger

Price, Sir David

Gardiner, George

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Gill, Christopher

Rost, Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Sackville, Hon Tom

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Sayeed, Jonathan

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Sims, Roger

Gregory, Conal

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Grylls, Michael

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Stanbrook, Ivor

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

Steen, Anthony

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Haselhurst, Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Thornton, Malcolm

Hill, James

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Holt, Richard

Watts, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Whitney, Ray

Howells, Geraint

Widdecombe, Ann

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Wilkinson, John

Hunter, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Irvine, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Janman, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. John Townend and Mr. Jacques Arnold.

Kilfedder, James

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Allen, Graham

Clay, Bob

Alton, David

Clelland, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Armstrong, Hilary

Coleman, Donald

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Ashton, Joe

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Crowther, Stan

Battle, John

Cryer, Bob

Beckett, Margaret

Cummings, John

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

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

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bidwell, Sydney

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

Blair, Tony

Dixon, Don

Body, Sir Richard

Doran, Frank

Bradley, Keith

Douglas, Dick

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dover, Den

Buchan, Norman

Duffy, A. E. P.

Buckley, George J.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Caborn, Richard

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Callaghan, Jim

Eadie, Alexander

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Eastham, Ken

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Carlile, Alex (Monfg)

Fatchett, Derek

Cartwright, John

Fearn, Ronald

991

Fields, Terry (L'pool B n)

Michael, Alun

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flannery, Martin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Flynn, Paul

Morley, Elliott

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

French, Douglas

Mullin, Chris

Galbraith, Sam

Nellist, Dave

Galloway, George

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

O'Brien, William

George, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Parry, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

Patchett, Terry

Gordon, Mildred

Pike, Peter L.

Gould, Bryan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Graham, Thomas

Primarolo, Dawn

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Radice, Giles

Grocott, Bruce

Randall, Stuart

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Redmond, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Redwood, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Reid, Dr John

Henderson, Doug

Richardson, Jo

Hinchliffe, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Ruddock, Joan

Hood, Jimmy

Salmond, Alex

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Sedgemore, Brian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hoyle, Doug

Short, Clare

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

Illsley, Eric

Soley, Clive

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Kirkwood, Archy

Stott, Roger

Lambie, David

Strang, Gavin

Lamond, James

Straw, Jack

Leadbitter, Ted

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Leighton, Ron

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Turner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Wall, Pat

Litherland, Robert

Wallace, James

Livsey, Richard

Walley, Joan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McAllion, John

Wareing, Robert N.

McCartney, Ian

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

McFall, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McKelvey, William

Wigley, Dafydd

McLeish, Henry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McTaggart, Bob

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McWilliam, John

Wilson, Brian

Madden, Max

Winnick, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Worthington, Tony

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wray, Jimmy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Meacher, Michael

Dr. Lewis Moonie and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

Meale, Alan

Question accordingly negatived.

Higher Education Diplomas
Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House take note of European Community Documents Nos. 8242/85 and 6944/86 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum of 22nd April 1988 submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on higher education diplomas; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early adoption of a Directive which reflects the United Kingdom system of professional training and regulation and facilitates freedom of movement for professions within the European Community as an essential element of a single Community market.;'[Mr. Maclean.]
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that a manuscript amendment to the motion has been tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman was fully entitled to do that. There is provision for such an amendment to be decided upon, without debate, under the Standing Order. I have given careful consideration to the amendment, but I have decided not to select it.
Question put and agreed to.
4.57 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the information which you have given to the House. Can you confirm that the document was discussed in Committee only this morning and reported to the Table only an hour or so ago, thus making it difficult for any hon. Member such as myself who attended to place formally on the Order Paper an amendment which would normally have appeared tomorrow? I take it that you would feel that, although the procedure is in order, it is not only unusual but in its haste deprives hon. Members and the public from seeing what the Government are up to.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that under Standing Order 102 it is possible for the motion to be separate from the motion in Committee, that it is amendable, and that in selecting amendments you will maintain the precedent set by Mr. Speaker Lloyd in 1974 in respect of amendments to Common Market motions?
Mr. Speaker: I accept that this is an unusual procedure. I agree with the hon. Member that normally the House should have time to consider motions that are on the Order Paper and have an opportunity to amend them when it is legitimate to do so. I cannot give reasons to the hon. Member or to the House for my non-selection today, but I will be pleased to see the hon. Member privately.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister explain the indecent haste and why he did not put the motion down for tomorrow?
May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker? As we have seen earlier today, more and more legislation which affects our affairs is originating in the EEC. Are you convinced that the scrutiny procedures of the House are adequate? I doubt whether they are. May I ask you to consider this privately and come back to me with your view?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot ask the Minister to give an explanation to that because the Standing Order requires me to put the Question forthwith, as I have already done. I have every confidence in the Select Committee on European Legislation and its Chairman. What has been done today is in order.

Orders of the Day
  School Boards (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  EXPENDITURE ON ESTABLISHMENT AND SUPPORT OF SCHOOL BOARDS
  `The identification and monitoring of the additional expenditure reasonably required for the establishment and continuing support of school boards will be the subject of separate and ongoing consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. —[Mr. Norman Hogg.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I expect that the speeches by Opposition Front Bench Members today will be brief, but that will not understate the case that we shall make on a number of important matters that we considered in Committee, not least the question of expenditure, which exercised the Committee to some extent because of the considerable difference of opinion between the Under-Secretary of State and Opposition Members.
  New clause 1 is a direct consequence of our debate in Committee. It would ensure that extra expenditure required for boards would be subject to separate and ongoing consultation with COSLA. That appears to be appropriate, because COSLA is the recognised body which speaks for Scottish local government and is the collective voice of Scotland's education authorities, as has been recognised for some time. I and my hon. Friends believe that COSLA is best able to undertake separate and continuing identification and monitoring of additional expenditure reasonably required for school boards.
  The financial memorandum to the Bill states that the cost is likely to be very small. The Minister went so far as to say that even that cost would be offset by savings arising from the abolition of schools councils. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments made in Committee, but the information that is now to hand amply demonstrates that the Minister's view on that matter is erroneous and his estimate that school boards will cost the Exchequer and, ultimately, local authorities some £5 million is wrong.
  The Minister rejected all the well-documented arguments advanced by Dumfries and Galloway regional council. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) here, because, in Committee, he eloquently argued the Dumfries and Galloway case that the cost of school boards to that authority would be some £600,000 which, in terms of the whole of Scotland, would mean a cost of some £20 million.
  The Minister did not accept that case. He argued that Dumfries and Galloway regional council was overstating costs such as travelling expenses and suggested that there were unjustifiable extra staff costs. However, from the information now to hand, it appears to be the Minister who has misunderstood the situation and is understating the costs in every area of the boards' anticipated activities.
  What COSLA is now saying appears to destroy the arguments advanced by the Minister in Committee. First,
  994
  COSLA estimates that the outturn cost of running schools councils is £700,000. Secondly, it makes its assessment of the full costs of the boards in much detail and on clearly defined assumptions. For instance, it assumes that extra functions will not be delegated by the authorities to the boards. It says that it has proceeded on the basis of the cost of the boards' activities alone; in other words, minimum costs.
  It is also assumed that board members will claim travel allowances on the basis of 21·3p per mile, which is the rate prescribed under section 46 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. That expenditure was specifically endorsed by the Minister in Committee. The total estimate, including the costs of staffing and financial information support, elections, training, staff replacement, advertising and janitorial overtime adds up to approximately £17·2 million or £5,682 per school.
  If the Minister tells us that COSLA has got its figures wrong, he will have to be every bit as specific as COSLA has been in arriving at the figures that I have put to the House. It will not be good enough just to rely on the arguments that the Minister arrayed in Committee. He will have to do considerably better than that.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in Committee, we discussed the estimate produced by Dumfries and Galloway regional council. Does he acknowledge that COSLA, in carrying out its further estimate, has taken into account and accepted many of my criticisms of the estimates made by Dumfries and Galloway?
  Mr. Hogg: I am receiving all sorts of advice from my hon. Friends, but I shall not engage in an argument with the Minister over that point. I accept some of what he says, but, none the less, we have before us a detailed statement from COSLA, dated 16 June 1988, which was circulated to all Scottish Members. If the Minister responds to the question of whose figures are right, he will have to challenge the basis on which COSLA has arrived at its figures.
  I have considered carefully what COSLA has said about delegated functions, school board meetings, committee meetings and appointment of committees, as well as about the general support required for the operation of those committees and have concluded that it has been conservative in its considerations. It has not overstated its case. It relies on the experience of its officials and of the education authority officials in Scotland. When we take that into account, we must conclude that COSLA is making a reasonable estimate of the costs.
  It is important that the people of Scotland should know that they are being asked to find additional expenditure from the education budget of some £17·2 million. They never sought to have that expenditure imposed on them, because they never made any demand for the kind of school boards that the Minister proposes. I conclude, therefore, that it is unreasonable expenditure which we should not be making. I would not choose to spend £17·2 million in that way, but would direct my attention to other education priorities.
  I realise that the Minister does not accept my figure of £17·2 million and is instead persuaded that the school boards will cost considerably less. [Interruption] My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) says that

  995
  the Minister will tell us exactly why. I hope that he does and I am looking forward to his speeches. I listened to them attentively in Committee. Some were better than others. Some fell away in the middle and others ended rather dramatically. He even ended them occasionally by saying that he would go away and look at a matter. It is too late to look at this particular item and I hope that he will tell me that new clause 1 is so reasonable and appropriate, in that it places a responsibility on COSLA as the correct and appropriate body to do the job that we envisage for Scottish local government, that it is the right and proper course for him to accept it. I am confident that he will do so.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: It will probably alarm the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) to hear me say that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that he made. We have all received from COSLA the figures about which he spoke. I have some comments to make about those figures, but as I do not have the expertise that is available to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is preferable to listen to what he has to say. However, one point that I shall put to him is that there is a slightly different but acceptable method of meeting the concern of COSLA. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth was right to say that the Bill puts new duties on Scottish local authorities for which the authorities have not asked. Therefore, there is a strong case for considering a specific grant for this expenditure.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister did not accept the proposition of a specific grant on the ground that in general terms COSLA has been opposed to that in the past. That is true and there is a general argument that specific grants limit a local authority's discretion in allocating total expenditure to different heads. However, a specific duty is being placed on education authorities and much of the expenditure is not at their discretion. Some matters are at their discretion, such as the number of representatives that they send to meetings, but much of the other expenditure—for example, on elections, and the number of meetings of school councils—is in a sense demand-led and not under the control of the education authority. Because there is a specific statutory duty and because much of the expenditure is not under the control of the local authority, there is in principle a strong case for making this expenditure the subject of specific grant. I appreciate the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister put against that in Committee, but I hope that he will reconsider.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: While I do not think that the new clause is entirely felicitously worded, its contention is valid. I hope that the Minister will not be drawn into an argument about what the costs are likely to be because I think we can all agree that whatever they are they will be additional to any costs that are currently incurred. An argument about how exactly they will turn out is not important. It is important that the Minister is introducing legislation that will increase costs to local authorities that are already stretched in this area.
  The Minister is entitled to say that his ideology allows him to introduce the Bill and that Parliament should vote on it. Most local authorities will be bitterly resentful, and rightly so, if they are told afterwards that they have to find the money out of their general pool to pay for the Minister's ideology. They will be subject to threats of rate
  996
  capping or cuts in the rate support grant if they are unable to contain themselves within budget. It would be appropriate if the consultation were about securing proper and adequate funding.
  The Government are in an extraordinary position. In the last two years they have introduced two pieces of legislation specifically for Scotland and have stomped the country preaching about the need for local authorities to cut their functions, interventions, costs and expenditure. Yet the Government have introduced two of the most expensive pieces of legislation that any local authority has ever had to face. One is the introduction of school boards involving thousands of new people who will have to be serviced. The Bill provides for that servicing.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman against school boards?
  Mr. Bruce: That is an extraordinary intervention. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I would be in favour of school boards if they were a partnership. [Interruption] The Minister should allow me to finish. I would be in favour of school boards and the powers presented in the Bill if they were introduced in a spirit of partnership between parents, teachers and pupils. I am not in favour of school boards in which parents have a majority that they did not seek and do not want. I shall speak about that later. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) would serve his electors better if he was prepared to represent that view which, as he knows, is the view of parents in his constituency.
  The Minister is entitled to introduce a Bill in which he believes, but it will involve local authorities in costs. They are hard pressed and their resources are stretched, particularly in education. Local authorities are entitled to say what our constituents are generally saying, which is that they do not want the Bill as it stands or the proposed powers. If the Government want them, they must be prepared to pay for them rather than taking resources from other areas of education to provide for the Bill's implementation. The new clause is designed to cover that.
  The Government are introducing the most expensive alternative form of raising revenue for local authorities that it is possible to devise. They expect local authorities to recruit extra people, to take on extra computing facilities and to incur extra costs to collect a tax that may produce no more—and probably less—revenue in net terms. The Government tell the people that the Bill is about efficiency and about reducing the cost of administration, but it specifically increases costs and does not increase efficiency and democratic accountability.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) would go to the stake over the wording in his new clause. However, the principle of local authorities being asked to implement the Bill and to lake on the cost is wrong. They should be fully reimbursed for implementing the Bill and should at least be fully consulted about its implications. That is all that the new clause asks, and my colleagues and I support it.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was astounded by the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) because he spoke against the principle of school boards. I would have understood the hon. Gentleman's stance if he had spoken

  997
  against the original consultation paper. To hear him speak one would think that nothing has taken place since then, whereas we have seen an enormous number of modifications and changes in the Bill. I am still unhappy about one or two parts of the Bill but its general thrust is right. We want to see greater participation by parents in schools. I can tell the hon. Member for Gordon that since the changes in the Bill the representations that I have had in my constituency have not been about its principle, which is what the hon. Gentleman spoke about.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I have a good deal of sympathy for the new clause. That sympathy is not based on the assertion by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) who said that he did not reckon the spending of more than £5 million was worth while. It is worth spending some more money if that leads to better participation, more involvement and more interest by parents in the running of our schools. That will apply especially if some further improvements can successfully be made before the Bill leaves Parliament.
  I, too, remain unpersuaded by my hon. Friend that the figures that he originally gave for what the school boards will cost will prove adequate. We have added some more activities for the boards and I hope that we shall be successful in increasing the size of teacher involvement on them. I have consistently said that that was necessary. I freely acknowledge that some of these changes will involve costs that are additional to those that my hon. Friend envisaged when drafting the Bill. All the evidence that I have seen from regional education authorities—from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and from Grampian—and the COSLA seems to show that the costs are likely to be higher than those outlined in the financial memorandum to the Bill and thus far given by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that since the Bill was drafted my hon. Friend has taken a fresh look at the finances involved.
  I do not want the school boards to be unsuccessful because of lack of resources. This is a good initiative. Let us make sure that it works and has the necessary resources. I agree that some local authorities and regional councils did not support the schools councils and do not want the school boards. Even so, I think they are a good and worthwhile development. As some of those authorities are uncertain about the value of this proposal, it is wrong that they should have to find money from other resources for the running of the boards beyond the amounts that my hon. Friend has earmarked for that.
  I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine this matter and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. He and I want the boards to have enough money and to work. Let us not launch the new initiative short of funds and resources, thereby making it less likely to be successful.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I had hoped that we would hear a breakdown of the £5 million figure from the Government so that we could contrast it with COSLA's £17 million—but that has not been given so far. We live in hope that we shall hear one in the next hour or so.
  I want to pick out some points from the COSLA paper. It assumes that the school boards will meet, on average, six times a year, which does not seem unreasonable, given that
  998
  schools may face crises of various kinds that might necessitate their meeting far more often. COSLA reasonably presumes that one education authority rep would attend three meetings of a school board a year on average. That, too, hardly seems excessive. Indeed, it would be reasonable to expect some reps to attend all six meetings—or more, if there were more.
  COSLA assumes that the cost of running the service of clerks to the board will be £4·70 an hour, including national insurance, which seems hardly unreasonable—unless the Government intend to privatise the service and let some extremely underpaid clerk from a jobcentre do the job. Perhaps that is what they have in mind.
  COSLA points out that the staffing costs cover providing professional advice and information support services—local education and finance staff—and the costs of attendance at board and committee meetings, but do not include the manpower costs of training. In other spheres of local government activity they would be included. Does the Minister think that this is a fair account of the true costs of running the service? In areas such as building and works it would not be considered so.
  The Minister has promised us figures; I hope he will not delay in letting us have them, so that we can know the Government's real intentions.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) started from the wrong premise, that there have been swingeing cuts in local government expenditure. That, as we all know, is wholly untrue. Everyone knows that there is far more local government expenditure now than ever before—[Interruption.] Everyone except Opposition Members, that is. There have, however, been cuts in the grossly inflated budgets of councils that thought they could spend the world—in which case Ministers have had to call them to order. Good housekeeping is as important in 1988 as it has been for 100 years or more. Opposition Members do not understand facts like that.
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) was kind enough to mention my involvement with the new clause in Standing Committee. The costs are important. My hon. Friend the Minister has been most helpful and constructive in meeting the chairman of my education committee and her colleagues. They feel that the Bill has made constructive progress in Committee. So pleased are they with it that they have already set up six pilot school board schemes, which will go into action in August. There will probably be a seventh by the end of this week. That shows how a reasonable education authority has seen the importance of the Minister's policy, has taken a constructive interest in the Bill throughout its passage—and before, by commenting on the consultative papers—and has demonstrated how a local authority should handle this sort of issue in the interests of the parents, pupils and teachers in its area. That is all good news.
  I thank my hon. Friend for the trouble he has taken to meet the representations of my education authority. Of course, he has not accepted every point that I raised in Committee, but he has accepted a significant number of them. I welcome the concessions that the Minister has tabled as amendments. Has he had second thoughts about the overall costs to local authorities? In Committee, we differed about the amount that Dumfries and Galloway had worked out for its school boards as compared with the computerised sum that was worked out for the whole of

  999
  Scotland. There was an enormous difference between my authority's and his Department's estimates of the costs. Whatever the costs are—£1 million, £5 million or £15 million—the education authorities want to know that they will be covered within their overall grant from the Scottish Office and that the costs will not come out of existing funds that are earmarked for other purposes.
  I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith): if we are to set up the boards we should not ruin them by a shortage of funds. We must be wholehearted about this and make sure that costs, travelling expenses and so on are allowed for. As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that the proposed boards are marginally too small, and I should like a four or five-person increase in the size of boards that look after 1.000-pupil schools. I hope my hon. Friend will say a little more about costs, which worry local authorities. I say that as one who represents a local authority that is taking a constructive line on this and welcomes the Minister's proposals.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. John Reid: Unlike the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I object first to the boards, both in principle and in form, and secondly to the amount of expenditure that it is intended will be provided for them. It is nonsense to say that it does not matter whether that expenditure is £1 or £1 million, because any money spent on the boards could be used for other purposes and to provide badly needed resources in Scotland.
  Grave issues are involved in terms of the form of the boards and the expenditure. It is not sufficient for the Minister to point out that in the past he has had to correct one or two minor errors in the estimates made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because minor mistakes made in the past by someone else do not justify the Minister making a major mistake now.
  Our first objection is that any expenditure should be levied on boards which have been set up under the apparent guise of extending choice. We are all for choice, provided that it is real and not theoretical. However, we contend that expenditure is being planned for boards which do not substantially increase the choice of the vast majority of parents. Secondly, the boards could be taken over by unrepresentative groups. As the Minister knows, the boards will have the power to veto all senior appointments. Possible embarrassments and disruptive tendencies could arise from the formation of the boards. The power to raise funds could be interpreted by some as the power to levy charges.
  We have raised these objections before, but they become more forceful when it is intended to spend money on the formation and implementation of some of the boards. That could be overcome if the Minister could point to any desire, evidence or empirical facts to suggest that there is a demand among the population in general for such expenditure on school boards.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. We are debating the costs of establishing bodies that will involve parents in schools. As the hon. Gentleman asks for evidence, may I take it that he is opposed to the proposal of Strathclyde regional council that there should be one school council per school, which would be every bit as expensive in terms of administrative
  1000
  support? I should have thought that that gives the hon. Gentleman the evidence he wants. I am sorry that he obviously does not support the authority's proposition.
  Dr. Reid: It would no doubt be extremely interesting to discuss the proposals for participation which are being put forward by almost everyone but the Minister. He will forgive me if I point out that the subject of today's debate is his plans. All the empirical evidence on those plans suggests that the overwhelming bulk of the population in Scotland oppose them. The overwhelming majority of parents, who are supposed to benefit from the boards which are being foisted on them, are opposed in principle and in practice to the form of the participation that the Minister suggests. Therefore, it is our contention that expenditure on such boards is also opposed by the vast majority of parents.
  We have also raised a point about the apparent discrepancy in the amount of expenditure. That is important because it obviously matters whether the difference between the Minister's estimates and those of COSLA is £1 million, £5 million or £50 million because the money that is being pushed in that direction could be well and better employed in other ways in Scotland.
  We contend, as does COSLA, that the Government propose to spend just under £18 million on the proposed school boards. Predictably, the Scottish Office estimate is that the overall cost of the school boards will be about £5 million. I have no doubt that the Minister will surprise us at the end of the debate by admitting that he has perhaps been a bit wrong here and there, and by coming up with a revised figure and suggesting, spontaneously and not as if it was planned in advance, that we might compete with the new figure and distribute it in the form of specific grants, something which he has been trying to impose throughout the Committee stage but which has been rejected. However, by courtesy of a few planted comments from his Back-Bench colleagues, the issue has been raised again today.
  There is such a major discrepancy between what COSLA maintains as being the cost of the school boards and the Minister's estimates that he must offer us not an overall global sum, but a detailed breakdown of the costs that lie behind the estimate which he will then ask us to accept. The unit costs of each school board can be anything from £5,000 to £6,000 for central support costs and basic administration.
  I commend COSLA's briefing to the Minister. We do not claim—and it is not claimed—that every sum in it is absolutely correct to the nearest penny. As the Minister has said, there have been one or two modifications in the past. However, as I have already said, it is not good enough for the Minister simply to point out minor aberrations in the past, because that will not justify a major aberration on his part today.
  If the Bill is to be steamrollered through the House in its present inadequate state, it is incumbent on the Government to adopt a more realistic attitude to the financing of the boards. The Government should realise the implications and be willing to support the reasonable costs which will inevitably be incurred if the school boards are foisted on unwilling parents, teachers and communities.
  It is obvious that local authorities, and especially COSLA, must be involved in the ongoing consultation about expenditure, first, to monitor the expenditure,

  1001
  secondly, to ensure fairness both to the boards—if the Government insist that they should be set up—and to the regional authorities, and, thirdly, to ensure that in future there will be some independent verification of the costs of running the boards and of the legitimacy of the benefits derived from such costs.
  I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will have a rethink. In fairness to the boards that the Government wish to be established, to the authorities which will have a major role to play in education and in overseeing the boards, to the public, who are seeing money being spent on a project that they did not want in the first place, and to Parliament, which wants an independent estimate and survey of how much is being spent, I hope that the Government will accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was at least honest and told the House that he was against the setting up of the boards in principle. We respect his honesty.
  I advise the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that I have never listened to such humbug in my life. It was a repetition of some of the humbug that we have heard from him previously. He was speaking against the principle of setting up the boards. However, he knows that the people in his constituency, and certainly, as far as I can ascertain, the people in the areas north of the Tay—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gordon was only too happy to talk about the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is a fact that north of the Tay, and certainly in Tayside, North—I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not try to tell me what is going on in Tayside, North—[Interruption.] I have listened to humour from Opposition Members in previous Parliaments. We see different faces now on the Opposition Benches from those in previous Parliaments.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: There are more and more of us each time.
  Mr. Walker: Opposition Members come and Opposition Members go. We are here——
  Mr. Alex Salmond rose——
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is a new boy. He should sit down. When he has earned his spurs, he can stand up. After all, we know that one problem that we face in relation to school boards, and other matters, is the fact that the Scottish National party depends on lies for its message. As I keep telling the House, it puts out lies in my constituency. However, its lies will be found out. When hon. Members interfere in my constituency, I can only conclude that they are concerned about their own weak position.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh rose——
  Mr. Walker: Yes, I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been interfering in my constituency.
  Mr. Welsh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says that, because he could not be more wrong. I do not interfere if I can help it—certainly not to my knowledge
  1002
  —in the constituencies of other hon. Members. In relation to the particular instance that he mentioned, one of my constituents is a member of the organisation which sought an interview with the Minister. The hon. Member is very good at publicly threatening to sue people, but he never delivers. Instead of making big noises, I invite him to do something for a change.
  Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that when he knows me better he will know that I fight on grounds of my choosing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully. First, he was interfering in my constituency, whether or not he has a constituent who wants to be a member of a committee, because the whole matter relates to my constituency and to my constituency only. I shall see the hon. Gentleman at a time and place of my choosing, and not when he chooses.
  There is no question but that in Tayside, North parents wish to become much more involved in schools. They are looking forward to the Bill becoming an Act so that they can become part of the school board system. They are very keen on that because they recognise that the Government have introduced prudent, sensible and caring policies which this Bill represents. The Government have also devolved powers to people in so many of the Acts that have been passed. The school boards will devolve power to the parents and that will help the running of our schools.
  Parents have a direct interest in what happens in schools. In the country areas people are certainly very interested and concerned to be much more directly involved in what is happening. That is part of the community spirit in country areas.—[Interruption.] I can speak for country areas because by constituency contains 2,000 sq miles of Scottish countryside. People in country areas have always been much more interested in community activities and will welcome the opportunity to be part of the operation of the school boards when they are introduced.
  I have read new clause 1 very carefully and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reject it. Of all the bodies with which one would want to have ongoing consultations, COSLA would be the last. Having read some of the material from COSLA recently—[Interruption.] This is my advice to my hon. Friend the Minister and he can accept or reject it. I certainly would not accept new clause 1.
  The Minister should give us a commitment that the Government will set up the boards and that the cost of running the boards is justified because we believe that they are good for Scottish education. There should be a commitment that the bill will be met. We do not want the Government to set up a consultation process that will produce a constant running battle and running sore. After all, we know that the Opposition are against school boards in principle. If the Opposition are against them in principle, they will argue against them all the time.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The juvenile tendency wing of the Tory party is a very difficult act to follow, but it is an easy act not to emulate.
  I am concerned about the proposals for school boards. They look like yet another example of the process whereby central Government create extra burdens, responsibilities and financial outgoings for local authorities, yet do not give them the resources to meet those extra burdens and outgoings. We have seen that so often in legislation—for

  1003
  example, in raising the school leaving age and passing Act after Act placing extra burdens on local authorities, but failing to provide resources to meet the burdens. I believe that the school boards are another example of that.
  New clause 1 seeks to give COSLA a national monitoring and co-ordinating role on behalf of its members. That is exactly COSLA's role. It can provide a national picture because it has representatives from all over Scotland who can see what will happen when the school boards are implemented. COSLA has the machinery and expertise to provide a national picture of how the disparate local school boards are operating.
  I know of no mechanism for an annual conference of school boards or a way for the boards to share experience or ideas. As a national group, local authorities should have some means of monitoring nationally the costs of school boards, and the ability to make representations to the Government on the basis of that monitoring and the information received. COSLA could carry out that national co-ordinating and monitoring, especially as the regions and island councils are responsible for education and will be carrying the financial burdens and responsibility to pay out the money to implement this legislation.
  We are still entitled to ask how much the changes will cost. There is an amazing disparity between COSLA's estimates and those of the Government. COSLA estimates that it will cost £17·9 million to set up the school boards while the Government's estimate is only £5 million. There is a difference of tens of millions of pounds in the calculations. Will the Minister tell us on what the Government base their calculations? Education authorities are being asked to find money from their existing very stretched budgets to fund the new legislation. That is unfair on local authorities.
  As COSLA has produced its financial calculations in detail, it is incumbent on the Government to do the same. COSLA has detailed its assumptions about the number and length of meetings. What are the Government's assumptions? COSLA has detailed its calculations about education authority input, the number of school board members, travel costs, annual average mileages and payments to clerks. Will the Government detail their figures so that the House can decide which set of figures is accurate and what the real burden will be on local authorities?
  COSLA's members will have to bear the costs of the legislation. They have clearly done their homework. What calculations have the Government carried out? The Government are imposing the burdens in the legislation. What calculations have they carried out to compare with COSLA's? We and COSLA are entitled to know the figures and I hope that the Minister will address COSLA's figures in detail.
  I support new clause 1 because I believe that COSLA cannot be ignored as the Government are intent on ignoring it. COSLA is a national governmental organisation and it will have a positive contribution to make in the implementation of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that new clause I will be accepted and that, instead of ignoring COSLA, the Government will treat it with the seriousness that it deserves in implementing the legislation.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The right hon.
  Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is not alone in being unpersuaded by the Minister's figure of £5 million as the cost for implementing the school boards system. It would be difficult to imagine any Scot who would be persuaded by that figure with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is persuaded by anything that his Government Front Bench colleagues tell him.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: And he still has not been promoted.
  Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend says, he still does not get promoted.
  I warn hon. Members to be very wary of the intervention made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He said that he had a great deal of sympathy with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld (Mr. Hogg). My first reaction to that was that I had not been listening properly to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Eastwood argued in favour of specific grants and I then knew why he had made his intervention. In Committee the Minister spent a great deal of time trying to persuade Committee members to accept that the expenditure for school boards that we were demanding should be provided in the form of specific grant so that the Minister could then hit us with the phrase that he used in Committee:
  "COSLA has fought tooth and nail against specific grants for specific activities in local government. It has argued that specific grants undermine local democracy, that the money should be provided as a rate support grant and that it should not be tagged to school boards."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 26 April 1988; c. 99.]
  The hon. Member for Eastwood intervened because he was trying to draw Opposition Members into arguing on behalf of specific grants so that his hon. Friend the Minister could shoot those arguments to pieces in terms of COSLA's policies. We must be very wary of the intervention of the hon. Member for Eastwood.
  I very much support the concept in new clause 1.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should not see a deep conspiracy in every speech that I make. Does he agree that, while he has described COSLA's general policy, for which there are good reasons, there are specific grants? Does he also agree that if there were a specific grant, it would meet the point that the Opposition are making because it would be bound to be subject to detailed consultation?
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman fails to tell other hon. Members listening to the debate that the point about specific grants is that they are directly under the control of central Government. That is why COSLA is very wary of expenditure in the form of specific grants. COSLA's experience of central Government in education over the past 10 years is that they have continually cut the money available to local authorities to spend on education. That is why COSLA does not want a specific grant to fund expenditure on school boards. It wants that to be part of the rate support grant, but not so that it may be lost among other items up for discussion. That is why the new clause calls for support for school boards and for continuing

  1005
  consultation with COSLA to identify the additional expenditure that will be necessary through the rate support grant system to fund the school boards.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the necessity of continuing consultation with COSLA about the probable expense of school boards. Tayside regional council was asked to provide details of the financial and manpower implications of setting up the boards, and its answer obviously forms part of COSLA's submission to various hon. Members. The council could not provide an exact figure because there were far too many imponderables. No precise figure can be put on the cost of school boards until they have been set up. We do not know the amount of financial and other information that will have to be made available to them. The Bill states that education authorities shall provide
  "such information as the Board may from time to time reasonably request."
  That is open-ended and authorities will not know what the school boards will ask them to provide or what the costs will be for providing that information. The Bill also states that the head teacher must seek the approval of boards for per capita expenditure.
  A school board will not merely wish to know the per capita expenditure in its particular school—it will want to compare its figures with those of other schools in the area. Information will have to be supplied to every school board—and there will be more than 200 in Tayside—about per capita expenditure in all schools. That has enormous cost implications for education authorities. A structure should be established for local authorities to negotiate with the Government about the continuing costs of the school boards.
  We debated the cost of the election arrangements in Committee. The Minister started from the premise that the ballot papers could be sent home with the children after school. It soon became clear to him that that simply would not work. In some areas children might be approached and asked for the ballot papers, or they might simply lose them. There will have to be a postal ballot of all parents in each school, and the costs will be enormous. However, at this stage the education authorities cannot even estimate them.
  There is a similar problem with the appointments committee because a school board will be involved in a vetting process at the short-list stage for head teacher, deputy head teacher and assistant head teacher. Education authorities do not know the cost implications of that. The same is true about the remuneration for clerks to the school boards, as it is also true about the running costs. How often will school boards meet, at what time will they meet and what sort of funding will be required to support those meetings?
  What about compensation to staff? The head teacher and other teachers will have to give up school time to attend school boards and new staff will have to be appointed to fill the gaps left in the timetables. No education authority can precisely estimate the full costs of implementing the school boards system. Tayside thinks that it will run into seven figures—more than £1 million. Yet the current cost of school councils is only £600 each. More than 200 school boards will be set up in Tayside and,
  1006
  as COSLA says, the cost is likely to be in excess of £5,000 per school board. That gives some idea of the seriousness of the problem, especially on a national scale.
  The Government's figures are unrealistic and it is essential that the Minister takes the criticisms on board. He should accept new clause 1 because it would set up a mechanism that would enable the school boards system to be implemented successfully rather than being a dismal failure, which would cause even more frustration in and destruction of our school system than has already been caused during nine years of this Government.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I support new clause 1. Most hon. Members will agree that, apart from the discordant note struck by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), there is a consensus on the need to match the role of school boards with resources. That is an important point to establish.
  I am concerned about costs because there cannot be effective parental participation on the cheap. Perhaps the Minister wants to aspire to that, implement school boards for ideological reasons and then walk away from the reality of the costs. I hope that when he replies to this brief debate he will challenge my assertion and convince the House that he means business on the costs of supporting school boards.
  While many Opposition Members have grave misgivings about school boards, there is a genuine interest in parental participation. I certainly do not have a vested interest in the destruction of school boards, once they have been implemented, simply because of a lack of funds. If the Government are investing politically in the development of school boards, it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell the House tonight that adequate resources will be available.
  My confidence was not reinforced by some of the Minister's replies in Committee to questions about school boards, their role and how the mechanisms of funding would work. He was challenged about support services for what, in Scotland, is called the clerking of the boards. That is an essential function because without proper administration many boards will be unable to do the effective work required.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that this afternoon the House heard a statement about the extension of VAT to building for commercial uses and various other things. During that statement, the Minister told the House—perhaps inadvertently—that that was based on a directive that the House had approved in 1977. In fact, the directive was debated by the House on a take note motion——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is continuing a debate on an earlier statement. What is the point of order for the Chair?
  Mr. Marlow: The Minister put forward proposals on the basis that the House had approved the original document. The House has not approved it—it took note of the original document. Therefore, the basis on which we discussed it today was erroneous.
  I do not believe that it is the Minister's fault, but it would be both right and appropriate for the Government to make some explanation of the misapprehension under which the House labours at the moment. It is an important issue and large sums of money are at stake——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and put it on the record. It is not a point of order and it has nothing to do with this debate. He must find other ways, as I am sure he will, of pursuing the matter.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that it was not a point of order.
  Mr. Hogg: My point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the advice that you have just given to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who raised a bogus point, was absolutely right. However, those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are most anxious to prosecute the proceedings of the Bill in an orderly manner because it is important to the people of Scotland. It does not help when hon. Members representing English constituencies make a nonsense of our proceedings. That is not acceptable to the Opposition Front Bench—nor, I believe, is it acceptable to the House.
  Mr. McLeish: The intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) requires no comment from me, although I feel that it was an abuse of the House. Indeed, the Scots on the Opposition Benches have just heard our Front Bench spokesman making that point.
  I was probing the question of support costs for the proper functions of school boards. The Minister was asked in Committee about how the costs could be contained, and he made a fairly remarkable statement. When pressed on how the committee of administration would function, the Minister suggested that one of the school board members should take the minutes. I found that quite incredible. We are talking about a major innovation in education in Scotland. The Minister is laughing, but we are used to that. We treat education in Scotland with respect, unlike the contempt which oozes from Ministers at every possible opportunity. When pressed on important items of costs, the Minister was quite happy to run away from them and throw out some political snippet as to how local authorities in Scotland could contain the costs.
  6 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in Committee a number of hon. Members were interested in the point that he is now making? It emerged that it was being suggested that the members of the school boards—and I cited my own constituency where I know that lawyers, dentists, doctors and others hoped to be members of the proposed boards—would be only too happy to take on the duties of being secretary.
  Mr. McLeish: I enjoyed greatly that intervention, because it summed up more adequately than I could, amateurism versus the professionalism that Scottish education has exhibited over the years. Bankers, dentists, retired people, probably some generals will be brought back from the colonies to man the school boards—an excellent contribution to the future quality of school boards.
  To highlight two or three issues which give cause for concern, I shall refer to the excellent COSLA paper which was produced as a briefing. First, no one would dispute the fact that at this stage it is impossible to identify the amount of expenditure required for the boards to function. We
  1008
  seek to ensure that the Government take seriously the fact that a large amount of new expenditure will be needed, and consequently the Government will have to say to the local authorities and the representatives of the education unions that if reasonable costs are put forward for such a venture they are willing to support those costs.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman referred to the position I took in Committee about clerks, which was that clerks should not necessarily be local authority employees. As he also referred to the COSLA briefing document, will he comment on the fact that the COSLA estimate of the costs of providing the clerks' services are in line with what I told the Committee, that is, that it does not make the assumption that they should be local authority employees? I wonder whether his criticism and derision that has been directed at me is also directed at COSLA.
  Mr. McLeish: I would never withdraw any derision that I aimed at the Minister because I believe sincerely that the Minister's attitude towards Scottish education is, in the main, highly negative and destructive, so I shall not take any instructions from him about my interest in and my contribution to the welfare of Scottish education.
  We have identified the first point: the Government are willing the end but are unwilling to consider the means of delivery. My second point has been made, but it needs to be stressed. Scottish education authorities are facing massive constraints on their expenditure at present. There is no way in which they can make up the substantial shortfall between what the Government provide for school boards and what is necessary for the proper, effective functioning of those boards. I hope that the Government will take that seriously.
  The local authority in my constituency, Fife regional council, an excellent education authority which puts excellence first, will be faced with a possible bill of about £1·2 million for implementing the school boards. Whether it is £1·5 million or £500,000, it is a very significant sum of money, and £1·2 million would represent I per cent. of its total gross expenditure on education. My concern is that the spending possibly of £1·2 million by 200 schools requires the Government honestly to reassure the House this evening that if such costs are incurred they will be met by the Government. School boards were their idea, and clearly, if they want them to be successful, Fife regional authority, and other education authorities, must have a reimbursement of costs, because most education authorities will look positively at the legislation when it is on the statute book. Will the Minister, in his reply, make that absolutely clear? Whether we are talking about £5 million or £19·5 million is irrelevant. It is the principle of whether the new boards can function effectively if the Government walk away from their responsibilities for the expenditure.
  Finally, specific grants have been mentioned. Our concern is that the Bill paves the way for opting out in future. If we accept specific grants, that will be another attack on local education authorities because it will increasingly centralise decision making and direct funding to education. That is not wanted by the education authorities, the education unions, or by the Opposition. It will be a further nail in the coffin of publicly provided education in Scotland. I hope that, apart from providing reassurance about funding, the Minister will reject specific

  1009
  grants which would bypass education authorities and create the hostility that is so prevalent in education and that the Opposition wish to dampen down.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about specific grants. New clause 1 provides that
  "the establishment and continuing support of school boards will be the subject of separate and ongoing consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities."
  The new clause does not specify who the Opposition wish to consult with COSLA. I find it hard to believe that they meant the Government, because, clearly, there are already consultations between the Government and COSLA about local authority spending and the rate support grant. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) from a sedentary position says, "Separate". That is the point which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. If the funding of school boards is to be subject to separate consultation and to be labelled as separate from the rate support grant, by any test of the meaning of specific grants—which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was calling for—that would be a specific grant, because it would be subject to separate negotiations and would have a separate purpose.
  I realise why the Opposition are determined not to embrace specific grants. It has nothing to do with opting out; it is because it is COSLA's policy to reject the notion of specific grants. I am all the more puzzled because on Second Reading and throughout the Committee proceedings I gave specific and clear undertakings that the cost of school boards would be taken into account in the rate support negotiations, that we did not wish this initiative in any way to be impoverished, and that we would provide the resources which were required to make the school boards function. I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition are asking the House to support the new clause.
  Mr. McLeish: Perhaps the briefing that the Minister has received has not been as good as it would have been if this were a Government new clause. It is clear that new clause 1 is about the volume of expenditure being separately discussed between various parties. The Minister knows that specific grant allocation is about the mechanism of the delivery of the finance. He should not confuse the two issues. He is doing that. Will he not accept that new clause 1 means that the volume should be discussed? Specific grants go much further than anything in new clause 1.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has a funny idea of what is a specific grant. A specific grant is a grant which is given for a specific purpose. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that in the rate support grant discussion account should be taken of school boards and that they should be subject to negotiation, I have already given that undertaking. Even now, as we speak, that process has begun and negotiations are taking place between COSLA and the Scottish Office on the appropriate level of support provided within the rate support grant settlement to meet the cost of the school boards, in anticipation of the House giving the Bill its consent. The hon. Gentleman is chasing an illusion and, having heard his account of what a specific grant is, I can better understand how we have reached this position.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister has said in Committee and on Report that he will take account of the requirements for funding implementation of the school boards system. That is very different from saying that he will guarantee that the Government will fund the costs, whatever they are, as they become apparent through consultation between himself and COSLA. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that, when the costs become obvious to him and local authorities, the Government will fund them and not leave it to local authorities to find the money from among their other revenue expenditure?
  Mr. Forsyth: There are several judgmental qualifications in the hon. Gentleman's question. As part of the negotiations, the cost of school boards will be fully taken into account, but I am not prepared to give COSLA a blank cheque whereby whatever it says the costs will be becomes the amount provided. If that were the basis on which we funded local government, there would be no need for negotiations and we would be back in the position faced in 1978, when Labour was in government. I am getting tired of repeated questioning on whether the school boards will be funded in this way. I shall carefully consider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that we should consider a specific grant for this purpose. In the meantime, I am prepared to operate on the basis of negotiations with COSLA, taking full account of the costs that it wishes to take on board.
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) pressed me to look at COSLA's estimate, and I have done so carefully. In Committee, I said that we thought that the cost would be about £5 million. I acknowledge that COSLA, unlike the hon. Gentleman, has found a saving of about £700,000 from the abolition of school councils, which is on the basis of a comparable figure to ours, putting our estimate at £5·7 million in total.
  COSLA's figures are a little questionable. I acknowledge that the Opposition have been generous enough to accept many of the arguments which I put in criticism of the Dumfries and Galloway estimates. I believe, from memory, that COSLA's estimates have changed from £12 million to £15 million to £20 million, and now the estimate is down to £17·6 million. There has been a degree of movement by COSLA——
  Mr. Galbraith: Flexibility.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to be flexible. Whether we are talking about £5 million or £10 million as a proportion of the total expenditure in education, we are dealing with very small sums.
  Mr. McLeish: One per cent.
  Mr. Forsyth: Less than 1 per cent., and, by our estimate, rather more than the equivalent cost of two extra pupils in an average secondary school.
  It is difficult to understand how boards with only basic powers—the basis of COSLA's estimate—meeting six times a year are likely to need more than £3·5 million of computer hardware and how it is possible that each board will consume £1,200 of stationery and telephone calls in a year. The estimate for training, at £2·4 million, is a ballpark figure for which no basis is given. It is a little difficult to understand, given the Government's undertaking that we shall fund training centrally. COSLA's global estimate includes nearly £1·8 million for staff replacement costs. As I pointed out in Committee, we have

  1011
  already arranged for that aspect of the impact of school boards to be accommodated within the new staffing standards, which we aim to publish, in line with our undertakings, before the end of the current school year. There is no need for that to be included in the estimate. When one strips away even those more dubious assumptions, we are talking perhaps about an estimate that lies between £5 million and £10 million, rather than £17 million. As I have said repeatedly, we are not absolutely thralled to the idea of £5 million. The negotiating machinery exists and, by now, COSLA should know how to use it.
  6.15 pm
  After a good Committee stage, when a number of positive suggestions were put forward which I was happy to accept, I am dismayed that the Opposition should claim to support the Bill's principle but criticise the financial implications when the Government seek to put it into effect. In an intervention, I said that Strathclyde region had a stance, as part of the Labour party's policy, of one school per council. It is difficult to understand how a school council for every school, with the additional powers that Labour proposes, would be significantly cheaper than the school boards, with the limited powers which are the basis of COSLA's assumption.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: We are not attempting to argue costs on that basis. We are simply saying that there should be a separate monitoring apparatus within the structure—COSLA—because we are far from persuaded about the Minister's estimates, which are now between £5 million and £10 million.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. By taking out the more obvious items that should not be included, we are arguing about between £5 million and £10 million. I am not saying that my estimate is £10 million—far from it. I am saying that it is a matter for negotiation. I accept what the hon. Gentleman states in all honesty is his position, but that was not the position taken by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) or some of his other colleagues, who clearly argued against the principle of the Bill and said that this was not a proper use of funds.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East was at pains to emphasise the costs of providing the reports, statements and other information that the Bill will entitle a board to receive and request. That was another example of the kind of objection to the Bill's principle about which I am trying to persuade the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The Opposition appear to be arguing for a restriction on a board's access to information, whereas the Scottish Labour party claims that parents are interested in that access. Labour Members find themselves in a curious position.
  Mr. McAllion: By referring to the additional information that would have to be referred to school boards, I was making a point about the cost to the education authority of supplying that information. The Minister did not take that into account. He does not make sufficient sums available to allow education authorities to provide the information required by school boards.
  Mr. Forsyth: I have repeatedly given undertakings that those costs will be met through the rate support grant. The hon. Gentleman must accept what we say. That
  1012
  undertaking will be met. The Opposition's insistence on not accepting it leaves me entitled to take the view, that basically they oppose the principle of the Bill and seek to argue against it.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the Minister realise that the rate support grant will meet up to only 52 per cent. of the costs and that ratepayers will have to find vast sums to subsidise the system? That will be a massive burden on taxpayers and ratepayers in Strathclyde, which is a huge authority. The Minister's proposals will cost a lot of money. Will he comment?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman needs to take account of the effect of having school boards where the people who see how the money is being spent in the schools can form judgments. My view is that the proposal is likely to make significant savings and create within the education system a body of people who can police it more effectively than councillors, albeit with the best of motives, who are remote from what is happening on the ground. The hon. Gentleman needs to put that point in the balance.
  I was asked about the rate support grant. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that this year the Government's allocation for education has been increased by no less than 9 per cent., which is well ahead of inflation and provides ample scope for absorbing a number of initiatives.
  Mr. Graham: That is irrelevant.
  Mr. Forsyth: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was worried about the basis of expenditure. I should have thought that he would be delighted that the Government have been able to increase expenditure on education by no less than 32 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) rightly expressed her worry about the provision of adequate training for members of school boards. I assure her that a comprehensive package is being prepared, which will include a variety of training material and information for board members and which will be funded centrally. We are also working on training for head teachers, whose management role will include working with the boards. That training will include material on their new relationships, so I think that the hon. Lady can rest assured.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I accept the Minister's assurance on those aspects of training. However, I was referring to the background training costs for professionals who will be required to service the committee. That cost will have to be included in an account of the true cost of running such boards.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady has made a separate point, which will undoubtedly be taken into account. Certainly we have borne it in mind in our estimates. It will be open to the boards to decide where to purchase additional training. We shall provide them with a budget for that purpose. Some enterprising local authorities may even be able to produce training packages which are competitive and those authorities may make a profit on the exercise. The boards themselves will test what is appropriate material, exercising their own discretion in the market place.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I am anxious that the Minister has forgotten the undertaking that he gave to me earlier when I intervened to ask for a breakdown of the Government's own figure, which was then £5 million. I am interested to hear the breakdown if the figure is as much as £10 million.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady asked me to give a breakdown of our estimate of £5 million. That sum was made up as follows: £250,000 for elections, £286,000 for members' travel allowances, £554,624 for training, £3,360,000 for administrative support and £559,376 for miscellaneous purposes. I hope that I have helped the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it really permissible that the Government's figures should be gabbled at us at enormous speed? We should have the figures on a sheet of paper before us so that we can make a proper study of the proposals.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): They will be published in Hansard tomorrow.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to study them and to question me again. I shall be happy to answer any points she may wish to raise.
  My hon. Friends made a number of points. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) how much I appreciate the help that we have had from Dumfries and Galloway and the remarks he made about the Scottish Office and its ability to work with that council.
  Some hon. Members are concerned about the costs and believe that the Government do not have their estimates right. We have provided funding to help the pilot study to operate in Dumfries and Galloway and we shall be considering carefully the experience there. Part of that experience will enable us to form an assessment of the likely costs that will arise and of which we shall take account. It will also enable us to test some of the training material and to form a view before the legislation comes into effect. We are profoundly grateful to the chairman of the education committee and the director of education for the co-operation and help that they have given us.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) advised me not to analyse the COSLA estimates. That was good advice but I was unable to take it, following the strictures of other hon. Members. He asserted that local authorities were stretched in their education budgets. That is untrue, because we have provided substantial extra resources—nearly one third. The hon. Gentleman said that he would favour providing the funds if the school boards were a partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was right to point out that the hon. Gentleman wanted it both ways; he was arguing in favour of the principle and against the practice, which is a position often taken by his party.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) pointed out that I had given undertakings in Committee that would add to costs. I acknowledge that, but they will provide for a more effective school board system and I can assure him that there is no question of the Government seeking to pare the resources for school boards with the result that they fail or do not operate as effectively as possible.
  We believe that the school boards will improve our schools fundamentally by bringing parents, school staff
  1014
  and the wider local community into closer involvement. Those benefits cannot be quantified easily. Nevertheless, they will be significant and enduring. We are not arguing for school boards at any price. The cost nationally will be modest—as I said, at the most a fraction of 1 per cent. of current local authority spending on education. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 278.

  Division No. 370]

  [6.26 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Allen, Graham

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Alton, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Anderson, Donald

  Flannery, Martin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Foster, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fraser, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beckett, Margaret

  Galloway, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Grirfiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buckley, George J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Callaghan, Jim

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Holland, Stuart

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clay, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  John, Brynmor

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Crowther, Stan

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Doran, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  Livsey, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marek, Dr John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  1015

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Martin, Michael J, (Springburn)

  Salmond, Alex

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Clare

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliott

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Straw, Jack

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nellist, Dave

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William

  Wall, Pat

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Parry, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wilson, Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Richardson, Jo

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. John McFall and Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alexander, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amos, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chope, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, W.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Critchley, Julian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Curry, David

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bright, Graham

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dicks, Terry

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  1016

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Farr, Sir John

  Lang, Ian

  Favell, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gardiner, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maples, John

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Ground, Patrick

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

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

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heddle, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hind, Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Paice, James

  Holt, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Howard, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  1017

  Ryder, Richard

  Thorne, Neil

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Heroford)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Speller, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

  COMPOSITION OF BOARDS
  Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
  '(d) persons (to be known as "community members") who are representatives of community groups, and who shall be elected jointly by members of the staff of the school and by parents of pupils in attendance at the school.'
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 35, in page 2, leave out line 10 and insert
  `in such numbers as are prescribed in Schedule 5 to this Act.'
  No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  `(2) The prescribed number of parent members shall not exceed the total prescribed representation of other groups on the School Board.'.
  No. 34, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) The number of parent members shall equal the combined representation of other groups on every school Board'.
  No. 39, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 15.
  No. 38, in page 2, leave out line 18 and insert 'Schedule 5'.
  No. 37, in page 2, line 27, leave out
  `variation of regulations made under this section or'.
  No. 10, in page 2, line 37, leave out from third 'a' to end of line 39 and insert
  `parent member (under subsection (1)(a) above), and who is also eligible as a staff member (under subsection (1)(b) above) may be a candidate for election to the Board in one capacity only.'.
  No. 27—a new schedule—
  `MEMBERSHIP OF SCHOOL BOARDS
  1. The composition of a school board will be linked to the size of the school measured by the number of pupils in attendance. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 below, the number of members in each category will be as shown in the following table:
  1018

  Number of pupils

  Parent Members

  Staff Members

  Co-opted Members

  Total

  1– 10*

  3

  1

  2

  6

  101– 500

  4

  2

  2

  8

  501–1000

  5

  2

  3

  10

  1001–1500

  6

  3

  3

  12

  over 1500

  7

  3

  4

  14

  * Not applicable to single teacher schools.

  2. The number of pupils will be assessed at the time of the school census each year.
  3. Single teacher schools will be treated as a separate class with two parent members and two co-opted members.
  4. Subject to section 2 of this Act, an education authority may draw up a scheme to make different provision for different schools and for different classes of schools than that provided for in this Schedule.
  5. Such a scheme made under paragraph 4 above must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.'
  Mr. McFall: The Opposition wish to highlight four main themes in these amendments: the community aspect of school boards, the parental majority, the composition of school boards, and parents who are also teachers.
  Amendment No. 10 proposes that a parent shall be eligible for school board membership as either a parent or staff member. If individuals are not allowed to choose whether they stand as staff or parent members, we shall be disfranchising them, when there is no need to do that. Individuals should be allowed to stand in either capacity. A staff member could bring to the board a degree of experience that did not necessarily owe to their being a member of the staff but simply because they are a parent. The individual should be allowed to apply that experience to the benefit of the board.
  We are advocating also that individuals should be elected to the board jointly by staff and parents. The school itself is part of the wider community and is not cut off from it in any way. Sadly, even the Bill's title incorporating the word "Board" relates to a 19th century concept, showing that the Government have not caught up with the reality of modern day schools and education. The wider community must be involved in the working of the school and should be allowed to make a contribution to it.
  Over the past six months, I have received at least six HMI reports on different schools in my own constituency. Each and every one of those reports has a section headed "Community Development". Inspectors judge schools by the level of their involvement in the local community and also by the personality and thrust of the head teacher and the degree to which he or she engages the involvement of the wider community in the work of the school. As inspectors attach that degree of credence to that aspect, to the extent that no HMI report omits a reference to community development, we suggest that the community should be involved in the work of school boards and their decisions and deliberations.
  We contend that there should be no parental majority on school boards, and we have an impeccable source for such a recommendation—the parents themselves in Scotland. There were 7,600 responses to the proposals, which was so overwhelming a response that the Minister allowed extra time for them to be considered. A major theme of those responses was that the concept of partnership is important. Time and time again, parents expressed the view that they wanted greater involvement and to take more decisions, but that they also wanted

  1019
  teachers and educationists to look after their children, not only other parents. Their main reason for thinking that way was because they are aware of the danger of a prejudiced minority group gaining power. They prefer instead to put their faith in teachers to do what is best for their children's future.
  The subject of parental control touches on a number of other areas. A recent article in The Times Educational Supplement quotes Mr. Alistair Marquis, head of Bankton primary school, Livingstone, when addressing a recent conference. He warned that the danger of parent-dominated school boards was that they would retard progress in integrating children with special needs into ordinary primary schools. He said that such boards could dictate to head teachers on matters they did not understand and would obstruct sound educational development. There is no more sound an educational development than special needs schools. That head teacher was concerned about the concept of school boards as contained in the Government's proposals.
  6.45 pm
  I refer also to a letter published in the Glasgow Herald on 7 April in the wake of the controversy at Jordanhill school concerning the question of opting out. One of the parents involved, Mr. Clement, wrote that there were dangers in attempting to transfer the detailed management of schools to school boards dominated by parents. His message was that what teachers needed most from parents was support overall, and not just from a small number of them. That was the view of a parent who had experienced the process of parental involvement over those past crucial months in Jordanhill's history.
  The Government's proposals will do nothing for the majority of parents. They are justified on the grounds that they will involve parents in the education of their children and will give real decision-making powers. I contend that, as in Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass", the Government use words to mean exactly what they choose them to mean—neither more nor less. Despite the Government's rhetoric, their proposals will do nothing for parents. In justifying that remark, I refer the House to the Government's regulations for the composition of school boards and the domination of parents over all other groups.
  A secondary school having between 500 and 1,000 pupils—which is typical of most secondary schools in my own region of Strathclyde, which is the largest in Scotland—will be allowed five parent members. Thus about 2,000 parents in a typical Strathclyde school will be represented by just five of their number, who will have the overwhelming majority on the school board. Those five members will account for just 0·25 per cent. of the total number of parents concerned, which must be a matter of primary concern to all concerned with education. We argue that the Government should allow the board's structure to be defined by Parliament. That can be arranged in a simple tabular form, as proposed in amendment No. 27. There, the number of parent members is equally matched by the combination of teachers and other interested parties. Such a composition will fairly reflect the common interest in the school's work—being shared by parents, teaching and non-teaching staff, and the local education authority. An absolute majority of parents would be detrimental to the proper consideration of important matters.
  1020
  In Committee, the Minister indicated that he was prepared to give this matter further thought. I ask him to do so on the basis that there is a need for stability in education today, so that the issues facing Scottish education may be properly addressed. In the wake of the teachers' dispute, stability is needed, especially with the introduction of innovations such as standard grade, the 16–18 action plan and the TVEI course. Other areas of importance include nursery and adult education. We need partnership and consensus, and the proposals in the amendments make sense. We ask the Minister to reinforce the comments he made in Committee and to think, and to think again, about these proposals.
  Mr. McAllion: I support the arguments put forward by forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on this group of amendments. In particular, I want to draw attention to schedule 5, which deals with the role of teachers on school boards.
  Earlier today some hon. Members met representatives of teachers' unions, COSLA and parent bodies to discuss school boards. They made clear to us their unhappiness about the Bill, the composition of school boards and the relationship between parents, teachers and other interested bodies. In particular, the parents' representatives echoed the anxieties of many other bodies, such as the Church of Scotland, schools councils, other political parties and teachers' organisations, which were discussed in Committee. That is a measure of the divisiveness of the concept of parental majority on the school board.
  The parents made it clear that they would like to see the Government trying to achieve a partnership between the home and the school through reform in the schools and through the involvement of more parents. The object of a partnership between parents and teachers and all the other groups associated with education is defeated by including within the Bill the divisive condition that there should be a parental majority on every school board who would thereby have a stranglehold on the board's activities.
  The parents stressed the importance of trying to achieve a balance on the school board. For example, one drew attention to the tremendous difference between his experience in the local parent-teacher association and on the school council. The parent-teacher association was dominated by parents with only a few teachers involved and was described as a kind of inquisition of the teachers. It was not constructive or conducive of anything good for the school. The school council achieved a better balance between teachers and parents. There was more constructive debate and the school, parents, teachers and everybody else benefited. The parents wanted to achieve an even discussion within the school board system. They fear that the parental majority, upon which the Minister is insisting, will prevent school boards from achieving anything of any worth.
  The parents to whom we spoke were also disappointed about the lack of staff representatives on the school hoard. My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to that fact. They realise that if there is to be a partnership more teachers will have to have representation on the school boards. Many school boards of schools with up to 1,000 pupils could have only one staff representative and that would be likely to frustrate goodwill.
  The parents also wished to see other divisive elements removed from the Bill—for example, the right of the school board to veto the per capita expenditure proposals

  1021
  of the head teacher. They saw no need for that. They felt that a good head teacher—almost all head teachers are good—would be concerned to carry the school board with them so that there would be no necessity for the school board to have such a veto. The head teacher would consult the school board and take on board its views.
  Another concern is that the parental majority so admired by the Minister involves only up to four parents. They could be a strong unrepresentative clique dominating the school board, and the mass of parents with children at such a school would have no means of influencing them.
  In Committee, the Minister said that he could envisage circumstances when there would be no need for school boards to have an annual general meeting with the parents of the school if nothing had happened in the past year to justify holding such a meeting. If the Minister were serious, that would suggest that school boards would do nothing. However, parents consider that school boards should be accountable to the vast majority of parents who should be able at least once a year to meet the school board to discuss with it what has been going on in their name.
  Similarly, the Bill allows education authorities to delegate powers to school boards with the agreement of the school board and the education authority. That means that delegation can take place without reference to parents. There is a provision in the Bill which allows the delegation of powers from an education authority to a school board and, where there is conflict between the two, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the parents must be balloted on whether a delegation of powers should be allowed. If there is agreement between the education authority and the school board, parents need never be referred to, and that is another omission from the Bill. Powers can be delegated to school boards without the parents ever being consulted.
  Those are the issues with which this group of amendments attempts to deal.
  The teachers' representatives made it clear that they want to see an increased representation for their people on the school boards. Recently I went to see my son playing for the school team in a cup final in Dundee. [Interruption.] St. Colomba's primary school in Dundee swept the board and took all four trophies. However, this is a serious point because such school teams could not exist without the tremendous efforts made by teachers. I was speaking to one of those dedicated teachers who gives his own time to school football teams. He told me that if the Government bring in school boards with only one staff representative, because the role of the teacher has been so downgraded under the Government, he is beginning to wonder whether all his years of effort have been worthwhile. That is the effect that the Government's divisive measures are having on staff representatives throughout Scotland. The Minister should take that on board and start thinking seriously about it.
  The Government's proposal for a parental majority on school boards is a device whereby they can undermine the influence of education authorities and teachers in Scotland. We know that the Minister's concept of education in Scotland as he would like to see it is different from that which is current among the vast majority of Scottish people and from that held by teacher associations and education authorities. He cannot break down the
  1022
  resistance of education authorities or teacher associations, who will not give way because they have won the argument, and he is now trying to get round them by creating a school board with a parental majority which can create a kind of dictatorship of small cliques of parents who think like the Minister and who, like the Minister, want to see what the Bill has always been about. It has never been about parental involvement or improving the quality of education in our schools; it is about paving the way for the Bill that will come after this one—the Bill that will allow schools to opt out of local education authority control.
  When we spoke to the parents at the meeting this afternoon, someone made the point that for a number of years this Minister and previous Scottish Ministers have been creating a climate in Scotland whereby parents will begin to want to opt out of local education authority control. They have been starving education authorities of the necessary funds with which to provide quality education. They have been creating the climate whereby people will say that they would be better off outside local education authority control.
  Now the Government are creating the institutional mechanism by which that opting out of education authority control will be achieved—the school board system with a parental majority based on a small unrepresentative clique which thinks like the Minister. It is all about dividing Scottish education, breaking up the comprehensive system and creating a two-tier system of education in Scotland. For those reasons I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: We have had what might be described as a hard-line speech from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It became fairly clear that he is against the whole concept of meaningful parental involvement in Scottish education.
  It is a misapprehension held by the Opposition, and, I regret to say, by the Government, that there is some kind of continuum between school boards and opting out. As I said in Committee, I believe that the two concepts are fundamentally different, because this is about parental involvement—it is not about parental choice—while opting out, of course, is about parental choice.
  7 pm
  It is worth commenting that members of school boards will have the same accountability as hon. Members of the House; they will be subject to re-election by their constituents if people wish to stand against them. We are not subject to election if other people do not stand against us or do not put up candidates against us, but I am bound to say that that happy state of affairs is not very common.
  It is also inherent in any system of parental involvement that unless the only form of involvement is a mass meeting of all parents one will have a system whereby a small number are elected.
  My main point is to contradict the impression which the hon. Member for Dundee, East may have given to the House that parents are against a parental majority. I do not doubt for a moment that he accurately reflected the view of those to whom he referred, but it is clearly not the view of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which is a very representative body. [Interruption.] It just shows Opposition Members' ignorance of the existence of

  1023
  organisations which are interested in parental involvement in Scottish education. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council is accepted by all knowledgeable Members—that does not necessarily include all hon. Members present—as the representative body of parents on this issue.
  I want to read a couple of sentences from a letter of 17 June, which l imagine was sent to all Scottish Members, in which the council stated:
  "SPTC wishes to re-emphasise its support for the parental majority on School Boards, whatever the actual numbers of parent, staff and co-opted members prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State."
  I think that it is worth quoting the council's reasons for that. It says:
  "School Boards will be essentially consultative bodies and simple numerical democracy demands that parents be in the majority."
  It goes on to make the valid point that
  "Teachers already have a powerful influence on what happens in schools via staff meetings and union representation. Parents need School Boards for consultation purposes far more than teachers."
  That is common sense and I hope that as these debates continue the other points raised by the council may be referred to by hon. Members. It is important for the House to recognise that parental opinion as represented through the council is clearly in favour of a parental majority on school boards.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This group of amendments includes amendment No. 2, which stands in my name and makes the same fundamental point about parental majority as amendment No. 27, which I think that we may vote on and which I acknowledge develops the arguments quite constructively.
  This group of amendments and this part of the Bill are in a sense for many people the core of what the Bill is about. I said in Committee, and I am happy to repeat now, that some elements of the powers that are being devolved in this Bill I am glad to see and support, but I do not believe that there is a demand and a wish that parents have an absolute majority. This feeling has been expressed by a wide variety of organisations—excluding the one which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has just referred to.
  Parents want a partnership, and these amendments seek to set up that partnership. These bodies are not consultative, as the Scottish Parent Teacher Council claims, but have real powers, which is something that the Government are boasting about. It is quite a different matter to suggest what should apply to a consultative body when we are talking about a body with defined executive powers, which the Minister would not wish to be otherwise. I therefore support these amendments and the principle behind them.
  I find it rather extraordinary that, given that the Minister who is handling this Bill is also the Scottish Health Minister, he seems to have a rather different perception of different types of professionals. On other issues he seems happy to suggest that doctors and consultants are professionals whose views must be taken into account by the Government and the public. However, it would appear that teachers are professionals who must be brought to heel by the Government and the public. That seems to be a rather discriminatory view.
  I find myself in a rather unusual situation and one that might even be a bit embarrassing, because in this area of parental power I support the Conservative party's Scottish
  1024
  manifesto and it is Government Members who are not doing so. The Conservative manifesto said that the Government would introduce increased powers for school councils. My own party's manifesto and policy have followed exactly that course. So I very much support increased powers for school councils. Had some of the powers in this Bill been applied to school councils set up on a partnership basis, they would, in my view, have been welcome and acceptable.
  In reply to the charge levelled against me by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), may I say that if the Minister is prepared to accept my amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 27, that will sufficiently change the calibre of the Bill to make for a genuine partnership, and I would then be inclined to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, because I recognise that there are powers in this Bill that are worth passing on. The Minister had better accept that my views are not simply my own but have been expressed by parents throughout Scotland who do not believe that the parental majority is the right way to create the spirit of part nership in our education system that we certainly want, even if the Government do not.
  I want to refer briefly, by way of illustration, to the figures produced by Education Alert and Lothian parents action group, which were made available yesterday. I do not know whether the Minister has a copy, but I suspect that he has. A random selection of parents in Grampian-Lothian predominantly, but with 20 per cent. from outside those two regions were asked:
  "Do you approve of parents having an overall majority?"
  The answer of 77·8 per cent. was no. They were then asked:
  "Do you think additional staff should be elected"
  and 87·9 per cent. said yes.
  It seems to me, therefore, that a substantial body of opinion does not believe that parents should have an overall majority but thinks that teachers should have increased representation on the boards.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this survey, which he described as a random selection. I wonder whether he noticed that over 17 per cent. of the respondents were parents who were also teachers, which scarcely seems representative. He has quoted the survey carried out by a partisan group. Does he not recall the System 3 poll, which showed that 52 per cent. of the sample in Scotland supported the idea of school boards with a majority of parents?
  Mr. Bruce: Yes, I do. I have seen that and I remember that we had an extensive debate on it in Committee where the terms of the question were put in doubt by hon. Members. But I do not deny that it was published. The Minister said that this was a partisan group. The group would say that the only thing that is partisan about it is that its members are parents who care about their children's education.
  If the Minister wishes to give some other explanation of what he means by that, I think that he should tell the House. Otherwise he has made a totally unwarranted and unjustifiable allegation. The Minister should be grateful for the work which the group has done. It has tried to find out the genuine views of parents. I do not suggest that the Minister should take it as a definitive result and abide by it, but he should not dismiss it so contemptuously because real concern has been expressed by a substantial majority.

  1025
  The Minister makes the point that over 17 per cent. are parents who happen to be teachers. That is an interesting comment from the Minister. He is suggesting to the House, and presumably to the public, that only parents who are not teachers have a right to say how their children should be educated and that we are not entitled to benefit from the contribution of parents who happen to be teachers. Even if we disregard parents who are teachers, an overwhelming majority of those who responded did not believe that parents should have a majority but wanted teachers to have greater representation. Therefore, that was a devious response by the Minister who knows that he is on weak ground and is trying to devalue legitimate arguments which were put to him to express a different view.
  The issue is crucial. Knowing that we would soon be dealing with the Bill on Report, in the few weeks since the Committee finished, I have taken the trouble to ask parents and teachers in my constituency what they felt about the Bill. The Minister will be surprised to hear that I stressed certain positive concessions which he made. The recent exchange between him and the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) confirms that opting out is not a component of the Bill but will require separate legislation, which most of us expect to be in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament.
  Allowing for that, I was surprised at the vehemence with which many parents said to me that they did not believe that the Bill would improve the effective running of schools. Indeed, they were concerned about its implications. These views were expressed by individuals, by groups of parents whom I met at their request at two schools in my constituency within the last two weeks and at forums which were well attended by genuinely concerned, intelligent parents who had a real interest. They expressed grave reservations about the Bill in general. They said repeatedly that they could accept aspects of the Bill but not on the basis of parents having an absolute majority; they believed that there had to be partnership.
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is entitled to his views and he can speak for his constituents, but he is not entitled to try to score points off me on the balance of representation. He has been anxious to persuade the public and his constituents that he has influenced the Government substantially and that the Bill is now acceptable. That is a legitimate position for him to take, but his constituents will have to make their own judgment.
  My constituents are telling me that they are less than convinced that the Bill is acceptable in its present format. That is why they believe that the amendments proposed today would improve it. I am serious when I say that the amendments would improve the Bill sufficiently for me to vote for the Third Reading, though not because I think that school boards are the right way forward. I repeat that what was promised in the Conservative manifesto seemed to me to be the right way forward, which was to give powers to reconstituted school councils. In those circumstances, some of the powers in the Bill could have been properly and legitimately attached to school councils. That would have been a popular and radical reform as
  1026
  opposed to a reform which is motivated by the Minister's ideology and which paves the way for a development in education which is resented.
  What the Minister promised when he first published the proposals has been substantially modified. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside will claim credit for that, but the Minister's views have not been modified one iota. To the extent that he can extend the powers within the Bill, he will; to the extent that he cannot, he intends to bring forward new legislation in the next Session of Parliament to enable him to do so. At the end of the day the crunch is not whether people trust the Bill but that they do not trust the Minister because he is not trustworthy on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the word slipped out without the hon. Gentleman realising it and that he would want to withdraw it.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Bruce: I take your rebuke, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may rephrase it more delicately. My constituents know that the Minister remains committed to proposals which he published before the Bill came forward and that he will not relent in future from seeking to implement those powers. For those reasons, they have no confidence in the Bill because they know that it is a step in a process which fundamentally they are likely to reject, and on which they have made clear their views.
  The amendments are central to the crucial point in the Bill. Unless the Minister is prepared to accept that the parental majority should be modified and that staff representation should be increased, confidence in the working of school boards will not be extensive or widespread. I do not expect the Minister to respond constructively. I do not believe that he or his colleagues, who think that the Bill as it stands is likely to create a radical new dimension within Scottish education, are correct.
  My constituents are substantially satisfied with the way in which the schools in their area work and with the relationship which they have with teachers. Although there are aspects on which they would like to have more power, which I support, they do not support the powers proposed in the Bill. I support the amendments. If the Minister seeks to reject them, I will be unable to support the Bill in its entirety.
  Mr. Graham: I spent nine years on Strathclyde regional council. During that time I went frequently to school councils. I was always impressed by the debates. When there were votes, the councillors divided not on parent/teacher lines but on issues, and the weight of argument won the day.
  I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). It is sensible to proceed on the basis that if the Government are keen to have parental involvement, they should also want the involvement of teachers and other people. It should be a cohesive group so that when it is discussing problems concerning schools and education there can be a full debate.
  I have had experience of people attempting to take over school councils. Generally they have failed because they could not put forward a decent, sound argument. We will not see a deliberate takeover if there is a cohesive group.

  1027
  The Minister is smiling. I have smiled at the Minister regularly because of some of the nonsense in the Bill. This is so serious that there is no smile on my face now. I am angry because the Government did not take advantage of a golden opportunity to reform school councils. I do not claim that school councils were perfect. There were many faults. But if the faults had been removed we might have had a better system than the Government have proposed.
  The Government's attitude is that school teachers are the enemy. We should bear in mind that it is the teachers who are educating our young people to take the country hopefully into a better world. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
  It is incredible that the Government will not allow so many people who have children at school to play a part in school boards because they are in education authorities. In Strathclyde alone, more than 50,000 people are employed by the regional council. I have seen examples of school teachers playing an admirable role in school councils. It is lamentable and disgraceful and shows a lack of talent to take those people away from making a major contribution to their children's education at school. Their experience can be invaluable, whether as a parent or as a teacher, yet the Government will deny such opportunities.
  I believe that the Minister received a copy of a survey carried out by Bishopton primary school which clearly showed that the majority of parents were opposed to the Government's proposals for parental involvement and the whole school board scenario. I remind the Minister that that area is not particularly a Labour stronghold. A Tory was returned in a recent district election, so I can assure the Minister that it is not a hot bed of radicalism. It is an area which might support the wetter instincts of the Conservative party, but the people opposed the Government's proposals for school boards. I am sure that the majority of those people would have liked to have seen some effort to improve and develop school councils and to encourage them to play a more meaningful role. If the Government have sufficient funds for schools, we should have parental involvement so that our children might be better educated. We should not be squandering valuable time and finance.
  I am convinced that there will be a short surge of interest when we establish the school boards, but I bet anyone in the House that, in a couple of years' time, there will be no school boards in many schools because the parents will be sick of them and will leave it to the teachers and kids to get on with the business. I am not at all hopeful for school boards because I believe that they will become small in number and will eventually disappear.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am almost prepared to take on that bet with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). Perhaps we can have a word afterwards about the stake that he might be prepared to put on it.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The experience of school councils in my part of Scotland has not been of division on any lines, certainly not on the basis of party politics or professional background, whether teacher or parent. The decisions taken by those school councils were reached through consensus and on the merits of the arguments and I hope that that will continue to be the case. That will be the case in most areas because
  1028
  those people who wish to become involved will do so in the best interests of education and of the children attending the schools.
  I have my doubts about the matter and my hon. Friend the Minister knows that I still have reservations that any one group should form a majority on the boards. I strongly support the proposal that the parental group should be the largest single group, but I part company with my hon. Friend on the question whether parents should necessarily have a majority. None the less, I understand my hon. Friend's arguments and those put forward by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which strongly supports a parental majority. It is not worth getting too worked up about the matter for the very reason that I have given, that there will not be division along particular lines, so, although I believe that my hon. Friend is wrong, I shall not oppose him on this matter.
  However, I am most anxious about teacher representation. My hon. Friend knows my views on that, but I do not believe that the proposals recommend a sufficient number of teachers, particularly in respect of smaller schools. I was not the only Committee member to hold those views, although I felt particularly strongly about the matter. My hon. Friend said that he would reconsider the matter. I should be much happier if he would assure us that he will agree to increase teacher representation on school boards.
  Mr. Salmond: I wish to give a brief welcome to this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 9, which puts forward the case for community representatives. It raises a particularly interesting argument because it involves a constituency of electors which includes both teachers and parents and is worthy of the Minister's serious consideration.
  I want to take up the main point—the balance on the schools board between parents and other representative groups. I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I part company with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), as I believe that the issue goes to the heart of the anxieties of many people in Scotland about this measure. The nub of the concern is the fear that an unrepresentative minority and a determined clique of vested interests will attempt to seize control of the school board and, therefore, will still have substantial influence —through, for example, the vetoing of the headmaster's spending plans or the presence of parent representatives on the appointments committee—over children's education and matters that were part of the ceiling powers in the Minister's original proposals.
  If parents did not have an absolute majority on a school board, that would remove many of the concerns because the school board would have to progress by consensus and take into account the views of parents, teachers, co-opted members, and, I hope, community representatives. The school board could still exert its considerable influence over those key areas, but only when it was operating through a consensus of its members. If clause 2(2) is left as it is now, with an absolute majority, there will be grave concern that a determined minority of parents may seize control of a school board.
  The Minister takes an interesting view of the various responses that he has received to the consultative exercise. He has received probably the most clear rebuff of any Scottish Office Minister in recent times as a result of the first consultation exercise on this measure. There were

  1029
  7,600 responses, which showed no enthusiasm for a parental majority. The report of Education Alert, showing that about 78 per cent. of the sample were opposed to the idea of a parent majority, has already been mentioned. The Minister dismisses that out of hand, as he is wont to do. His reaction to the various rebuffs that he has received has been to attempt to rubbish the questions asked.
  I clearly remember being on a BBC television programme with the Minister when the studio audience voted overwhelmingly against his proposals. Only two people in the audience were in favour of his argument. The Minister said that the wrong question was being asked. He then proceeded to set the question to be put to the audience and, lo and behold, still only two people came to his support. It is a remarkable argument. The Minister may wish to intervene to correct my recollection of the numbers. I concede that there may have been more—perhaps three or four—but there was a substantial majority against the Minister's proposal, even as he phrased it. The House will have to treat with great caution the Minister's attempts to rubbish clear indications of the force of Scottish worry about an absolute parental majority on school boards as somehow being an inappropriate sample asked the wrong question. Quite clearly the Minister does not even pay attention to answers to his own questions.
  7.30 pm
  When the Minister replies to the debate, he will have to tell the House whether he will pay attention to the serious concerns being expressed by the vast majority of Scottish Members about the school board proposals. Will he make some concession to the points that we are putting forward on behalf of our constituents or will he rely on the majority in the recesses of this place, the "Morris gun" majority, and make no concessions whatever? That is the fundamental choice that the Minister must make when he replies to the worries expressed on this group of amendments. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) place such emphasis on the views of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. In another context Conservative Members like to cast doubts on whether bodies with rather grand-sounding names speak for the people for whom they purport to speak. I would question how many parents, far less teachers, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council speaks for in my constituency. The representations that I have received about the Bill have not been in line with the submission from the council on which the hon. Member for Eastwood placed such value.
  There have been many representations about the Bill, but at this stage it is largely a matter of disinterest and slight suspicion rather than active hostility. Those who have been in touch with me have expressed opposition to what is seen to underlie the Bill. They have expressed concern about the idea of establishing a parental majority in bodies that are to have the proposed powers.
  In line with their attitude on many pieces of mischievous legislation introduced by the Government, the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland will have the good sense to have little to do with the Bill. The
  1030
  Bill will not have the effect that the Minister hopes, and it will not lead people down the philosophical road that he intends us to follow.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the vast majority of people in Scotland are well satisfied with the way that schools are run, with the quality of the teaching staff and the relationships between parents, teachers and communities. For that reason the Scottish people will not come forward in large numbers to seize power. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) who said that in the majority of communities interest will subside fairly rapidly. He was also right to say that within school councils, as in any sensible organisation, members divide not along parent-teacher lines but on the basis of the argument. At least to some extent that will be a damp squib.
  The underlying fear expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House is the potential that exists for the highly motivated pressure group to take over a school board and to use it for its own purposes. That fear keeps coming through and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a takeover. A school does not have to be taken over by a politically motivated pressure group seeking to take the school down the road which in his more visionary moments the Minister has in mind—opting out and that kind of nonsense. It might be a group that has a stake in some bitter local controversy that in some way impinges upon the school. It might be a religious pressure group.
  There are all sorts of pressure groups which at a given moment might think it a splendid idea to get three or four people on to a school board to exercise disproportionate control over the affairs of that school. Surely it cannot be healthy to legislate for such a possibility. If the Government are interested in the good of Scottish education, as opposed to some rather confused ideological point, they will take the Bill away and think about it again.
  Mr. Salmond: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that with the exception of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) all the Conservative Back Benchers have opted out of the debate?
  Mr. Wilson: If I had been called to speak slightly earlier I would have observed that nobody other than the hon. Member for Eastwood had opted in. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made a brief appearance. He appears to be the acceptable face of Toryism in his constituency, but for the time being I shall not put it any higher than that.
  My final point is in support of the amendment that calls for community representatives. The legislation as drawn takes a narrow view of schools and their place in the community. It does not accept that many people who are neither parents nor teachers have an active and wholly proper interest in the working of schools. Many school activities provide opportunities for such people to participate, and that is where the interests of the wider community can be seen in the functioning of schools.
  One aspect of the legislation that deserves comment is that for the first time in the long tradition of Scottish education the right of the churches to be represented on education bodies is to be abolished. Community representatives would not specifically redress that, but they would at least be an avenue through which—if it was the wish of the people electing community representatives

  1031
  —the churches could be represented. The same argument could be made on behalf of various other groups that are presently disqualified from participation by the very narrow format of the Bill.
  For a school with 1,000 pupils to have a so-called representative body on which there are five parent members, one staff member, and three co-opted members is far too narrow and selective. The whole idea that there must be a parental majority is misplaced. In the light of our electoral experience, the Opposition have great faith in the good sense of the Scottish people. We should not be too afraid of what the Minister is proposing. He is a zealot, but fortunately he does not have an army of zealots to lead. That has been the experience on other issues and it will be the experience on this one as well.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has disappeared because I was about to make a nice little joke. However, I had to chop it because the language of the Opposition gets very dangerous. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was the only acceptable face of Toryism, but that may not be the case.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was corrected for calling the Minister untrustworthy. I think that perhaps that was a little severe. The Minister cannot be trusted on this issue. I hope that that expression is acceptable. None of us trusts him on this issue. We know what he proposes and what the future holds. I know about the discussions that he is having in my constituency and about his opt-out suggestions to groups from the schools in my area. We know what it is all about and I shall be glad to hear the Minister deny that he has been having such discussions. We should like to be told whether he has been having them and whether he is encouraging groups in my constituency to think about opting out. He should be very careful about what he says because I may know all about his discussions.
  The Minister made an appalling attack on the people who produced the analysis of the views of the randomly selected 435 people who answered the questionnaire, and he assumed that the figures were wrong. However, the facts are that 78 per cent. said no to an overall parental majority and 87 per cent. said that additional teachers should be elected. That was later corroborated in the careful analysis of control of expenditure. Eighty-three per cent. said no to total control of expenditure by the board, but 66 per cent. said there should be consultation on expenditure.
  The figures ring true. People want consultation, not domination, which is what the Bill is about. The Government seek to create groups that will allow this peculiar, reactionary Minister and the Secretary of State to reverse the democratic history of Scottish education. This is especially dangerous because it involves a small group of people. In all our social and political life there are groups of activists. We are in politics because we were among the activists. Of course, we are not completely representative of the mass of people, who may be active in other directions.
  Any group of people who involve themselves in a social, political, cultural or educational organisation do so because they are keen. Parents who involve themselves in education do so because they are keen on their children. By definition, those who involve themselves most are those
  1032
  who are interested in their children's future. But that is not necessarily the sort of people with which to constitute a board. A board should be able to take overall decisions for all the pupils in school, which a group of parents would tend not to be able to do. They are certainly motivated. In four or five years' time my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) may well be interested in the motivation of parents with children going to school. We should all congratulate him on a recent happy event. I hope that, as I would wish the boards to be, it was the result of partnership and consultation.
  There is a group of people who, by definition, are concerned with all the children—especially with those who are not doing so well. Others may be concerned with high-flying children, but teachers have to be concerned with all pupils, above all those who require special care. Majority decisions of the council should be taken by teachers. If there is to be an imbalance of numbers, it should be in favour of the teachers, not activist parents. Parents and teachers say—almost everyone says—that this is so, but the Minister and the Secretary of State disagree. Yet the case is manifest.
  The purpose of the Bill is not to extend parental involvement but to create a parental hegemony. Nothing could be more dangerous. The Government's proposition should be taken back; the Minister should listen to the voices of parents and teachers. He should establish genuine involvement. I am entirely in favour of boards being involved, but it is dangerous to give a majority of parents powers over expenditure and all other matters. We know about the sort of people the Minister is concerned with. We reject the motivation behind this Bill, which is why we shall vote against it. I ask the Minister to reconsider while there is still time and to do something about this matter in another place.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: One thing has been obvious in this short debate. This is the last overspill of the bitterness that the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State feel towards teachers for the duffing-up that the latter gave them last year. That explains the Minister's failure to respond on this issue. The Bill is an attempt to remove some of the powers that the Minister alleged teachers have. Whole sections of the Bill reflect the Government's bitterness towards the teachers because of the way in which the teachers exposed the Government's failure to support education in Scotland.
  7.45 pm
  The original Forsyth proposals have had to be amended because the people to whom they were directed did not want the powers. The Minister has boasted of how he has listened to the parents when making his changes. But whenever parents are asked about this matter, in television studios, in opinion polls, in writing or through the schools council system, they have made it clear that they want changes to be made to this part of the school board proposals. The Minister and his colleagues have set their minds against those views, however. As I said, that is due to the Government's bitterness.
  As other hon. Members have said, teachers are the one group in society to whom the Minister and his colleagues have failed to accord professional respect. They imagine that teachers are responsible for everything that they think is wrong with Scottish education. It is extraordinary, for instance, that in 1988 teachers with pupils at a school

  1033
  cannot stand for election to that school's board. It is remarkable, too, that if those same teachers happen to be parents of children at a school they are classed with two other groups in society—lunatics and criminals. That is another example of the Minister's bitterness. At this late stage, with the overwhelming mass of opinion in Scotland against the Bill, the Minister is still not prepared to move, even when his hon. Friends suggest that he should make some concessions.
  The Minister still has his hang-up: a determination to discipline the teachers. He tried to give parents the right to discipline them by giving them the responsibility for sacking teachers—and the parents did not want that. Now Forsyth's final revenge and failure to acknowledge the professionalism of Scottish teachers is to deny them even half the rights that parents enjoy on school boards——
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps it will enable the hon. Gentleman not to develop his argument if I point out that teachers are not eligible now to stand as candidates in regional elections. So the suggestion that we are putting them in the same position as prisoners and lunatics, as he emotively put it——
  Mr. Ross: Criminals.
  Mr. Forsyth: Prisoners would be a better word than criminals, since not all criminals are in prison.
  Secondly, teachers are unable to stand for election as parents only in schools in which they teach. They can stand as parents in schools other than those in which they teach, so the limitation on their ability to stand as candidates is considerably less than their ability to stand and find themselves elected to the education committees of regional authorities.
  Mr. Ross: That does not change what I said. The proposals do not allow teachers who have pupils at a school to stand for election to that school's board. In that sense the Minister puts them in the same category as criminals, and if he knows of criminals who are not in gaol I suggest that he immediately gets in touch with his colleagues in the Government and advises them of where they are. They are not in the Chamber right now, certainly, as the Minister is almost alone on the Conservative Benches. The Minister should say where these criminals are so that they can be taken into custody. We cannot have criminals loose in the land.
  The Minister has emphasised my point by his determination to extract a penal reform from the teaching profession, which he does not like. I do not know why he does not like it—perhaps he had a bad experience as a youngster. He certainly seems to have had some bad experiences and he seems to blame the teaching profession.
  To bring the matter back into perspective, the Minister does not and cannot deny my point that he is trying to pursue unfair and discriminatory proposals. He must know that public opinion in Scotland is overwhelmingly against him. If he really wants to claim, as he has throughout the debate, that he listens to those to whom he seeks to give more representation—the parents—he should listen to the parents on this issue and accept our amendments. Only then will we believe that he is not trying
  1034
  to extract what I began my speech by describing as "the Forsyth revenge" for the duffing-up that the teachers gave him last year.
  Mrs. Fyfe: In the hope and belief that even this Minister can sometimes listen to reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Please be sensible, Maria."] Well, I say that because earlier the Minister proposed that when there were adult pupils at a school, their parents—"the grannies" as he put it in Committee—should have a vote. However, he then thought better of it and I believe that the Government dropped that proposal. That is why I say that even this Minister can sometimes listen to common sense.
  I do not want to make a speech, but simply to pose some questions. I hope that the Minister will answer at least some of them because they arise from our discussion this evening. What makes the Government so sure that enough parents will seek election and will keep on doing so? Are the Government not worried about the outcome for schools if, as is predicted by some of my hon. Friends, the whole thing eventually collapses because of lack of interest? What will the Government do if our warning proves correct and if, because of lack of interest, some nutcase groups attempt to take over? As has been suggested, that will rarely happen because in most cases the common sense of parents will prevail. Nevertheless, it is a danger that we must be aware of and it could happen. What are the Government proposing to do about it?
  What about the fact that parents will be allowed to comment on matters such as curriculum and teaching methods, and expect answers from the head teacher? Does that not open up the danger that some highly influential parents—we talked earlier about the possibility of lawyers, doctors, university professors and army officers having an undue amount of influence on such decisions—may throw their weight about in a way in which other parents might not be able to cope with?
  Why is there absolutely nothing in the proposals about ensuring that the education of girl pupils is given much more equal weight than it has ever been? We still face prejudice over the education of girls, who are refused access to certain courses, or discouraged from taking them. The proposals blindly ignore that area of educational provision.
  In conclusion, why does the Minister think that he has a right to impose this legislation on people who clearly do not want it?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Several points arise from the debate, but I should like to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to the Opposition Front Bench.
  The issues raised fall into four categories. The first relates to the position of teachers who are also parents in some schools. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). As I explained to him in my intervention, being able to stand for election for school boards and have a say in the running of schools is a considerable step forward on the current position because at present teachers are unable to stand for election to the education authority. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, would have recognised that.
  The thrust of these amendments is to take the matter further and to allow staff in particular schools to stand as parent representatives or as teacher representatives. For

  1035
  the reasons that I have spelled out in some detail in Committee, I do not regard that as desirable because it could result in the school boards becoming homogeneous.
  The second issue raised was parental majorities and why the Government are insistent on having a parental majority——
  Mr. Buchan: I know why.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows why and I am sure that he is better qualified to know why than are most Opposition Members. It is because the Government are committed to parental involvement in schools and because we see the boards as providing parents with a forum and platform in the education system so that they can express their view. We recognise the argument for partnership, which is why there are places on the boards for representatives from the community and the teaching staff to be elected or co-opted. However, the boards will be the parents' forum in education.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) considered partnership, but he should take account of the broader picture. Through staff meetings, meetings which take place in school and through their professional bodies, teachers have the ability to make their input. Parents have no such ability and that is why we are providing that they should form the majority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) argued, in doing so we have the wholehearted support and enthusiasm of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which was dismissed by Opposition Members. Instead, they mentioned partisan groups such as Education Alert and others which have consistently opposed the proposals and which have produced——
  Mr. Salmond rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  Those groups have produced a poll which, to say the least, is highly questionable. The hon. Member for Gordon endorsed that poll, in contrast to the MORI and System 3 polls.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is the second time that the Minister has used the word "partisan". I should like him to explain what he means. Does he mean "partisan" because those groups do not agree with him or is he implying a sinister motive? Those groups represent parents who have a genuine interest and who have sought other people's views. Will he not acknowledge that?
  Mr. Forsyth: It is a self-appointed group of people who have set themselves up to put forward their perfectly legitimate point of view, opposing the school boards. What I criticise is the hon. Gentleman asking me to be influenced by questionnaires that purport to have a random sample but which, on examination of their own data, show that 17 per cent. of the parents are also teachers——
  Mr. Salmond rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way. I am answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Gordon—[Interruption.] Such data do not prove that the survey was representative. If the hon. Member for Gordon thinks that
  1036
  17 per cent. of parents are teachers, he knows even less about education than I had imagined. The questions in the questionnaire were poorly designed. They included:
  "Do you think additional staff should be elected?"
  and
  "A Board may apply to the Local Authority for, and be granted, extra powers without consulting or advising the school's other parents or teachers. Do you agree?"
  Those are hardly neutral questions.
  By way of information I should add that under the provisions of clause 12 the statement made in the latter question is completely unfounded and untrue, as the hon. Member for Gordon will know from his experience in Committee. Therefore, I am entitled to make that point.
  Mr. Salmond rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The third point raised related to community members for whom the hon. Member for Dumbarton sought to argue. We touched briefly on this issue in Committee when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) argued that we were removing the right of Churches to be represented on school boards. There is provision, through co-option, for that to be realised. I am puzzled by the idea of community members because the electorate would not consist of the community. It would consist of parents and staff. That hardly seems to be an extension of democracy given that the same people, the parents and staff, will have the opportunity to elect representatives in their own way. The community can be adequately and more effectively represented through co-option as a result.
  8 pm
  It was also argued that we should define the structure of the school boards on the face of the Bill. I rejected that in Committee because it would bring in inflexibility. It would not enable us to consider questions like those my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me to address, involving the numbers of teachers, or to do that in the light of experience. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we shall consult about the regulation.
  I noted the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside made in Committee about providing additional teacher representation, particularly for schools of between 500 and 1,000 pupils. I have not forgotten that and I have been heavily influenced by his argument. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give a commitment tonight, because I would prefer to go through the consultation process prior to the regulations before I reach a conclusion. I do not want to make up my mind before I have heard what the teachers have to say.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While thanking my hon. Friend for his comments, I must state that I was not referring simply to schools with between 500 and 1,000 pupils. He may have slipped up in that. I am concerned about schools with pupil numbers ranging from one to 500. We have one-pupil schools in some areas. It is important that there should be more than one teacher representative in some of the smaller schools.
  Mr. Forsyth: That is a separate point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that the question of additional teacher representation would not apply in single-teacher schools. In schools with two teachers, the

  1037
  second teacher would almost automatically be on the board. Three-teacher schools would have 90 or more pupils and that must be borne in mind.
  The question of unrepresentative groups was also raised during the debate. We took on board the anxieties about those groups during the consultation process and in that connection the Bill contains a number of provisions, including the election of board members every two years and the requirement of the endorsement of the majority of parents voting in ballots where additional powers are sought. I believe that the ability for unrepresentative groups to take control has been diminished substantially. I could not help but note that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) adopted a position in conflict with a number of his colleagues when he argued that there would be no interest, while others argued that there would be great interest from unrepresentative groups.
  I believe that the balance is right and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 259.

  Division No. 371]

  [8.03 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Dixon, Don

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashton, Joe

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Battle, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Beckett, Margaret

  Eastham, Ken

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

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

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fearn, Ronald

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blunkett, David

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Buchan, Norman

  Galloway, George

  Buckley, George J.

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Caborn, Richard

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clay, Bob

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cousins, Jim

  Holland, Stuart

  Crowther, Stan

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Darling, Alistair

  Howells, Geraint

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hoyle, Doug

  1038

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  John, Brynmor

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rogers, Allan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lamond, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Salmond, Alex

  Leighton, Ron

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Litherland, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McTaggart, Bob

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Strang, Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Vaz, Keith

  Maxton, John

  Wall, Pat

  Meacher, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Meale, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Winnick, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Worthington, Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Wray, Jimmy

  Murphy, Paul

  Young, David(Bolton SE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. John McAllion.

  Pendry, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amos, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Atkinson, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butcher, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cartwright, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  1039

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Irvine, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Irving, Charles

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Jackson, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Janman, Tim

  Curry, David

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Farr, Sir John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Favell, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gardiner, George

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maples, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marland, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gow, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndbum)

  Mudd, David

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heddle, John

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  1040

  Price, Sir David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Speller, Tony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Redwood, John

  Stern, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Riddick, Graham

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thorne, Neil

  Rost, Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  8.15 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
  `, and—

  (i) an observer elected by the staff and students of the community education service in those schools which provide community education services; and

  (ii) an observer elected by all registered mature students in secondary schools in which at least 5 per cent. of pupils are mature students undertaking Scottish Certificate of Education presentation courses.'

  I direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to clause 14(1), which makes direct reference to a board's powers over the use of premises outside school hours, and which encourages their use by members of the community in which the school is situated. There is a glaring gap in the legislation because it does not show how a board can operate that recommendation and there is no mechanism in the Bill to establish the links between the community and the board.
  The amendment attempts to fill that gap, and is especially important for those areas where community education centres are the schools themselves. I am thinking of rural areas, such as my constituency, where many of the primary and secondary schools are the community education centres. Some of the conurbations in Scotland have separate community education centres, as the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) —parts of whose constituencies I used to represent—are aware. In rural constituencies the schools are those centres, although I believe that in the Lothian region certain community schools are seen as the flagships for the whole concept. I am thinking especially of Wester Hailes, Dean's school and Livingston, where the schools and the community education centres are one and the same.
  There are different methods of management and administration within the various areas. For example, in the Grampian region the head teacher controls the day use of the school and the senior community education worker controls the evening use. In Lothian the norm is for a single head establishment. I do not want to join in the debate about which system is better or more favourable

  1041
  because that is not the issue at stake. However, there is a genuine concern in schools in my area about how the school boards will link with community education. The Grampian head teachers' association has been discussing the matter and various bodies have suggested different ways in which that aim could be achieved, but no firm conclusion has been reached. Currently, the college councils in the Grampian region ensure that the community education sector has full representation.
  One suggestion is that there should be a sub-committee of the board—a sort of users' committee—that would negotiate the allocation of space. Perhaps one third of the board should be co-opted members, although that would not be effective in small schools such as Speyside high school in Aberlour in my area, where the school board will probably comprise no more than seven members. The sub-committee would, therefore, be very small and it would place an undue burden on members of the school board who were asked to become involved in a users' committee.
  The first part of the amendment seeks to give the community education service direct access to the deliberations of the board. The Minister will have noticed that I am asking only for observer status and not for voting rights. The suggestion was that it could participate in the discussions and, perhaps, iron out problems, thereby saving later confrontation. I am seeking a straightforward involvement for people who would be democratically elected. It is not a major amendment, but I hope that the Minister will treat it seriously.
  The second part of the amendment deals with particular situations in some of our schools. Adults are increasingly being encouraged to return to school as full-time pupils, particularly to study for Scottish Certificate of Education presentation work at O-grade and highers. When we discuss school education, there is the danger of thinking that pupils are always children. In many areas there is an increasing number of adult pupils who return to school. We should welcome that trend because it reflects the idea that education is a life-long process. It has benefited many people because they have gained a great deal of confidence and self-respect in later life by managing to achieve success in examinations.
  I have spoken to head teachers in my constituency where that practice is well advanced, particularly at Speyside high school, and it seems that the schools have benefited greatly from the involvement of adult pupils. It has been suggested that young pupils who might not find a subject riveting and dynamic suddenly find that when adults are excited about that subject their enthusiasm spills into the classroom and the youngsters benefit from having older people working with them.
  Adult education is also important at a time of high employment. No doubt the Minister will tell us that unemployment is declining in Scotland, but it is declining gradually and there is still a high and unacceptable level of unemployment in Grampian. Education is obviously beneficial to adults because it can help them to start a new career. At a time of declining school rolls it is beneficial for the schools concerned to have an increasing number of adult students participating in their daily life.
  The second section of the amendment would provide an opportunity for those people to become involved in the
  1042
  school board. I have said that their observer status would exist only when at least 5 per cent. of the pupils registered in the school are mature students undertaking SCE presentation courses. I do not think that any school in Scotland falls into that category, but the provision would put down a marker within the Bill. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment or give us his opinion of the community education service and the involvement of mature students who return to school.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I strongly support her moderate and reasonable proposals. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to what she said, because her amendment deals with something for which the Bill does not provide. It is an oversight by us all that we have not dealt with mature students in secondary schools.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am happy to support the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) particularly in regard to mature students in secondary schools. The intake of mature students was pioneered at the north end of Glasgow at St. Augustine's secondary school. It was very successful and those who were involved in it found that the presence of adults in classrooms which normally contained pupils of 14 and 15 years old had a settling effect on the pupils. That intake of adult students was taken up in one of the adjoining comprehensive schools, Colston secondary school. It is a pity that that school is under the hammer and is about to be closed. I do not wish to go into that argument as I have been through it before. The Minister saved Paisley grammar school, and it is a pity he could not save Colston secondary school which has an excellent reputation for mature students.
  In constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is very high, some unemployed people feel that their only chance of getting out of the trap is to go back to school.
  It says a lot for men and women who have brought up their families and who feel that they have missed out on educational opportunities, or did not have those opportunities, that they want to get back into the classroom. Like the hon. Lady, I feel that it would do no harm if those pupils had a say in the running of the school. After all, if they undertake a commitment to a course which sometimes takes two or three years, they have every right to know what is going on in that school.
  My only criticism of the amendment, and I mean it as a constructive criticism, is that instead of being observers the pupils should have full voting rights. If we ask people to participate in the democratic process and to give up their time voluntarily, it would be a bit galling for them to have to sit through meetings without the full powers that everyone else had.
  The community education service does an excellent job throughout the country, and increasing numbers of people are turning to it. I have often said to officials in the community education services that they are so enthusiastic that sometimes they overlook what other educational departments are doing. At least amendment No. 62 is one way of making sure that one hand knows what the other is doing. I am certainly happy to support the amendment.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I begin by saying how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) until he urged me to support the amendment.

  1043
  However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that their intentions in supporting the amendment can be realised through the Bill.
  It is obvious from the amendment that the hon. Lady had some difficulty in defining precisely with whom she was concerned. I have given that some consideration. If she looks at clause 6(3) and (10), she will see that a school board will have powers to establish committees—with up to one third of their membership being people who are not members of the board—which can look at particular areas of concern. That mechanism would go a long way to meeting the circumstances to which the hon. Lady rightly draws the attention of the House. Clause 6(10) provides that boards will be able to invite people to meetings as they consider appropriate, so there would be an opportunity for individual boards to follow the hon. Lady's recommendations.
  The hon. Member for Springburn thought that people should have full voting rights and should be able to participate in all the deliberations of the committee. The Bill provides for co-option which could bring in representatives of adult learners or other people within the categories which the hon. Lady had in mind. Of course they would enjoy full membership and full voting rights on the board.
  Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment and to take comfort from the fact that the Government endorse the thinking behind the amendment, but we believe that the amendment is not necessary, and, because of the difficulties of definition, it could be more restrictive than the provisions in the Bill.
  8.30 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for their support of the amendment. The hon. Member for Springburn felt that there should automatically be voting rights. I was trying to guard against a situation in which a mature student could also be eligible as a parent member of the board. That is why I chose observer status. I was conscious of the fact that an additional restriction might be placed on choosing as observers people who were mature students because they had already sought the right to represent through their parental involvement.
  I am disappointed that the Minister cannot support the amendment, although he supported its sentiments. It is a probing amendment to establish the Government's thinking. There was little reference in Committee to the community education service and the role of mature students—-two aspects that needed airing during the debate.
  I mentioned clause 6(3) on committees because some of my constituents believe that this measure will not serve the purposes of small schools. Speyside high school has a population of less than 500 and a committee would not necessarily be as effective as we would hope. The Minister has assured us that the Government are keen to have these sections of the community involved. I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of people in my constituency and elsewhere and will ask them carefully to note his comments. I hope that people will become
  1044
  involved as mature students or as members of the community education service. Given those sentiments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 22, leave out
  `instructors and auxiliaries involved in education'
  and insert 'and support staff.
  The amendment is designed to do two things. The first is to improve the Bill's wording. The expression
  "instructors and auxiliaries involved in education"
  is a clumsy way of describing those persons who are not teachers in the accepted and statutory sense of the word, but who work in the classroom. Secondly, there are others involved in education in a school who are neither teachers, instructors nor auxiliaries but are very much involved in education, in the sense that they work in support of the professional staff and, therefore, have a place in the arrangements for membership of a board. I do not understand why they should be left out.
  We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I had hoped that we had persuaded the Minister that there was a clear case for doing something for janitors. I seem to recall that the debate turned on the question of janitors. I could say that amendment No. 43 is all about "janny power", which will give the Hansard writer something to think about. School staff who are not primarily education staff but without whom a school would not operate as an educational institution should have a proper place in the scheme of things. In many schools the school janitor is an extremely influential person. I do not mind saying that, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, the janitors at some schools in my constituency are more important to me than the head teachers because the janitors open schools on Friday nights when I turn up to meet my adoring constituents.
  The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all staff in a school are treated as equals in respect of the school board. This would create a good atmosphere among those who work in the school and leave the staff free to choose whomsoever they wish to represent their interests on the school board. Everyone would be part of a team designed to promote the education of children. That is why the amendment is right. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the amendment. For some time, I was a full-time trade union officer representing school staff, including janitors—and I know the excellent work that they do. Schools would not he able to function properly without those staff whom, for want of a better expression, we would call manual workers.
  There is some snobbery in the Minister's thinking——
  Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated dissent.
  Mr. Martin: The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will prove me wrong. From time to time, he has made utterances about industrial relations, especially in the public services, and he has asked why we should have "them and us" attitudes. This legislation clearly sets out a "them and us" attitude. Why should the only staff on the boards be those with academic qualifications and school auxiliaries?
  Anyone who has been connected with a school knows that the back-up staff are important—cleaners, janitors,

  1045
  cooks and those who serve meals. In large schools there are maintenance staff, swimming pool attendants and green-keepers who look after the playing fields. If the school board can make decisions without those staff having an input, we could land in all sorts of problems. A board could decide the times at which school started, lunch was eaten and school closed. If such decisions are made without manual workers having an input, there could be disruption and those people might feel left out. If a school is to work properly, every member of staff must be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is right in moving the amendment, which will give manual workers a feeling that they have a say in the running of their school.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: There is no snobbery involved; on the contrary, the discussion in Committee revealed that there was some common ground. The difficulties arise in terms of the practicality of achieving our purpose.
  The amendment is not entirely satisfactory. The term "support staff" does not get us much further than the definition in the Bill, with which I freely acknowledge I am not 100 per cent. satisfied. I said in Committee that I would consider it. I must confess that we have failed to come up with an alternative. Perhaps unusually, I ask the Opposition to join us in the quest for a suitable term. I am prepared to consider the tabling of an amendment in another place if we can find the right formula.
  I would point out to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) that it is perfectly possible for educational staff to serve on boards and I recognise that they will have an important contribution to make. I should be the last person to argue that the janitor does not have a central role to play—especially when I consider the size of my majority in my constituency. Janitors are extremely important and influential people and we want them to play a part. That can be done under clauses 6(3) and 6(10). I do not see that it is necessary to extend the definition to include all staff. The difficulty does not arise in larger schools, but in small schools the staff as a whole could conceivably outnumber the teachers and there may be only one place for a teacher representative. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) does not seem to have addressed himself to that consideration.
  I accept that the definition in the Bill is difficult. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth said, in Committee we had a long discussion about janitors and I concluded that the janitor who occasionally coached a football team was involved in education. I cannot accept the amendment because the words "support staff''——
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I accept that in small schools —especially those in the Highlands—there may be only one teacher and many more back-up staff. However, the Minister should acknowledge that some comprehensive schools in thickly populated areas employ more manual workers than some factories. That should be borne in mind.
  Mr. Forsyth: It should indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but such schools will have larger school boards and there will be more opportunity for co-option. My point is that the rural areas—not just the Highlands
  1046
  —have schools at which more support staff would be eligible for election to the single teacher's place than teachers. Therein lies our difficulty.
  The term "support staff" seems to me at least as vague and possibly more so than the phrase "anxiliaries involved in education" and there would probably be as many problems with interpretation. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth to withdraw the amendment. If he has any further thoughts—indeed, if any hon. Member or anyone outside has further thoughts —we shall be delighted to consider the matter further.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I have often listened to Ministers thanking hon. Members for their comments and saying, "I shall write to the hon. Gentleman." On this occasion, the reverse applies. I shall think about the matter further and write to the Minister. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

  TERMS OF OFFICE ETC.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 3, line 43, after 'held', insert
  `, subject to subsection (6A) below,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 45.
  Mr. Forsyth: The amendments arise from discussions in Committee in which I allowed my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) to persuade me that casual vacancies should be filled within three months. The hon. Member for Cumbernald and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) will recall that I agreed in principle that it was anomalous that under the Bill as drafted the board could, in theory, lose its parental majority for nearly two years. We accepted that the arguments of tidiness that had led to the original requirement for casual vacancies to be filled at the time of the biennial elections were not strong enough to withstand the argument of principle. Unfortunately, my generosity had unforeseen consequences.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Minister is repenting.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice. I am not repenting. I am merely having to propose the amendments to undo the difficulty that was created. People elected at by-elections serve out the term of office of the member whom they replaced. As the Bill stands, it is possible for a person to be elected at a by-election only to face a term election in a matter of days. If it was simply a case of trading one anomaly for a lesser anomaly, it might not be so bad. The difficulty is that the prospect of only a short period of service before a term election might dissuade candidates from standing. If a vacancy was for a parental seat, that might trigger the sequence of events that leads to the disestablishment of the board under clause 20.
  We therefore tabled the amendments, which together provide that someone elected at a by-election will be sure of serving at least three months and possibly six. The spirit of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside is secure, but the difficulties are circumvented.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am in a difficult position. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) presented himself in Committee as something of an unofficial Opposition. In his absence, and on his behalf, we accept the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 45, in page 3, line 44, at end insert—
  '(6A) Where a vacancy for a parent or staff member arises because of the resignation or removal from office of a member whose term of office is to expire within 6 months from the date of such resignation or removal from office no by-election need be held under subsection (6) above.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth]
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 47, at end insert
  'provided that their remaining term of office is less than two years.'
  I shall not detain the House unduly, but some concern has been expressed on this matter. Under the Bill as drafted, a member of the board, whether elected or co-opted, can serve for four years. The amendment seeks to limit the term that he can serve after he has ceased to be eligible to two years. It is a compromise. It allows continuity but acknowledges a difficulty. In certain circumstances a member could be co-opted to the board when he had a legitimate interest—for example, he might have a child at the school. After that eligibility had been removed, however, he could continue to have substantial influence, especially on a small school board, for a significant number of years.
  The Minister may say that when people elect a person to the board they should be aware of the likely change in that person's eligibility or that they should elect the person because they feel that he has something to contribute over and above the fact that he has a child at the school. However, the Minister should accept that the period of a parent's direct involvement and interest in a school is very much confined to the period for which he has a child at that school. Suppose that somebody begins to serve on a school board in his child's last term at school. Four years later, he may still be voting on issues affecting the school even though he has long ceased to have any direct concern about the outcome. The Minister should recognise that parents fear that on small boards that could give someone with no real responsibility to accept the consequences of the board's decisions a substantial degree of influence for a substantial period after he has ceased to have a direct interest.
  The amendment is self-explantatory. I hope that the Minister will accept the legitimate concern about the provisions as drafted. I hope that he will accept the amendment and, if he does not, I hope that he will address himself to the problem. Four years is a long term to serve when one no longer has children at the school and people could certainly serve for four years under the Bill as drafted.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am convinced by the hon. Gentleman's eloquence and I am happy to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 4, line 15, leave out
  `A minor may be a'
  and insert
  'A young person may be a co-opted'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 17, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'A minor' and insert
  `a pupil of the school aged at least 16 years'.
  Government amendment No. 47.
  Mr. Forsyth: I recall the Committee discussion on this matter. The question revolved around whether it was appropriate for young people below the age of 16 to be co-opted on to school boards. In an effort to be as flexible as possible and to allow for as much local democracy as possible, the Bill as originally drafted would allow for minors to be co-opted.
  The effect of Government amendment No. 46 is to substitute the words "young person" for "minor". In the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 a young person is defined as somebody between the ages of 16 and 18. The amendment would make it plain that these pupil members of a board, if any, would be co-opted. I think that the amendment meets the views of the Standing Committee and I hope that it will be accepted.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am pleased that the Government have tabled these amendments. We shall not press amendment No. 17, as the objective which we set ourselves in that amendment has clearly been met.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 47, in page 4, line 15, leave out `but other' and insert—
  '(2A) Subject to subsection (2) above,'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 5

  EDUCATION AUTHORITY OBSERVERS AND HEADTEACHER
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 4, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
  `(1) The Director of Education or an officer of his education authority nominated by him for the purpose shall be entitled to attend and to speak at any meeting of a School Board in the authority's area, but shall not be a member of the Board.
  (1A) The regional councillor for the electoral division in which a school is situated shall be entitled to attend and to speak at any meeting of any School Board for the time being established for that school, but he shall not be a member of the Board.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 65, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  No. 1, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
  '(6) A School Board may invite the regional councillor for the School's catchment area to attend the Board and advise on issues that affect the local community.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 50 and 53.
  Mr. Forsyth: We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the rights of education authorities and local regional

  1049
  councillors. There was wide support for the principle that a local councillor should have the right of attendance. I undertook to look at the question.
  Having given considerable thought to the matter, I commend to the House Government amendment No. 48. It will provide for a regional councillor in whose district the school is situated to have the right to attend meetings of the school board. That would be in addition to the right of the education authority to be represented by one of its officials. Our amendment makes it clear that for the parties concerned the right of attendance includes the right to speak at meetings. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was trying to achieve, albeit that his amendment would have given to boards a right that is already available to them under the Bill—to invite anybody whom they choose to attend and speak at meetings.
  The Opposition want the education authority to have the right to nominate either an elected member or an official. We included in the Bill a right of representation for education authorities because it is proper that they should have general oversight of a boards' activities. That would normally be a matter for officials who would report to an authority's elected members, as they do on all its other business. However, we recognise the value of enabling elected members of a local authority to scrutinise the work of the boards. Our amendment would allow that to be done by the local councillor for the area in which the school is located. He or she will be best placed to determine how closely the work of the board corresponds with the wishes of the local electorate. In my view, this removes any need to provide for a separate right for the authority to nominate an elected member to attend.
  Mr. Dewar: This is very much a guest appearance. I was not a member of the Committee. I have not therefore been involved in the detailed arguments on this legislation. However, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words about the amendment. It gives me an opportunity to thank my colleagues who served on the Committee. They seem to have stuck to their arguments very effectively and with considerable ability. I single out nobody in particular. It seems to have been an extremely good all-round performance. Whether that is the reason I cannot say, but I understand that the Minister has been in a slightly more flexible mood than on other occasions.
  I cannot welcome the amendment uncritically. There is evidence of movement, but from our point of view it is a question of giving with one hand and taking with the other. The amendment would allow the local regional councillor in whose electoral district the school is situated to attend and speak at board meetings, although not to vote at them. I understand that that was granted under pressure from both sides of the Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) as well as to the SLD Members who pressed the same point. That is an improvement, and we welcome it. However, it is balanced by the restriction that is now imposed on education authority representation.
  Under clause 5 of the Bill, the education authority has an untrammelled right of representation. Representation could be by an elected member or by an official. According to the amendment, the position of the local councillor has
  1050
  been greatly improved but education authority representation must be by an official, not by an elected member. That is unfortunate. I am not entirely sure why the Minister has taken that line.
  It is difficult to follow the arguments that lie behind the printed word. However, in Committee the Minister said:
  "I accept the point made by my right honourable Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that there is a difference of approach between elected members and officials. However, that does not justify providing two places on each board for authority representatives…I again agree with my right honourable Friend, who said that it is not practical in rural areas for regional councillors to attend every board meeting."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17 May 1988; c. 353.]
  That was the general drift of the argument. It was not specific. However, the Minister recognised the importance of councillors taking part in the discussions. He made it abundantly clear that he did not want there to be a proliferation of observers with the right to speak. The only dispute is whether one of the representatives should always be an education authority official or whether it could be an elected member of an authority. I do not understand the Minister's objection because such a change would not increase the number of bodies, if that is the criterion or test that will apply.
  It is not satisfactory to say that the presence of the local councillor buttons up the argument and satisfies all points of view. The local councillor will no doubt do an honourable job. That he has a specific job to do is recognised by the Minister in introducing the amendment. However, the local councillor may not be a member of the education committee and therefore might not be an effective channel of communication. He also may not be a member of the majority group and could find it difficult to represent the education authority's policy on the school board as it should be represented.
  While we will, of course, take what we can get and welcome the change in favour of local councillors, it is a distinctly retrograde step to limit the education authority's right in a way that I regard as being pointless. I see no real argument why a councillor should not serve, if the education authority thinks it appropriate. There is a strong argument for saying that as the councillors are the policy-making element, they are particularly appropriate.
  9 pm
  We are dealing with something that bears on the relationship between the education authority and the individual school, and it has become an increasingly sensitive area as time has passed. I know that my hon. Friends are particularly interested in the recent controversy in the Paisley area. I will say a few words about it and ask the Minister to comment. I appreciate that in clause 15(2)(e) "the function of discontinuing" is not the direct responsibility of a school board but clearly it will be involved in any such argument. Presumably the passage of information will be of particular importance.
  In Paisley, as the Minister will know, there has been controversy about the future of the grammar school. Recently, there has been a judgment in respect of Stanely Green high school from Lord Dervaird. I am sure that the Minister will agree that fashion changes and that attitudes to school closures change with it. I am delighted to welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to our deliberations.
  I have before me a speech made by Mr. John MacKay, who was the Under-Secretary's immediate predecessor. He

  1051
  was speaking at the opening of a primary school at Romanno Bridge on 30 March 1987. At that time he was lamenting that,
  "As a result of parental opposition elsewhere the regional council has decided not to proceed with its policy of providing primary education in schools of at least three-teacher size wherever it is practicable to do so."
  Apparently, it was a sad matter for comment that parental opposition to the closure of primary schools had forced the regional council to abandon that estimable Conservative principle. Mr. MacKay continued:
  "Parents arc bound to be concerned whenever the question of the amalgamation or closure of primary schools is raised, but if all parents were as enlightened as those in this area, the job of the regional council would have been much easier. It cannot he denied that the retention of a large number of very small primary schools is both educationally disadvantageous and wasteful of resources."
  Those were the views of the Minister for education just months before the last general election. It is interesting to contrast them with some of the spirited rhetoric now emerging from Government sources about the paramount importance of parental opinion, in generally calling down abuse on those who are seen as being unsound on that basic premise.
  On 4 April 1985, there was an excellent Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in which the then Minister for education, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), spoke strongly of the virtues of local democratic control. He stated:
  "I believe that it was right that the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 transferred the responsibility for closure to the education authority."
  Later, he said:
  "I believe that the decision must be made by the local authority. It must take account of all the factors involved, and it is responsible to the electorate of the area."
  Finally, there is a sentence which will give a taste of the Minister's views at that time. which are strikingly different from those which are held now. He said:
  "Therefore, school closures, which occur in urban as well as in rural areas, should be considered as part of a larger canvas and should not be seen as a discriminating or random measure."—[Official Report, 4 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1364–67.]
  All I can say to the Minister is that the recent change in the law which introduced the 80 per cent. criterion, and for those schools that had a roll above 80 per cent. of capacity passed the ultimate decision to the Secretary of State, might well be seen as arbitrary or, to take the words of the hon. Member for Eastwood, as discriminating and random.
  I recognise the problems that exist at the moment, but my anxiety is that much uncertainty will be created, not just for the pupils and parents, but for the staff and the education authority. I recognise and undertstand that there may be an appeal against Lord Dervaird's judgment, in particular, in the case of Stanely Green high school, and so I must be circumspect in what I say. I respect that. However, I think that I am entitled briefly to remind the House of what is in the judgment and of what it did not say, but not to comment on its merits, which would clearly be unpopular.
  I make no complaint about press reports because they inevitably have to be telescoped. The court handed down a complex argument on this occasion. Perhaps I can just give the minor flavour of it. but on a key point. On page 12 it says:
  1052
  "That there is a difference between a duty to have regard to a general principle that children are educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents and a duty to secure that they are so educated is obvious."
  I would not disagree with that distinction.
  However, there is equally a difference in the present case, which I consider to be critical, between the duty to have regard to the wishes of parents for the education of their children and a duty to have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. The latter, but not the former, appears to me to emphasise the importance of parental wishes, and it is the latter which is the duty incumbent on the respondents. Anyone who reads the judgment and concentrates on that fine distinction will recognise that this is not a matter of absence but a matter where a fine argument has been taken in the balance by the learned judge.
  One thing is clear and that is that in the interpretation of section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 we cannot draw general conclusions and sweeping certainties. After all, as I am sure my hon. Friends will appreciate, section 28 goes on to say, to put it simply in the words of the judgment,
  "That is not of course to say that the general principle"—
  in that particular section—
  "(which is in itself qualified in relation to the compatibility of such education with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure) is to be treated as necessarily paramount. Other considerations may justify the education authority in departing from that general principle."
  The judgment goes on to say:
  "But the critical issue is whether it is enough in the first instance for a party complaining of a breach of section 28(1) to establish the facts as mentioned at least when as in the present case it is also clear that the qualifications stated internally to section 28(1) itself do not arise. After considerable hesitation I have come to the view that by establishing those factors, the petitioners have done enough to give rise to the inference that there has been a failure to fulfil the statutory obligation by the respondents in the absence of adequate explanation from them."
  I have detained the House at some length because this is an important point. What emerges clearly is that, whether the judgment stands in its present state or is altered in some further legal process, it does not establish, as has in some cases been suggested, the simple fact that a case is bound to succeed if it establishes parental opposition. There is a great deal more to it than that.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)indicated assent.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for nodding vigorously at that point.
  The impression has been given, and has lodged in some minds, that the only test that has to be established is whether there was a majority parental opposition in the threatened school. If that was the situation, it would have some remarkable consequences. Therefore, it is worth putting on the record that that is not the simple message of the judgment, although I do not disguise that, properly, the learned judge took the view that parental opinion was an important factor. But there are other factors that must be weighed. We cannot simply take that and apply it to other hypothetical situations and think that we have a principle that will stand up.
  I recognise that this is a very frustrating time for parents, pupils, teachers and those, both elected members

  1053
  and officials, who have to wrestle with the intractable problems of a very difficult situation of overcapacity in our schools. There is no doubt that hard decisions had to be taken. That is still common ground, I hope, between the Minister and me.
  I understand that frustration can sometimes lead to the argument that if the Secretary of State is to start interfering, if parliamentary orders are to be conjured up on the basis of expediency, it is better to abdicate and leave it all to the Secretary of State. It is tempting, but I believe that it would be wrong and that that temptation should be resisted.
  There has been a dash of populism, a little touch of opportunism, about the actions of the Scottish Office in this matter—[Interruption.] I am being criticised by some of my colleagues, but I believe that it is sometimes better to understate rather than overstate. I believe that there has been a dash of opportunism and we must continue to argue for what is right and adopt the arguments properly put by the hon. Member for Eastwood in the Adjournment debate to which I referred.
  I believe that the general principle of the 1981 legislation that these decisions should properly be taken by the local education authority in consultation with local opinion must point the way forward. We shall certainly continue to watch very carefully what is happening in the troubled and difficult situation that has been produced by recent litigation and by the irresponsible legislation—the order that was so suddenly and unexpectedly sprung upon the House. Our interest is in restoring stability, in getting the right results for the children in Paisley and any other area that is at risk, and in the provision of good education. I fear that these objectives have been rather lost sight of lately and that Ministers must take a good share of the responsibility for that.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to address myself to the specifics of the amendment rather than to the more wide-ranging debate that has been initiated by hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench. I support the Government amendment and am pleased that the Minister has been able to come back with an amendment which I believe has taken on board the spirit of what we discussed in Committee. I readily accept that the second part of his amendment states even more clearly than my own amendment in Committee the role of the regional councillor.
  There is a difference of view between me and Labour Members because I believe that the whole basis of school boards and school councils is that it is local decision making and local involvement that matter, and that members of the local council should be involved by having the right to attend. It is exactly because—this is a point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) used against the amendment—the local member may be of a different political persuasion from the administration that he or she should have the right to attend, because he or she has been elected by that community to represent its interests.
  I would not have objected if the Minister's amendment had allowed for the education authority to send a councillor. I can quite see his objective, which is to ensure that the official authority view is properly but not overwhelmingly heard in the context of local decision
  1054
  making. I therefore feel that the Minister has got the balance right, and I want to pay him a tribute because I forced a Division in Committee and was criticised for so doing on the ground that the Minister would not then have an obligation to come back to the House. The Minister has come back to the House and, as far as I am concerned, has answered the debate satisfactorily. I support his amendment and am grateful to him.
  Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the Government for once for putting down this amendment so that we might discuss it. I am not very happy about it; it does not really extend the prime authority of the regional authority to any great extent in relation to the board. Having said that, I must also say that we all seem to have been in business to diminish the involvement of the regional councillor as much as we can, notably in the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned—the judicial judgment made in the last week or so. It would be useful if I said something about the effect that that has had upon Paisley.
  In the week that the judgment was made the Secretary of State also decided to intervene directly in the entire organisation of secondary education in Paisley. The regional authority, operating under the constraints of economic measures imposed upon it by the Government reduction in rate support grant, by the threat of clawback and all the other factors which the Government have used to inhibit local authority expenditure, decided, among other things, to close schools to save money. Although the duty had been laid upon it by the Government, when it acted to save money, the Government intervened to prevent it from doing so. A year earlier Mr. MacKay was stressing the importance of closing schools to save money. The Lothian authority is being pressed to close schools and is accused of spending money uneconomically because it is keeping all its schools open. At the same time the Government are acting to prevent judicious economic measures being taken in Paisley.
  9.15 pm
  The authority had decided that three schools out of six should be kept open. I disagreed with that decision, being in favour of maintaining four schools. The Government have now taken action which has left Paisley with five schools. The Government have intervened to save one school without rhyme or reason, for no educational purpose other than that it was justified in the eyes of the Prime Minister because it was called Paisley grammar school.
  We have the greatest pity for the Secretary of State because we know how much he resisted the decision. He was placed in a difficult position in his office because of the conspiracy between the Prime Minister and his Under-Secretary. We have great sympathy for the Secretary of State, but we would have had more regard for him had he rejected the pressure which was put on him. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has borne himself well, considering the humiliation he has suffered. The only man who has suffered more humiliation over the last 12 months is probably Sir Robert Armstrong. At least, the Secretary of State stayed calm but he tried to curry favour with the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary by his decision to save yet another school at the same time as the judicial process was going on.

  1055
  He has asserted that Paisley grammar school was saved because of parental wishes, despite the comments he has made about extending the power of regional councillors. Parental wishes in every school in Paisley would be to save their school. Stanely Green has fought a successful legal action and has been saved by a judgment in Edinburgh. The parents there, too, wished to save the school. What did the Secretary of State say about court action? He said:
  "we and the local authorities…will have to look very closely at the implications of that."
  According to a press report, if the judgment was allowed to stand, Scottish education authorities might find it impossible to close schools when it was necessary. When a school is kept open by judicial action, the Secretary of State says that he must consider it carefully. Indeed, the Government are talking about bringing in legislation to ensure that that judgment is not followed in other areas. They may change the law, as they did a few months ago in regard to Paisley grammar school. In that case they were technically acting illegally under the Education (Scotland) Act 1946, as was shown by the Statutory Instruments Committee.
  The Government now say that they will intervene to prevent a judicial judgment being made to keep a school open. On the one hand, there is a direct order from the Prime Minister for a school to remain open, and the Government immediately change the law to keep it open, yet, on the other hand, the Secretary of State is prepared to change the law in respect of a school with an equally good educational record and the support of parents and pupils. It was bad enough when the Secretary of State changed the law for one school, but his action is now made even more disgraceful because, in a similar situation, he is prepared to change the law the other way round. It is monstrous.
  The fact that we are apparently merely dealing with two schools in one town in the north is no reason for not recognising that this is one of the most arbitrary interventions of any Government in the past 40 or 50 years. It is massive in its import for the parents involved and for the town. The chutzpah with which I have honoured the Secretary of State in the past has now been used to insult the people of Britain through those two arbitrary actions.
  We must now consider what options are open to us. Ninety per cent. of the parents in Paisley, including the two Members of Parliament, wanted four schools left open. We now have the ludicrous situation of five schools being kept open, but not those schools chosen by the parents of Paisley or by the local authorities.
  What will the Government do about that? The Secretary of State may say, "We see the error of the judgment, so let's change that judgment." He does not say, "We see the consequence and effect of our arbitrary intervention to save Paisley grammar school." There are various options, but only one solution. One option is that the Government should face up to their arbitrary behaviour and take the power to themselves. That is the suggestion of the chairman of the education authority. He says that the authority can no longer act. He said that it acted in accordance with educational and financial requirements, but the judge on the one hand and the Secretary of State on the other destroyed that action. He says that the authority does not now know how to proceed, unless the Government take over the responsibility. They had shed that responsibility so that local
  1056
  authorities would carry the obligation instead. As soon as it suited the Prime Minister to save one school, the Government acted the other way round.
  There is another solution—to pay attention to the needs of the children, parents and local authority in Paisley so that they can plan education in Paisley. The judge was moving towards that position. He talked about the wider area and about the four schools, and he was right. He is more intelligent and perceptive than the Secretary of State about that. We must remember the hardship experienced by parents in the other schools, not just Paisley grammar and Stanely Green, but in Merksworth, for example, which faces closure as a result of the action to save the other schools.
  No one knows which schools the kids will attend after the summer. There is unease everywhere. Last Friday the Stanely Green parents rejoiced about the saving of their school but today they see that the Secretary of State is suggesting possible legislation to reverse that principle and an appeal by the regional authority is pending. The authority has a right to appeal, although I am on the side of the parents and hope that the appeal does not succeed.
  The solution is to look at the totality of non-denominational education. We know what has been happening. The new yuppie areas around Paisley have fixed upon one school. The parents have exercised parental choice so that that school is more than 50 per cent. occupied by children from outside. As a result, Merksworth high school, the newest and finest building, has been drained and is now threatened.
  We must start by taking an educational look at the matter. A schools council should be formed to pull together the six non-denominational schools in Paisley. Each school would be represented by its headmaster, one member of staff and one parent. This council would have a remit to help to develop comprehensive secondary education in Paisley. It would have a remit to make sure that no exercise of parental choice by people who are well outside the area will prevent children from getting to their local school. It would have the duty of ensuring that no school is drained of pupils. It must apply throughout Paisley a curriculum policy by which proper parental choice can be exercised without draining any school or without enhancing one school at the expense of the children in Paisley.
  The Secretary of State should take the initiative as a matter of urgency. He should meet the education authority in Strathclyde to discuss the situation. Neither side has come out of this with much credit. Perhaps I have not either because I have been arguing the case apparently with insufficient conviction. There were sectional arguments in Paisley and in Strathclyde and, above all, there was the stupidity of the Secretary of State in obeying the arbitrary order of the Prime Minister.
  I hope that the Minister will respond and try to save the situation. I hope that he will look at it afresh to see what can be done to establish a proper structure for four schools in Paisley that will save the best buildings. That would mean merging Paisley grammar school and Merksworth. If he insists he may use Paisley grammar school, but he should insist that children should not be kept out of the new grammar school, Merksworth, by people from the surrounding areas where there are other secondary schools. As soon as the school is functioning the pupils could move into the new building. That would mean a terrible waste for a couple of years of a new building.

  1057
  The Minister should not overcut expenditure on schools. There is plenty of community support for the use of Stanely Green, Camphill and Castlehead. Above all, the Minister should discuss the matter. As I have said, parents do not know which schools children will attend. There will be appeal and counter appeal and the Secretary of State will have to decide whether he should intervene to change the law. All this is happening while the education of thousands of children is being held up. In the name of Heaven, the Minister should talk. He should meet the regional authority and come up with a solution that is in the interests of children and parents instead of the kind of nonsense that we have had from the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State.
  I know that the Under-Secretary of State has been having discussions with selected groups of parents in my area in order to encourage opting out. By way of the tension and disruption that he has created he hopes to set the pattern for an opting-out impetus in Scotland. I hope that the Minister does not deny doing that because I know that he has, and I can give him chapter and verse. The situation is serious, and I beg the Minister to respond to it.
  Mr. Bruce Milian: I want to speak briefly about school closures without going back over the changes that were made in the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 which I opposed and thought were unfortunate and unnecessary. The merits of the judgment on the schools in Paisley have already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), but I want to deal with the implications of that judgment, if it is upheld.
  9.30 pm
  The judgment refers to section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which is a long-standing provision. I am not sure when it was originally written into the legislation, but it appeared in the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 and was introduced considerably before then.
  Section 28 is a balanced provision. It takes account—rightly—of parental wishes; it also takes account of practical considerations, including the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. In the case of secondary education courses there is an additional provision that gives the education authority power to prevent a child being entered, at the wishes of its parents, for a course from which it has no reasonable prospect of benefiting. Last week's judgment will be appealed against, but if the balance of this provision were tipped overwhelmingly in favour of parental choice, that would have disastrous consequences for educational planning of school closures, the adjustment of school boundaries in Scotland and so on. We can be fairly sure in all the arguments about school closures that it is rare for one to go ahead with the express approval of the parents concerned. There is nearly always opposition—that is perfectly understandable and, in some cases, legitimate.
  There has always been a balance of interests. When the Secretary of State had to give his approval to a school closure the balance of interests was taken into account by reference to him. No school closure went ahead unless it was shown that the education authority had properly taken account of parental views, that there had been proper consultation, and so on. So a balance in assessing school closures is provided by section 28. If that balance is
  1058
  upset, education authorities will find it impossible to deal with pressing problems of overcapacity in schools. That cannot be right.
  Whatever the merits of the Stanely Green decision, it would be a great mistake for parents or hon. Members to believe that it would lead to parental opposition to a school closure preventing a school from closing. That could not work and it would not be good for education ultimately, because it would not be good for the parents or children. I hope the Minister will reply at least briefly to this point.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the legal position and the practical consequences of the decision that has been made.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I want to call the House's attention to a letter that some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Glasgow and I have received from the Girl Guides Association. I speak as the only member of my group who was eligible to have been a Girl Guide, but I confess that the Brownies expelled me—Brown Owl said that I would come to a bad end, and how right she was. [Laughter.] Seriously, the Girl Guides Association has asked if we could support the bulk of the work done by voluntary organisations by ensuring that power over the letting of schools is retained by the local authorities. I should be glad if the Minister could give that assurance, not only to the Girl Guides but to the Boy Scouts and other organisations with a similar problem. It would be a good thing if they could be assured on that point tonight.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for his kind remarks in welcoming this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) have used the opportunity of the amendments to discuss school closures in Strathclyde. I very much agree with their strictures about the interpretation of the judgment. It certainly does not mean that schools cannot be closed where there is parental opposition.
  As the right hon. Member for Govan pointed out, section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires authorities to pay
  "regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
  The judgment hinges on the fact that, although Strathclyde claimed to have taken section 28 into account, it did not produce any specific material to support that claim. The judge took the view that once it was established that most parents opposed closure, unless there were considerations of suitable instruction and training or avoiding unreasonable public expenditure, the onus should be shifted to the authority to show that other considerations overruled. The judgment is particularly critical of the director of education's report to the education committee, which made no reference to section 28 or to its contents and, in reporting on representations received, made no distinction between the views of parents and those of teachers, politicians and the general public.
  Thus, the judgment does not mean that an authority can never close a school. The main message seems to be that directors of education will have to be more

  1059
  circumspect about how they draw up reports for their education committees. In particular, they will have to draw specific attention to section 28.
  I do not wish to comment on the merits of the judgment because I know that Strathclyde has suggested that it will appeal. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden for using the opportunity that presented itself tonight to raise this matter because, clearly, it is a matter of concern. The hon. Gentleman was right to point to some of the reports which have appeared in the press and elsewhere, which may have given a different interpretation.
  I should like to deal now with a point raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden in relation to the amendments. He was critical of the change, which I acknowledge that we have made, in requiring the local authority nominee to be an official rather than a councillor. That is to balance our response to representations made in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Gordon that the local councillor was the appropriate person to have on a local body concerned with local schools. I very much agree with that and we have taken it on board——
  Mr. John Home Robertson: First, will the Minister also take on board the fact that there may be many instances where the local councillor in the location of the school may not be the representative of the majority of parents because of the vagaries of catchment areas and boundaries? Secondly, why does the amendment make no reference to Islands councillors? Is the amendment intended to apply to the Islands councillors, as well as to the regional councillors?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman had read the Hansard of our Committee proceedings, he would know that those were precisely the arguments that I advanced without success in Committee when I found myself outnumbered on all sides by those who took the view that, while the argument is technically correct, it would be inappropriate for me to succumb to it.
  I should like to deal now with a point of some substance raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden. We took the view that if we were to have a majority party nominee as a councillor and an official—and strong representations were made in Committee that officials should be able to attend in their own right—and a local councillor who may or may not be of the same party, small boards in particular would feel overwhelmed by education authority representation. It is important that those boards should be able to meet and deliberate without feeling pressure from the central authority. I acknowledge that that is not an ideal solution, but it is the best shot that I could make to meet the wishes of all Committee Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon for acknowledging that we seem to have been successful in pleasing him and my right hon. and hon. Friends in that respect.
  Mr. Buchan: In view of the terrible situation imposed on Paisley, will the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland agree to consult very quickly with Strathclyde region to find a common solution? The problem has been caused partly by Strathclyde region, partly by the Government, and partly by the legal action. However, if those two responsible bodies, the Scottish Office and Strathclyde region, meet perhaps they can produce a solution before the summer.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has been at great pains to argue that we should not interfere in these matters.
  Mr. Buchan: The Minister already has interfered.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that we have. With regard to Paisley grammar and the regulations that we have brought before the House, which I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues oppose, a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are now making representations to the Government to use those regulations in connection with some schools. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). If he looks at the Paisley Daily Express of Thursday 3 December 1987—[Interruption]. That is a most important publication for the hon. Member for Paisley, South. That paper contains an article entitled
  "New twist in schools controversy."
  The article states:
  "Paisley's schools closure controversy has taken a new twist following the leaking of a document setting out Strathclyde Region's education committee's plans for non-denominational schools.
  For the document indicates that both the regional review group and the education committee have agreed to shut three Paisley schools…although neither bodies have yet met.
  The document—embarrassing for the regional council and giving new ammunition to parents opposing the closures—is dated November. The regional review group isn't scheduled to meet until later this month and the education committee won't consider the closure proposals until February."
  Mr. Buchan: What has that got to do with me?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman was arguing that proper consultation had not taken place. A document had been prepared setting out the plans for Paisley in November in advance of discussions and decisons which would not be made until February. There are lessons to be learned. I do not see any merit in proceeding along the lines that he suggests. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 4, line 33, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 38 and insert
  `ensure that head teachers and staff are awarded extended time off from contractual duties if the Board meets within normal school hours, or from planned activity time, and make arrangements for appropriate cover.'.
  I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the implications of clause 5 in which the Government suggest that there should be straightforward recommendations for education authorities to ensure that head teachers and staff of each school in the area are available when necessary for board meetings. It also refers to the role of those people on the school board.
  If Conservative Members who have just entered the Chamber would care to listen to me they will learn that the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for head teachers and staff representatives on school boards to prepare adequately for meetings. Those members of staff will be in the minority and it is vital that they have the time and opportunity to prepare for the meetings. We assume that agendas will be circulated in advance. If the head teacher and staff members are to make an impact on the board's discussions, it is right that they have time to prepare and consider the implications of suggestions on

  1061
  the agenda. [Interruption.] I am finding it difficult to talk above the noise of hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Wherever the noise is coming from, I think that the House should give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.
  Mrs. Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I draw the Minister's attention to what he said in Committee:
  "We intend the head teacher to occupy a key role as the board's principal professional adviser. He will have a duty to explain clearly the authority's policies, and to help the board to evaluate its plans in the context of those policies."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17 May 1988; c. 369.]
  Therefore, preparation time will be important.
  I also wish to ensure that head teachers and staff members are not under any strain while attending the school board through worrying about the education of the pupils left in the school or the administration of the school during their absence. It is important that we avoid creating a conflict of interests in their minds, so that they can concentrate on the issues before the school board. Surely we regard as part of the past the doubling up of classes, the dismissing of pupils early from school and the cancelling of planned activity time.
  One area of importance is the staffing review, to which the Minister referred during the debate on new clause 1. I shall be interested to hear his comments because, in many ways, that will influence my decision on whether to press the amendment to a Division. First, how long has the staffing review been in the Minister's hands? Secondly, when exactly will the announcement be made and can we be reassured that it will be before the Bill is debated in the other place? When discussing the responsibilities of teachers, it is important to know the background, and the staffing review will be a vital factor in that. Thirdly, how will the announcement be made about the conclusions of the staffing review? I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate it in the House and to consult the teachers in our constituencies.
  Many representations have already been made to me by head teachers in my area, who are concerned about the implications of the review. They hope that it will improve the situation, and that is why we need to consider it in the context of relieving them and teachers of their duties in school so that they can participate in the school boards.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this matter before the House. She raised a number of points of substance, but I do not believe that the amendment is either necessary or desirable. I certainly would be less than enthusiastic about board meetings during the school day. Of course, that would be for board members to decide, but I think that most of them would find it difficult to meet during the day. I recognise that the hon. Lady is concerned that staff should be properly trained for the new board and that proper account should be taken of their contractual duties and obligations.
  In the hope that I can persuade the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division, I assure her that when considering the staffing review we shall take account of the
  1062
  impact of school boards. Of course, that matter has come late for consideration. I am sure she recognises that perhaps the delay experienced reflects, in part, our need to take account of that.
  We shall be providing proper training for head teachers and we recognise that additional responsibilities will fall upon them. We are working very closely with the National Association of Head Teachers and the Headteachers Association of Scotland to that effect.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked me a number of questions, which I am not in a position to answer, as to the precise form and date of the announcement. However, we shall fulfil the undertaking that I have already given, which is that the staffing review will be published before the end of the school year. I hope that that will satisfy her. I hear her point about the need to do that so that she has an opportunity to make known to the House her views and thoughts on the matter. I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment No. 67, and note once again that we are most concerned with the substance behind her thinking.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While the Minister has not been able to answer precisely the various questions that I put to him, I accept the exigencies under which he is working and, in the light of the sentiment he expressed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

  DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO BOARDS
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 9, line 16, at end insert 'appointing or of.
  The amendment involves the ceiling powers contained in the Bill. The ceiling powers were originally proposed in the consultation document produced by the Minister. As a result of that consultation and the opposition to them, we were told by the Minister that they were to be removed. They have not been removed; they appear in clause 15 under the different name, "delegated functions". Although the name is different, they are still ceiling powers.
  The amendment seeks to add to the exemptions from those delegated functions the power to appoint other staff within the school. We would be grateful if the Minister would consider the matter and if he would let us know what special knowledge and benefit the school board will bring to the appointment of other staff within the school.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: If the Opposition seek an assurance that the Bill would not allow the appointment of staff entering into a contract of employment, I can help them. The exclusion from delegation to giving employment includes the staff, but was drafted in that way to ensure that the selection of junior staff could be delegated.
  It will be quite in order for an authority to delegate to a board that might meet as a committee with the head teacher as chairman the selection of junior staff for the school. Of course, the candidates would have to be eligible for appointment and the authority would make the formal appointment on the recommendation of the board. Clause 15(2)(b) rules out such delegations in the case of senior staff because the appointment to those posts is covered by schedule 2, which allows the authority to have a say in the selection of those important school managers.

  1063
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. He is mistaken in his assertion that it is a Trojan horse to bring back the ceiling powers. I seem to recall, although my memory may be deficient, that even the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) agreed with me in that respect.
  Mr. McAllion: Withdraw.
  Mr. Forsyth: In the interest of the good business of the House, I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong. I can assure the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that ceiling powers are not coming in through the back door, the window or by any other route—there were various metaphors used in Committee. Therefore, I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Galbraith: Despite the Minister's explanation, we are not reassured. We do not intend to divide the House, although we shall seek to pursue the matter in another place.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
  '(h) the control of the current budget of the school'.
  Despite the Minister's reassurances, this is yet another attempt to introduce ceiling powers by the back door. The amendment is about the control of the current budget by the school board. The Minister may like to explain why that is not contained within the exclusions, as we should like. In the past, he has said that if the school board does not wish this power to be delegated, there will be no problem. We wish to ensure that this is not within the school board's power. The job requires considerable expertise. I remind the Minister that these functions will be carried out by parents in their spare time and that it will be difficult for them to carry out this task. The idea is not cost-effective and, most important, as the Minister will note from consultations, parents do not want it.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Direct control over a budget for the recurrent costs of a school was not one of the original ceiling powers. It would be possible for boards to take on similar powers by delegation, but the original ceiling proposal was for boards to be given control over a total current budget, which would be defined in regulations. As the Bill now stands, boards and authorities could agree on the delegation of control over parts of a school's current expenditure. There is no provision for the Secretary of State to determine what the budget should include. We have moved some way, but the door is not yet sufficiently ajar to get the ceiling in.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister has moved some way, but not enough for the Opposition. Again, we do not wish to divide the House, although we shall pursue the matter in another place.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

  FINANCIAL POWERS OF BOARDS
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 11, line 30, after 'borrowing,' insert 'or levying charges'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 49.
  Mr. Hogg: As the amendments are linked, I assume that the Government accept amendment No. 40, which is intended to ensure that boards do not start imposing charges for any educational function or charging levies and thus behaving like a private school. If the Government accept our amendment, I should be delighted to hear from the Minister.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am not able to accept amendment No. 40, but I think that I can help the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
  Amendment No. 49 is designed to meet the anxieties expressed in Committee about charges. It does not make specific provision for the compulsory transfer of property from a school board, which is being disestablished on the amalgamation of a school, to an interim board. In such circumstances, a board may wish to use its resources in a specific way—for example, to preserve the school's name for posterity by endowing a prize for the combined school, and we do not wish that to be prevented. The board will know that the interim board exists and that property not transferred to the interim board and not otherwise provided for will go to the education authority or the board's disestablishment. It will thus be able to exercise choice. We shall issue guidance to boards on the disposal of properties so that they are aware of the options. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 40 and to support the Government amendment.
  Sir Hector Monro: As one who raised this matter on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his clarification.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Having heard the Minister's comments and as I now more clearly understand the Government's intention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 49, in page 11, line 33 at end insert—
  '(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall entitle a School Board to make any charges or demand any fees in respect of the school education provided by their education authority. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth]

Clause 19

  ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment. No. 5, in page 11, line 40 after 'section', insert '45 and'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to establish whether the Minister is prepared to agree to a loss of earnings allowance for members of school boards. I hope that he will recognise our concern that attendance at school boards will be a fairly demanding job which could cause people to lose earnings, especially if they are shift workers. An allowance for loss of earnings is already available to people who participate in children's panels—
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Motion relating to Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  School Boards (Scotland) Bill
  As amended, again considered.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not wish to detain the House. It is an important matter, and the arguments are self-evident. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether he is prepared to accept the amendment or consider ensuring that board members will not be deterred from participating if their earnings are at risk.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have been generous to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to disappoint him on this occasion. He must recognise the difference between local authority bodies and school boards. It would not be appropriate to extend the opportunity to make claims for support to school board members, which would effectively put them on a par with elected councillors. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Bruce: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am not entirely satisfied. I am worried that in certain circumstances people will be deterred from serving, especially if the school board's powers are to develop in the future, which could involve longer sittings and subcommittees and so on. Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I do not wish to divide the House. I shall pursue the matter in another place.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 22

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 50, in page 13, line 20, at end insert—
  '"electoral division" means an electoral division of a region, in terms of section 5(1)(a) of the 1973 Act;'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—
  "parent" in relation to a pupil means his natural parent or any other natural person who is his guardian, who has custody of him or who is liable to maintain him;'
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 52.
  Mr. Forsyth: I undertook in Committee to consider again the definition of "parent" in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and to see whether it could be improved for the purposes of this Bill. We wanted especially to exclude the possibility of institutions that have custody of a child or the parents of adults taking educational classes at a school being troubled by a spurious vote in a board election. The amendments achieve that purpose and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 52, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
  1066
  "'pupil" does not include any person over the age of 18 years;'.
  No. 53, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
  "regional councillor" means a councillor elected for an electoral division of a region, in terms of section 5(1) of the 1973 Act;'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 1

  ELECTORAL PROCEDURE
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 15, line 7, leave out from 'elections' to end of line 8.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56, amendment No. 24, in page 15, line 11, leave out paragraph 3, and Government amendments Nos. 26 and 25.
  Mr. Hogg: The intention of the amendments is clear from the Amendment Paper.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: By happy coincidence, the wording of the Opposition and Government amendments was the same and I am happy to accept the Opposition's arguments on this matter. The Government amendments arise out of commitments that I gave in Committee and I hope that they command the support of the House.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 54, in page 15, line 7, leave out
  from 'elections' to end of line 8 and insert
  'in accordance with—

  (a) this Schedule; and

  (b) such guidance as to the form and content of such schemes as the Secretary of State may from time to time issue.'.

  No. 55, in page 15, line 10, at end insert—
  '2A. Every scheme shall include provision for the appointment by the education authority of a returning officer to ensure the proper conduct of the elections.'.
  No. 56, in page 15, leave out lines 11 to 15.
  No. 26, in page 15, line 18, leave out from 'post' to end of line 19.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 2

  APPOINTMENT OF HEADTEACHERS, DEPUTIES AND ASSISTANTS
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Important matters are raised in amendment No. 30, but in view of the position that we have reached in tonight's business I do not intend to move the amendment. I hope to have it debated in the other place.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 17, line 6, leave out '3' and insert '4'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61.
  Mr. Forsyth: The effect of the amendments is to adjust the numbers in consequence of an amendment that the Committee accepted in principle. Therefore, I expect that they will command the support of the whole House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 59, in page 17, line 9, leave out '3' and insert '4'.
  No. 60, in page 17, line 27, leave out '2' and insert '3'.
  No. 61, in page 17, line 30, leave out '3' and insert '4'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I do not think that the Bill should be given a formal Third Reading. It is a devious, sneaky piece of legislation. It purports to be a Bill to decentralise educational power. It takes power away from education authorities and gives more power to teachers and parents. The Government have not thought through the consequences of the Bill. If they have thought them through, their intentions in introducing the Bill are evil and will have a detrimental effect on children's educational opportunities.
  I believe firmly in the decentralisation of power, including educational power, but the way in which the Bill pretends to do it is very unsatisfactory. It fails to strike a balance between the powers that may be decentralised to one particular school and the powers that should be vested in the wider area of which that school forms a part.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has dwelt at considerable length and in some detail on the effect of Government intervention, right up to Downing street level, on the educational opportunities for children in his area. What takes place in Paisley today may take place in many other areas of Scotland next week, next month or next year.
  Ever since comprehensive education became a reality in Scotland we have recognised that it is not good enough to look at just one school and its needs in isolation from the rest of the community. That would lead to a growing disparity in children's educational opportunities between one school and another in the same community.
  For this Minister to expect the House to give a formal Third Reading to the Bill is a piece of cheek and brass neck. For a Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland who has no mandate whatsoever from the people of Scotland to start preaching to us about the need for decentralisation and accountability is an affront to all the traditions of democratic education in Scotland. He only scraped home by the skin of his teeth in his own constituency and then found himself catapulted into the Scottish Office as Minister for Health, Minister for Education, Minister for Sport, Minister for Art and Minister for this, that and the next thing. In a very devious way, he even went cap in hand to Downing street, behind the back of his own Secretary of State, to persuade the Prime Minister to intervene in Scottish education, about which she knows next to nothing.
  There are dangerous tendencies in the Bill. It is a paving Bill for what is politely called down here "opting out", and which could eventually lead not just to schools opting out of local education authority control but to the privatisation of certain schools and a return to selection, fee paying and to everything that is anathema to traditions of democratic education within Scotland.
  The late Willie Ross would turn in his grave if he could see his successor as Minister with responsibility for Scottish education. Willie Ross came in for a great deal of criticism during his tenure of office as Secretary of State for Scotland, including some from myself. However, no one can take back from him what he did in the late 1960s—
  1068
  almost a quarter of a century ago—when he brought forward an education revolution, trying to ex tend educational opportunity for generations of children. There are many hon. Members in all quarters of the House now representing Scottish constituencies, and a few Conservative Members representing perhaps even constituencies south of the border, who gained a great deal from the Scottish education revolution of the late 1960s.
  In this devious legislation, we are witnessing a first attempt by the Government to bring about a counterrevolution that will be detrimental to children's educational opportunities in Scotland rather than be an extension of them. That is why we should vote against the Bill.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Some excellent schools in my constituency have been closed and it is a pity that parents have been compelled to resort to the courts. I hope that the Minister will examine means of allowing parents to make representations to the relevant Ministers when closures are to take place. As the Minister well knows, it is a difficult and expensive process for parents to go to court, and I hope that he will bear that point in mind.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Once again the Government have accepted few amendments, and none of major importance. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in that it ignores Scottish traditions and attitudes and clearly intends to introduce alien ideas and practices. The Government would have been better employed building upon the foundations of existing parent-teacher organisations, using existing practices and expertise, and giving greater powers to individuals and organisations within the existing and established Scottish system. Instead, we are presented with an ideologically based Bill, producing an educational Trojan horse which will eventually destroy the harmony and unity of our national education system. Time will tell, but we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We would have preferred legislation designed to defend and advance our nation's education in ways more suited to the Scottish system and Scottish attitudes.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Buchan: The Minister's conduct tonight has amply illustrated the Bill's real purpose. Events over the past eight days have underlined its purpose. It is not to extend democracy towards parents in Scottish schools, but to pave the way for the next Bill which will allow opting out.
  It is noticeable that the Minister did not reply to my challenge that he had been having meetings with parents in the town of Paisley, which he has so disrupted, in order to develop the concept of them opting out so that Ministers would have a model for the rest of Scotland. We have seen Ministers taking action directly to save one school at the command of the Prime Minister—Paisley grammar—and we have seen them succeeding. A legal action prevented the closure of another school which people wanted to be kept open. We want an answer to some of those questions.
  Above all, the Minister can use the two or three minutes remaining to him tonight to tell us whether he will now meet Strathclyde region to try to settle the education crisis in Paisley before we hit the summer holidays. None of the children in the schools in Paisley know where they are

  1069
  going in a month's time, and nor do their parents. Will the Minister answer that? Will he meet the region and try to understand the mess into which he and the Prime Minister have put my town?
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As is so often the case with the Government, the Bill represents a basically popular idea that has been corrupted because the Government have failed to take into account the views of the overwhelming majority of people who made representations to them.
  No hon. Member would deny the case for giving parents more involvement in the running of a school. The Government are trying to pretend that that is what the Bill is about, despite the fact that they are insisting on a parental majority rather than a partnership. They have rejected the concept of a partnership that parents and teachers have actively sought. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill. No Conservative Member, even those who have sought to modify the Bill, can escape the fact that it does not represent what Scotttish education is looking for. Indeed, it is a diversion from other more important and higher priorities.
  The Conservative party, in its election manifesto, pledged to reform and give extra powers to school councils. There would have been widespread cross-party support if it had done that, but the Bill goes much further and does not seek to create the spirit of partnership which has a long-established tradition within Scottish education.
  The final point that is particularly offensive to Opposition Members is that we cannot accept that a Government with only 10 Scottish Members have the right to take the devolved power that we have in the Scottish Office, corrupt it and disrupt our entire education system with ideologies that the Scottish people have convincingly and comprehensively rejected. That is why, although the Bill contains some proposals that could usefully have been implemented to reform schools councils, it represents something that Scottish education did not want, did not ask for and will reject. We shall vote against it.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The Bill had its genesis on an August morning last year when the Minister made a far-reaching announcement on what he proposed to do with regard to the management of our schools in Scotland. His proposals were rejected because the Scottish people have a deep affection for their system of education and they were not prepared to have it radically altered by a Government that had little authority to govern in Scotland.
  The Bill which we are discussing tonight is much changed from that which we debated in Committee. I am pleased that that is the case, but I regret to say that there remains much in the Bill that we find unacceptable. We find it unacceptable that parents are to have a controlling rather than an advisory role on the school board and that there is to be no partnership with the teachers in the sense of their having equal powers.
  The Bill gives too much power to the school board over the school budget, over the head teachers' spending plans, and, therefore, over matters of curriculum. It downgrades
  1070
  the prefessional expertise of teachers and is a diversion from the real problems of education over which the Minister presides.
  The Bill is a paving measure for opting out, and if the Minister thought that he had a bad time last August when he announced his proposals for school boards, it is nothing like the response that he will get when he brings forward a Bill for opting out later this year.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will, therefore, without doubt and without hesitation, vote against this Bill tonight.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Bill brings to parents in Scotland the same opportunities and rights as parents enjoy elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in almost every other country in Europe. It is a sad reflection on the Opposition that they have opposed it not in principle but by the back door and on every occasion. Once again it is the Conservative party that is extending people's rights in Scotland, and this will be recognised on the doorsteps in the years ahead.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 213.

  Divislon No. 372]

  [10.19 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alexander, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Amess, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amos, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (MoleValley)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Critchley, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Day, Stephen

  Benyon, W.

  Devlin, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dicks, Terry

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fallon, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Farr, Sir John

  Bright, Graham

  Favell, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

  Finsberg, Sir Geotfrey

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Forman, Nigel

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forth, Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Butcher, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Butler, Chris

  Freeman, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  1071

  Fry, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gill, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mans, Keith

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maples, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gregory, Conal

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, lain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

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

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heddle, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Holt, Richard

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardilf N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Kilfedder, James

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lang, Ian

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Latham, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  1072

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wheeler, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trippier, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flynn, Paul

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Foulkes, George

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Galloway, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gould, Bryan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Graham, Thomas

  Blair, Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bradley, Keith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Haynes, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Buchan, Norman

  Hinchliffe, David

  Buckley, George J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Holland, Stuart

  Callaghan, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howells, Geraint

  Clay, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Crowther, Stan

  John, Brynmor

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Doran, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  Livsey, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  McTaggart, Bob

  Fearn, Ronald

  Madden, Max

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G' n)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Marek, Dr John

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  1073

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Martlew, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Maxton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Meacher, Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  Meale, Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Michael, Alun

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Reid, Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Richardson, Jo

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Rogers, Allan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Rooker, Jeff

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Salmond, Alex

  Murphy, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Nollist, Dave

  Sheerman, Barry

  O'Brien, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  O'Neill, Martin

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Short, Clare

  Parry, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Pendry, Tom

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

  1074

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

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Vaz, Keith

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wall, Pat

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third times, and passed.

  Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (d) and (e), in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), and amendment (h), in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I suggest
  That, in the opinion of this House, as from 11th June 1987, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect, instead of those of the Resolution of 20th March 1975 (as amended), in relation to the giving of financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House, to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:—
  1.—(1) Financial assistance shall be available under this paragraph to a party at any time if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say—

  (a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or

  (b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000

  (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any year shall be the aggregate of—

  (a) £2,550 for each seat won by its candidates at that Election; and

  (b) £5·10 for every 200 votes cast for its candidates at that Election

  (3) No financial assistance is available under this paragraph in respect of—

  (a) expenses incurred on or after 1st January 1988 by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance; or

  (b) expenses incurred by the SLD or the SDP at any time before the next General Election after the passing of this Resolution

  (4) In this Resolution—

  "the SLD" means the Social and Liberal Democrats;

  "the SDP" means the party known as the SDP at the date on which this Resolution is passed;

  "the Liberal Alliance" means the party which contested the 1987 General Election as the "Liberal/Alliance"; and

  "the SDP Alliance" means the party which contested that Election as the "SDP/Alliance"

  2.—(1) Financial assistance shall he available under this paragraph to the SLD
  and the SDP in respect of expenses incurred by them on or after 1st January 1988 and before the next General Election after that date
  (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to the SLD in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall be the aggregate of—

  (a) an amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 1(2) above by reference to the seats won by and votes cast for the Liberal Alliance's candidates at the 1987 General Election; and

  (b) two-fifths of an amount so calculated by reference to the seats won by and votes cast for the SDP Alliance's candidates at that Election

  (3) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may he given under this paragraph to the SDP in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall he three-fifths of the amount calculated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above
  (4) The maximum amount of financial assistance available to the SLD apart from this sub-paragraph in respect of expenses incurred in the year beginning 1st January 1988 shall be reduced by the amount of the financial assistance given to the Liberal Alliance before the passing of this Resolution in respect of expenses so incurred
  (5) Financial assistance for the SDP shall be determined as if at all times on and after 1st January 1988 and before the passing of this Resolution its representation in this House had consisted of those Members who are members of that party at the date on which this Resolution is passed
  3.—(1) Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall—

  (a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;

  (b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and

  (c) as soon as practicable after each 31st December following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the twelve months ending with that date were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above

  (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall not apply in relation to financial assistance given on or after 1st January 1988 in respect of expenses incurred before that date by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance
  to the House that we proceed with the debate and I shall call upon the hon. Members to move their amendments at the end
  10.33 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
  4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election—

  (a) the period ending immediately before the day of the Election, and

  (b) the period beginning with that day,

  shall be treated for the purposes of this Resolution as separate years, but the maximum amount of financial assistance available to any party in respect of any period so treated shall be reduced correspondingly
  (2) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st January
  5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: members' salaries etc. Vote
  The House will know from what I said last week that, for some time, I have regarded the passage of this motion as a task involving some difficulties. Certainly, bringing proposals on this matter before the House has, in the past, been a thankless task for my predecessors. Not only that, but it has been an issue arousing very varied opposition. It is hard to think of many subjects which would unite my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) all in the same Lobby, as this scheme for financial assistance did on its introduction in 1975. I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I deal briefly with the scheme's history before turning to my conclusions of the review of the arrangements and the motion before us
  The scheme was put forward by the then Leader of the House, Mr. Edward Short, now Lord Glenamara. It is after him that it takes the name by which it is usually known. It was originally intended to form part of a larger programme designed to strengthen parliamentary institutions. This particular element was to provide financial assistance to Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties at Westminster. The assistance was not intended to cover all expenses incurred by the Opposition in performing their parliamentary duties, but to be a contribution to them
  The formula determining the maximum amount that each party would be eligible to claim annually was based on the results of the preceding general election. Originally, this provided for £500 for each seat won by the party concerned, and £1 for every 200 votes cast for it. The minimum qualification for an Opposition party was that it should have either two Members elected at the preceding general election, or one such Member and at least 150,000 votes in total at that election. Originally, there was also a maximum entitlement on the basis that, in Lord Glenamara's words,
  "the responsibilities of a principal Opposition party are not necessarily greater because it has, say, 250 rather than 200 Members."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1871.]
  Since the scheme was set up, the amounts in the formula and the maximum have been increased four times, most recently in 1985. At the beginning of this Parliament they stood at three times their 1975 level—£1,500 for each seat won at the preceding general election and £3 for every 200 votes gained. The maximum to which the principal Opposition party was entitled stood at £450,000. Throughout, the increases in amounts payable seem to have been determined in something of an ad hoc way, and have not been justified on the basis of any precise linkage to, say, the retail price index. Like so much else at Westminster, it seems to have been more of an art than a science. I began my overall review of the scheme after last year's general election.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is going into the details of the measure. Could he say a little bit about the principles before he goes on with the detail? My right hon. Friend, I am sure like everybody else in the House, is in favour of a strong, effective and able Opposition. Could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Opposition that this House had before the Short money was introduced were more effective and stronger and better than the Opposition that we have today?
  Mr. Wakeham: The Opposition immediately before the Short money was introduced were led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am a little surprised by my hon. Friend's question about whether that Opposition was better than the present one. It is not necessarily a great condemnation of the present Opposition to say that they are infinitely less superior than the Opposition at that time. The object of this financial assistance is to improve the workings of the Opposition. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can agree that there is room for improvement
  Mr. Terry Dicks: My right hon. Friend said that this money is to give the Opposition a chance to perform better their essential parliamentary duties. Can the provision of a Mafia for the Leader of the Opposition's office to prevent Back Benchers getting to him be looked upon as being essential parliamentary duties?
  Mr. Wakeham: The motion before the House is to provide the money. Within certain limits it is up to the Opposition to decide how best to spend it to improve their performance in Parliament. I cannot go too far in that direction, but I shall tell the House how I intend to tighten the accountability for that money and the way in which it should be spent. The judgment about spending will essentially be for the Opposition parties to make
  As I was saying, I began my overall review of the scheme after the general election last year. But while that was continuing, the House agreed one change to the arrangements—the removal of the maximum payable to any one Opposition party. The formula as applied to the 1987 general election would have entitled the Labour party to claim about £494,000 annually, while the maximum restricted it to £450,000. When the House had last approved the arrangements, it had set the maximum just above the total amount to which the formula would then entitle the main Opposition party. My motion sought to maintain that position, which enabled all Opposition parties to claim the full amount available to them under the formula, and that was what the House approved in November last year
  The review has gone wider than a simple uprating of the formula, and has included the position of Opposition parties in the House of Lords, the provision of certain staff and office equipment to the main Opposition party, and

  1079
  arrangements for accountability. And, as the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out last summer, we have had to consider in particular the arrangements for Members who stood for the alliance parties at the last general election. The main conclusions of my review were set out in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 24 May, but I will remind the House of them briefly now. I reached them only after consultation with as many Opposition parties as possible
  I do not recommend altering the current arrangement for the employment of four officially paid staff in the official Opposition Whips' Office. It seems to me in the interests of the House as a whole that the main Opposition party should have the organisation to be able to respond flexibly to changes which the Government may make in the business of the House. The arrangement whereby certain office equipment, postal facilities and stationery are provided for the official Opposition from departmental Votes would, however, be brought to an end. This predated the Short money scheme and it seems to me that it should properly be turned into a cash benefit and included within it. Certain changes to the accounting procedures have also been proposed: I draw the House's attention to paragraph 3 of the motion. The House will wish to note that in future an independently certified statement should be made annually on behalf of each entitled party that the amounts claimed have been expended in accordance with the resolution of the House
  This tightening-up of accountability seems to me particularly desirable because of the considerable increases which I am proposing in the amounts in the formula determining the maximum each party may claim. As the House will see from the motion, they would entitle an opposition party to £2,550 for each seat won at the preceding general election, and £5·10 for every 200 votes gained. The new, higher formula will be retrospective to the beginning of this Parliament, and the Opposition will be able to make further claims for this period, provided that they certify that their claims are for expenses incurred on parliamentary duties at Westminster, as the terms of the resolution allow. It is not my intention to hold a further review in this Parliament
  In cash terms, the proposed increases represent a rise of 70 per cent. But it is not as straightforward as that. In determining the amount of the increase we have had regard not only to the increase in costs, particularly staff costs, since the last increase in the amounts available, and the prospective increase in costs for the remainder of this Parliament. We have taken account also of two further elements. The first I have referred to—the ending of the provision of office equipment and certain other facilities to the official Opposition, and its incorporation, as a cash benefit, into the scheme. That enables the minor parties to benefit also in this regard, on a pro rata basis
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: If my hon. Friend intends not to make any further adjustment during the life of this Parliament, how will he take into account further permutations of the Liberals, the Democrats, the SDP and whatever they may call themselves during the next three or four years?
  Mr. Wakeham: I shall come to that in the course of my speech, but perhaps I can give my hon. Friend a foretaste of what I intend to do: absolutely nothing
  1080
  Secondly, we have had regard to the Top Salaries Review Body report No. 24 on parliamentary allowances which makes recommendations about the introduction of a scheme for financal assistance to Opposition parties in the other place. While we have not followed its suggestion of a separate "Short money" scheme, but have instead included it within the existing arrangements, in setting the new amounts we have allowed a substantial element to be allocated for the work in the other place. The exact amount so allocated will, of course, be a matter for each party. I believe that this flexible approach will allow the best use to be made of the money
  The very complexity of paragraph 2 of the motion dealing with the arrangements for the erstwhile alliance parties is itself an indication of the difficulty that there has been in seeking an equitable conclusion. Under the strict terms of the 1975 resolution, the SLD is not entitled to any financial assistance, since it is not a party which stood as such at the preceding general election. There is sufficient doubt about the position of their former alliance colleagues, led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for financial assistance not to have been available to them since the beginning of this year. In the past, hon. Members' changes of party affiliations have not affected the amounts of Short money available to each Opposition party to claim, and the motion would provide for this to be so in the future, which is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes. However, I believe that it would be inequitable not to make an exception in this case and for this Parliament only —[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If my hon. Friends will allow me, that is what I am hoping to justify. I will do my best
  The motion provides, essentially, for the SLD to be eligible for the amount to which the Liberal-alliance party would have been entitled under the new formula together with two fifths of the amount to which the SDP-alliance would have been entitled. The remaining three fifths of the SDP-alliance entitlement under the formula goes to the right hon. Member for Devonport and his two colleagues. I hope that the whole House will agree—even if the two parties most closely concerned may not—that what I have proposed is a reasonable compromise
  I shall return to the amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected when the House has had the benefit of hearing from my hon. Friends the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). But, however persuasive their arguments, I do not believe that I shall be advising the House to accept the amendments. Those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire would reduce substantially the increase in financial assistance which I have proposed. Given the factors which I have indicated that I had taken into account in determining the increaseincluding the position of the Opposition parties in another place and the ending of certain benefits in kind —I do not believe that the smaller increase which my hon. Friend is proposing would be appropriate
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was frightened that he was going to sit down. Before he sits down, will my right hon. Friend tell the House precisely how much, for example, the Labour party will get under these proposals and how much it would have got before the proposals?
  Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I came prepared for that question. Under the existing arrangements the Labour party is entitled to £493,900 and under the proposals in the motion it is entitled to £839,700. As I have stated, the basis is not strictly comparable—[Interruption]
  Mr. Speaker: Order
  Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether my hon. Friends think that I have given the Labour party too much or too little
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield would subject the arrangements for financial assistance to annual renewal. I think, however, that it is only reasonable that Opposition parties should be able to plan on the basis of more than one year ahead. [Interruption.] I should have thought that many years ahead would be more sensible. Furthermore, I believe that such a change would only make it more likely that further increases in financial assistance would come to be expected on an annual basis as the resolution was renewed, whereas I hope and intend that the proposals that I have brought before the House will last for the duration of this Parliament
  As I suggested a few minutes ago, the Leader of the House rarely finds his proposals on Short money greeted with widespread enthusiasm, and I appreciate that the same will probably be true tonight. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a fair settlement which reflects the significance which I, as Leader of the House, attach to helping Opposition parties at Westminster with the facilities to carry out efficiently their proper parliamentary work. Though it will not, and cannot, do the job of the Opposition, this contribution to their opportunity to perform effectively is an important element of parliamentary life. I commend the motion to the House
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): As always, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has done his very best to do justice to this difficult subject. However, his presentation to the House and attempt to justify the grotesque figure put before us tonight lacked any mention or assessment of the value of the contribution made by the Opposition parties to the work of Parliament. In suggesting to the House that that is crucial in our assessment of the figures, I want to refer to the original proposals made by Mr. Edward Short, as he then was, in March 1975, when he said:
  "financial assistance should be made available to Opposition parties to assist them in their parliamentary work here at Westminster, and I emphasise that it is here at Westminster only."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1869–70.]
  That gives the House the clue and important key to how to go about assessing whether the Opposition parties are justified in expecting the sort of money that we have been told about by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight
  It is worth bearing in mind—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to this briefly—that when the motion was before the House originally not only were three present members of the Cabinet against the resolution—and I will spare their blushes and not name them now—but Opposition Members were also against the resolution. The hon. Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Barking (Ms. Richardson), the right hon
  1082
  Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) were all against the resolution in its original form. I will be very interested to see whether they vote against my right hon. Friend's proposals tonight and whether others will join them in reflecting on the honest position that they took when the roles were reversed and the Labour party was in government and the Conservative party was in opposition. However, that remains to be seen. We all wait to see with great interest what happens
  Ms. Clare Short: I declare that I am no relation of Edward Short
  Before the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to the voting last time, he referred to the performance of the Opposition. Perhaps we should take into account the performance of all hon. Members in relation to their salaries, given that a large percentage of Conservative Members have other jobs and clearly are not spending time in this House working for their constituents. Should not their salaries take that into account?
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady anticipates me. I will come to that in a moment. I am sure that the House will want to know something about the contribution that hon. Members make to the workings of the House. Their constituents will want to know that as well. In the motion we are talking about the taxpayer being asked to make a major contribution towards the cost of running the House. In a moment I will refer to how that may be assessed
  We should dispose of one possible way to assess the value of the moneys, and that is by the number of Members in each party. For example, in 1975, when the resolution was first suggested, the Labour party had 319 Members; in 1985, when the resolution was reviewed, the Labour party had 209; and in 1988 it had 299 Members. It is obvious from those figures that we are not necessarily considering the number of Members as the criterion, because it could be said that, if a party succeeds in gaining more seats in an election, that would give it an increase in its financial allocation under the existing formula and there might be no need to review it. The Labour party might be quite happy with that if it was not so greedy and grasping about the money that it asks for tonight
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) raised the question of the participation of members of the Opposition in the workings of the House. I have already said that the original deviser of the scheme, Edward Short, said that Westminster must judge the activities of those who attempt to justify the money
  Mr. Brian Wilson: When the hon. Gentleman is considering performance in the House, will he take into account the fact that, from the serried ranks of the Tory Members, the Government cannot raise five Members to serve on the Scottish Select Committee?
  Mr. Forth: I do not think that I will consider that factor, but I will offer to the House some interesting figures, which are available in the Library, of an analysis of voting by hon. Members in the most recent period available—from January to March—which was carried out by an independent source. It rated Members in descending order depending on the percentage of times that they had voted in Divisions. In the top 10, nine Members were Conservative and one was Labour; in the top 20, 18 were Conservative and two were Labour; in the

  1083
  top 50, 43 were Conservative and only seven were Labour; and in the top 100, 79 were Conservative and 21 were Labour
  A number of matters are apparent from those independently produced figures. First, the contribution made to the work of the House is disproportionately in favour of the Conservative Members, and it is quite obvious that the Opposition contribute little. What is interesting—and I am sure that my hon. Friends have noticed this already—is that I have not yet mentioned any of the minority parties. It will not surprise anyone that the first Liberal to appear on the list of honour comes in at No. 280—[Interruption.] I must concede that a Plaid Cymru Member appears at No. 380. Of the 10 Members who have performed least well, seven come from Northern Ireland and one is a Liberal
  Mr. Harold McCusker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I would be proud if I were last on the list, because for 15 years I have come to the House every week and asked it to cover Northern Ireland matters as it covers matters relating to other parts of the United Kingdom? The House refuses to cover Northern Ireland properly. When it does, I shall vote and participate fully
  Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House will be honoured —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer that."] I am sure that the House will be honoured by the appearance of the hon. Gentleman to plead his case for money for his party, on which we are voting tonight
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way
  Mr. John D. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order
  Mr. Forth: You protest too much, Mr. Speaker
  We have now put our finger on a very sensitive point, because we have known for a long time—the figures I have given confirm it—that the Opposition parties do not make a contribution to the working of the House. How my right hon. Friend will——
  Mr. Roy Beggs rose
  Mr. Forth: No, I shall not give way.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may have an opportunity to make their contributions in a moment
  Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be a point of disagreement, but not I think a point of order
  Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The information being given to the House by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) about Northern Ireland Members is incorrect. When Northern Ireland Members were here all through the night, their votes were not recorded
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is definitely a point of argument
  Mr. Forth: All that I can say is that that was a genuinely Irish point of order—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In
  1084
  case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In case hon. Members may think—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Now settle down, settle down
  In case hon. Members think that this is all too theoretical, I shall give a specific example from last Thursday night, when the Opposition chose to keep the House up until a late hour. Not only was that a frivolous waste of taxpayers' money, but even worse, when it came to the vote at 2 o'clock on Friday morning, 114 Conservative Members did their duty, but fewer than 20 Labour Members did theirs
  If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House thinks that that is a reasonable basis on which to shower money upon the Opposition parties, I regret that he will not have my support—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that hon. Members should settle down, and I agree with him
  Mr. Forth: I shall make only one more point because many of my hon. Friends wish to make different points. It is obvious that the basis on which the claim before the House has been founded is erroneous. I have tried to show that if we assess the contribution made by the Opposition parties, there is no basis for increasing the amount given to them
  My amendments seek to take the figure that was set in 1985 and, very generously, index it by the full retail prices index improvement of 16 per cent. since then. That is the basis of the figures offered in my amendments, and which I hope the House will consider and vote in favour of. The public will be quite unable to understand the extent of the increase that we are being asked to approve in the light of what I have told the House about the true performance and commitment of members of the Opposition parties in the work of the House
  I hope that all my colleagues will think most carefully before they are seduced by the arguments of my right hon. Friend, who tried to put them as fairly as only he could do, but who was really batting on a quite impossible wicket in suggesting that the Opposition parties deserve the enormous increase set out in the motion. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that even on the basis of recent performance, or of performance over a sustained period, we cannot justify anything more than the generous increase offered in my amendments. I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will follow me into the Lobby and vote in favour of my amendments
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has more than a little cheek. [Interruption.] I am told that he used to be in the Common Market where there were barrowloads of money and he used to be the barrow boy who was wheeling it. [Interruption.] I think that he has some cheek to tell us about parliamentary performance
  The hon. Gentleman talked about 20 of us keeping 140 Conservative Members up all night. Why were there 140? There were 140 because the Government need at least 100 to close a debate. On Thursday night, when I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite made it to the post, we had another what is loosely called filibuster, but it was all straight and above board. He did not turn up for work

  1085
  The hon. Gentleman could have been on a bisque—a French word for playing truant—which the Tories use regularly. If you, Mr. Speaker, went out of the main entrance to the Chamber—I know you do not because you have to stick to your own little spot—on occasions you would find a notice on the door of the Tory Whips' Office saying, "No bisque today". When the hon. Gentleman does turn up, he has obviously seen the notice
  There will be other occasions when 20 Opposition Members will keep more than 100 Conservative Members here—just as there were such occasions when the Conservative party was in opposition before 1979. There is the question of using personnel in a sensible way, so there are occasions like the other night
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has a point. That night, about 30 of us tried to get in 52 Divisions. We were helping the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The Deputy Speaker—it was not you, Mr. Speaker—stopped us working properly. He introduced Standing Order No. 39 and had us jumping up and down every two minutes
  Voting is not a very good way of measuring things here. I think that it ought to be the best measurement. After 18 years it would be easy for me to say that, but there are other ways of measuring parliamentary performance. I say that from a position of strength. There are hon. Members who work on Standing Committees and that is not measured in the Sunday Times. There are other contributions to a parliamentary performance, there are other ways in which we are prevented from carrying out our parliamentary duties
  As is well known, one in eight Tory Back Benchers is connected with the Lloyd's insurance market. I am sure that that will prevent them from turning up for work occasionally, unless there is a notice on the door, "No bisque today". Seventy Tory Back Benchers have connections with firms that make money in the dark alleyways of South Africa. I am not going to read them out, but I am sure that when they have directorships in company boardrooms they will run to the Tory Chief Whip—when he is not engaged in blackmailing tactics against the Opposition—to get some time off
  There are other things that we should measure when discussing Short money. I speak as one who, at the time, gave evidence against it. The Government have other forms of money. For instance, the Prime Minister is spending more than £5 million of taxpayers' money to staff her office and provide other facilities at No. 10 Downing street. When the previous Prime Minister left in 1979 he spent £1·25 million per annum. Notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister is very concerned about spending taxpayers' money—she is always telling us that the Government have no money; it all belongs to the taxpayer —the moment she moved into No. 10 she increased that sum to £2 million, then £3 million, then £4 million and in the last count for which we have figures it is now more than £5 million. If the National Health Service had been given extra cash, based on the same proportionate increase, we would have £28 billion for the NHS and there would not be a waiting list. That is what the Government do with taxpayers' money. The Government have chauffeur-driven cars. All Governments have chauffeur-driven cars; I am
  1086
  not making a party political point. That is part of the Government's way of doing things, but it does not apply to most Opposition Members
  By and large, bearing in mind the benefits that Tory Members gain—[Interruption.] The barrow boy is going to see whether there is a bisque tomorrow. Bearing in mind that the Tories took advantage of this scheme, which was introduced by Lord Glenamara—then Ted Short—they have a cheek to argue as they have done when attacking the Labour Front Bench for receiving the money
  We are debating this matter today rather than in the immediate aftermath of the last general election, not because of the official Opposition but because of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. It has nothing to do with the Labour party, as is well known. The Leader of the House has faced a dilemma. He did not tell the Liberals and the SDP to merge, but the moment they started talking, he knew that he had a problem
  In case the Leader of the House had not thought about it, I reminded him in the middle of August. I asked, "Are you aware that mergers are taking place?" There was a group, the provos, led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that said that it would not merge. It struck me immediately that the Leader of the House would have a problem with the Short money. How would he decide? In the last general election on 11 June 1987, there was not a vote for the SLD—the salads. In all the election addresses there was no reference to the fact that, when they were elected, they would form a new party and split away
  The Leader of the House did not know how to divide the money. He wanted to be fair not only to his Back Benchers but to the Liberals and the Social Democrats, but he did not know how. He has been puzzling ever since. He has come up with a solution but, frankly, he could have done with Pythagoras. It is not the brightest solution of all time. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to pass retrospective legislation. He wants us to say that we do not know that the Liberals and the SDP have merged. He wants us to put a blindfold on and say that there are not two parties—one down one end of the Bench and one at the other end. He wants us to admit that the right hon. Member for Devonport, who has gone for a personality transplant where is he?—does not exist and has never been leader or joint leader. The Leader of the House wants us to wipe all that out of our memory, but I cannot. It is ultra vires. If this matter went before a local authority—except Westminster—councillors would be surcharged if they passed it
  We now have to refer to the Liberal alliance and the SDP alliance—for money, not for anything else. There is one point that has caused a problem: the group must be called the SLD. But some of the Liberals do not like that. Some of them say, "I am a Liberal" and put it on ballot papers in local government elections; some people say, "I am a Social Democrat" and put that on the ballot papers. I did a count in the last local government elections in May and found that there were seven different varieties. It will soon be called the Heinz party! The Tory Government have named them, so when they stand in the next election —I hope that they are listening—they will have to take this title, or they will be in trouble
  We have a dog's dinner here. The Leader of the House has tried to make a seven-course dinner out of a pan of boiling water and he has failed
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Roger King: Amendment (h) deals with the establishment of an annual review of this resolution. Oddly enough, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) endorsed my reasons for thinking that we should have an annual review. Such a review is essential because it is appropriate for the House to have a stocktaking of the political parties and what they stand for each and every year so that the outside world—and, above all, hon. Members—know exactly who stands for what and what is who. As things stand at the moment, it is a great problem for us all
  The main Opposition party, the Labour party, is no more or less than a brand name. It is a loose mishmash of warring factions, struggling with leadership bids and seeking to define its policies. No one realy knows what it stands for. It is as silly to say that the Labour party stands for Labour views as it is to say that British-American Tobacco simply stands for tobacco. The Labour party is a pot-pourri of policies that no one can really understand. It is split in its leadership and its policies
  We would best serve the House by debating the resolution each year, the better to understand the political views represented in the House. At the moment they are certainly not clear. We have a number of political beasts on the Opposition Benches, and they need to be defined. If we are passing such sums over to Her Majesty's Opposition, we need to know what the Opposition stand for. An annual stocktaking would polarise attitudes on the Opposition Benches, redefine to the electorate exactly what the Opposition stand for and produce, out of muddle and confusion, a degree of clarity. If the Opposition cannot provide that clarity, they will not get the money; it is as simple as that
  In addition to the official Opposition we have a plethora of other political parties. The motion lists the various names—something for which I am most grateful as a glossary of terms is long overdue. In considering these middle-of-the-road outfits, we cannot be absolutely sure that the definitions in the resolution will hold good indefinitely—or at least until we come to debate the resolution again. Suppose that we have another change and the SLD is in the middle of a leadership election. Suppose that the new management wants to rename the party "The Ashdown Bombers" or "The Democratic Chapter". If we debate such resolutions annually, we can examine and approve the names of parties and recognise them as official parties each year, instead of the reclothing of old ideas in new brand names occurring constantly throughout our parliamentary life
  The tiniest party of all is still known as the SDP, but its members are generally referred to as the "Owenites". Nowhere in the motion does the term "Owenites" appear. That is a shame because it warrants public emphasis and representation. That is what the party is all about. It is led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and undoubtedly it will continue to be led by him
  An annual review would go a long towards establishing whether that party has turned up its toes politically and faded away from the scene or whether it still exists. If we hand over the money, there is no guarantee that that political party will not pack up and go home the next day, clutching the purse to its heart. One third of it is not here, so an annual review would help to overcome that problem. Such a review would help to establish whether a political
  1088
  party that we have named today is still alive in 12 months' time. It would afford this House an opportunity to tell the outside world that that political party is still alive and kicking and in business
  An annual review would enable the House to determine, among other things, the validity of political parties. They need some financial assistance. I do not agree with the main thrust of the motion, but to give them a blank cheque indefinitely, without it being renewed on an annual basis, would be against the public interest
  I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) who commented on the Opposition's work rate. In my view, there is one person and one person alone who should receive most of the Opposition funding, the hon. Member for Bolsover. He should have the right to disburse it according to the performance, in his eyes, of many of his colleagues on his side of the House. I believe that he would end up a very rich man—or his constituents would end up rich
  The review that I have proposed would create the sort of discipline that we need. It would create a sensible approach to the debates that we must have. We disburse taxpayers' money, and they are entitled to know that it is spent wisely
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put forward one major argument against my amendment, which I had not fully appreciated when I tabled it. He said that if we have annual reviews there will be annual increases because the Opposition parties will argue that the subvention that they receive should be increased. That is an extremely valid argument
  My argument has equal merit. We should debate the matter every year. However, my right hon. Friend has persuaded me that it may prove to be disadvantageous for the House to carry out such an exercise. I do not therefore intend to press my amendment to a Division. However, I believe that in the short term it would have been of benefit to have an annual review so that the House would know what are the policies of the Opposition parties, who is leading them and whether those political parties are still alive.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: This seems to be an occasion for Opposition party bashing, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has demolished the biased arguments that have been advanced. All the Opposition parties in this House have received financial assistance. The arguments are hypocritical because the day will come when the Conservative party will be in opposition and when it will be looking for this money
  I can speak with a degree of sincerity about this matter because I am the only hon. Member who does not receive, and who has never received, a penny of the Short money. Not since it was established 13 years ago have I received a penny of it, and I shall not receive a penny of it after the motion has been approved. Therefore, I have every reason to complain, if any hon. Member has, about the scheme
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), in his speech, attacked seven Unionists for their poor attendance in Divisions. I hope that he will confirm that I am not included among them and that my record is extremely good
  Mr. Forth: Search the bottom of the list as I might for the hon. Gentleman's name, I could not find it there
  Mr. Kilfedder: If the hon. Gentleman looks higher up the list he will not find it there, either. My name is well up in that list
  Is it right that I should be excluded from the scheme? Only one other hon. Gentleman is excluded, and he is the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who does not take his seat in the House. I am the only qualifying hon. Member of all 650 who is excluded. Is that fair and equitable? The Leader of the House said that the scheme was equitable, but it cannot be so if it deliberately excludes even one hon. Member
  Several hon. Members have pointed out that the purpose of the scheme is to assist Opposition Members in their work and parliamentary performance. If so, no Opposition Member should be excluded from its benefits. Opening the debate, the Leader of the House quoted with approval the words of Lord Glenamara, when he said that the onus on a party with just two Members was as great as the onus on a party with 200 Members. That sentiment should include myself, as the representative of my party in this Chamber
  One complaint made against the scheme is that the taxpayer, whether he likes it or not, must contribute through his taxes to the Opposition parties. Not only must my constituents in North Down contribute against their will to Opposition parties in this Parliament, but their representative is also shamefully denied the right to participate in the scheme. I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House recognise that an injustice is being done to the people of my constituency, to my party, and to myself
  I am totally dedicated to the parliamentary system. I am here throughout the week, every week, as hon. Members in all quarters of the House know. I have demonstrated my commitment time after time, yet many distinguished and well-known hon. Members are not often here. They benefit from a scheme instituted to help their performance in Parliament, the benefit of which is denied me
  It is necessary that Opposition parties should receive financial assistance towards their work. The Government party has the full might of the Whitehall machinery behind it, and something must be done to provide a proper balance. The money itself cannot provide a full balance but it can go some way towards doing so. I believe in the principle of that money being paid, because a strong Opposition is essential to any democracy. It is left to me, as I am excluded from the scheme, to abstain—because I cannot support a scheme that is patently inequitable. Therefore, my name will not be on the Division record— but I hope it will not be said that I was absent tonight
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) that Opposition parties need some financial support. Some harsh words have been said today, but mine will not be harsh. They will be in support of the Social Democrats. No one else seems to be speaking for them, so I felt that I should do so
  The Leader of the House is a kindly and solicitous man, but the burden he has had to carry in sorting out this dispute between the two centre parties must have been very
  1090
  wearisome indeed. After all, it seems that when it comes to giving money to their erstwhile friends, the spirit of the members of the new model Liberal party is in inverse proportion to the spirit of togetherness which they proclaim to be the apogee of what nationhood is all about. How mean they have been. I should have thought that the fair, sensible, liberal, middle, statesmanlike way would have been for the House to decide that the loot should be split between the Social and Liberal Democrats and the SDP split down the middle; the judgment of Solomon
  After all, this time last year the SDP was in existence; it had a constitution, a leader and aims and principles. One year later that party is still in existence. It has the same constitution, the majority of its Members of Parliament are the same and its leader is the same. [Interruption.] I do not agree with those who say it does not have aims and principles. That is why I am speaking on its behalf
  But what of the new Social and Liberal Democrats—the successors of those sour-faced types of the last century, many of whom supported Gladstone's party, who proclaimed their Christian principles inside the Church and, as soon as it came to spending their own money outside, were mean?
  I should be interested to know whether there is anything in the rumour circulating in the corridors of the House that the Social and Liberal Democrats want to grab no less than nineteen twenty-seconds of this Short money —the overwhelming majority of it. In other words, they want to base what they get solely on the number of seats, despite the fact that over the years they have benefited so much from this money being allocated in terms not just of seats but of votes cast
  Why should the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) alone be deprived of the £5·10 for every 200 votes being given to every other Opposition party? What perfidy has he committed that the Leader of the House should deny him the money that he is due? Has he changed his party? Has he produced a dead parrot manifesto? Has he stormed out of merger negotiations in tears? No. He stands like a rock againt hypocrisy and cant. Yet he alone is deprived of what he is due. Is he to be punished just because, like Banquo clanking his chains, he is the spectre of the new centre party? The fair and honourable course would have been to have split the money—half for the Social and Liberal Democrats and half for the SDP
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I have been advised that perhaps I should not be my usual affable self and that I should certainly be careful not to upset the Government too much lest they vote the motion down. Indeed, I wondered whether I should do what we read in Oliver Twist:
  "A council was held: lots were cast who should walk up to the master after supper that evening, and ask for more; and it fell to Oliver Twist."
  Tonight it falls to me to ask for more, and I have some support from the Top Salaries Review Body
  An alternative approach would be to say:
  "Although the House has enjoyed this debate, I have been rather depressed by it because it has been characterised by a degree of hypocrisy and humbug which I cannot remember having been equalled.—[Official Report, 13 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 198.]
  That was said by Mr. Francis Pym, then Shadow Leader of the House, when we were debating the Opposition

  1091
  parties' financial assistance. But that sentiment on his part would not be true tonight, in view of the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who shot hypocrisy out of the water
  In 1975, the then Labour Government put to the House a motion to provide funds for the parliamentary work of Opposition parties. That provided £150,000 a year for the Tory party and a lot less for the other parties. The proposal was carried by 142 votes to 47, and the Tory party took the money every subsequent year it was in opposition
  Tonight we are asked to support a Government motion to increase the maximum sum for this Parliament to £839,000. Naturally we support the increase, which follows the recommendation last year of the Top Salaries Review Body that money for Opposition parties should be reviewed in the light of the substantial increases in secretarial allowances for individual Members and what the review body referred to as the relatively modest increase in Short money since its inception
  Even when the new maximum is approved, it will represent only a fivefold increase in the Short money sum of f 150,000 set in 1975. That compares unfavourably with the increase in the Members' maximum secretarial allowance over the same period which has been increased sevenfold from £2,910 in 1975 to £21,302 in 1987–88. Over the same period the total sum paid out to Members for secretarial allowances by the Fees Office has increased eightfold from £1,636,000 in 1975 to £13,780,000 in 1987–88. If the Short money had been increased proportionately, the proposal before us would be for £1,263,000, not £839,000. So the Short money actually falls short of the increase in Members' secretarial spending by £424,000. I do not know whether any Tory Members have failed to take up the increase in secretarial allowances
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not the case that one of the reasons Opposition parties required the extra money was that secretarial allowances were so pitifully low that it was necessary for the Opposition to employ additional research assistants? Now that we have a sensible allowance for secretarial expenses, surely we should be reducing the Short money, not increasing it
  Mr. Dobson: If that is the quality of logic which is being employed on the Tory side tonight, it must compare with the speeches on the propriety of the matter in 1980 when the House was graced by speeches from the Tory side by Mr. Keith Best and the then hon. Member for Basildon, Mr. Harvey Proctor, who told the House that it was improper for the Opposition to get the money. The propriety which they showed that night is reflected in the logic shown by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)
  If we look for another comparison, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has rightly mentioned the Prime Minister's Office. I try to be fair to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend talked only about the increase in expenditure in the Prime Minister's Office since she came to power. To be fair, we should consider the increase which has taken place since 1975. However, we cannot go back to 1975 because the figures do not exist; we can only go back as far as 1976 when the spending on the Prime Minister's Office was £934,000. The figure for this year is £4,774,000, a ninefold increase. If we had a ninefold increase in the Short
  1092
  money, it would be £1,393,000. I should make it clear to my hon. Friends that I have played no part in negotiating the sum we are discussing tonight
  Some people have been opposed in principle to public funds being allocated to Opposition parties. I do riot share that view, but at least it is tolerable. Tonight, and in one or two recent debates, we have seen that a new breed of Tories has decided in its wisdom that it will judge whether the Opposition deserve the money. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that the spectator sees most of the game, but it has never been claimed that Government supporters are best placed to judge the Opposition and we reject that proposition tonight
  For one thing, most people would find it hard to regard Government supporters as neutral. If they were neutral, the Tory Chief Whip would want to know why. For another thing, it is rather peculiar to work out how they would judge the effectiveness. The duty of the Opposition is to oppose, but being opposed is not an enjoyable process and the more vigorous the opposition, the less pleasant the process, yet we are asked to believe that effective opposition is warmly appreciated by the Government
  Let us envisage the scene at the Department of Health and Social Security after health and social services questions. Does anyone really believe that the Secretary of State arrives back at his Private Office and says, "Oh, Robin Cook ran us ragged today. I really think that the Opposition deserve that money". Last week, did the Tory Chief Whip go back to No. 12 Downing street and say, "By Jove, Labour kept us up all night. I think we ought to pay them the Short money immediately". That is a preposterous concept and we entirely reject it
  I shall deal briefly with the red herring thrown in by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) He suggested that Government Members voted more heavily than Opposition Members in this Parliament. If he had not just looked at the figures in the Sunday Times, he would have discovered that there is a whole series that runs back for decades. In every Parliament, Government Members vote more often than Opposition Members for the very reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, that we would be as daft as brushes if we stopped up all night in the same numbers as Government Members when we can keep the Government up by just having 20 hon. Members here
  Opposition Members welcome the motion tonight, not just because of the money, but because, at long last, the Leader of the House has discharged his obligation to put the motion before the House, to speak in favour of it and to vote in favour of it. We hope, therefore, that this is the last that we shall hear of any suggestion from Conservative Members on the Front or Back Benches that they will decide on the effectiveness of the Opposition. We can never have a situation where the money for the Opposition depends upon the grace and favour of the Government. The proposition was never put forward by Lord Glenamara, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan or anyone else and it should not be put forward by any Government, either now or in the future
  11.43 pm
  Mr. David Martin: I urge my hon. Friends not to vote to cut off or cut down the funding for the Labour party in this House because to many of us, in so far as it keeps the Labour party's antiques road show in

  1093
  being, it is a great help. We have been in office for nine years on the strength of it and less than £1 million a year appears to me to be money well spent, far more so in promoting, as it unfailingly does, the merits of a Conservative Government year after year. The expenditure is far more worthwhile than all the glossy literature from the Department of Trade and Industry and all that produced by Conservative Central Office at its most inspiring
  With our majority, we must not be unfair to the Opposition. We must take serious note of their many problems because the shadow Leader of the House has very little freedom of action when the leader of the Labour party is in the process, as he is, of bartering the party's policies, in defence of which many Labour Members are bravely prepared to die at yet another general election. The party's former leader, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—the biographer of Byron—could tell Opposition Members a thing or two from his research. He could tell them about the problems of the shadow Leader of the House because his hero, Bryon, wrote, in "The Isle of Greece"—this is very germane:
  "Trust not for freedom to the Franks— They have a king who buys and sells; In native swords and native ranks
  The only hope of courage dwells"
  We must be charitable and make sure that at this delicate time they get their money. The Leader of the Opposition and his deputy are being pursued for their places at the top. We must not oppose the motion but must raise our sights to the wider benefits of giving them their money
  11.45 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the no doubt helpfully intended comments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), I had better make absolutely clear the attitude of the SDP to the settlement before the House. The Leader of the House clearly had an extremely difficult task in trying to resolve what to do about the money to which the two former alliance parties were entitled. If anybody doubts that, he should look at the motion. Three quarters of it is devoted to that issue and that makes it clear that that was the most difficult task to sort out
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on one point. I would argue that the motion clearly recognises that the merger has taken place. Unfortunately for those who wanted there to be only one party after the merger, there are two and they are not exactly the same as the two that were there before the merger. I must say to the hon. Member for Bolsover that I have no idea what my former colleagues in the SLD think about being described in the motion as the Social and Liberal Democrats. I have absolutely no problems about being described as a member of the SDP. I have been an SDP Member of Parliament since 1981, and that is what I shall stay
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been an SDP Member of Parliament since 1981. Can he tell us how often in his long career he has been elected on the exclusive ticket of the SDP?
  Mr. Cartwright: I was elected as an SDP Member of Parliament in two general elections in 1983 and 1987. I am always described in my local papers as SDP and there is no argument about that
  The Leader of the House is logical in going for the distribution of the money in accordance with the division of the former SDP Members of Parliament. He is dividing the resources that would have gone to the SDP in the proportion of three to two. That has always seemed to us to be a fair and reasonable solution to the problem. Since the whole purpose of the money is to support Members of Parliament, it seems entirely logical that the money should be divided on the basis of the way in which Members of Parliament divided. We could hardly resile from that approach since it is one that we put forward on many occasions in negotiations with our former colleagues, in discussions with the House authorities and in many other places. It seems to be a fair, reasonable and logical solution to the problem, and we support it
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Wakeham: I sense that the House wishes to decide on this matter. I said earlier that I would have something to say about the amendments moved by my hon. Friends. I am lost for words to try to persuade my hon. Friends not to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend seemed to make his judgment on what he perceived the Opposition to be worth and his argument was overwhelming. My judgment was not made on that basis but on what I think the Opposition need to help them to carry out their parliamentary duties
  My proposals are for maxima, but if the Opposition have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and do not think that they are worth the money, perhaps he will shame them into not drawing all of it. That is a matter for the Opposition and not for me
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) supported the general thrust of my argument and that he will not press his amendment. My worry about his amendment was mainly that I do not think that I could stand the tension of a debate such as this every year. The highlight of the evening was the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I shall tell my wife about that speech when I get home which I hope will be fairly soon. I urge the House to accept the motion
  Amendment proposed: (d), in line 17, leave out `£2,550' and insert `£1,740'.—[Mr. Forth.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 284

  Division No. 373]

  [11.49 pm

  AYES

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Bright, Graham

  Watts, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Conway, Derek

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mr. Eric Forth and Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Amess, David

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Donald

  Alton, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  1095

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Baldry, Tony

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Batiste, Spencer

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Battle, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Graham, Thomas

  Beggs, Roy

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bell, Stuart

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grist, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Boswell, Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Harris, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hayward, Robert

  Buchan, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Henderson, Doug

  Buckley, George J.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butcher, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Holland, Stuart

  Callaghan, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howard, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

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

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howells, Geraint

  Cartwright, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Chope, Christopher

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cryer, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ingram, Adam

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jack, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Doran, Frank

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamond, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dutfy, A. E. P.

  Lang, Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Eadie, Alexander

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Eastham, Ken

  Leighton, Ron

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Lightbown, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Livsey, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Flynn, Paul

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  1096

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Maclean, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ryder, Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Maples, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Marek, Dr John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

  Maxton, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Meacher, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Stott, Roger

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Sumberg, David

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Trippier, David

  Needham, Richard

  Turner, Dennis

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  O'Brien, William

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Neill, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Ward, John

  Parry, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Portillo, Michael

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wheeler, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Richardson, Jo

  Winnick, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Worthington, Tony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, as from 11th June 1987, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect, instead of those of the Resolution of 20th March 1975 (as amended), in relation to the giving of financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House, to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:—
  1.—(1) Financial assistance shall be available under this paragraph to a party at any time if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party., that is to say—

  (a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or

  1097

  (b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000

  (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any year shall be the aggregate of—

  (a) £2,550 for each seat won by its candidates at the Election; and

  (b) £5·10 for every 200 votes cast for its candidates at that Election

  (3) No financial assistance is available under this paragraph in respect of

  (a) expenses incurred on or after 1st January 1988 by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance; or

  (b) expenses incurred by the SLD or the SDP at any time before the next General Election after the passing of this Resolution

  (4) In this Resolution—

  "the SLD" means the Social and Liberal Democrats;

  "the SDP" means the part known as the SDP at the date on which this Resolution is passed;

  "the Liberal Alliance" means the party which contested the 1987 General Election as the "Liberal/Alliance"; and

  "the SDP Alliance" means the party which contested that Election as the "SDP/Alliance"

  2.—(1) Financial assistance shall be available under this paragraph to the SLD and the SDP in respect of expenses incurred by them on or after 1st January 1988 and before the next General Election after that date
  (2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to the SLD in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall be the aggregate of—

  (a) an amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 1(2) above by reference to the seats won by and votes cast for the Liberal Alliance's candidates at the 1987 General Election; and

  (b) two-fifths of an amount so calculated by reference to the seats won by the and votes cast for the SDP Alliance's candidates at that Election

  (3) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to the SDP in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall be three-fifths of the amount calculated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above
  (4) The maximum amount of financial assistance available to the SLD from this sub-paragraph in respect of expenses
  1098
  incurred in the year beginning 1st January 1988 shall be reduced by the amount of the financial assistance given to the Liberal Alliance before the passing of this Resolution in respect of expenses so incurred
  (5) Financial assistance for the SDP shall be determined as if at all times on and after 1st January 1988 and before the passing of this Resolution its representation in this House had consisted of those Members who are members of that party at the date on which this Resolution is passed
  3.—(l) Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall—

  (a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;

  (b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and

  (c) as soon as practicable after each 31st December following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the twelve months ending with that date were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above

  (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall not apply in relation to financial assistance given on or after 1st January 1988 in respect of expenses incurred before that date by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance
  4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election—

  (a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election, and

  (b) the period beginning with that day,

  shall be treated for the purposes of this Resolution as separate years, but the maximum amount of financial assistance available to any party in respect of any period so treated shall be reduced correspondingly
  (2) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st January
  5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: members' salaries etc. Vote

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Garel Jones.]
  12.1 am
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: During the course of this Adjourment debate I hope to outline to those hon. Members who are still in the Chamber a dilemma facing my constituents, patients, consultants, the Sheffield health authority, the hospital staff, the readers of The Star—the local newspaper which has informed everyone of the situation—and not least myself. The dilemma is that the Royal Hallamshire hospital, Sheffield has closed 109 of its beds, made reductions in the service of the ophthalmic department and cut back the funding of research work carried out by Dr. Kanis which has resulted in his obtaining a personal overdraft and seeking subscriptions from his colleagues and others to continue his work. Everyone must admit that that is no way to run a hospital
  Having first-hand knowledge of the Royal Hallamshire hospital as a patient and visitor and having served as a one-time county and city councillor and a member of the community health council, no one is better placed than I to appreciate the gravity of the situation
  The Hallamshire is in my constituency, as are the Trent district health authority headquarters, the Sheffield health authority headquarters, the family practitioner headquarters, the university and the polytechnic. Many of the staff and students live in Hallam and the faculty of medicine and dentistry is also in the area. As a lifelong citizen of Sheffield who has passed the hospital at least twice a day, I can claim more than a passing knowledge of it—and I do not intend any pun there
  The exemplary efforts are on record to show that every effort has been made by the hospital and its staff to reduce unnecessary costs and for that I pay tribute to the staff, the administrators, and Sheffield health authority who all deserve tribute for their work. Supplying a first-class service while making economies remain the priorities of the Hallamshire
  Designed in 1965 and opened in 1978, the Royal Hallamshire hospital cost only £32 million. If only such figures were possible now. It was built to replace the Sheffield royal infirmary and the Royal hospital, Sheffield. The Hallamshire has 730 beds and a staff of 3,200, or 2,500 whole-time equivalents. It inherited the traditional funding and staffing from the two small units that it replaced. From that point it was destined to be a financial loser as the appropriate funding never ensued. Everyone acknowledges—and it is statistically proven—that the Hallamshire has higher general overheads than the average provincial hospital. For example, the Hallamshire's energy bills and what it pays to Sheffield city council in lieu of rates will further my point
  Correction of the unfortunate original design, which caused excessive costs, has led to a 15 per cent. reduction in energy costs during the past three years. For this year alone, the electricity bill is £920,000 and the gas bill is £985,000. Its huge monolithic structure, with large amounts of glass, means that on hot days the sun heats the buildings. The situation is reversed on cold days. While on hot days energy is used for cooling, on cold days it is used for heating. That is far from ideal, if not daft. Is it any
  1100
  wonder that the comparability indicators for the use of energy for all regional health authorities show the Hallamshire as one of the highest users, if not the highest?
  The hospital's rate payments to the city of Sheffield are also a cause for concern. In 1987–88, it paid some £1·5 million, and in 1988–89 some £1·6 million, in lieu of rates. According to my calculations, that equates to 3p in the pound of Sheffield city council's total rate income per year. When Sheffield city council was rate capped, the Hallamshire and the Sheffield health authority had an unexpected windfall and could use the cash saved for patient care, which was their original intention
  All those matters lie beyond the control of the hospital and the health authority—thanks to Sheffield's high rates policy. It is more obvious when compared with the national average. On 10 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would list the available information for the 10 authorities with the highest combined rates. Sheffield came second with a poundage rate of £347·50. Therefore, hospital funding provided for health care goes, instead, to a spendthrift authority
  Let us compare the Hallamshire's rates expenditure with the Sheffield Northern general hospital, whose payment in lieu of rates is only £920,000. While the Hallamshire is a high-rise building on a small site, the Northern general is on a large site with open fields and many buildings. If the building scheme scheduled for the northern general hospital is commenced, I am sure that in the long term it will relieve some of the pressure on Sheffield's Hallamshire hospital
  The revenue budget for Sheffield district for 1988–89 stands at £175 million, up from £162 million in 1987, which is a significant increase on the 1979 figure of just over £72 million. A further positive result is that Sheffield now has a thorough increase in funding, together with more nurses, midwives, doctors and dentists, than in 1979
  Some £120 million is allocated for new buildings and major facilities in Sheffield in the 1984–94 planning period. Despite that—and despite even an analysis of recent patterns of Government funding for the Sheffield health authority commissioned by the health care strategy group, a non-elected Sheffield city council panel—a report prepared for the city council by Colin Thunhurst of the Nuffield Institute for Health Service Studies at Leeds university grudgingly acknowledges that the Government have provided Sheffield health authority with more money for health care. We are all extremely grateful for that
  The Hallamshire's share of the health authority's cake was a budget of £33 million in 1987–88 and £34·5 million for this financial year. The northern general hospital has a revenue budget of £35 million for 1988–89. I am not suggesting that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the way forward
  The Hallamshire is short of cash and the actions outlined in my introduction are now in operation. That has resulted in ophthalmic care patients contacting me regarding treatment delay. A consultant, who is also a constituent, said in a letter to me:
  "We have had 12 beds closed since the end of October last year—almost a third of our beds."
  He then said something quite interesting:
  "Only if patients do not arrive for operation"—
  I hope that the Minister will take this on board—
  "or are found to be unfit are any other patients being sent for and these at short notice."

  1101
  He states that anyone listed for cataract operations on his routine list may have to wait seven years. Before the bed closures, that waiting time was down to five months
  The case of Dr. Kanis has received extensive media coverage and representations from grateful patients have been impressive. Jeremy Watson, medical correspondent of The Star, has hightlighted the plight of Dr. Kanis, who, after his five-bed metabolic unit was closed as part of the savings at the Hallamshire, decided to raise the funds to service the unit—£100,000 for the year
  An abstract from the health authority review of the 1988–89 financial plan shows what amounts to a temporary closure of 14 orthopaedic beds, 15 ear, nose and throat beds and up to 72 beds and associated operating theatre sessions in other specialties. I cannot understand why that has happened. The Hallamshire has a 94 per cent. bed occupancy rate and its cost efficiency is all right. Is it that the hospital's financial problems really arise because of the volume and complexity of the work being carried out there? Can it really be that that, together, the rapidly rising cost of high technology and medicine—which are more heavily concentrated in the Hallamshire—are substantially outstripping the budget and the ability of the health authority to fund them? Or do the special costs of acute services in teaching hospitals in large cities, such as the Hallamshire, pose additional funding problems?
  The teaching hospitals rightly make the case for additional funding to support centres of excellance and the added responsibilities that they carry. It has been estimated that 1 per cent. of the £175 million is the cost of that work at the Hallamshire. I understand that the Trent region accepts the principle that additional funding is needed, but has failed to provide a commitment for those funds. The Hallamshire is faced with an annual overspend of £500,000, arising from the additional costs for blood products, primarily for haemophilia patients treated under the region's specialised arrangements. Again, extra funding to meet that inevitable expenditure has not been provided by the region
  The Hallamshire's total deficit amounts to £1·1 million, plus a consequent £1 million shortfall. Both of those sums are less than the annual payment that it makes to Sheffield city council's coffers in lieu of rates. If the £500,000 for haemophilia patients could be funded, that would be very welcome. Some £300,000 needs to be spent urgently to redesign the air handling plant and about £500,000 is also needed for essential alterations to the windows. The resulting long-term energy savings will create further economies. The sum of £60,000 is all that is needed from, say, the waiting list money to restore the ophthalmic unit
  Many hon. Members may justifiably make similar pleas for special funding, but not for such important reasons as those that I have outlined. I am extremely grateful for all the funding that the Royal Hallamshire hospital has received. It is rather ironic that the shadow Leader of the House made reference to Oliver Twist in the previous debate. However, like Oliver Twist, on behalf of everyone who uses or may use the Hallamshire hospital I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, please may we have a little more?
  When my hon. Friend replies, will she explain to my constituents in particular and to the area in general what is seen as the way out of the dilemma that they face? I submit that, through no fault of its own, the Royal
  1102
  Hallamshire hospital appears to have been penalised for its own excellence and its obvious success. Can the Minister assist, please?
  12.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick on winning the ballot. I am sure that he has noticed, as I have, that he is the only Sheffield Member here tonight. I think that that is a pity and a reflection on some of those who have been elected to represent Sheffield
  My hon. Friend has shown a keen interest in health matters on behalf of his constituents. When he and I get on the Master Cutler on a Monday morning we often discuss these issues, and again even later when I sometimes give him a lift to the House, so I am well versed in some of the issues that he has raised
  I do not know whether he realises that he has written some 70 letters to my Department since the election last year, tabled seven questions and has now initiated this debate. I commend him to his constituents as being one of the most assiduous Members of the House, and certainly of the new intake. He has put his case very well indeed
  Before discussing some of the detailed points that my hon. Friend has made, I should like to put the issues into a general context. As I am sure he knows, spending on the Health Service in the United Kingdom has increased from £7·7 billion in 1978–79—the year in which the Royal Hallamshire hospital was opened—to £22·7 billion this year. In cash terms, every family now contributes more than £1,600 a year to the National Health Service, whereas it contributed only £500 a year under Labour
  That increased investment has resulted directly in treating more patients more effectively in more modern hospitals than ever before. The national figures show that about 1·25 million more in-patient cases were treated last year than 10 years ago, plus 500,000 extra day cases, and 4·5 million extra out-patient visits were paid each year
  That is reflected in the increased number of staff that we have taken on. The national figures are represented in what are known as whole-time equivalents, or whole-time funded posts. We have more than 6,000 more doctors and dentists in NHS hospitals, more than 8,000 more doctors and dentists in general practice and almost 65,000 more nurses and midwives. Of course they are all better paid than ever before. The Government are meeting the £749 million bill for the nurses' pay award which was announced recently, and the most fundamental review ever carried out of nurses' future training needs is under way in Project 2000, which has also been announced
  My hon. Friend mentioned the building of the Royal Hallamshire and the developments in his constituency and asked about other developments in Sheffield. When we came to power in 1979, we were faced with virtually a complete shutdown of the hospital building programme. The Royal Hallamshire—my hon. Friend has described its physical problems so aptly and eloquently—was built and completed during that time. We were trying to deliver 20th century health care in 19th century hospitals, so we started the most intensive and extensive hospital building programme ever. Since 1979, 286 schemes costing more than £1 billion have been started and completed in the

  1103
  NHS. More than 500 schemes, with a total value of £3.8 billion, are at various stages of planning, design and construction
  The Sheffield area is covered by Trent regional health authority, which also covers the Southern Derbyshire health authority, which, as my hon. Friend knows, encompasses my constituency. Spending in Trent has risen from £369 million in 1978–79 to £989 million in 1987–88, an increase of about 31 per cent. in real terms. For this year, 1988–89, Trent's initial cash allocation is increased by another 6·3 per cent.—well above inflation—to more than £1,050 million. That increase is above the national average increase of cash to the National Health Service. That means that Trent has been growing faster than the national average and is getting closer to its RAWP target
  That also reflects the general recognition of Trent's poor funding compared with others in the past. Whatever Opposition Members might say if they were here, during the 1970s areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency and mine were in a very bad way and had long been neglected in the Health Service. Only in the past decade or so, and particularly in the past few years, has funding been able to catch up to the level demanded by the needs of the local population. I see my hon. Friend nodding in agreement with that
  Trent's record on patient care is impressive. Between 1978 and 1987 the number of in-patient cases treated rose from 461,000 to 624,000, a huge increase of 35 per cent. Those are not just statistics. They represent hundreds of thousands more people every year being treated in the Trent hospitals. Last year, 1987–88, the number of people on waiting lists fell steadily. The number of people waiting for more than 12 months has fallen dramatically by more than 3,000—a drop of more than 20 per cent. There have been 27 major capital developments since 1979 in the region, with 14 others under construction and 23 approved to start
  The Sheffield district health authority, which I know very well, having been there on a number of occasions, covers a population of about 530,000. As my hon. Friend said, it is a major centre for teaching and health care and it is Trent region's oldest teaching authority—the Trent region has three, including Nottingham and Leicester
  Sheffield's current and expected temporary difficulties need to be seen in the context of substantial recent and future growth in Trent region and Sheffield. Allocation of funds to the district health authority is Trent's responsibility. Between 1982–83 and 1987–88, Sheffield's revenue spending increased from £122 million to £166 million, an increase of 36 per cent. in cash terms—one of the largest increases in the country. The initial allocation for 1988–89 is £175 million, including nearly £500,000 development funds. That is an enormous sum. Taking on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam said about £30 million being a substantial sum 10 years ago, £175 million now makes Sheffield one of the biggest health authorities. It has had an enormous funding increase in recent years
  Patient care has also increased significantly. Between 1982–83 and 1987–88, the number of in-patient cases increased by 41 per cent. That means that the Sheffield hospitals are coping with more than 2,000 in-patients every week and 12,500 out-patient visits every week, or rather more than 2,000 per working day. We are content that the money is well spent. The number of front-line staff in Sheffield has increased in terms of whole-time equivalents
  1104
  from under 8,000 in 1982 to nearly 8,500 in 1986, the last year for which I have full details. Most of the increase of nearly 500 posts was due to extra nurses being taken on
  There is also a major building programme in the Sheffield district. The most recent examples are a new out-patient and ward block at Northern general hospital which was formally opened in September by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York. That block cost £10 million. I visited the new £6 million acute geriatric unit at the same hospital which will open this year. Currently under construction is a £9 million extension to the children's hospital. With such programmes we can look forward in Sheffield to being able at last to offer health care in modern facilities that accurately reflect the staffs skills
  Sheffield is a major centre for high technology medicine with some of the leading clinicians in their field. For example, the stereotactic surgery unit, which is funded by the Department and is in its second year, is the only one in the country and one of only three in the world. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has not had a chance to meet some of the people involved, I recommend that he does. The district is also the regional centre for all the regional specialties, including plastic and burns surgery, neurology and spinal injuries. Much specialist work has gone into child health care, particularly child leukaemia and the reduction of infant mortality
  Sheffield is also doing excellent work in health promotion. Its "Health City 2,000" was launched a year ago and is geared to making Sheffield one of the healthiest cities in Britain. I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in agreeing that there is room for a lot of progress, as coronary heart disease and lung cancer—among others —are among the worst in Britain. I ask my hon. Friend to check whether Sheffield city council, which has taken this matter seriously, has sorted out the issue of smoking on its buses. Last time I was there, I was impressed by signs on the side of the buses saying, "Smoking kills" but not impressed to see people on the top decks puffing away merrily. My hon. Friend may like to pursue that matter
  I attended a seminar on nutrition and healthy eating at the Royal Hallamshire in November last year. It was a thoroughly stimulating and encouraging afternoon and the seminar was typical of the work in the district. There is a great deal that is first class in Sheffield and it is right that attention should be drawn to it. The NHS is giving excellent service to local people, and that is to the credit of all concerned, especially the staff
  As my hon. Friend has described it, the Royal Hallamshire is a modern tower block hospital of 728 beds which was opened in 1978. I hope that we have learnt a lot from the Socialist building patterns of those days which have landed us with so many problems these days. The current financing problems need to be considered in relation to the rest of the district as well as to the particular circumstances of the hospital. Sheffield has 10 management units, including the Royal Hallamshire and the Northern general, which is another teaching hospital of a further 1,000 beds and has a budget of about £35 million. Some health authorities have budgets of that order for their entire district, but these are budgets for single hospitals
  Last year, the Royal Hallamshire had an underlying deficit of £1·7 million—by far the largest deficit of any unit, including the Northern general hospital. Nearly all the other units kept more or less to their budgets I feel

  1105
  bound to mention that the performance indicators for Sheffield and its hospitals are not too brilliant, although its hospitals are much cheaper than the equivalent teaching hospitals in London. As my hon. Friend said, average occupancy has reached 94 per cent., but that is not necessarily a good thing. It is too high a percentage and leaves no room for flexibility—for emergencies, for example. As a consequence, I understand that some patients were moved seven times during a stay of seven days, which is clearly unsatisfactory. I am not being critical. I recognise that there is pressure for more and more health care and that doctors, nurses and managers try to respond to it
  We also recognise that centres of excellence such as the Royal Hallamshire face additional pressures simply because of the nature of their work and the need to support medical teaching. I understand that Trent regional health authority is committed to giving its teaching authorities additional support in the longer term to help them to cope with that
  There have been some temporary closures, and I stress the word "temporary". Some of the decisions were made in consultation and agreement with the clinicians concerned who have established a peer group at the Royal Hallamshire to review medical practices and ensure that they are economical. That is a very sensible approach, and one that we should applaud, particularly in the light of the Government's increasing interest in medical audit. Whatever money we spend, we need our clinicians to check on the outcome: do we get a better outcome from one procedure than from another; can we get a more effective outcome; do we get better health?
  My hon. Friend asked about the building scheme at Northern general hospital. I am delighted to announce approval in principle of a £24 million development at the Northern general hospital. The scheme will provide six new adult wards, two children's wards and four new operating theatres. It will also provide new out-patient facilities, including a colposcopy and laser clinic. The scheme is part of the modernisation of the Northern general hospital
  I am delighted to convey to the House this stop-press information, which highlights my previous comments about a continued improvement in health services, now and for the future, for the people of Sheffield. Building work is expected to start in about May 1989 and is to be completed in 1992
  The theme of my speech is that, although there may be a temporary problem at the Royal Hallamshire, it would be wrong to get it out of proportion or consider it out of context. Many routine aspects of health in Trent and Sheffield should be emphasised; they greatly outweigh the negative aspects
  My hon. Friend raised one or two specific points to which I should like to respond. I share his concern about
  1106
  rates in Sheffield. He may not be aware that the total amount paid in rates, or in lieu of rates, by the Trent regional health authority in 1986–87 was just under £21 million. That is the largest bill by a long way of any regional health authority in England. Sheffield's rates have increased substantially in the recent past. However, in two of the past four years, Sheffield has been rate-capped under the Government's legislation and hence has faced lower bills, which is more than can be said of neighbouring Derbyshire. The politicians of Sheffield should know that an estimated £4,250,000 of NHS money is to go into rates payments this year in Sheffield, and of that sum £1–3 million is for the Royal Hallamshire hospital alone
  We have discussed energy problems pretty thoroughly, and I hope that the designs of our new buildings will take into account the problems outlined by my hon. Friend —problems that are all too common in buildings that were erected in the rather less tightly controlled 1970s. Money has been lent to Sheffield by Trent regional health authority for energy saving schemes, and I know that the DHA is doing its best to minimise payments. If we simply allocated extra money, there would be a lack of incentive to get normal energy costs under control, and that is an important matter. In the end, it is for the district health authority to manage its financial affairs on rates and energy as it sees fit
  Let me finish with a comment about Dr. Kanis. We recognise the importance of his work, particularly in osteoporosis. He will be one of the speakers at the conference on women's health that I shall be chairing tomorrow. I understand that the health authority has not accepted his offer personally to fund his unit
  However, the NHS is continuing to provide Dr. Kanis with in-patient facilities so that he may continue to treat his patients. His work with day and out-patients, where the majority of people are seen, will also continue to be substantially unaffected
  Dr. Kanis is discussing with the district and regional health authorities how best to secure the long-term funding of his own in-patient unit as part of his research work for which, as my hon. Friend knows, he already receives a substantial grant of £700,000 from the Medical Research Council, a figure that ought to be set alongside some of the other funding values that we have been discussing. There is also no reason why other agencies and bodies should not bear at least a proportion of the cost over the short or long term, and I understand that Dr. Kanis is exploring this possibility. I look forward to meeting him again tomorrow
  I hope that what I have said reveals our awareness and concern and our support for health care in Sheffield. I commend my hon. Friend's efforts on behalf of his constituents. They are very fortunate to have him as their representative
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is being spent by his Department on crime prevention measures in the current year; and what were the comparable figures for 1979–80.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is estimated that direct Home Office spending on crime prevention—on publicity, research, training, the safer cities programme and support for the new national organisation, Crime Concern—will total approximately £9 million in 1988–89. This compares with expenditure of some £350,000 in 1979–80, supporting publicity, training and research, a more than tenfold increase.

  Convicted Persons (Pardons)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of conviction on indictment he has recommended a full pardon to Her Majesty The Queen in each of the years 1982 to 1988, inclusive.

  Mr. John Patten
  In one such case a free pardon was granted, in 1982.

  Mr. E. Brambergis
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in the case of Mr. E. Brambergis, referred to him on 18 April by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

  Mr. Renton
  As I advised the hon. Member yesterday, Mr. Brambergis was informed on 26 May that a visa promise for his son had been authorised by the Immigration Department.

  Delible Security Markers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the security marking industry regarding the need to improve the performance of current delible security markers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office has received no such representations.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to publish the report on the evaluation of the civil defence region No. 2 REGEX exercise.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 20 May.
  478
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has any intention of supplying gas detection equipment, as demonstrated to the delegation from the Soviet Union at Porton Down on 24 May, to local authorities or to the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation for civil defence purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Consideration will be given to the need for such equipment when current studies into the effects of chemical weapons and protective measures against them have been completed.

  Channel Tunnel (Immigration Clearance)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he proposes for immigration clearance on trains using the Channel tunnel which are designed to provide a high-speed link between the north of England and the continent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Immigration Service is discussing with British Rail its requirements for official accommodation and facilities on trains which, using the Channel tunnel, will proceed via Olympia to destinations in the United Kingdom beyond London. Arrangements for immigration clearance will depend on the outcome of those discussions.

  Terrorism (Suspects)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been detained in the last five years at the Channel ports on suspicion of terrorism, when seeking entry to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  The available information is shown in the following table. The information collected centrally does not distinguish whether the person concerned was attempting to enter or to leave the country.

  Persons detained at the Channel ports1 under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation

  Numbers of persons

  Persons detained

  Persons examined for more than one hour but not detained2

  1983

  16

  —

  1984

  4

  13

  1985

  6

  12

  1986

  2

  8

  1987

  5

  5

  19883

  1

  —

  1 Sea and air ports (excluding Gatwick) on or near the south coast between Land's End and North Foreland.

  2 Operative from 27 March 1984.

  3 1 January to 31 March.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much land each of Brixton, Holloway, Pentonville, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs occupies; and what is the market value of the land in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The approximate amount of land occupied by each prison is as follows:
  479

  Hectares

  Brixton

  4

  Holloway

  4

  Pentonville

  4

  Wandsworth

  9

  Wormwood Scrubs

  10

  The market value of this land, were it to be available, is not known.

  Community Radio
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to remove from community radio stations the right to apply for licences if they continue to broadcast unlicensed after a specified date.

  Mr. Renton
  We are giving thought to the possibility of including in the legislative proposals for radio broadcasting which we intend to bring before Parliament a provision disqualifying persons convicted of offences of unlawful broadcasting from obtaining licences from the Radio Authority.

  Registration and Naturalisation (Fees)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total net income to his Department in 1985, 1986, 1987 and to date from applications for registration and naturalisation.

  Mr. Renton
  Fees received for applications for naturalisation and registration, net of refunds to unsuccessful applicants, for the financial years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and for April and May 1988 are as follows:

  Financial year

  Receipts £

  1985–86

  3,269,000

  1986–87

  4,241,000

  1987–88

  14,218,000

  11988–89

  4,175,000

  1 To end May.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider locating the new Broadcasting Standards Council in Huddersfield.

  Mr. Renton
  No. As the headquarters of most of the broadcasting authorities are located in London, it makes sense for the Broadcasting Standards Council also to be located there.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the levels of impounded water in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Avon, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire; and if levels are sufficient to avoid restrictions on use during the next three months.
  480
  Mr. Moynihan
  Water undertakers serving these counties consider that impounded water levels are sufficient to avoid restrictions on the use of water this summer unless a drought develops.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistical information is obtained from water authorities about levels of impounded water stocks; and what information there is as to which water authorities are more than 10 per cent. below levels impounded in early June 1987.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Limited information upon rainfall; river flows and reservoir levels, representative of the country as a whole, is collected by my Department throughout the year. If the onset of drought is perceived, detailed information is then collected from all water authorities supplemented by information from the Institute of Hydrology and the British Geological Survey. Information upon impounded water stocks in relation to water stocks in June 1987 is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvements in impounding water stocks and its distribution have been achieved since 1984.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since 1984 major reservoirs at Colliford in Cornwall and at Grimwith in Yorkshire have been completed. Improvements have also been made to the water distribution system through the investment of over £500 million by water authorities in England.

  Local Authority Publicity
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been given to local authorities on the implementation of section 28 of the Local Government Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Department of the Environment circular 12/88 provides guidance for local authorities on various provisions in the Local Government Act 1988, including section 28. A copy of the circular is in the Library.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of home improvement grants awarded, and what was the total amount spent on home improvement grants in each of the financial years since 1978–79 inclusive.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information is as follows:

  Renovation grants paid to private owners and to tenants: England

  Number of dwellings thousands

  Amount £ million

  1978–79

  58·8

  81·3

  1979–80

  70·6

  111·0

  1980–81

  71·8

  126·8

  1981–82

  72·3

  167·4

  1982–83

  131·6

  367·4

  1983–84

  250·6

  796·1

  1984–85

  195·2

  737·1

  1985–86

  124·4

  461·4

  1986–87

  110·9

  384·7

  1987–881

  114·1

  371·1

  1 = provisional estimate.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of people who were living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each of the London boroughs on 1 June having been placed there by the local council.

  Mrs. Roe
  The latest figures, for the end of March 1988, appear in table 7 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the first quarter of 1988. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  Waste Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for requiring strict declaration of quantities of waste shipped to the United Kingdom to avoid losses en route to the British port.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Regulations soon to be laid to implement the EC directive on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste require the use of consignment notes which will enable any losses during the journey to be identified.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for requiring notification to waste disposal authorities in ports of import of the quantity, nature, and dangers of all waste imports, before arrival in Britain.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Under regulations soon to be laid to implement the EC directive on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste, the waste disposal authority at the port of entry will receive detailed information on the quantity, nature and dangers of consignments of special waste before arrival at the port. We have no plans to require the pre-notification of wastes which are not covered by the directive.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the toxic waste imported into Britain during 1987 was hazardous but not recorded as special waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The records available relate only to special waste; that is, waste which is dangerous or difficult to dispose of.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to ensure the independent monitoring of all imported waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Disposal of all controlled waste, including imports, is subject to licences issued by waste disposal authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the total cost of waste disposal authorities of undertaking the chemical analysis of imported toxic waste for the latest available year.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the toxic waste imported into Britain during 1987 was subsequently recycled into other products.
  482
  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any assessment of the extent to which imported domestic waste from the United States of America is likely to contain cockroaches.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet representatives of the Water Authorities Association to discuss controls on water pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the water authority chairmen, and pollution control is among the issues discussed.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to protect woodlands following the judgment of the Court of Appeal about entitlement to compensation in the case of Bell v. Canterbury City Council.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, has laid before the House the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) (Amendment) Regulations 1988, which come into operation on 30 June. This is an interim measure taken in response to the widespread concern about the continued effectiveness of tree preservation orders on woodlands in the light of the implications of the Court of Appeal decision for the compensation payable by local authorities. We are undertaking a general review of tree preservation policy and legislation, and the appropriate scope of arrangements for compensation will be considered further as part of that review.

  The new regulations will bring the compensation provisions for those trees in woodlands which do not require a Forestry Commission felling licence into step with the compensation provisions applicable to non-woodland trees protected by tree preservation orders. Local authorities will be enabled, when refusing consent to fell a woodland protected by a tree preservation order, to certify, in appropriate cases, that the trees have "outstanding or special amenity value". The effect of such a certificate will be that no compensation will be payable as a result of refusal of consent. However, there is a right of appeal against certification to the Secretary of State, who may cancel the certificate. Accordingly the interests of owners will be adequately safeguarded under the new arrangements.

  Local authorities will also now have the opportunity to consider whether any tree preservation orders previously made should be varied to reflect the amending regulations. My Department and the Welsh Office have written to them today to draw their attention to the regulations.

  In order to ensure a comparable degree of protection for woodlands containing trees which are above the thresholds for Forestry Commission felling controls, the commission has agreed to change its practice in dealing with applications for a licence to fell trees in woodland which is subject to a tree preservation order. Where the purpose of such an application is to convert the land to

  483
  agricultural use after felling, or in any other case where the applicant has not stated an intention to continue to use the land as woodland, the Forestry Commission will in future consider the application itself rather than refer it to the local authority to decide. In considering such applications the commission will be guided by its general presumption against the granting of felling licences to convert woodland to agricultural use, and will also take amenity considerations into account. Any claim to compensation as a result of refusal of consent will be against the commission and will be determined under forestry legislation. It is only in the exceptional case where the commission proposes to give consent that the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State for decision if the local authority objected, and that compensation would then be payable on the same basis as in the Canterbury case if consent were refused.

  On the other hand, where the Forestry Commission receives an application for a licence to fell trees subject to a tree preservation order and the application is accompanied by proposals for replanting, the commission will continue to follow its present practice and refer the application to the local authority to deal with. In those circumstances, any claim to compensation as a result of refusal of consent would be against the local authority and would be determined under town and country planning legislation. But, in view of the replanting proposals that would have been submitted, we are advised that the amount of any compensation, being limited to the actual loss or damage caused or incurred, would be likely to be much more modest than in the Canterbury case.

  Industrial Dredging
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has conducted as to the effects of industrial dredging on the United Kingdom coastal erosion.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: Two specific studies have been undertaken by Hydraulics Research Ltd. into the possible effects of marine dredging for sand and gravel on erosion of the United Kingdom coast. These are:
  Wave Attenuation over Uneven Sea Bed Topography—A Study of Wave Changes in relation to Offshore Dredging. September 1983.
  Sand and Gravel Mobility in relation to Offshore Dredging—A Radioactive Tracer Study in the Shipway Channel off the Suffolk Coast. February 1984.

  The possible effects of marine sand and gravel dredging on coastal erosion were reviewed in a recent study of the United Kingdom aggregates dredging industry entitled "Marine Dredging for Sand and Gravel," which was commissioned by the Department of the Environment and published by HMSO in 1987.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last reviewed the effects of industrial dredging upon the United Kingdom coastline.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: A report on marine dredging for sand and gravel was published by HMSO in 1987. It includes a section on the interaction of dredging with the coastal environment and a review of the known literature on shoreline stability in so far as it is relevant.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many tonnes of gravel for 484
  commercial use were extracted from the sea bed off the United Kingdom coast by industrial dredging vessels for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many tonnes of sand for industrial use were extracted from the sea bed off the United Kingdom coast by industrial dredging vessels for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: No figures are available to identify separately the sand and the gravel extracted off the United Kingdom coast. However, the combined tonnages of sand and gravel dredged from the sea areas off the coast of the United Kingdom for each year since 1979, in millions of tonnes, are as follows:

  Tonnes Millions

  1979

  18

  1980

  17

  1981

  15·3

  1982

  14·8

  1983

  15·9

  1984

  15·4

  1985

  16·3

  1986

  17·6

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had with his European Economic Community colleagues as to the number of licences to be issued for industrial dredging off the European Economic Community coastline; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with his European Economic Community colleagues aimed at limiting the number of vessels involved in industrial dredging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: There have been no discussions with European Economic Community colleagues concerning either the number of licences for sand and gravel dredging off the coastline of the European Economic Community or the number of vessels involved. The Crown Estate Commissioners manage the rights to exploit minerals (other than gas or oil) in territorial waters and on the United Kingdom continental shelf and it is they who are responsible for the issue of licences to dredge such minerals.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much members of the Merseyside development corporation are paid each year.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: Each member of the Merseyside development corporation receives an annual salary of £3,770 per annum.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the salaries of the chairman, deputy chairman and chief executive of the Merseyside development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: The annual salaries of the chairman, deputy chairman and chief executive of MDC are £14,223, £6,436 and £41,049, respectively.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings have been held by the Merseyside development corporation in each of the years since it was established.
  485
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: Since its inception in 1981 M DC has held 79 board meetings. An annual breakdown is provided as follows:

  Year

  Number of meetings

  April 1981–December 1981

  9

  1982

  11

  1983

  11

  1984

  11

  1985

  11

  1986

  12

  1987

  9

  January 1988–May 1988

  5

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the board of the Merseyside development corporation reside within the city of Liverpool.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: None of the current board members resides within the city of Liverpool.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in each of the last five years(a) high level, (b) low level and (c) intermediate level nuclear waste has been moved within the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom airspace, to or from (i) any civil British nuclear installation and (ii) any British nuclear electricity generating station or reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department does not collect details of the kind requested.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what latest information he has on the medical effect of excess levels of nitrate on human beings.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most recent United Kingdom epidemiological study, published in 1986, did not indicate any relationships between exposure to raised levels of nitrate and cancer in humans. Whilst infantile methaemoglobinaemia is known to be caused by high concentrations of nitrate in drinking water, no cases of infantile methaemoglobinaemia attributable to concentrations of nitrate in drinking water have been reported in the United Kingdom since 1975.

  Advice on the medical aspects of nitrate in drinking water was last given in a letter from the Government's chief medical officer in November 1985. The Department continues to review all relevant scientific literature including epidemiological studies in other countries, and is presently seeking the advice of the committee on the medical aspects of the contamination of air, soil and water on the findings of studies published since 1985.

  Greater London (Studies)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report all studies and investigations he has announced concerning any aspect of planning and housing in the Greater London
  486
  area, stating for each the purpose of the study, by whom it is being undertaken, and the date of expected publication.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has commissioned an east London housing study to examine the scope for housing in five areas of east London. Coopers arid Lybrand Associates are undertaking the study, which is due to be completed by October 1988.

  In addition, the Department has commissioned a number of other studies, which while not dealing specifically with London, may touch on some aspect of housing or planning in London. Full lists of the 1988–89 studies are given in DOE planning research programmes newsletter and the housing research programme as annexed to DOE press release 224. Copies of both of these have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on 9 June,Official Report, column 653, he will estimate the population for that part of each of the dockland boroughs which lies within the area of the London Docklands development corporation, for each year since its creation and for each year for which projected figures are available.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: I will write to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radio Surveillance Equipment
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 588, what powers are available to his Department to monitor the use of radio surveillance equipment; what use has been made of these powers over the last five years; and what plans he has to strengthen those powers.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are no specific powers, but during and before the last five years the parts of the radio spectrum allocated for civil use have been regularly subject to monitoring exercises to establish patterns of use, to trace radio interference and to assist in the general management of radio services. I have no plans to take any specific powers.

  Home Accidents
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people in England and Wales in the latest complete year for which figures are availale were killed or injured by accidents occurring in the home; and what proportion of these is estimated to be as a result of misuse of electrical equipment.

  Mr. Butcher
  In 1984, the most recent year for which complete data are available, there were 4,593 fatal home accidents in England and Wales recorded in the home accident deaths database. 120 (3 per cent.) of these involved mains electrical products, but only for the 26 cases of electrocution was there expert judgment of the extent of misuse. It was noted as a contributory factor in
  487
  14 of them. In 1986, from data collected by the home accident surveillance system, there were estimated to have been about 1,990,000 patients treated in hospitals in England and Wales as the result of non-fatal home accidents. About 64,000 (3 per cent.) of these cases involved mains electrically powered products. No information is available on the extent to which misuse was a contributory factor.

  Girobank
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will discuss the status of Bootle as the major operations centre of Girobank with the Post Office board;

  (2) who is to determine the value of Girobank before it is sold to the private sector;

  (3) if, during his discussions with the chairman of the Post Office board, he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that the contingency centre for Girobank is sited in close proximity to the Bootle centre;

  (4) if he will discuss with the chairman of the Post Office board the protection of conditions of service, pension rights and continued trade union recognition before Girobank is privatised.

  Mr. Butcher
  Girobank belongs to the Post Office, with whose chairman and board I am in frequent touch, and the Post Office is managing the sale. The Post Office has already said that an important issue in discussions with potential purchasers is to pay proper regard to the interests of Girobank's staff at Bootle and elsewhere. The price offered will of course also be a major consideration. The siting of a contingency centre is a matter for the Post Office and for Girobank.

  Clinical Thermometers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of clinical thermometers exported from the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community and from the European Economic Community to the United Kingdom in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For the period April 1987 to March 1988 trade with the EEC in clinical thermometers was valued at: exports £54,000 and imports £105,000. These figures should be treated with caution because of major changes to Customs procedures introduced in January 1988, details of which were given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 7 December 1987, at columns 34–35.

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to why the West German Economics Ministry has agreed to provide more aid to the Airbus project; whether the United Kingdom Government were consulted; and what is his latest assessment of the financial prospects of Airbus.

  Mr. Atkins
  Issues relating to the German Government's financial support for the Airbus programme are a matter for the German Government. I am in touch with British Aerospace about the problems which it 488
  believes the company faces in connection with Airbus programmes, and have asked for its latest assessment of the financial prospects of Airbus.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total amount of aid and guarantees provided by Her Majesty's Government to the Airbus project; and what percentage of this has been given to British Aerospace plc.

  Mr. Atkins
  British Aerospace has received launch-aid totalling some £249·3 million in connection with its participation in the Airbus A320 programme. It has been agreed that further launch-aid of up to £450 million will be made available in connection with the company's involvement in the A330/340 programme.

  Existing intergovernmental agreements, in connection with the A300 and A310 aircraft, provide in certain events for intergovernmental liability. The Government's present liability under such arrangements is in the region of £500,000.

  Steel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the Council of Ministers was unable to agree quota reductions, and whether steel may now be freely traded without price restriction within the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Atkins
  The future of the quota system is to be discussed at the Council of Industry Ministers on 24 June. In the absence of adequate commitments from industry to reduce excess capacity by the amounts agreed at the 22 December Council, quotas should end on 30 June. Pricing practices for ECSC steel producers are governed by article 60 of the Treaty of Paris, which prohibits unfair competitive practices and discriminatory pricing arrangements.

  Furniture (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the proposed test for fabrics under the draft furniture fire safety regulations will be ignition source one, rather than crib four ignition procedure.

  Mr. Butcher
  Yes.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whereabouts on a sofa or chair the crib would normally be placed when carrying out crib ignition tests on furniture.

  Mr. Butcher
  In the BS 5852 tests required by both the existing regulations and by the proposed new ones, the upholstery composite is represented on a perpendicular seat/back test rig. The crib is placed on the seat in contact with the back, at least 100 mm from the edge.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether flammability testing of domestic upholstery covering material is normally carried out using the crib four procedure to cause ignition.

  Mr. Butcher
  The only flame test applied to domestic furniture covering material both in respect of the labelling option of the 1980/83 regulations and the draft new
  489
  regulations, is the simulated match of BS 5852, part 1. There is no proposal to test covering fabrics using ignition source 4, a small wooden crib.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether flammability testing of contract upholstery covering material is normally carried out using the crib four procedure to cause ignition.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for the specifying authority to decide what ignition source to use in relation to any contract.

  Ignition source 5 is the most widely used of the cribs detailed in BS 5852. I am not aware of any which use the crib specified as ignition source 4.

  Fire-Safe Cigarettes
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to promote the development and use of fire-safe cigarettes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: The United States interagency committee reported on 29 October 1987 that it was technically feasible to make cigarettes with reduced liability to ignite upholstered furniture.

  The report further stated that the tar nicotine and carbon monoxide yields of such cigarettes were in line with the levels obtained from many popular brands, but added that further study of potential for causing disease would be required. The committee had not attempted to assess consumer acceptability of these "fire safe" cigarettes.

  The policy recommendations of the interagency committee dated 23 December recommended an examination of the health aspect and consumer acceptability and I shall monitor the progress made in this further examination.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear-powered Vessels (Accidents)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been provided by his Department to the Australian Senate Standing Committee on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade's inquiry into safety procedures and contingency planning for accidents involving nuclear-powered vessels in harbour.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  General information about the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine safety procedures and reactor accident contingency planning was passed to the Australian Department of Defence last year. I understand that the Department has drawn on this as appropriate in responding to the Standing Committee's current inquiry on safety procedures relating to nuclear-powered vessels in Australian waters.

  Marconi
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether activities by Marconi companies in relation to defence contracts have been referred to the serious fraud office.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who has responsibility for the serious fraud office, that this matter is being dealt with by it.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further discussions have taken place with the Soviet authorities about the implications of the recent visit by Soviet scientists to the Porton Down establishment for future exchanges of this kind in relation to chemical weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A United Kindom delegation will be visiting the Soviet military chemical facility at Shikhany from 30 June to 4 July. This will be the second part of the exchange of visits between the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, and Shikhany. Any assessment of the merits of further exchanges should await the outcome of that visit.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on his policy towards multilateral disarmament.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Bilateral and multilateral agreements offer the only sure means for achieving equitable arid lasting arms control and disarmament measures; the recent INF treaty is a vindication of this approach. NATO's next arms control priorities of a 50 per cent. reduction in the strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and Soviet Union, the achievement of stability in conventional forces in Europe and a global ban on chemical weapons fully meet the requirement that arms control measures should maintain and, if possible, enhance security.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to be in a position to announce specific decisions on the development and acquisition of new short range nuclear and nuclear-capable missiles.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to be in a position to announce specific decisions on the development and acquisition of new short range nuclear and nuclear-capable missiles.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A decision on the procurement of a weapon system to replace the free-fall bomb which currently provides the United Kingdom's independent sub-strategic nuclear capability will probably be taken next year. The timing of any decision to take into service with British forces a follow-on to the Lance missile system would depend on progress made by the United States in its efforts to meet SACEUR's requirements in this area.

  RAF Aircraft (Swedish Interceptions)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each year since 1979 Royal Air Force aircraft have been intercepted by aircraft from the Royal Swedish Air Force.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No such records are maintained.

  Nuclear Accidents (Compensation)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the compensation arrangements in the event of
  491
  civilian death, injury and property damage resulting from (a) a military nuclear reactor accident and (b) a nuclear weapon accident.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the unlikely event of a military nuclear accident in the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence would offer compensation under the same arrangements which exist for dealing with any other claims for personal injury, loss or damage.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low-flying aircraft were received from Northern Ireland in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: No fixed-wing low-flying training is currently carried out in Northern Ireland. However, helicopters do undertake low-flying operations in Northern Ireland. Although no central records are available of complaints received, HQ Northern Ireland received 32 complaints in 1987.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals she has to improve the security of information passing in(a) the Department of Education and Science and (b) other Government Departments, in the light of recent unauthorised disclosure of correspondence and briefing material.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Every effort is made to keep classified information held in Government Departments secure. The arrangements are kept under review and modified when necessary.

  Allt Yr Yn, Newport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Allt Yr Yn, Newport, Gwent.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Arpley Meadows, Warrington
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to pay an official visit to Arpley Meadows, Warrington.

  Mr. Wakenham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
  492
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend is in Toronto for an economic summit meeting.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if, when she visits Poland later this year, she will raise with the authorities there the treatment of workers in joint ICL-Polish Government enterprises; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend will certainly emphasise her concern about human rights in Poland and the need for trade union pluralism. I understand that ICL's joint venture agreement covers the marketing of their products in Poland and of Polish furniture in the West, and that the company has no direct involvement in manufacturing or the management of individual enterprises in Poland.

WALES

  Government Achievements
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Government's achievements in Wales since June 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales has fallen by 23,200 over the past 12 months and has now fallen every month for 24 consecutive months. We have just seen the largest monthly fall in unadjusted unemployment since May 1983. The total of unemployed school leavers is down by 28 per cent. over the past year and the number of vacancies continues to increase. Advertisements for jobs in the main daily newspapers of Wales have increased very substantially in the first six months of 1988 compared to the same period in 1987.

  Over the past year, 96 inward industrial investment projects have been secured. These projects involve £370 million of capital investment and promise over 8,000 new jobs. Among the major projects are ones from companies based in the United States, Japan and Europe. Important projects have also been obtained in the financial services industries including the decision by the Trustee Savings Bank Trust to create an establishment in Newport that will provide 2,000 new jobs.

  The move of the Patent Office from London to Newport has also been secured which will provide 600 new jobs.
  493
  During the year I made visits to Japan, the Minister of State visited the United States and West Germany, and visits to West Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan and Saudi Arabia are planned in the future.

  The Welsh Development Agency budget for 1988–89 is a record for mainstream spending in both cash and real terms enabling it to significantly increase the range and intensity of its activities.

  The £127 million factory programme announced in January 1988 will enable the Agency to build up to 4·5 million sq ft of additional industrial work space, 50 per cent. higher than previously planned and 75 per cent. more than the area completed in the three years prior to May 1979. The new capacity will have the potential to accommodate over 13,000 new manufacturing jobs. The 2·2 million sq ft of factory lettings by the agency in 1987–88 were at a record high.

  In June last year I launched an exporting awareness campaign at a seminar of leading Welsh business men. The performance in Wales in terms of exporting has considerable scope for improvement. This campaign has been followed by an export promotion team from the Welsh Office contacting and working with many businesses. There has been a Principalitywide advertising campaign supplementing the national British Overseas Trade Board campign. There followed two major export advisory service promotions held in the early morning, one in Cardiff and the other in north Wales. These were considered to be the most successful export promoting meetings that have taken place in the Principality. Both were exceedingly well attended and a substantial increase in inquiries for Government export services has taken place as a result of them.

  The £45 million land reclamation programme launched on 14 June 1988 is the largest ever undertaken and will enable the agency to reclaim an extra 4,300 acres of derelict land.

  Registrations of new companies in Wales increased substantially during the year. The Welsh Development Agency's business development unit dealt with a record 39,000 inquiries from small enterprises in 1987–88–18 per cent. more than the previous year.

  WINtech's manufacturing technology centre has been opened at Cleppa park to act as a focus for activity in promoting the use of new technology.

  The Welsh Development Agency has been given approval to establish a £5 million Welsh technological development fund aimed at stimulating innovation employment in Welsh high technology enterprises.

  A major initiative was launched in April 1988 aimed at increasing the real value of the craft industry's sales and jobs by at least 50 per cent. within three years.

  Since June 1987 a total of 3,100 applications for regional development grant have been received—an increase of 80 per cent. over the previous year. There have been over 200 applications for regional selective assistance. If the potential of these applications is fully realised, it will increase investment in Wales by almost £2,000 million and create around 59,000 new jobs over the next few years.

  Since the launch of the new enterprise initiatives in January of this year we have received around 370 applications for consultancy assistance.

  Enterprise Wales has been launched, a major new package of assistance to industry. Welsh Office resources have been increased by some 40 per cent. over previous
  494
  plans and new grant and support schemes have been introduced for small firms and for firms in all sectors who wish to take advantage of consultancy advice.

  A major initiative has been launched to strengthen the financial services sector in south-east Wales. The campaign is being led by the Welsh Development Agency and backed by a consortium of local authorities.

  It has been agreed that the Welsh steel industry should be privatised which will give an opportunity to those that work so hard in the industry to participate in its ownership and in its future success.

  The gateway network was launched last October. This is an initiative that brings together central Government, local government and the private sector to co-ordinate and improve the help available to small businesses in Wales. Seven major banks have joined the network.

  Investment in trunk road improvements has continued at a high level. Since June 1987 the following schemes have been opened to traffic: A48 Cross Hands-Llanddarog dual carriageway bypass; A483 Ruabon bypass; A48 Chepstow Inner relief road and A40 Haverfordwest Relief Roads Phase 1. Construction has also started on the A483 Newbridge bypass; A55 Llanfairfechan bypass and A55 Northop bypass.

  The part I played in the discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission about integrated operations submissions, and the programme for Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys in particular, helped to lead the negotiations to the recent adoption by the Commission of a £108 million national programme of community interest for the area and the acceptance in principle of the integrated operations programme for the three counties. In addition my discussion with Commissioner Varfis in February, were I believe, contributory to the recent recognition by the Commission of the need for continuing access to structural fund assistance on the part of rural Wales.

  I negotiated improved arrangements for the overseas promotion of Wales as a tourism destination, with the BTA providing £70,000 for 11 distinctively Welsh promotions and a further £94,000 to lever trade contributions of £220,000. This has already led to the establishment of a Wales reservation centre in the United States of America. In addition, a futher £50,000 was provided to the WTB for expenditure in the United Kingdom that complements this overseas marketing. In February 1988 an additional £250,000 was added to the WTB's budget to finance an immediate additional marketing campaign to assist the industry in Wales.

  In the year 1987–88 the commercial performance of CADW: Welsh Historic Monuments exceeded all targets and broke previous records for attendance and revenue. Admissions to monuments in care increased by 11 percent. to £1·56 million and revenue exceeded £1·78 million, a rise of 18·7 per cent.

  In December 1987 Mid Wales Development, the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board jointly decided to fund a new company to be called "Taste of Wales" (Bias ar Gymru) solely for the purpose of furthering the objects of the rural products group, by involving the hotel and catering sector and by encouraging them to use and promote the best of Welsh food. I formally launched Blas ar Gymru in May in Cardiff castle.

  The farm diversification scheme, which came into force on 1 January 1988, is intended to assist farmers to develop alternative commercial uses for agricultural businesses and

  495
  land. This covers investment in tourism, rural crafts, farm shops, on-farm catering, livery and pony trekking in the less-favoured areas only.

  I have designated the Lleyn peninsula as an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). I have also extended the area of the existing Cambrian mountains ESA. Farmers participating in the scheme are offered financial incentives to maintain the broad pattern of land use, protect the rough grazing, hay meadows and archaeological features and retain broadleaved woodland. This will enable all farmers in the original area recommended by the Countryside Commission for designation to be considered for participation in the scheme and to obtain its benefits.

  A new woodland grant scheme to provide Government support for private forestry planting was announced in March this year. The scheme replaced the forestry grant scheme and the broadleaved woodland grant scheme. The main features of the new scheme are increases in grants for conifer and broadleaved planting and new provision to conserve the environment.

  The Welsh rural products group was formed in June 1987. This body came about at my instigation. It includes representatives from all the statutory bodies and parties interested in improving and encouraging the development of food production, as well as the marketing of Welsh food and agricultural produce.

  Private housebuilding starts in Wales totalled 9,353 in 1987–88—this represents an increase of 24 per cent. on the previous year. The private sector total of over 9,000 starts in 1987–88 is the highest total for some considerable time. Taking into account starts in the public sector, over 11,500 new homes were started in 1987–88. Wales has led the way in establishing the principle of mixed funding schemes involving local authorities, housing associations and private finance. The mixed funding concept has been developed with the active support of the Housing Corporation and housing associations in Wales. It should attract approximately £7 million in private funding in 1988–89. This will be in addition to the £60 million being provided by the Government for the Housing Corporation's gross development programme. The objective of the initiative is to increase the provision of much needed social rented housing using a limited injection of public funds to trigger additional private sector investment.

  A total of 20 mixed funding schemes, which will provide over 1,000 houses, have been approved. The pilot scheme at St. Mellons will alone provide over 560 houses. The scheme commenced in September 1987 and is due for final completion in 1989. Associations started over 630 more new homes on site in 1987–88 under the mixed funding initiative—an increase of 50 per cent. over the corporation's target for the year. This was a particularly welcome achievement in the first year of the scheme. I have established my alternatives for social housing (ASH) programme to promote a wider choice in social rented housing in Wales. Consultancy advice is being made available to a limited number of councils to help them formulate proposals for transfer of their housing stock to new landlord bodies.

  As a consequence of our housing legislation, housing associations are set to become of increasing importance as providers of housing for those in need, in Wales as elsewhere. We have decided therefore that the time is now right to establish the independence of the Housing Corporation in Wales. The current Housing Bill makes
  496
  provision to achieve this by establishing a new body, Housing for Wales, which we believe will have a major contribution to make towards helping to tackle the housing problems we face in Wales.

  Between 1987–88 and 1988–89 revenue funding for the hospital and community health services in Wales has increased by £80 million or 10·7 per cent. over last year. Between 1987–88 and 1988–89 capital allocations to district health authorities increased by nearly 21 per cent.

  Within this overall total I would particularly like to point to the increased funding for the all-Wales mental mehandicap strategy of £3·75 million raising it to a record level of £13·75 million for 1988–89. I launched my strategic proposals for the development of locally based mental illness services in Wales on 16 May, for a period of six months consultation. In the current financial year I am making available a record £2·3 million to assist in the development of new patterns of mental illness services.

  A director has been appointed to oversee the introduction of breast screening for women aged 50 to 64 and a headquarters building has been purchased; screening will begin later this year.

  An additional £400,000 a year was allocated to health authorities in November 1987 to help improve their cervical screening programme, making a total of £800,000 a year of central support for this service; all but one authority are currently using family practitioner committee computers for call and recall and the computer should come on stream in the remaining district next month.

  A total of £1 million was allocated to health authorities in 1987–88 to help tackle the worst waiting list problems. I am happy to report that an additional 2,900 patients were treated and 6,600 additional out-patients were seen.

  I gave approval in November 1987 to the development of a paediatric cardiac unit at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff as the first phase of a major expansion of cardiac services. An additional four computerised tomography (CT) scanners are to be installed in hospitals in Wales bringing to eight the number, provided at a cost in the region of £3·8 million from central funds.

  It was announced in May 1988 that two subsidiary renal dialysis units are to be developed and operated at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, by Unicare Medical Services Limited under contract to South and Mid Glamorgan health authorities respectively.

  The report of the community nursing review for Wales entitled "Nursing in the Community—a Team Approach for Wales" has been submitted and a public consultation on it completed. The resources available for use by the Welsh Health Promotion Authority (amounting to nearly £1·8 million) have been allocated in full taking account of the authority's operational plan for 1988–89 submitted at its first performance review. Recognising the importance of lifestyle in the maintenance of good health, my Department has also completed a review of the plans provided by both local drugs advisory committees and AIDS co-ordinating teams. A new training grant to support social workers involved in dealing with child abuse has been introduced.

  My office is about to issue the corporate management programme for the Health Service in Wales. This is a five-year agenda for management action aimed at maximising the effectiveness of the NHS in Wales. It details the work which must be undertaken by a whole range of interests to enable health care services in Wales to

  497
  adapt constructively so as to ensure the highest standards of care and value for money. The number of people waiting for in-patient treatment on 31 December 1987 was lower than the number waiting on 31 December 1986. NHS hospitals are treating an increasing number of people. In the year to 31 December 1987, an additional 14,846 in-patients were treated over the numbers treated in 1986 and an additional 12,101 out-patients were seen for the first time in the same period. This represents increases of 99,021 (28·3 per cent.) and 88,122 (20·6 per cent.) in the treatment on in-patients and out-patients respectively over the numbers treated in 1979. In view of this success, a further £1 million is being made available to health authorities in the current year.

  A consultative process has been undertaken and completed on each of the proposals within the Education Reform Bill. The working group on Welsh in the national curriculum has been established and is expected to produce its report next April. The appointment of the Curriculum Council for Wales has been announced. It will be established subject to parliamentary approval of the Education Reform Bill. From September 1987, a total of 115 additional places were taken up under our assisted places scheme.

  November 1987 saw the launch of the language exports centre for Wales at University College, Swansea, funded as part of the PICKUP (professional, industrial and commercial updating) programme. The aim of the centre is to help industry and education in providing foreign language and export marketing training for small and medium-sized firms.

  I ensured the future of the Sherman theatre by providing £900,000 to enable the building to be purchased by the Welsh Arts Council and a grant of £27,000 to assist the Sherman Theatre Company in the short term.

  Government support for the Welsh language was a record total of £3·283 million of support for voluntary bodies and for bilingual education, nearly £250,000 has been allocated to the Welsh language education development committee to enable it to start work on its first major project. This is to develop a co-ordinated effort to prepare and distribute Welsh language teaching material for secondary schools.

  I have benefited in my understanding of the place of the language in Wales from discussions I have had with leading Welsh language organisations and others and from the valuable advice I have received from the working group I established in December 1987 under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  The education support grant (ESG) programme in 1988–89, announced in August last year, totalled £7·39 million expenditure compared with a total of £4·18 million expenditure approved for 1987–88—an increase of over 75 per cent. Activities supported in 1988–89 include: mid-day supervision (£2·57 million); information technology (IT) in schools (£1·48 million); books and equipment for GCSE (£0·61 million); IT in non-advanced further education (£0·26 million); computer-aided engineering (£0·24 million); and 14 other categories.

  The technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) helps to develop practical and relevant elements in the curriculum for 14 to 18-year-olds. All Welsh LEAs have been involved in pilot schemes. We announced in February 1988 their extension to all schools and colleges in Wales over the next few years, with £45 million of Government support.
  498
  Adult training schemes helped over 27,500 people, and over 20,000 people were involved in community programme work throughout the year. A further 12,000 people took part in the voluntary projects programme.

  A total of 19,080 young persons entered YTS in Wales during 1987–88. Once again the Training Commission undertook to guarantee all school-leavers a YTS place by Christmas 1987, and a success rate of 99·9 per cent. in Wales bettered anywhere else in Britain.

  In my statement to the House on 14 June I announced a three-year programme for the revitalisation of the valleys of south Wales designed to help improve economic, environmental and social conditions across the whole valleys area. It identifies almost SO proposals for new and increased activity including record levels of activity in land clearance, factory building and urban programme support along with other action to promote enterprise, strengthen tourism and the arts, promote housing improvement, improve health care and education and strengthen voluntary bodies.

  Public expenditure on key programmes promoting economic development, urban renewal and other environmental improvement and youth adult training is expected to be about £500 million over the life of the programme. It is also anticipated that over £1 billion of private sector investment will take place in the valleys over the same period.

  Hospital Patients (Treatment Statistics)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage increase there was in patients treated in hospitals in Wales in 1986 over those treated in 1979; and what percentage increase there was in outpatients treated.

  Mr. Grist
  Twenty-four per cent. more in-patients were treated and 18 per cent. more new out-patients were seen in Welsh hospitals in 1986 than in 1979. I am pleased to say that the 1987 figures show an even further improvement to 28 per cent. and 21 per cent respectively.

  CAT Scanners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will take steps to release extra funds to Clwyd area health authority to enable CAT scanners to be more widely available to the people of north Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) where CAT scanners currently operate in north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Computerised tomography scanners are presently in operation at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and Ysbyty Maelor Wrexham. Funds have been made available to Gwynedd health authority to enable a scanner to be provided at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor. The Department has no plans to release additional funds to Clwyd health authority for computerised tomography scanning. It is open to the authority, should it so wish, to provide additional facilities.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department first gave evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs concerning cancer treatment in north Wales and in the north-west of England for north Wales patients; and if he will make a statement.
  499
  Mr. Grist
  Evidence was given by officials to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs concerning cancer treatment in north Wales on 27 June 1984.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the action taken, and the studies made and the evaluations undertaken by Welsh and English authorities since evidence was last given by his Department to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, including cash allocations, staff appointments, treatment centres made available and efforts made to improve the liaison between north Wales and the English authorities for the benefit of north Wales patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details of the criteria used in delineating the boundaries of the area to be aided under his recent valleys programme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The area covered by the new programme took as its starting point the area of the south Wales coalfield. This was adjusted to exclude localities such as the coastal towns, which do not exhibit the economic, environmental and other characteristics associated with the valleys and to ensure that wherever possible the boundary follows existing administrative boundaries or physical features.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh power stations have installed flue gas desulphurisation air pollution filtering equipment.

  Mr. Grist
  None.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to require the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to Welsh power stations.

  Mr. Grist
  It will be for discussion between the industries concerned and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution how to meet the requirements on the United Kingdom, agreed at the EC Environmental Council on 16 June, to reduce the overall total of sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large combustion plant.

  Snowdonia National Park
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the threat now posed by air pollution and acid rain to Snowdonia national park.

  Mr. Grist
  Over the last 12 months we have received two representations—one from Friends of the Earth Cymru and one from a Welsh Member in response to a circular letter from that organisation.

  Unconventional Transport Services (North Gower)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to make a decision on the 500
  transport innovation grant to West Glamorgan county council for the provision of unconventional transport services in north Gower.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: No application for such grant has been received from West Glamorgan county council. However, my right hon. Friend expects to make a decision soon on an application under the scheme from West Glamorgan community service council.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas in which the Welsh water authority has applied for derogations from European Community regulations governing water quality on the grounds of excessive aluminium levels in the supply; and, in each case, what was the aluminium level.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on Thursday 16 June at columns 237–38.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial provision is made for regional development grants in his estimate of the cost of the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: Applications for regional development grants received in the last 15 months from the valleys programme area involved investment of about £620 million. On the basis of applications and approvals currently outstanding, and the average payments that experience indicates will result from these, I would expect regional development grant payments to be of the order of £70 million over the next three years.

  Valleys Initiative (Expenditure Estimates)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates of the expenditure likely in his valleys initiative under headings of the sources of the moneys such as urban aid, private industry, local authority, European Economic Community, Welsh Development Agency and so on.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: I estimate that over the three years of the new valleys programme expenditure on key programmes for the promotion of economic development will total some £529 million. I anticipate that approximately £215 million of this will be spent on Welsh Development Agency factory building, regional development grants, regional selective assistance and other investment assistance; some £164 million will be spent on urban programme schemes, urban development grants, road improvements, derelict land clearance and other environmental measures and £150 million on industrial training and work experience programmes.

  On past experience, the payment of regional development grants and regional selective assistance on the scale envisaged would lead to additional private sector investment of well over £1 billion. In addition there will, of course, be substantial private sector investment not linked to such assistance.
  501
  It is not possible to give exact figures for local authority expenditure, but it is estimated that (excluding their expenditure on the key programmes identified above) their spending in the valleys in 1988–89 will be of the order of £500 million.

  It is estimated that European regional development fund (ERDF) grants totalling £26 million are likely to be available to projects in the valleys as part of the Mid Glamorgan national programme of community interest. The proposed integrated operations programme for industrial south Wales may also attract a further £100 million from the ERDF and European social fund in the years to 1992.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates of the average change in total household costs to families living in the areas covered by the valleys initiative when the change over is made from domestic rates to the poll tax.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: It is not possible to make an estimate of the full effects for the area. The effects upon particular households will be influenced by the assistance which will be available to those on low incomes. Those on income support will receive an automatic 80 per cent. reduction in their community charge bill and their income support will include an uprating (based on the average for Great Britain) to help them meet the remaining 20 per cent. There will also be lesser reductions in community charge bills for people on low incomes but above income support levels.

  What can be said generally is that most single-parent families, widows and widowers living alone, and many other single householders are likely to benefit substantially. Many households with more than two people over the age of 18 will contribute more towards the cost of local services. But in fact only 14 per cent. of local government expenditure will come from the community charge; 66 per cent. will come from central Government grant and the remaining 20 per cent. from non-domestic rates.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  School Outings (VAT)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will issue advice to local education authorities concerning the circumstances in which value added tax ought to be charged on school outings;

  (2) whether value added tax is now charged on school outings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Schools purchasing taxable goods or services from VAT-registered persons have always been charged VAT. From 1 April 1988, however, local education authorities have been unable to reclaim from Customs and Excise the VAT on purchases of accommodation and the like for school outings which they have organised where the cost is passed on to the parents and pupils. This is because, from that date, a new scheme has debarred tour operators from deducting tax on such purchases, and not to extend the restriction to local authorities making essentially similar purchases would put 502
  commercial tour operators at a competitive disadvantage. However, where school outings are subsidised by the education authority, the tax remains refundable.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, at the request of Customs and Excise, issued detailed guidance to local authorities on the new VAT arrangements in its "VAT News" in February this year.

  Employment Training (Taxation)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, and in what way, any of the payments that will be paid to trainees on the proposed employment training scheme, including their training allowance, any end of scheme bonus, any earnings outside the programme and any topping up payments they receive from their training placements, will be assessed for taxation purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The training allowance payable to trainees who participate in the employment training programme will not be chargeable to income tax. Similarly, top-up payments received from a training provider during an individual's training, or an end-of-course training bonus, will not be taxable provided a trainee's entitlement to such payments arises only from the completion of part or all of his or her training plan.

  The tax treatment of a trainee's income which does not arise from participation in the programme will depend on the precise circumstances in each case. Income from an employment would be chargeable to income tax under schedule E and tax would normally be deducted under the PAYE arrangements.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations approached by himself and by the Building Societies Commission in consultations held in connection with proposed changes to schedule 8 of the Building Societies Act 1986, and in connection with the procedures set down for the conversion of societies into public limited companies; and what discussions he or the commission has had with organisations representing individual depositors or borrower members of building societies in the course of these consultations.

  Mr. Lilley
  The review of schedule 8 of the Building Societies Act was undertaken by the Treasury and the Building Societies Commission in close consultation with the Building Societies Association and, through it, with the societies themselves. The commission has also consulted extensively other Government Departments, the Bank of England, the Securities and Investments Board, and the relevant self-regulatory organisations.

  The commission issued consultation documents on conversion in July and December last year. Copies were sent to interested parties, including the Consumer Council among others. There has also been full consultation with the Treasury and other Government Departments, and the Bank of England together with the Building Societies Association and with individual societies and their financial and legal advisers. Abbey Members Against Floatation (AMAF), approach the commission in late May and have been invited to comment on the consultation paper.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the European Court to announce its ruling on value added tax on domestic and non-domestic construction work and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The court delivered its judgment today.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth in the United Kingdom economy in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's latest forecast was published at Budget time. It showed growth of 3 per cent. in whole economy output in 1988, equivalent to 3½ per cent. growth on a non-oil basis. However, as my right hon. Friend reported to the House on 16 June at column 554, it now looks as though growth in 1988 may prove slightly higher than this.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether community charge officers will be able to trace debtors and defaulters by asking for information concerning an individual's name and address from gas, water and electricity boards.

  Mr. Lang
  Responsibility for the recovery of arrears of community charges will fall to regional and islands councils as levying authorities. They will have no access to information held by electricity boards or British Gas plc (Scotland). However, under a Scottish amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill my right hon. and learned Friend may make regulations providing that a levying authority may make use of information which it has at its disposal for any other purpose with the exception of prescribed sensitive information. Regional councils would, therefore, be able to use information which they had collected as a result of their responsibilities as water authorities.

  Single European Market
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that the Scottish Development Agency, Locate in Scotland and Enterprise Trusts will have a full and effective role in explaining and promoting the significance of the single European market to Scottish industrialists.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department is working closely with the Scottish Development Agency, enterprise trusts, chambers

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  Roll

  1–499

  500–999

  1000+

  1–499

  500–999

  1000–1499

  1500+

  Borders

  77

  —

  —

  2

  5

  2

  —

  Central

  117

  4

  —

  4

  9

  7

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  118

  —

  —

  7

  7

  2

  —

  Fife

  143

  5

  —

  —

  7

  7

  5

  Grampian

  269

  5

  —

  10

  21

  6

  3

  Highland

  209

  1

  —

  12

  14

  1

  —

  Lothian

  236

  8

  —

  6

  36

  8

  1

  504
  of commerce and other organisations in Scotland to alert business to the implications of completion of the single European market. Seminars and business meetings are being organised throughout Scotland. Our aim is to ensure that every sector of industry and commerce in Scotland is fully aware of the challenges and opportunities which the single market will present.

  Widowers' Pensions
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects that the Government Actuary Department's review of the various proposals relating to the payment of widowers' pensions to widowers whose wives were employed in the teaching profession between 1972 and 1988 will be published; and when he expects a ruling will be made on the Scottish scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government Actuary's Department is not conducting a review of proposals relating to the payment of pensions to widowers whose wives were employed in teaching between 1972 and 1988. The Government Actuary has, however, just presented an actuarial report to the Secretary of State in respect of the Scottish teachers superannuation scheme for the quin-quennium 1981–1986 which is currently being considered.

  With regard to the question of widowers' pensions the Scottish teachers superannuation scheme is being amended to introduce widowers' benefits in respect of service undertaken by women teachers from 6 April 1988. The Social Security Act 1986 requires that, for service from this date, a widower will become entitled to a restricted pension of one-half of the minimum pension of his spouse guranteed for the purposes of contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme. However, after consultation with teachers' associations and employers, it has been agreed that, in respect of service after 6 April 1988, the teachers' scheme will go further than the statutory requirement and will provide widowers' benefits on the same basis as those currently available to widows. In order to cover service prior to that date it will be necessary, however, for those women teachers, who so choose, to make appropriate payments. This is because the contributions already paid do not reflect the cost of giving such a substantial improvement.

  School Rolls
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each regional authority which have a school roll of (i) less than 500, (ii) between 500 and 1,000, (iii) between 1,000 and 1,500 and (iv) over 1,500.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers at September 1987 are set out in the table:
  505

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  Roll

  1–499

  500–999

  1000+

  1–499

  500–999

  1000–1499

  1500+

  Strathclyde

  902

  19

  —

  34

  105

  50

  3

  Tayside

  189

  2

  —

  8

  14

  9

  1

  Orkney

  24

  —

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  Shetland

  35

  —

  —

  8

  1

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  54

  1

  —

  15

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  2,373

  45

  —

  111

  220

  93

  14

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met officials of the East Kilbride development corporation; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met officials of East Kilbride development corporation on Monday 9 May when he had the pleasure of opening the new JVC plant in the town. On that occasion he discussed the very successful year the corporation were having, with particular successes in the electronics, biotechnology and engineering industries.

  Needles and Syringes
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department will issue guidance to health boards on the sale of needles and syringes by pharmacists in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A circular is being issued today, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The circular asks health boards to promote local discussions to establish the need for the sale of injecting equipment to drug misusers in their area, and the number of pharmacists, who would participate on an entirely voluntary basis, willing to sell equipment to meet that need. This move is in recognition of the particularly significant problem of HIV infection in drug misusers which we face in Scotland. Of those who have been tested for HIV infection and found to be positive, over 50 per cent. are injecting drug misusers. HIV infection can be transmitted from one injecting drug misuser to another through the sharing of needles and syringes.

  The circular is concerned with facilitating sales as a normal commercial transaction between pharmacists and their customers. Boards are, however, being asked to provide pharmacists with information about local support services. They are also being asked to ensure that adequate facilities are available for the disposal of used equipment so that the risk of its reuse by other drug misusers, and hence the transmission of infection, and the risk to the general public, in particular to children, from used equipment which has been carelessly or recklessly discarded, are minimised. The circular indicates that pharmacists should be encouraged to provide disposal facilities but that it should not be a condition of sale that used equipment is first returned. Boards are also asked to consider whether there is a need for disposal facilities in places frequented by drug misusers such as certain health board clinics.

  The circular provides guidance on the procedures and conditions for the sale of equipment. These include restricting the number of needles and syringes which may be sold to each customer to five per visit. It also specifies that sales should be accompanied by the provision of advice and appropriate health education material.
  506
  As regards the legal position, while no general unqualified assurance of immunity from prosecution will be given, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has said that he would not authorise the prosecution of any pharmacist in respect of sales by him of needles and syringes to drug misusers, provided the pharmacist has acted in accordance with the conditions and procedures set out in the circular.

  Greenland White-fronted Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers and geographical locations of flocks of Greenland white-fronted geese, consisting of 1 per cent. or more of the world population of this sub-species, that regularly occur in the United Kingdom outside designated or proposed special protection areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 June 1988]: I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that there are no such flocks regularly occurring in the United Kingdom outside areas which have already been classified as special protection areas under article 4 of EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds or areas which in the opinion of the Nature Conservancy Council meet the criteria for classification.

  Maternity Units
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many maternity units have been closed since 1979, or are planned to close, in each region in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: Two maternity units have been closed since 1979 and one is planned to close in August:. In the same period, three maternity units have opened and one is planned to open in August.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current expectation of life for(a) men and (b) women at the age of 45 years in (i) England and Wales, (ii) all EEC countries, (iii) Scandinavian countries and (iv) Scotland; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: The information is not available on a comparable basis. The information which is readily available is as follows:

  Male and Female life expectancy at age 45 years

  1978–80

  1984–86

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  England and Wales

  28·3

  33·7

  29·4

  34·7

  Scotland

  26·5

  31·9

  27·7

  32·9

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the estimated numbers of tenants of(a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association, (c) new town development corporations, (d) housing associations and (e) other private sector landlords who are in receipt of rent rebates or rent allowances for (i) certificated cases and (ii) standard cases.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: I have been asked to reply.

  Estimated number of housing benefit recipients

  Scottish district and island authorities: 1987–88

  Authority

  Certificated rent

  Standard rent

  Rebates

  Allowances

  Rebates

  Allowances

  Aberdeen

  7,400

  900

  11,000

  4,100

  Angus

  3,130

  480

  4,370

  520

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,100

  185

  1,620

  150

  Argyll-Bute

  2,470

  650

  2,365

  625

  Badenoch

  250

  100

  400

  140

  Banff and Buchan

  2,759

  275

  3,393

  224

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  393

  24

  706

  55

  Berwickshire

  513

  143

  871

  178

  Caithness

  922

  136

  968

  107

  Clackmannan

  2,500

  95

  3,120

  165

  Clydebank

  3,372

  231

  4,107

  201

  Clydesdale

  2,100

  140

  3,000

  110

  Cumbernauld

  1,007

  36

  1,374

  27

  Cumnock and Doon

  2,174

  119

  3,337

  122

  Cunninghame

  6,989

  618

  6,770

  306

  Dumbarton

  3,800

  280

  3,420

  290

  Dundee

  11,441

  1,443

  11,474

  2,542

  Dunfermline

  4,465

  323

  7,251

  439

  East Kilbride

  366

  112

  449

  81

  East Lothian

  3,050

  320

  4,850

  350

  Eastwood

  432

  75

  641

  140

  Edinburgh

  14,500

  8,900

  17,000

  16,700

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  785

  160

  1,360

  290

  Falkirk

  8,125

  490

  8,675

  540

  Glasgow

  69,500

  15,000

  51,000

  8,000

  Gordon

  782

  343

  1,869

  379

  Hamilton

  6,800

  240

  7,800

  200

  Inverclyde

  6,600

  430

  5,500

  700

  Inverness

  2,018

  246

  1,958

  251

  Kilmarnock

  5,087

  156

  5,592

  58

  Kincardine and Deeside

  688

  219

  957

  271

  Kirkcaldy

  6,187

  559

  9,728

  889

  Kyle and Carrick

  4,985

  488

  5,530

  430

  Lochaber

  714

  178

  860

  96

  Midlothian

  2,200

  320

  3,650

  700

  Monklands

  8,980

  56

  8,709

  154

  Moray

  2,750

  480

  3,750

  470

  Motherwell

  10,360

  268

  14,911

  372

  Nairn

  323

  60

  355

  83

  Nethsdale

  1,870

  320

  2,180

  320

  North East Fife

  1,780

  390

  3,070

  850

  Orkney

  351

  133

  427

  92

  Perth and Kinross

  3,500

  800

  5,000

  1,000

  Renfrew

  10,600

  1,200

  12,500

  900

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,960

  337

  1,636

  212

  Roxburgh

  1,090

  170

  1,910

  200

  Shetland

  350

  98

  620

  56

  Skye and Lochalsh

  247

  135

  251

  171

  Stewartry

  650

  140

  800

  110

  Stirling

  3,000

  400

  4,800

  710

  Strathkelvin

  2,290

  120

  3,074

  160

  Sutherland

  440

  70

  597

  41

  Tweeddale

  240

  120

  510

  190

  West Lothian

  5,040

  280

  6,040

  470

  Western Isles

  1,133

  205

  689

  87

  Wigtown

  1,500

  200

  1,500

  200

  508
  The available information is in the tables. Housing benefit for tenants of housing associations (other than the Scottish Special Housing Association) and other private sector landlords is administered by local authorities and information is not separately recorded. The numbers of recipients in these two groups are therefore included in the rent allowance figures for the appropriate local authorities. I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in providing this information.
  509

  Authority

  Certificated rent

  Standard rent

  Rebates

  Allowances

  Rebates

  Allowances

  Estimated number of housing benefit recipients, Scottish special housing association and new town development corporations: 1987–88

  Authority

  Certificated rent rebates

  Standard rent rebates

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  2,400

  2,400

  East Kilbride (DC)

  3,200

  4,300

  Glenrothes (DC)

  1,900

  2,100

  Irvine (DC)

  1,200

  1,200

  Livingston (DC)

  2,800

  2,200

  Scottish Special HA

  22,000

  25,200

  Note: These authorities do not administer rent allowances.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Consumer Services
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received seeking improved consumer services for right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  During this Session, I have received representations from two hon. Members concerning the provision of ladies' hairdressing facilities, one of whom also requested the provision of a shop. In addition to these two letters, I have answered two parliamentary questions on matters relating to improved consumer services for right hon. and hon. Members: one concerning the aforementioned services from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and one concerning the provision of cas dispensing facilities from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler).

  Retired Members
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Members who retired at the 1979, 1983, and 1987 general elections respectively were aged 65 and over, and what in each case was their period of service in the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:

  Completed Years of Actual Service

  Number of Members aged over 65 years leaving the House at the General Election held in

  1987 (47)

  1983 (38)

  1979 (40)

  4

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  8

  2

  —

  1

  9

  —

  1

  1

  10

  —

  —

  1

  12

  1

  1

  —

  13

  4

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  7

  15

  —

  —

  1

  16

  7

  —

  —

  17

  —

  1

  2

  18

  —

  5

  1

  19

  —

  —

  4

  21

  3

  —

  1

  22

  10

  —

  —

  23

  1

  4

  3

  24

  —

  2

  —

  26

  2

  —

  —

  27

  4

  5

  3

  28

  1

  —

  3

  29

  —

  2

  —

  31

  5

  2

  1

  32

  —

  5

  1

  33

  2

  —

  8

  510

  Completed Years of Actual Service

  Number of Members aged over 65 years leaving the House at the General Election held in

  1987 (47)

  1983 (38)

  1979 (40)

  34

  1

  —

  —

  35

  —

  1

  —

  36

  3

  1

  —

  37

  —

  6

  —

  41

  1

  —

  —

  46

  —

  —

  1

  47

  —

  1

  —

  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the estimated annual cost of making severance payments to Members aged 65 and over based upon experience of the last three general elections; what would be the effect of such a figure upon the total Members' contribution to the pension fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The circumstances in which a severance payment is payable to a Member who leaves the House at a general election have changed between each of the elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987. The payment (now known as the resettlemant grant) is currently payable to any Member who ceases to be a Member at a general election while aged under 65 years. Expenditure arising from the payment of each grant, which is charged to the House of Commons Vote (Class XX Vote 21), only occurs in a year in which a general election takes place, and, therefore, no annual cost arises.

  The amount of the grant paid to a Member depends on his age and length of service and since it is not known which Members are likely to leave the House at the next election it is not possible to predict what costs would arise if Members aged 65 and over were entitled to the grant. However, having regard to the number and length of service of Members aged 65 or over who left the House at the last three general elections, the cost of resettlement grants, based on the current salary level and on the assumption that the percentage of yearly salary payable is equal to the rate currently applicable to those aged 55 to 64 years, would amount to an average cost of £897,560 in a general election year.

  As the payment of resettlement grants is a direct charge on the Vote of the House no costs fall on the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and, therefore, Members' contributions to that fund are not affected.

  Palace of Westminster (Accidents)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 667, he will place in the Library details of all accidents in the Palace of Westminster referred to therein.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. The records of accidents, which are maintained by Departments of the House, the Parliamentary Works Office and the Security Force, contain personal details of the individuals affected. It would not be appropriate to make them available in the Library.

  Scottish Office (Joint Committee)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland of early May on the setting up of a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am still considering how best to proceed with regard to a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. As I told the House during business questions last Thursday, I will shortly be discussing this matter with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I hope to be in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland soon.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has arranged for urgent research to be undertaken into the possible transmission of the causative agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to human beings in such a way that potentially fatal human Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease results.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Studies are already under way to discover whether BSE is transmissible between cattle and to other species.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is taking any action to prevent butchers selling for human consumption uncooked brains from cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Legislation comes into force today which makes bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) a notifiable disease. The Ministry's veterinary service will be retaining the heads of all cattle in respect of which disease is notified, in order to examine brain tissue for diagnostic purposes. The brains will not, therefore, be available for human consumption.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will arrange for urgent research to be undertaken to develop a test for discovering the presence of the causative agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy before its presence is revealed by the behaviour of the infected beast.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Yes. Immunological tests are being developed which, as part of their objectives, are 512
  designed to detect the presence of the agent in various tissues of the animal. The research programme will also address the need to try and develop a test in the live animal.

  Cereals (Seed Testing)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated cost savings which have been identified as arising from the ending of the requirement for cereal seed testing before marketing; what is the estimated cost of (i) additional enforcement measures and (ii) additional monitoring measures arising from the proposed change; and if he will make a statement on his proposals for funding any additional costs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: The information requested is given in paragraphs 394, 403 and 476 of the report on plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom. The cost of additional monitoring measures are estimated to be minimal. The additional enforcement and monitoring costs can be accommodated within the gross saving of £652,000 proposed for seed certification.

  Milk
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the EC Commission following the recent European Court judgment relating to the non-marketing of milk scheme, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: I am aware of this case which has implications for quota allocation in all member states; however, it is for the EC Commission to consider the necessary steps to comply with the judgment and to make proposals to the Council of Ministers. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate to advocate specific action.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Multi-sensor Platforms (South Africa)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to representatives from the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa to the effect that multi-sensor platforms are being exported by British Aerospace to South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have informed the director of the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa that we are considering his representations carefully. We have invited him to provide specific evidence.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action Her Majesty's Government will take to support the front-line states in the face of continued South African aggression.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have repeatedly condemned cross-border incursions from whatever quarter. As part of our policy of encouraging stability and development in the
  513
  region we will continue to give civil aid and, where appropriate, military training assistance to the front-line states.

  EEC (Staff)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of persons employed in the European Economic Community Commission, the European Parliament, and other European Economic Community institutions, respectively; and what were the comparable totals in 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The tables show the maximum authorised staff establishment for 1979 and 1988. The 1988 total represents a 37 per cent. increase over the 1979 figure. The Community grew from nine to 12 member states during the same period.

  Financial Year 1979

  Institution

  Permanent posts

  Temporary posts

  European parliament

  1,837

  158

  Council:

  1,541

  6

  Economic and social committee

  325

  —

  Commission:

  Operation

  8,302

  278

  Research and investment

  2,636

  135

  Official publications office

  237

  —

  European centre for the development of vocational training

  33

  —

  European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions

  28

  —

  Court of justice

  311

  4

  Court of auditors

  190

  24

  Source: Official journal of the European communities.

  Financial Year 1988: Draft Budget

  Institution

  Permanent posts

  Temporary posts

  Parliament

  2,967

  430

  Council

  2,119

  1

  Economic and social committee

  479

  —

  Commission:

  Operation

  11,518

  388

  Research and investment

  2,664

  480

  Office for official publications

  396

  —

  European centre for the development of vocational training

  57

  —

  European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions

  51

  —

  Court of justice

  612

  46

  Court of auditors

  319

  55

  Source: Provisional Draft Budget of the European Communities: 1988.

  South Georgia
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to control fishing in the waters around South Georgia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1980 fishing around South Georgia has been subject to the provisions of the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources 514
  (CCAMLR). The United Kingdom and a majority of members of the Antarctic treaty are signatories. The CCAMLR Commission have banned fishing for Antarctic cod and in 1987 fixed a total allowable catch (TAC) for mackerel icefish around South Georgia.

  In order to increase knowledge of the conservation needs of the South Georgia fishery, the Commissioner for South Georgia last month commissioned the renewable resources assessment group of Imperial college to analyse all existing relevant data. The results of this study will be presented to CCAMLR on completion.

  Immigration Fees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the fee for settlement and other long-term entry clearances(a) has been increased by around 20 per cent. and (b) is to be charged on a per capita rather than a per passport basis; and what total net income he expects to result from these changes to the end of this year and in subsequent years.

  Mr. Eggar
  (a) Settlement and other long-term applications take substantially longer, and thus cost more, to process than visit applications. The increase in this fee aims to reflect the disparity more closely.

  (b) The amount of work involved in processing a settlement application relates to the number of applicants regardless of whether they are travelling on a single or a family passport. It was therefore decided that all entry clearance fees should henceforth be charged on a per capita rather than a per passport basis.

  It is not expected that there will be any net income. Assuming settlement applications remain at existing levels, estimated additional revenue from these changes is about £500,000.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how much entry clearance fees would have been required to be increased in the current year to recover costs of administering the entry clearance system.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the financial year 1987–88 the subsidy from public funds to the overseas entry clearance operation was about £9 million. With the fee increases introduced on 1 June 1988, it (s estimated the subsidy will be reduced to approximately £6·7 million by the end of the current financial year. Fee revenue would have to be increased by approximately a further 25 per cent. to meet the full cost of the entry clearance operation overseas.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what net income he estimates for the remainder of the current year, and in 1989 from making fees for single entry clearance non-refundable.

  Mr. Eggar
  Estimates can only be tentative at this early stage, but, on the basis of past refusal rates, it is unlikely that more than £300,000 will accrue from the decision to make fees for single entry clearance non-refundable.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why revised entry clearance fees were introduced with effect from 1 June rather than 1 January as in previous years.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no set date for introducing changes to entry clearance fees. The aim is to recover the costs of
  515
  the entry clearance operation by the early 1990s. It was decided that some increases from 1 June 1988 were necessary to meet that longer-term objective.

  Antarctic (Minerals)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the recent Antarctic minerals regime negotiations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities was adopted on 2 June 1988 in Wellington, New Zealand. I am placing copies in the Library today.

EMPLOYMENT

  Careers Officers
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of secondary schools have careers officers; and what guidelines his Department gives them on the performance of their duties.

  Mr. Cope
  On 1 October 1987 there were 3,740 posts for careers officers in local education authorities in England. Careers officers undertake a wide range of duties, including work in secondary schools. Local education authorities decide how careers officers are deployed to carry out their duties.

  Local education authority careers officers perform their functions in accordance with statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State, most recently in March 1988.

  Adult Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training agencies and training managers are planned for each of the 54 Manpower Services Commission areas under the new adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is being locally planned and will be locally delivered. Each of the 57 Training Commission area offices is currently arranging to contract with potential training agents and training managers and the number of contracts will vary from area to area to meet local needs.

  Deptford Skillcentre
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to incorporate the recommendations of the Deptford skillcentre inquiries report into the equal opportunities policies and practices of the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Manpower Services Commission (now the Training Commission) has already investigated and, where necessary, responded to allegations about equal opportunities at Deptford skillcentre.

  The Training Commission is committed to an equal opportunities policy for all its programmes and has taken many steps to put it into effect. As part of this, the Skills Training Agency recently issued an equal opportunities guide for staff and trainees, after consulting the Commission for Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Cooke's Works, Penrhyndeudraeth
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received a report from the Health and Safety Executive following the explosion at ICI Cooke's works, Penrhyndeudraeth on 14 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is currently investigating the explosions and inquiries are still at an early stage. Two of its explosives inspectors have been at the site since 14 June 1988.

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the assessment of the Co-operative Development Agency carried out by his Department during early 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the report of the policy review and financial management survey undertaken in 1987, as part of the general programme of reviews of non-departmental public bodies.

  Disabled Persons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the future funding of workshops offering sheltered employment for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The arrangements for supporting in employment people with severe disabilities falls within the scope of the internal review of the assistance offered by my Department to people with disabilities announced in March. We aim to complete this review as quickly as possible.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adults are registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 on the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage this represents of the total work force.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of adults registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 on 18 April 1988 was 371,631. I regret that the number of adults in the total work force is not available. The only figure available for the total work force is that of the total working population of Great Britain which includes young people. In December 1987 this amounted to 27,212,000 (seasonally adjusted). The number of adults and young people registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 on 18 April 1988 was 374,238. This represented 1·4 per cent. of the total working population in December 1987.

  Part-time Workers (Holiday Pay)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the uniformity of approach of unemployment benefit offices with respect to holiday pay for part-time workers.

  Mr. Lee
  Procedural instructions are common to all UBOs and provide for reference to the independent adjudicating authorities of any unemployment benefit claim where a doubt on entitlement arises. This will
  517
  include doubts on claims made by part time workers who have received holiday pay from employment which has not been finally terminated.

  Earnings
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the proportion of full-time employees earning less that (i) £130 a week and (ii) £140 a week, when overtime earnings are excluded, for men and women separately, in each county in England and in each London borough, as recorded by the 1987 new earnings survey.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  Proportion of full-time employees earning less than £130 and £140 per week excluding overtime payments. Employees on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence; April 1987.

  per cent.

  Counties of England by standard region

  Full-time Men

  Full-time Women

  £130

  £140

  £130

  £140

  Bedfordshire

  17·4

  23·0

  54·4

  61·7

  Berkshire

  14·4

  19·5

  40·1

  49·1

  Buckinghamshire

  18·0

  23·6

  41·5

  50·2

  East Sussex

  29·6

  37·2

  58·4

  64·2

  Essex

  19·3

  24·7

  56·1

  63·0

  Hampshire

  20·6

  27·3

  49·3

  57·3

  Hertfordshire

  13·9

  18·1

  42·0

  50·8

  Isle of Wight

  31·9

  40·4

  ..

  ..

  Kent

  24·1

  30·4

  56·7

  63·0

  Oxfordshire

  20·3

  26·1

  46·8

  57·2

  Surrey

  18·3

  23·81

  41·2

  51·3

  West Sussex

  21·5

  27·0

  47·0

  55·7

  Cambridgeshire

  21·0

  27·6

  54·1

  62·1

  Norfolk

  27·8

  36·0

  60·0

  67·0

  Suffolk

  26·9

  33·3

  55·8

  62·1

  Avon

  19·5

  26·1

  55·9

  64·8

  Cornwall

  35·6

  44·0

  63·4

  73·1

  Devon

  33·2

  41·4

  60·0

  65·8

  Dorset

  25·8

  33·8

  59·6

  66·1

  Gloucestershire

  20·5

  27·8

  55·7

  66·8

  Somerset

  27·2

  34·7

  58·5

  64·4

  Wiltshire

  21·1

  28·5

  58·5

  67·7

  West Midlands MC

  20·1

  26·0

  57·4

  65·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  29·6

  35·9

  61·2

  67·8

  Shropshire

  34·6

  44·5

  66·2

  73·7

  Staffordshire

  27·4

  34·7

  59·3

  65·7

  Warwickshire

  19·3

  25·1

  63·3

  68·9

  Derbyshire

  21·7

  30·4

  63·8

  70·6

  Leicestershire

  25·3

  33·4

  61·0

  69·9

  Lincolnshire

  35·6

  43·2

  69·3

  74·2

  Northamptonshire

  23·4

  30·0

  61·2

  70·0

  Nottinghamshire

  25·0

  31·6

  58·0

  66·9

  South Yorkshire MC

  22·1

  27·6

  60·7

  68·0

  West Yorkshire MC

  26·0

  32·8

  57·7

  65·4

  Humberside

  28·1

  34·1

  61·0

  69·9

  North Yorkshire

  34·4

  41·9

  60·9

  69·4

  Greater Manchester MC

  23·0

  29·7

  56·8

  63·5

  Merseyside MC

  21·9

  28·1

  53·0

  63·5

  Cheshire

  18·0

  24·5

  55·8

  62·2

  Lancashire

  26·9

  34·8

  62·6

  73·7

  Tyne and Wear MC

  20·9

  29·8

  53·7

  64·6

  Cleveland

  18·1

  24·9

  57·0

  63·4

  Cumbria

  19·9

  25·1

  56·2

  67·3

  Durham

  23·4

  30·5

  58·0

  69·0

  Northumberland

  29·8

  36·3

  67·2

  74·3

  518

  London boroughs

  Full-time men

  Full-time women

  £130

  £140

  £130

  £140

  Barking

  9·5

  13·1

  ..

  ..

  Barnet

  11·9

  17·4

  33·0

  42·9

  Bexley

  14·2

  16·5

  42·1

  48·6

  Brent

  13·0

  17·9

  43·0

  51·0

  Bromley

  ..

  ..

  37·3

  44·3

  Camden

  8·5

  12·4

  16·4

  22·8

  Croydon

  14·0

  18·8

  30·9

  40·9

  Ealing

  11·1

  16·7

  42·9

  48·0

  Enfield

  13·2

  21·1

  36·0

  50·8

  Greenwich

  13·7

  18·3

  39·2

  45·6

  Hackney

  ..

  ..

  23·4

  29·7

  Hammersmith

  8·8

  12·6

  24·4

  29·4

  Haringey

  13·2

  19·8

  32·2

  37·3

  Harrow

  8·9

  11·7

  ..

  ..

  Havering

  14·5

  20·1

  40·7

  44·4

  Hillingdon

  11·8

  16·8

  39·8

  51·2

  Hounslow

  7·3

  10·6

  26·2

  32·5

  Islington

  9·6

  14·0

  21·3

  30·5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17·0

  20·8

  22·2

  27·8

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  16·4

  21·0

  32·0

  44·8

  Lambeth

  8·6

  11·7

  21·5

  22·9

  Lewisham

  18·0

  25·8

  ..

  ..

  Merton

  16·0

  20·5

  ..

  ..

  Newham

  13·9

  19·0

  ..

  ..

  Redbridge

  12·0

  19·2

  30·8

  38·3

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  10·2

  14·1

  30·1

  37·9

  Southwark

  10·4

  14·5

  21·5

  27·4

  Sutton

  ..

  ..

  31·2

  42·7

  Tower Hamlets

  12·5

  17·4

  26·2

  30·5

  Waltham Forest

  18·1

  21·5

  29·0

  36·0

  Wandsworth

  13·5

  16·6

  30·3

  37·1

  City of London

  4·5

  6·7

  12·0

  15·2

  City of Westminster

  9·3

  12·8

  13·8

  20·5

  .. denotes not available.

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1987.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Test Results (Seven-year-olds)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet decided whether test results at the age of seven years will be established; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet decided whether test results at the age of seven years will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet decided whether test results at the age of seven years will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 7 June, we have decided that national assessment and test results for individual pupils should not be published. There will be no legal requirement for schools to publish aggregated results for pupils aged seven, but we will strongly recommend them to do so.

  Primary Schools (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding primary schools in rural areas.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations about rural primary schools which are the subject of reorganisation proposals.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received following the publication of the Higginson report on the future of A-level examinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the Higginson report on the future of A-levels.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the future of general certificate of education A-levels examinations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since the report was published on 7 June about 12 representations have been received.

  Biological Sciences (Review)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Advisory Board for the Research Council's review of the biological sciences.

  Mr. Jackson
  The ABRC is establishing a working group to review the disposition between the research councils of responsibilities for the biological sciences. The group will be chaired by Mr. J. R. S. Morris and is expected to report to the board around the end of the year.

  Opting-out Proposals
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received concerning opting-out proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has now received rather more than 1,000 letters about his proposals for grant-maintained schools.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to discuss the provision of speech therapy for children in the special educational needs category; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  No. The provision of speech therapy is the responsibility of district health authorities and not a matter for my Department.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent progress has been made towards the establishment of a permanent body to negotiate schoolteachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have already held preliminary discussions with the local authority associations and teacher unions about the Green Paper on future machinery. I intend to hold further discussions over the next few months.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to 520
  publish figures of the number and type of teachers required to deliver the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to publish figures of the number and type of teachers required to deliver the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Not yet. Firm estimates will depend upon reports from the relevant subject working groups. There are likely to be additional demands in some subjects but not necessarily an increase in numbers overall.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what amount of teaching time will be lost to primary school teachers during the implementation of assessment arrangements for the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Time spent on assessment is not "lost" to teaching, but is an essential part of the teaching. process. The national arrangements will represent a development of present practice designed to improve the effectiveness of assessment in schools for the benefit of parents, pupils and teachers.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will itemise the principal suggestions and elements in any recent public representations received by his Department for the specific contents of the proposed new national core curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has not received any such recent public representations. The targets and programmes of study which my right hon. Friend will propose later this year for English, maths and science will be based on the reports of the working groups on these subjects. In producing their final reports, the working groups on maths and science will take account of detailed responses to their interim reports, and the English group will be considering comments received on the Kingman report on the teaching of English.

  Adult Education (London)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has made for the provision of adult education in inner London following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  Adult education is essentially a local service which should be responsive to local needs and can thus be more effectively organised by the boroughs. There may, however, be scope for certain boroughs to co-operate over certain areas of provision. In addition, there are several high-quality adult education institutions of national repute which carry out a high proportion of advanced work. The Government have made clear their intention to direct the London residuary body to provide financial support for Morley college, the Working Men's college and the Mary Ward centre, all of which are aided colleges. After the London residuary body has been wound up, the Government will be prepared to continue to provide financial support to these institutions as necessary. The Government believe that central funding may also be required for the City Lit.

  Polytechnic Students
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of students entering polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  The figures given are taken from the Department's published "Statistics of Education: Further Education" volumes. Corresponding figures for 1987 are expected to be available in about two months.

  England Polytechnics—First year students1 (Thousands)

  Modes of attendance

  Enrolments on 1 November2

  Full-time and sandwich

  Part-time day and evening only

  Total: all modes

  1982

  64

  49

  113

  1983

  64

  52

  116

  1984

  65

  50

  115

  1985

  67

  53

  120

  1986

  69

  49

  118

  1 First-year students do not align exactly with entrants; some students may repeat the first year of a course and some may enter at the second or later year.

  2 Home, EC and other overseas students on both advanced and non-advanced courses are included.

  Sheffield (Further Education)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the relative merits of further funding city technology colleges and providing teacher funding and investment for the reorganisation of 16-plus education in the city of Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No such assessment has been made since it is for Sheffield local education authority to decide how to deploy its teaching force to best meet the demands following the reorganisation of 16-plus education in Sheffield in September 1988.

  Qualified Teacher Status
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the consultation document "Qualified Teacher Status"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the consultation document "Qualified Teacher Status"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the consultation document "Qualified Teacher Status"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued the consultation document on qualified teacher status on 24 May. Responses are requested by 14 October; a few have already been received by the Department.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the intended time scale for the introduction of foreign language teaching as an internal part of the national curriculum.
  522
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend expects to require all pupils in the first three years of secondary school to study a modern foreign language for a reasonable time from autumn 1989. A similar requirement for pupils in years four and five will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter, taking account of pupil's commitments to studies for GCSE. The introduction of attainment targets, programmes of study and related assessment arrangements must await the setting up of a working group for modern foreign languages. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to set up such a group. His decision to do so will depend on factors such as the outlook for teacher supply and deployment.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in north-east England teach (i) Japanese, (ii) Arabic and (iii) Latin as a normal part of their curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Nursery Education (London)
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any further information as to how the provision of nursery education in inner London boroughs is to be safeguarded following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The inner London boroughs will inherit from ILEA the responsibility for nursery provision in their area. They will not be able to discontinue or curtail significantly any existing nursery schools or classes without the publication and approval of statutory proposals under the Education Act 1980.

  Under-Fives (Provision)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department plans to commission or undertake any survey, review or inquiry into the quality and standard of educational provision for children under five in reception classes in primary schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government believe, and have on various occasions publicly expressed the view, that provision for four-year-olds in reception classes should be appropriate to their stage of development. While no formal investigation is planned, my Department and Her Majesty's Inspectors are monitoring the situation closely. The Department will, from next year, include in the annual statistical return submitted by schools additional questions on admission policies for four-year-olds. M y right hon. Friend believes the availability of experienced teachers to be an important qualitative factor, and he has proposed the inclusion in the LEA training grants scheme for 1989–90 of an appropriate national priority area.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action his Department has taken or is planning to take to ensure that local education authorities implement DES circular 2/73 recommendations on hours of attendance, staffing, and so on, for children under five years in reception classes in primary schools.
  523
  Mr. Dunn
  The Government have no plans to require local education authorities to implement the guidelines in circular 2/73, whose detailed recommendations have been largely overtaken by events.

  Mrs. Llin Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline his Department's strategy for improving the provision of education for children under five years.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures his Department is taking to encourage an increase in the number of full-time nursery education places for children aged three and four years old.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Members to the replies that I have given today to the hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).

  Local Government Act 1988
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he is issuing to local education authorities and school governors about the application of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Advice on the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 was issued to all local authorities on 20 May under the Department of the Environment circular 12/88. Section 28 of the Act relates to the activities of local authorities and there are no plans to issue separate advice to school governors. Copies of Department of Education and Science circular 11/87 "Sex Education at School" were sent to all schools in England and Wales in September 1987. The circular makes clear that there is no place in any school in any circumstances for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the norm, or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils.

  GCSE
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is in a position to assess the success of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is in a position to assess the success of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Her Majesty's inspectorate's interim report on the GCSE provided reassuring evidence that the new examination is being successfully introduced and is already leading to better teaching and learning in many schools. HMI is continuing to monitor progress and will publish a further report in the autumn. The Secondary Examinations Council (SEC) and the examining groups are already reviewing syllabuses and procedures.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements are being made for those candidates who wish to resit this summer's GCSE examination, including those where an assessment of course work is part of the examination; and if he will make a statement.
  524
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The GCSE examining groups will provide opportunities for pupils to resit GCSE in the winter on a comparable basis to what was available in the past for O-level and GCSE examinations. The groups have also generally made arrangements for GCSE coursework to be carried forward in circumstances where a pupil changes school during the course or resits the examination. Detailed information relating to the arrangements in a particular subject or syllabus is available from the group concerned.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many cases of incorrect or late arrival of GCSE papers have been reported; what were the comparable figures under the previous GCE/CSE system; and what steps he is taking to ensure that no further such errors occur.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The distribution of GCSE papers is entirely the responsibility of the examining groups. The Secondary Examinations Council and the examining groups are collaborating to review the experience of the first GCSE examinations this summer and to make any necessary administrative improvements quickly.

  Science Base (Report)
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the Advisory Board for the Research Council's report entitled "A Strategy for the Science Base".

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 17 May to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) at column 394.

  Teachers (Collective Bargaining Rights)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received seeking the restoration of collective bargaining rights for teachers and their organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received various responses from teacher unions and local authority associations to the Green Paper "Teachers' Pay and Conditions: A Consultative Document." He will be holding discussions about future machinery with interested parties over the next few months.

  School Building Maintenance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what extra funding his Department is planning to provide for school building maintenance over the next three years, in the light of the report "Local Authority Property: a Management Handbook and a Management Overview."

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government's expenditure plans already include provision for local authority spending on repairs and maintenance of school buildings to increase each year. The expenditure plans for 1988–89 provide for authorities to spend 40 per cent. more in cash on the repair and maintenance of schools than in 1985–86.

  Head Teachers (Training)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the training of head teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend recognises the importance of systematic and well-targeted training for senior teachers with a management responsibility. He proposes in 1989–90 to extend the national priority area covering management training within the LEA training grants scheme and he is now setting up a new task force on the management training of heads.

  Anti-Racist Measures
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards anti-racist measures adopted by education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is Government policy that ethnic minority pupils should have the same opportunity as all others to profit from what the schools can offer them and that schools should preserve and transmit our national values in a way which accepts Britain's ethnic diversity and promotes tolerance and racial harmony. It is for individual local education authorities and schools to determine, in the light of their own needs and circumstances, how to give effect to those policies.

  Nurseries
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action his Department is taking to encourage the establishment of nurseries in institutions of further and higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. The provision of nursery facilities is a matter for individual institutions.

  Teachers (Salary Structure)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he held any discussions with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities before announcing the latest salary structure for teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend held discussions with representatives of the National Employers Organisation (School Teachers), representing both metropolitan and non-metropolitan authorities, before making his announcement on 26 May.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the future of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about progress in relation to his plans for city technology colleges.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the progress on city technology colleges.
  526
  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 17 May at column 392. Since that date BAT industries and others have announced their sponsorship of a Teesside CTC in Middlesbrough.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the financing of city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).

  Interdisciplinary Research Centres
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional funding he is providing for the new interdisciplinary research centres.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 13 April at column 135.

  University Education (Funding)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next proposes to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the future funding of university education.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are no present plans for such a meeting. The committee recently conveyed its views in writing.

  Children's Playgrounds
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on children's playgrounds in the light of the Consumers' Association survey on children's playgrounds, published in April, a copy of which has been forwarded to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government welcome this report by the Consumers' Association which will be of interest to everyone with a responsibility for children's playgrounds and should be useful to them in reviewing their policies and practices. The Department's general requirements on school playgrounds are set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 which require up to two thirds of a school's recreation area to be paved or have a hard porous surface. The remaining area need not be paved.

  16-plus Education
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Government have any proposals to improve the staying-on rate at the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Government have any proposals to improve the staying-on rate at the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are committed to increasing the post-16 participation rate in education and
  527
  training. The proposal in the Education Reform Bill will help to secure that by giving more young people the motivation and the qualifications they need to stay on after 16. The Government are also working to broaden the range of opportunities available to those who want to stay on; to ensure that young people know what their options are; to give greater coherence to the pattern of post-16 vocational qualifications; and to bring home to both young people and employers the vital importance of education and training.

  Cleveland
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last visited a school in Cleveland; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend visited the site of the new city technology college in Middlesborough on Thursday 16 June, for the announcement of the BAT sponsorship of the college.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about Her Majesty's Government policy towards encouraging nursery education.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations recently.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to make it a statutory duty of local education authorities to provide education for three and four-year-old children of parents who wish their children to benefit from it.

  Mr. Dunn
  No. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to judge the extent and form of provision for the under-fives appropriate to their circumstances, in the light of local demand.

  National Association of Head Teachers
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to meet the leaders of the National Association of Head Teachers; and what issue he will discuss.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend last met leaders of the National Association of Head Teachers on 11 May to discuss the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. He also addressed its annual conference on 3 June. No date has been set for a further meeting with the National Association of Head Teachers.

  Latin
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will estimate the number of school children studying Latin to O-level.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1985–86, the latest year for which information is available, the number of school leavers attempting O-level classics (including Latin, Greek/Greek translation, general classics and ancient history) was 24,560.

  New Polytechnic, Kent
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to designate a new polytechnic in Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. However, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council that will be established following the passage of the Education Reform Bill will be asked to include among its early tasks an assessment of whether any further designations would be appropriate.

  Basic Science (Funding)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to the proposal by the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council that funding of basic science should be a fixed proportion of gross domestic product, with the proportion to be reviewed every four years.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have noted the proposal in Professor Mitchell's recent lecture. The possibility of a link between part or all of the science budget and the growth of GDP was also suggested in the ABRC's discussion document, "A Strategy for the Science Base." We are currently considering the ABRC's recommendations and the comments on them which we have received from the higher education and scientific communities. My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement later in the year on the Government's policy objectives for the science base and the steps we will be taking to achieve them.

  School Meals
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy on the nutritional content of school meals.

  Mr. Dunn
  Under the provisions of the Education Act 1980, the nutritional content of school meals is the responsibility of individual local education authorities. Many LEAs are promoting healthy eating options, often supported by work in the classroom and through marketing campaigns. The Government support such approaches.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the working parties established in relation to the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes).

  Student Funding
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on progress in relation to his plans to review methods of student funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley).

  Parental Involvement
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received upon involving parents further in their children's education.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters from hon. Members and others on this subject. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 increased the representation of parents on school governing bodies, and provided for more information to be give to parents. The proposals in the Education Reform Bill will further enhance parents' influence.

  Schools (Discipline)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the maintenance of discipline in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since my right hon. Friend announced the establishment of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools on 18 March this year, we have received about 80 letters on the general subject of discipline in schools from hon. Members and others.

  Universities (Funding)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the current level of Government funding of the universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations bearing on present and prospective university funding.

TRANSPORT

  Ports (Employment)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the change in the number of people employed in United Kingdom ports and associated employment since(a) 1978, (b) 1968 and (c)

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The following figures, published annually in "Port Statistics" by my Department and the British Ports Association, are estimates of the number of people employed in the port transport industry. They are derived from the Department of Employment's standard industrial classification. Because of changes in the definition of the classification, the figure for 1986 (the latest available year) may be rather lower than an entirely consistent series would have given. The figures relate to Great Britain and to the middle of each year.

  Employees

  1958

  1155,450

  1968

  129,625

  1978

  62,600

  1986

  35,100

  530
  1 Including perhaps some 8,000 employed in inland waterway transport and other ancillary industries.

  A separate survey undertaken by the British Ports Association and National Association of Port Employers in March 1987 produced a total for Great Britain of 38,989.

  Leeds/Bradford Airport
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many representations he has received in favour of extending the operating hours of Leeds/Bradford airport;

  (2) when he will make a decision about the hours during which Leeds/Bradford airport may be used.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of such representations have been received. The decision, to be made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, will be announced as soon as possible.

  Vehicles (Lighting Standards)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the upper and lower standards of illumination for lights on motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1984 require nearly all lights on vehicles to meet European standards of performance. These cover both maximum and minimum levels of intensity for a large number of individual types of light.

  Marine Surveyors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there was any change in his Department's plans for the number of marine surveyors to be employed in any of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 as a consequence of the capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Yes. For 1988–89 and subsequent years, the planned level of staffing in the Surveyor General's organisation has been increased compared with previous plans, to provide for additional inspection work on roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries.

  Greater London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report all studies and investigations he has announced concerning the planning or improvement to all modes of transport in the Greater London area, stating, for each, the purpose of the study, by whom it is being undertaken and the date of expected publication.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have announced the following relevant studies and investigations which are yet to be completed:
  531

  Study

  Purpose

  Undertaker

  Expected publication date

  Stage 2 of London Assessment Studies

  To indentify practical options for tackling transport problems in four areas of London

  Ove Arup and Partners, Travers Morgan Planning, Mott Hay and Anderson, Sir William Halcrow and Partners

  Spring-early summer 1989

  Western Environmental Im-provement Route

  Investigation into carriageway standards, junctions and associated management measures

  Husband and Co.

  Public Consul ta-tion on study options by end 1988

  Trunk Road Signing Review

  To review London's trunk road signing with a view to the provision of better information along main routes

  MVA Consultancy

  No plans

  Development of Traffic Management and Accident Prevention Measures

  To examine systematically all traffic management measures currently used on trunk roads

  W. S. Atkins and Partners

  No plans

  M25 Review

  To assess traffic trends on M25 and adjacent radial routes, identify existing and potential problem areas and recommend solutions

  Rendel, Palmer and Tritton

  No plans

  M25 Widening Study

  To investigate the best way of providing a fourth lane in each direction between junctions 15 and 16

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners

  No plans

  Central London Rail Study

  To develop a strategy for improving services in the Central London area and to provide for forecast demand up to the end of the century while maximising the use of existing assets

  Joint study by Department of Transport British Rail and London Regional Transport

  An initial report is expected in July. Further work will be required before publication is considered

  Central London Employment Trends

  To provide an appreciation of likely future trends in employment in London and hence in demand for rail services

  Joint study by Department of Transport and British Rail

  Expected to report early 1989

  Channel Tunnel Rail Capacity Study

  To examine options for increasing route, seating and terminal capacity between London and Channel tunnel in the longer term

  British Rail

  By BR in July 1988

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report, for each of the last five years, the numbers of people killed or injured on roads in South Killingholme, Immingham, Flamborough, Brockelsby, Melton Ross, Croxton, Keelby, and Great Limber, by age group.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  I shall write to the hon. Member.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Schoolchildren (Illegal Employment)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the illegal employment of school-age children.

  Mrs. Currie
  No information is available on children who may be employed illegally.

  The Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, which applies to Great Britain, prohibits the employment of children in industrial undertakings. The Health and Safety Executive has
  532
  powers under this Act to take immediate action if a child is found to be working illegally in any such employment; and through its agricultural inspectorate to enforce legislation which prohibits the employment or involvement of children in certain agricultural operations.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which applies to England and Wales, prohibits the employment of children under 13 and restricts the part-time employment of children between the ages of 13 and 16. Local authority byelaws made under this Act place further restrictions on the hours and occupations of schoolchildren's employment. Local authorities have powers, which are usually exercised through the educational welfare service, to enforce the byelaws and, under section 59 of the Education Act 1944, which also applies to England and Wales, to prohibit or restrict the employment of any child.

  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the population served by each district health authority in the Oxford region in 1986–87, 1987–88 and the forecast for 1988–89; and what was the per capita expenditure for each district in these three years.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested for 1986–87, together with the projected population figures for 1987–88
  533
  and 1988–89 is shown in the table. Figures from the accounts of each health authority for 1987–88 will be available in the autumn. However, for that year and forecast expenditure figures for each district for 1988–89

  1986–87

  Total revenue expenditure

  Population (thousands)

  Revenue expenditure per capita

  Projected population (thousands)

  £000s

  £

  1987–88

  1988–89

  East Berkshire

  54,411

  361·3

  151

  364·2

  365·7

  West Berkshire

  72,384

  445·0

  163

  448·9

  453·9

  Aylesbury Vale

  41,497

  142·5

  291

  142·5

  143·9

  Wycombe

  29,943

  271·6

  110

  271·9

  271·7

  Milton Keynes

  21,031

  161·8

  130

  166·3

  172·6

  Kettering

  32,749

  253·2

  129

  252·6

  253·9

  Northampton

  57,013

  301·3

  189

  303·6

  307·3

  Oxfordshire

  110,946

  539·6

  206

  543·8

  549·1

  Sources

  a. 1986–87 annual accounts of the district health authorities

  b. Mid-year estimates of population 1986. Population figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are 1985 based projections (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes

  1. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded. Such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees and cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions or districts.

  2. Significant variations in per capita expenditure figures at district level arise principally because:

  i. people travel across boundaries for treatment and sub-regional resource allocations reflect the pattern of service provision locally.

  ii. the population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one district who receive treatment in another or for the difference in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for (1) what is the budgeted expenditure for Oxford regional health authority for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89; and what was the increase between the two years;

  (2) what is the budgeted expenditure for each district health authority in the Oxford regional health authority for 1987–88 and 1988–89; and what is the percentage increase for each.

  Mr. Newton
  The table provides the information requested for the Oxford region in terms of net cash limits.

  Similar information for each district within the Oxford region is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman of the Oxford RHA for this information.

  Oxford RHA

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  £ million

  Cash

  Real terms

  Revenue cash limit1

  2475·8

  3521·2

  9·54

  4·82

  1 Net of income.

  2 Adjusted cash limit ie initial cash limit and subsequent adjustments (including additions from waiting list fund and following 1987 review body pay awards).

  3 Initial cash limit and subsequent additions from waiting list fund and following 1988 review body pay awards.

  Leaflets
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects his Department's offices will have a full stock of all leaflets.

  Mr. Portillo
  The few outstanding leaflets referring to the April 1988 social security reforms will be available in local social security offices in the first week of July.
  534
  (which are not collected centrally) my hon. Friend may wish to approach the chairman of the Oxford regional health authority who may be able to assist.

  Doctors (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many doctors are currently employed by the National Health Service in Derbyshire; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The information in the table shows the total number of hospital and community health service medical staff based on whole-time equivalents at 30 September each year. The figures exclude all consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authority. There will therefore be more doctors actually working in Derbyshire than accounted for in the table.

  Hospital and community health service medical staff at 30 September each year

  Derbyshire

  Whole-time equivalent

  1979

  250

  1986

  290

  Note:
  Figures include permanent paid, honorary and locum staff but exclude consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authorities. Distribution of consultants and senior registrars within non-teaching district health authorities is not collected centrally. Figures are rounded to nearest 10.

  Paediatric Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps have been taken by his Department to deal with the shortage of paediatric occupational therapists.

  Mr. Newton
  The joint DHSS/NHS manpower planning advisory group has commissioned a study to look at future staffing and skill mix in occupational therapy.

  The project does not single out paediatric occupational therapists as a particular group but will cover the profession as a whole.
  535
  Preliminary results will be available in late 1989.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the qualifying years for home responsibilities protection to include tax years before 1978; and if he will estimate the cost of such an increase.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so. It is very difficult to arrive at a precise costing, but the best estimate would suggest a cost of several hundred million pounds.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 265, he will make it his policy in future, when producing statistics about rates of HIV infection, to make clear whether the figures are based on reported cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The statistics for HIV infection which the Department publishes in the regular quarterly reports have always been based on cases of HIV seropositivity and AIDS which are reported to the national surveillance centres. This is always explained in the text which accompanies the statistics.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what response he has made to representations by the Family Planning Association to the effect that cuts in family planning clinics are increasing the risk of young people catching HIV infection.

  Mr. Newton
  In correspondence with the Family Planning Association I have expressed the view that public awareness of the risks of transmission of HIV infection and the consequent demands on the services of family planning clinics are among the issues for health authorities to consider in determining the level of local provision.

  AIDS
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all funds or grants made available to National Health Service laboratories, hospitals or consultants for the purpose of conducting research on HIV infection or AIDS by the following organisations: (i) the Wellcome Foundation, (ii) Burroughs Wellcome, (iii)536
  Abbot Laboratories, (iv) du Pont and (v) Glaxo, identifying the organisation, amount, principal recipient and purpose of grant.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information is not held centrally. However, the Department is administering, at the request of Abbot Laboratories, the allocation of £65,000 set aside by Abbot for travel fellowships, to allow health care professionals who are undertaking research into AIDS or HIV infection to travel to the United states of America to meet other researchers working in the same field. So far eight fellowships have been awarded.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has authorised for use within the National Health Service any anti-HIV antibody test which has not previously been the subject of an evaluation as to efficiency conducted by or on behalf of his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  Anti-HIV antibody tests employed in the National Health Service do not require authorisation from the Department.

  The Department seeks to evaluate commercially available HIV tests on a systematic basis, and makes the reports of these evaluations available to the NHS and other interested parties, but we do not authorise particular test kits.

  Doctors (Competition)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department will be contributing to the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry into the competitive position of doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Director General of Fair Trading has now referred the question of restrictions on doctors' advertising to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I understand that officials from this Department will be invited to give evidence to the commission.

  Income Support
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of recipients of housing benefit supplement prior to 4 April who qualify for income support, and what proportion are pensioners.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available to enable us to make such an estimate.

  Income Support
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, he is empowered to direct that payments of income support relating to accommodation charges be made direct to the organisation providing the accommodation in cases where such charges have been incurred, but the claimant has moved on between the date of claim and the first pay day.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 16 June at column 281.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether payment direct to the creditor of a debt owed by an income support claimant would be treated as income of the claimant under regulation 42(4)(a)(ii) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  A single payment made by a third party to a creditor of a debt would normally be treated as part of the claimant's capital under regulation 51(3)(a)(ii) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 if it were used in respect of food, clothing, footwear, fuel or certain accommodation costs. Payments made regularly by a third party could he treated as income of the claimant under regulation 42(4)(a)(ii) if they were used in respect of these items. The first £5 a week of these payments would be disregarded.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if the moneys paid to National Health Service managers through the performance related bonus scheme are financed(a) centrally, (b) from district or (c) from regional budgets.

  Mr. Newton
  Health authorities are expected to meet all pay costs including performance related pay for managers from their overall cash allocations.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the current National Health Service review on ambulance purchase will be concluded.

  Mrs. Currie
  The review of purchasing policy for NHS ambulances is expected to be completed later this year.

  Foetal Tissue
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) pursuant to his reply of 7 June to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos),Official Report, columns 557–58, if he will list the members of the ethical committees which approved the use of human foetal tissue in the transplant operations to which he refers;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 7 June to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), Official Report, columns 557–58,upon what information he based his understanding that the ethical committees to which he refers considered the issues involved in the use of foetal tissue in transplant operations with care and over a long period of time;
  538
  (3) pursuant to his reply of 7 June to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), Official Report, columns 557–58,upon what date the ethical committees to which he refers first deliberated upon each of the applications for permission to transplant human foetal tissue; on how many separate days such deliberations continued in each case; and on what date a decision finally was minuted in each case.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) of 7 June,Official Report, column 557, he wall now take steps to hold centrally the lists of names of members of ethical committees; and if he will list the members of all the ethical committees which approved the use of foetal tissue in the transplant operations to which he refers.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand, the ethical committee at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and neurology has discussed Professor Hitchcock's work on using transplantation techniques to treat Parkinsonism on a number of occasions since 1982. The specific procedure referred to was first discussed in February last year when further information was called for. A decision to authorise it was taken in December. The members of the ethical committee who considered this procedure were:

  Dr. J. M. Anderson, Consultant neurologist (December 1987 only)

  Mrs. B. J. Baker, Senior Nurse Manager

  Dr. S. W. Chauda, Neuro-radiologist (February 1987 only)

  Dr. J. Milligan, General Practitioner

  Dr. M. V. Salmon, Neuro-pathologist

  Dr. R. J. West, Neuro-radiologist

  Mrs. M. Wilkes, Community Health Council

  Mr. J. Ballantyne, Hospital Administrator and Secretary to the Committee

  Professor Hitchcock himself is also a member of the committee, but I understand attended the relevant meetings primarily to speak to his protocol and would have been excluded from any vote.

  We have no plans to hold the names of local ethical committee members centrally.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 7 June to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos),Official Report, columns 557–58, if he will arrange for the publication in the Official Report of the text of the declaration which was signed by the mothers in the cases to which he refers in which human foetal tissue was used in transplant operations.

  Mr. Newton
  The text of the declaration referred to was as follows:"I have no special wishes concerning the disposal of material arising from my pregnancy."

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 7 June to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos),Official Report, columns 557–58, whether, during the course of the prolonged and careful deliberation by ethical committees to which he refers, any of those committees sought advice from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Research Findings (Publication)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the chairman of the university vice-chancellors, Sir Mark Richmond's letter to him about the Government's proposal on the right to republish research findings, he proposes to reconsider these proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have taken careful note of the points Sir Mark made in his recent letter, but we have no plans to change our policy.

  Obstetricians
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultant obstetricians are employed by each of the outer London health districts.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally. Information on medical staff in the NHS is collected by the employing authority. Employing authorities for consultants are regional health authorities, district health authorities designated for undergraduate teaching purposes, and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  NHS (Technicians)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy for bringing about an improvement in the salaries of cardiac technicians, physiological measurement technicians, employed by the National Health Service; what information he has on the difficulty of recruiting and retaining student technicians due to low rates of pay; and if he will institute a review of the basis upon which this group of technicians are paid.

  Mr. Newton
  I presume that my hon. Friend refers to physiological measurement technicians (cardiology). Their pay and conditions of service are matters for negotiation in the professional and technical staffs B Whitley council and I understand the management side recently offered a 5·5 per cent. increase in pay and allowances for physiological measurement technicians. The staff side is consulting its members on the offer. I am not aware of any reports of difficulty in recruiting and retaining student technicians. The number of students in post since 1979 has increased by over 10 per cent.

  Körner Committee
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost to date of implementing the recommendations of the Körner committee.

  Mr. Newton
  s: Regional health authorities are responsible for implementing Körner; information about costs is not held centrally. The major expenditure has been on the implementation of operational computer systems to facilitate patient management and personnel administration, which provide Körner data as a by-product.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that holiday pay is taken into account as part of a woman's earnings for purposes of calculating statutory maternity pay.
  540
  Mr. Portillo
  Under current provisions employers are already required to take into account in calculating statutory maternity pay entitlement any contractual payment which is made during the test period, and which is treated as earnings for national insurance contribution purposes. This can include holiday pay.

  Blind Persons
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates is the total annual cost of a blind person to the Exchequer, indicating what proportion is resourced from central Government and local government, respectively.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that information is not available centrally in the form required.

  Single European Market
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes will be necessary in United Kingdom health and social services legislation in order to satisfy the harmonisation requirements of the European Community for the achievement of the single market in 1992.

  Mrs. Currie
  Provision of health and social services as such does not fall within the terms of the treaty establishing the European Community and therefore no change in the basic legislation covering their operation is likely. In other areas, for example the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, compliance with harmonised safety requirements for medical devices and supplies, authorisation and pricing arrangements for medicinal products and measures for the health and safety of workers, legislative changes may be necessary, depending on the measures adopted by the Community, which could affect the health and social services. The proposals for the approximation of duties on tobacco and alcohol, the labelling of tobacco products and the tar yield of cigarettes also have important health implications.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the qualification for the payment of a contribution towards funeral expenses to widows following the death of the spouse or a dependent relative.

  Mr. Portillo
  We do not plan such a review. Regulated provision is made under the social fund for claims to be made by anyone, including widows, who is awarded either income support, family credit or housing benefit who has to take responsibility for a funeral and needs help to meet the expenses involved. For this purpose, particular provision is made to disregard, for 12 months, the £1,000 lump sum payable to widows when calculating the amount which may be paid under the social fund.

  Health and Social Service Benefit
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what entitlement to health and social service benefit(a) citizens of Eire and (b) citizens of Commonwealth countries have in the United Kingdom; and if these rights are reciprocal for United Kingdom citizens in Eire.
  541
  Mrs. Currie
  All people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom are eligible to use the full range of NHS facilities and the personal social services regardless of their own nationality. For health benefit the position in respect of temporary visitors from overseas depends on country of origin. All citizens of EC countries who are resident in the Community may obtain immediately necessary treatment for health conditions arising during a visit on the same terms as residents of the host country, by virtue of the EC social security regulations; this includes Irish visitors to the United Kingdom and United Kingdom visitors to Ireland. Similar arrangements for immediately necessary treatment exist for visitors from Australia, Malta and New Zealand, member countries of the Commonwealth with which the United Kingdom has concluded bilateral health care agreements. Visitors from other Commonwealth countries must pay for treatment received in the United Kingdom though they may do so through private insurance. United Kingdom citizens resident in Ireland are covered by the Irish health care scheme.

  Entitlement to income support (social service benefit) is dependent on immigration status. People from Commonwealth countries who are accepted for permanment settlement here are entitled to income support in the same way as United Kingdom citizens. Temporary visitors (students, tourists, business people) however, are only admitted if the immigration officer is satisfied that they will not have recourse to public funds.

  There are no immigration controls between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Consequently Irish citizens can claim income support in the same way as British citizens, and similarly British citizens can claim social welfare whilst in Ireland on the same terms as Irish citizens.

  Glue Ear
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of glue ear are currently diagnosed annually in children; and what were the figures in the previous five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information available centrally relates to treatment in NHS hospitals. The table shows the most recent data on the number of patients treated in NHS hospitals with a main diagnosis of chronic mucoid otitis media (ICD1 381.2).

  0–14 years

  15 years and over

  All ages

  1985

  12,980

  720

  13,700

  1984

  11,320

  700

  12,020

  1983

  9,920

  570

  10,490

  1982

  8,070

  490

  8,560

  1 ICD: International Classification of Diseases.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting time for admission of children to hospital for operations in connection with treatment for glue ear in each regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on waiting times for operations carried out in NHS hospitals is not collected centrally by diagnosis of the patient, but according to the type of surgical operation or procedure performed. A number of different operations are performed for the 542
  treatment of glue ear; the principal one is myringotomy/tympanostomy, for which information on waiting times of patients treated in 1985 (the latest year for which information is held centrally) is given in the table.

  Median waiting time in weeks between the time a patient was placed on the waiting list and admission to an NHS hospital in England for myringotomy/tympanostomy, by age and region of residence, 1985

  Region of residence

  Median waiting time (weeks)

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  All ages

  Northern

  12

  11

  11

  Yorkshire

  9

  10

  10

  Trent

  10

  15

  13

  East Anglian

  6

  11

  10

  North West Thames

  7

  8

  8

  North East Thames

  8

  11

  9

  South East Thames

  10

  12

  10

  South West Thames

  11

  10

  10

  Wessex

  10

  12

  12

  Oxford

  7

  11

  9

  South Western

  10

  9

  9

  West Midlands

  7

  12

  9

  Mersey

  7

  9

  8

  North Western

  11

  11

  11

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether his Department issues any guidance to doctors about recognising behavioural changes in young children as a symptom of the onset of deafness due to glue ear;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to establish a committee of inquiry to take evidence from those with experience of the condition glue ear and to make recommendations as to how treatment of the condition can be improved.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have issued guidance in the past on various screening and diagnostic services for hearing-impaired children. In order to obtain more up-to-date information, we commissioned research in 1985 from the Medical Research Council Institute for Hearing Research. The results, which include various considerations in respect of otitis media or glue ear, were received recently. When these have been studied we should be in a much better position to take matters forward.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of persons in low-income families in England (i) on supplementary benefit, (ii) below 100 per cent. of supplementary benefit and (iii) below 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit, for each of the years 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985, as reported for Great Britain in the Department of Health and Social Security low-income families tables.

  Mr. Portillo
  A reply can be supplied only at disproportionate cost. In addition, however, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 May at columns 413–14.

  NHS Patients (Physiotherapy)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his question of 12 April,Official Report, column 343, what is his policy towards the treatment of National Health Service patients in need of physiotherapy outside the National Health Service by non-state registered physiotherapists.
  543
  Mr. Newton
  Physiotherapy treatment for National Health Service patients is provided within the National Health Service by state registered physiotherapists. Where an NHS patient is referred outside for treatment, which is likely to be only in very unusual circumstances, there is no formal requirement that the physiotherapist should be state registered. Outside the NHS patients have the right to choose to seek treatment both from physiotherapists who are state registered and from those who are not.

  Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1983
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why the word "extra" was omitted from paragraph 14(e) of schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980 were amended, before they took effect on 24 November 1980, to omit the word "extra" from column 2 of paragraph 13(e) to schedule 3. This was done to avoid the great difficulty of requiring the adjudication officer to establish the cost of a normal diet in order to determine the extra cost of a special one.

  Women's Refuges
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to protect the financial situation of women's refuges in any changes resulting from the review of board and lodging payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have commissioned a study by the Policy Studies Institute into the characteristics of hostels, including women's refuges, providing accommodation for income support recipients. We expect to receive the results shortly. In the meantime, no decisions have been taken on future arrangements for paying these claimants.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people, at the latest date for which information is available, were in receipt of(a) invalidity benefit, (b) invalidity benefit and supplementary benefit, (c) severe disablement allowance and (d) severe disablement allowance and supplementary benefit;

  (2) how many people were in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 899,000 at April 1986

  (b) 112,000 at May 1987

  (c) 261,000 at April 1986

  (d) 136,000 at May 1987

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time taken between the date of claim for severe disablement allowance and the date of the decision on that claim where(a) the claimant is not required to undergo the 80 per cent. disablement test and (b) the claimant is required to undergo the 80 per cent. disablement test.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available.
  544
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for severe disablement allowance were made in each of the years 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows, based on calendar years.

  Claims

  1984

  19,398

  1985

  46,997

  1986

  38,508

  1987

  41,323

  1988

  221,835

  1 Severe disablement allowance first became payable on 29 November 1984.

  2 Up to 30 April, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the classification of refusals of severe disablement allowance to(a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women according to the following reasons: (i) over pension age, (ii) not incapable of work, (iii) failed the 80 per cent. disablement test, (iv) failed the residence and presence conditions and (v) other;

  (2) what is the classification of awards of severe disablement allowance to date to (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women according to whether they (i) were exempt from the 80 per cent. of disablement, (ii) were passported to the 80 per cent. test or (iii) passed the 80 per cent. test;

  (3) how many (a) favourable and (b) unfavourable decisions on applications for severe disablement allowance have been made to date.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to her on 23 July 1987 at columns 488–90. Since April 1987 statistics for severe disablement allowance have been collected on the same basis as those for sickness and invalidity benefit and updated information in the form requested is not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many appeals there were, for each of the years 1984 to 1988, against refusals of severe disablement allowance because the claimant was judged not to satisfy the test of 80 per cent. disablement; and how many of these appeals resulted in the claimant being awarded severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not readily available on the grounds of appeal or the satisfaction or otherwise of the 80 per cent. disablement test. The available information on severe disablement is provided in the table. National administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals are not available in the equivalent form prior to the second quarter of 1984, while the latest available figures are for the third quarter of 1987.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals (Great Britain)

  Severe Disablement Allowance Appeals

  Period

  Number of appeals lodged

  Number of appeals heard

  Number decided in claimants favour

  April—December 1984

  118

  1

  —

  Year ending December 1985

  1204

  87

  14

  Year ending December 1986

  1227

  138

  53

  545

  Period

  Number of appeals lodged

  Number of appeals heard

  Number decided in claimants favour

  Quarter ending March 1987

  151

  27

  12

  Quarter ending June 1987

  60

  32

  9

  Quarter ending September 1987

  54

  30

  11

  1 Estimated.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time taken between the date of a claim for invalidity benefit and the date of a decision on that claim.

  Mr. Portillo
  As at 8 April 1988 the average time taken between the date of claim to sickness and invalidity benefit and a decision on the claim was 11 days.

  Separate records are not kept of the number of claimants to sickness benefit and invalidity benefit.

  Clinical Thermometers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East on 16 June, what evidence he has of British producers of clinical thermometers having difficulties in exporting their products to the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no evidence that the one existing United Kingdom producer of clinical thermometers covered by directive 76/764/EEC has difficulty in exporting his products to Europe. But under present arrangements the manufacturer needs to have his products tested by BSI in respect of sales to the NHS and also separately in Germany for the purpose of having the EEC mark applied in respect of sales elsewhere in Europe. When regulations are laid to give effect to the directive it is expected that the manufacturer will be able to reduce costs and simplify arrangements by using a single British or other approved test house to cover approval for home and export sales.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East of 16 June, when he will be in a position to give the national outstanding total of single payment claims as at 31 May.

  Mr. Portillo
  I expect to be able to do so shortly.

  Total revenue expenditure

  Per annual accounts

  Percentage increase/ (decrease)

  At 1986–87 prices

  Percentage increase/ (decrease) at 1987–87 prices

  On preceding year

  On 1982–83

  On preceding year

  On 1982–83

  £000

  £000

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  1982–83

  18,694

  —

  —

  22,364

  —

  —

  1983–84

  19,861

  6·24

  6·24

  22,693

  1·47

  1·47

  Virus Reference Laboratory
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if any members of the virus reference laboratory of the public health laboratory services are now or have at any time been employed as consultants by Burroughs Wellcome.

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised that to the best of the knowledge of the public health laboratory service no member of the staff of the PEELS virus reference laboratory has ever been employed by or received payments from Burroughs Wellcome.

  Cockroaches (Human Diseases)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the human diseases that are spread by cockroaches in the United States of America.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that although cockroaches may occasionally contaminate food, they are not "carriers" for any human disease. No specific information about the USA has been drawn to the Department's attention.

  Resettlement Unit, Worsley
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is able to make an announcement concerning the future of the resettlement unit at Worsley, Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A review team consisting of representatives of voluntary and statutory organisations has recently submitted a package of proposals for the funding of schemes dealing with the resettlement of homeless people, to replace the services provided by the Worsley resettlement unit. The schemes would provide smaller facilities in Bury, Rochdale, Salford, Oldham, Tameside, Wigan, Leigh, Stockport, Bolton and Manchester. I have agreed these proposals, and detailed arrangements for local buildings and sites will now be considered. The resettlement unit will eventually close although no actual closure date has yet been arranged.

  Health Authorities (Revenue)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes in revenue have been made in the Northern regional health authority and Sunderland district health authority during the last five years for which figures are available, both in cash and real terms and as percentages.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 31 March 1988]: Following are the figures for total revenue expenditure and percentage changes over the latest available five-year period for the health authorities requested and the northern region as a whole:
  547

  Per annual accounts

  Percentage increase/ (decrease)

  At 1986–87 prices

  Percentage increase/ (decrease) at 1987–87 prices

  On preceding year

  On 1982–83

  On preceding year

  On 1982–83

  £000

  £000

  1984–85

  20,834

  4·90

  11·45

  22,798

  0·46

  1·94

  1985–86

  22,432

  7·67

  20·00

  23,163

  1·60

  3·57

  1986–87

  22,735

  1·35

  21·62

  22,735

  (1·85)

  1·66

  Sunderland Health Authority

  1982–83

  47,938

  —

  —

  57,349

  —

  —

  1983–84

  51,432

  7·29

  7·29

  58,767

  2·47

  2·47

  1984–85

  54,000

  4·99

  12·65

  59,089

  0·55

  3·03

  1985–86

  57,580

  6·63

  20·11

  59,457

  0·62

  3·68

  1986–87

  61,197

  6·28

  27·66

  61,197

  2·93

  6·71

  Northern Region1

  1982–83

  520,838

  —

  —

  623,084

  —

  —

  1983–84

  553,996

  6·37

  6·37

  633,001

  1·59

  1·59

  1984–85

  586,852

  5·93

  12·67

  642,163

  1·45

  3·06

  1985–86

  620,085

  5·66

  19·06

  640,300

  (0·29)

  2·76

  1986–87

  664,666

  7·19

  27·61

  664,666

  3·81

  6·67

  1 Includes the Northern Regional Health Authority, Sunderland and all other district health authorities comprising the Northern region.

  Source

  Annual financial accounts submitted to the Department by the health authorities concerned.

  Notes to the table

  1. The figures for the earlier years have been expressed at 1986–87 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  2. Capital expenditure and expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded. The latter expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs) and cannot strictly be attributed to particular districts or regions. However, prior to 1 April 1985 the Sunderland health authority and eight other district health authorities within the northern region each had an associated FPC and those authorities' revenue expenditure for the years before that date includes elements in respect of the administrative expenses of FPCs which are not separately identifiable.

  University Teaching Hospitals (Staff Salaries)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest available figure for the number of university teaching hospital medical and clinical staff whose salaries are not funded by the University Grants Committee; and what is the percentage change since 1980–81.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 4 May 1988]: Figures are not available centrally which identify separately the numbers of clinical staff of universities attached to a teaching hospital whose salaries are not funded by the University Grants Committee. Those for part-time staff funded from all sources are aggregated, as also are the figures for whole-time staff whose posts are wholly or partially funded by other sources. Information published by the Universities Statistical Record indicates that in 1985–86 there were 1,387 whole-time clinical medical and dental staff of universities whose salaries were not wholly funded by universities, an increase of 109 per cent. since 1980–81.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many households(a) in total, (b) by tenure, and (c) by household type are expected to receive (i) more and (ii) less housing benefit by up to £1 a week, £1
  548
  to £2 a week, £2 to £3 a week, £3 to £4 a week, £4 to £5 a week and £5 plus a week as a result of the changes implemented on 4 April and amended on 28 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 7 June 1988 at column 561.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of jobs to be created to administer the transitional protection scheme on housing benefit; whether those jobs will be temporary or permanent, and where they will be located.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]: The transitional payments unit will be located in Glasgow and the final number of staff required will be decided in the light of applications received. Appointments will be made on both a permanent and temporary and a limited period basis; the proportion of the latter has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he will be taking regarding the letters sent to him by the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding the cases of constituents who will be applying for the transitional payments over housing benefit increases; how soon the payments will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In appropriate cases leaflet RR4—Housing Benefit New Rules—will be issued. This contains an application form for completion and return to the transitional payments unit in Glasgow. The first payments will be sent out in July when the unit becomes fully operational.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, of the 13 per cent. of his Department's staff who come from ethnic minority groups, which minority groups are represented and what levels of employment his Department's monitoring system shows them to have reached.
  549
  Mr. Stanley
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service does not monitor the ethnic origins of its staff. It records details of the sex, religious affiliation and any disabilities of its staff. Details of the Northern Ireland Civil Service's composition in these terms are given in the second report of its equal opportunities unit, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The figure of 13 per cent. relates to the Home Civil Service element of the Northern Ireland Office. This cadre is so small that the publication of information about ethnic monitoring groups which are represented and the grades they have reached would allow the ethnic origins of individuals to be identified. This would represent a breach of the confidentiality which is promised when the information is sought.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that the monitoring system developed for his Department complies with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and of the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Stanley
  The remits of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission for Great Britain do not extend to Northern Ireland. However, the equal opportunities monitoring system set up by the Northern Ireland Civil Service was developed in

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northern Ireland Office

  Civil servants (thousands at 1 April each year)1

  4·2

  4·3

  4·3

  4·5

  4·5

  4·5

  4·6

  Total costs (£ million)3

  70·5

  76·6

  80·3

  89·5

  98·1

  109·1

  120·2

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Civil servants (thousands at 1 April each year)2

  26·3

  26·7

  25·9

  25·9

  26·3

  26·7

  26·8

  Total costs (£ million)3

  190·0

  205·4

  213·8

  229·1

  249·9

  267·5

  282·0

  1 Includes industrial and non-industrial civil servants, casual staff, prison discipline staff and civilian search unit staff. Civil servants seconded to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Probation Board are not included.

  2 Includes industrial and non-industrial civil servants and casual staff of Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Northern Ireland Commission for Complaints, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the former Northern Ireland Exchequer and Audit Department (now the Northern Ireland Audit Office).

  3 Total costs consist of pay costs and personnel overheads.

  550
  full consultation with, and its introduction was welcomed by, the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

  As far as the Home Civil Service element of the Northern Ireland Office is concerned, the monitoring system developed complies with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission so far as is practicable with a group of only some 190 civil servants.

  A survey to provide information on the ethnic origin of staff in the NIO was considered as part of a phased programme of ethnic surveys across the Civil Service, and the monitoring of recruits has continued since then. The Department also participates in annual surveys conducted across the Civil Service relating to the employment of women and of the disabled.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number of civil servants employed(a) by the Northern Ireland Office and (b) by Northern Ireland Departments, and the total cost to public funds of each, in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: Information for all of the years in question is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Available information is as follows:

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Star Wars: Press Report
Lord Gladwyn Lord Gladwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the statement of Mr. Michael Dukakis, as reported in The Times of 30th May, that the United States star wars programme is "a fantasy and a fraud."
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it is not our practice to comment on newspaper reports. Furthermore, I think that I would be wise not to comment on the positions of candidates for elected office in foreign countries.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. But is he aware that Mr. Dukakis's dim view of star wars is, broadly speaking, shared by the bulk of informed scientific opinion in America? Is he also aware that, in subsequent declarations Mr. Dukakis, while happily expressing support for NATO and the continued presence of American troops in Europe, has declared his intention, if elected, of actually scrapping SDI and urging his European allies to follow his proposed example of spending less money on nuclear weapons and more on conventional defence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr. Dukakis's views are of course his own. The Government's views on the SDI have been made known on a number of occasions. I shall not repeat them now. They are of course in line with the four points that my right honourable friend agreed when she was in Washington some years ago and which have not changed in the intervening period. As for Mr. Dukakis's wider views, I do not think that I want to comment on those any more than I wish to comment on his others.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it was the American general, General Abrahamson, who was the leader of the SDI project, who first cast doubt about the validity of the SDI as presented by President Reagan? If the Minister cannot comment on that point, can he comment on the other points made by the presidential candidate: that he strongly urged the United States Administration to complete a START treaty before the end of this year and, secondly, to work much more closely with their allies in Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have no complaints about the consultation which has gone on between the United States and the other allied governments,
598
especially with regard to the possibility of future arms control agreements. Indeed, as the noble Lord will recall, President Reagan made a point of calling in at London on his way back to the United States after his visit to Moscow. I do not believe that I should be dragged into commenting upon Mr. Dukakis's views.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord would take as much exception to that, or he ought to, as he would if Mr. Dukakis were to comment upon the noble Lord's views.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the whole experience of this country in relation to presidential elections in the United States underline the wisdom of my noble friend's last reply? Has it not been a dangerous thing to comment upon statements made by presidential candidates ever since the notorious Cleveland letter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has rightly pointed to the danger of commenting upon the views of presidential candidates. It is probably equally unwise to comment upon the views of some parliamentary candidates in this country.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, irrespective of what a presidential candidate may or may not have said, is it not a fact that Soviet Russia does not believe that the United States' star wars programme is "a fantasy and a fraud"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Soviet Union is conducting a wide range of research programmes into activities of that kind. The SDI programme is of course a research programme, no more and no less.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, ought we not to wait until after the American presidential election before we presume to start telling the Americans what their defence and foreign policy should be?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I shall dictate to the United States either before or after the presidential election.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from any question of the presidential elections, prospects for SDI have become uncertain? What arrangements have been made to cover British firms with SDI contracts?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, British firms are already involved in a number of SDI-related contracts. The Government are happy that that should be so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I appreciate the point made by the Minister about the statement made by a presidential candidate. I believe that the Government's attitude on that point is correct. Exceedingly important statements have been made on star wars by the President of the United States and by Mr. Gorbachev. Does the Minister agree therefore

599
that while we cannot comment on what candidates are saying, we have a right to seek guidance from the Government about what President Reagan has said about star wars after the representations made to him by Mr. Gorbachev?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes; I am quite happy to support the observations of President Reagan so far as concerns the star wars programme. As I have said before, it is a research programme upon which the Soviet Union is equally actively involved. The United Kingdom therefore supports the United States SDI programme and is involved in it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would not the Government agree that my noble friend Lord Mayhew probably meant his question the other way round? Perhaps I may ask it again. What plans have the Government to help British firms which get into difficulties when American support for SDI-related research is withdrawn?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no reason to think that that will happen. United Kingdom institutions and firms which involve themselves in the work to which the noble Lord refers are doing so in accordance with contracts which in my view are not likely to be altered.

AIDS in Prisons: Policy
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any policy on the problems of AIDS within penal establishments and if so whether they will let health authorities know what it is, so as to ensure continuity of care and preventative education within prisons and the community.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the prison department's policies for the care of prisoners with AIDS for the prevention of the spread of HIV infection follow in general the Government's policy for the community as a whole.
Continuity of medical care and counselling, where appropriate, is best achieved by the well-established process of liaison between prison medical officers and doctors in the community. We are not aware of any problem suggesting a need for communication at national level within health authorities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in this very good book, AIDS and Drug Misuse, published by the DHSS, chapter 8 is on drugs and AIDS in prisons? Does the Minister agree that it would be wise for those recommendations to be put into practice; that is, to have people from the prison service on health authority committees, regional health authority drug advisory committees, working closely with health districts? Does the noble Earl agree that the prison population is particularly difficult because prisoners go in and out of the community and prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. We are considering the recommendations made by that committee.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister concede that his reply to the noble Baroness's question was not as considered as his replies usually are? Is he not aware that a grave problem arises, especially in view of the overcrowded conditions in prisons and the lack of a legal pointer to the duties of medical officers towards other prisoners and to the families of a prisoner, as well as in regard even to the enforced examination to see whether AIDS exists?
Does the Minister not think that it is appropriate in these circumstances, before a crisis occurs, to set up a committee on which prison authorities and medical people will be represented?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall not concede that my reply was not as considered as the noble Lord kindly suggests my replies usually are. It was a considered reply. The problem with regard to AIDS is a national problem. I accept that there are particular difficulties with regard to prisoners, but we have found that the best way of dealing with this is for counselling to be done in the locality.
When prisoners come to a prison, they undergo a health screening on reception by hospital staff and by a medical officer. The noble Lord suggests compulsory testing. I am surprised that he should suggest that because, as he knows, blood tests taken without consent could be an assault. Tests for HIV without the consent of the patient could be unethical.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister forgive me if I return to this very important subject? I suggested nothing except the setting up of a committee because of the peculiar difficulties of dealing with prisoners in crowded prisons, where there is a duty to fellow prisoners, a duty to families, quite outside the normal community. Will the Minister at least consider setting up a committee without giving a definite answer now?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I shall consider what the noble Lord says. However, I am not so sure that the setting up of a committee would provide the answer. There are a number of problems which are fully known by the governors and the medical profession who deal with them. If there are any reasons to think that a committee would help solve that, I shall certainly consider them.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the Minister explain what is the policy of the Government to prevent the spread of AIDS within Her Majesty's prisons? For example, is there a policy of concentrating known AIDS sufferers in the same prison hospitals; or are they allowed to remain in separate prison hospitals?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, where prisoners are identified as being HIV antibody positive but have no signs of illness, they are located in single accommodation or accommodated with other antibody positive prisoners. They are not otherwise precluded from associating with prisoners.

601
Various arrangements are made to counsel prisoners. The governors and medical officers have been asked to continue to make leaflets and other suitable printed material available to prisoners. One produced by the DHSS was called, Don't Die of Ignorance, and there was another one by the Health Information Trust. There is also a video educational package which includes a video film tailored to the needs of prisoners, both during custody and afterwards. This is being developed. Meanwhile, a video film made in America is being used until the other one is available.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that prison officers acknowledge that the prison department is alert to the dangers inherent in the AIDS problem and that working together is the best solution? Does the Minister also understand that there is a great difference between the outside world and the closed, cloistered community of a prison which houses many dangerous men and women? Will he not think again about looking at the possibility of compulsory blood tests and also isolation units?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the prison officers acknowledge the concern of the Home Department over this. However, I am bound to tell him that we would be in difficulty for the reasons that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about instituting compulsory blood tests. If a person does not want to undergo a compulsory blood test and he is forced to do so, that could constitute an assault.
Lord Morris: My Lords, since when has the overcrowding as such, as seems to be suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had any effect on the incidence of AIDS?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, AIDS is a recent, highly regrettable and very frightening phenomenon. The fact that it can appear in circumstances where a lot of males are gathered together is a matter for concern.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any evidence that homosexuality within our prisons is a reason for the spread of AIDS? If so, can he say whether the use of condoms is legal in prison?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no doubt that homosexuality is a cause of spreading AIDS. The fact that a lot of males are gathered together in a confined space can presumably add to that difficulty. Condoms are not among the items which prisoners are allowed to have in their possession and the Government have no intention at the moment of supplying condoms. To do that would be to condone behaviour which may amount to a criminal offence in so far as homosexual acts are legal only in private. In prison they are not likely to be private. It could also encourage behaviour which in itself might encourage AIDS.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister had his attention drawn to the exchanges in the House which
602
occurred on 16th June on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs as regards AIDS and drug misuse? Is he aware that I asked the Minister responding, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, about the recommendation that within the prison system the prison department should be asked to identify drug misusers? When I put that question the noble Earl replied that he would refer the matter to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Is the noble Earl now able to answer that question which I think is of some importance in view of the very close link between drug misuse and AIDS?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he asked about the misuse of drugs. That is slightly different to the matter of AIDS. We have no evidence at the moment to show that needle sharing or any such practice is being encouraged.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with deep respect, drug abuse is an important cause of AIDS. Very many cases have been identified as being the result of shared needles. The Minister will know that that applies out in the community and within prisons. Had it not been so the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, which considered specifically the question of AIDS and drug misuse, would not have thought it appropriate to make the recommendation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see the noble Lord's point and I apologise if I did not take it fully the first time. There is no evidence in the prisons at the moment of needle sharing, nor is there any evidence of intravenous drug use. Obviously this is a matter which is being kept closely under review and should there he that evidence we shall have to take such steps as are necessary.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that later this year we expect to receive the first reports due under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987? Can he tell us whether his department has made any contribution or will he making any contribution to those reports?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that but I shall find out about it and let him know.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that drug users are unfortunately the fastest spreading group with AIDS, and that they may come into prison HIV positive; therefore it is important to identify them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness that it is important. Everything is done that can be done to find out whether prisoners have AIDS, but short of compulsory screening of everyone we cannot always find this out. Where a potential AIDS sufferer invites a test, we will know the results, but they can only be a reflection of those who have been tested. There are 59 HIV positive prisoners at the moment. In all, since we started monitoring this problem in March 1985, 186 HIV positives have been identified.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I promise that this is the last time that I appear at the Dispatch Box on this matter, but it is a very urgent problem. Will the Minister reflect upon the worth of what a committee investigating this matter might recommend in regard to compulsory powers in prisons? Will he take into account the fact that many in this House might not regard it as an invasion of privacy if people's health, and possibly lives, are at stake if this is not done?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I shall take into account the views of the noble Lord and the representations that he has made. However, I am bound to tell him that if we were to go down the path which he suggests, it might mean an alteration in the law because it is the law that states that compulsory testing would be an assault despite what your Lordships may feel.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have already spent 19 minutes on two Questions and that in the interests of the ensuing business we should proceed to the next Question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for that supplementary question. I only hope that I was not the cause of the Questions continuing for 19 minutes but merely for about 18 minutes.

New Towns: Planning
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the development of privately financed new towns in South-East England.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our published policy guidance states that in a few cases it may be practicable to consider making provision for new housing in the form of new settlements, particularly where the development meets infrastructure costs and the need for community facilities. But we have also made clear that specific proposals by developers must be subject to normal planning procedures and must be considered within the framework of existing planning policies.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the present pressure for new urban development in the South-East is largely the effect of the virtual abandonment of any regional and industrial policy by the present Government, is it not clear that with a continuously weak regional policy the building of one new town of this kind would simply be followed by a demand for more and more?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I do not think that that follows. In any case the recent figures reveal that there has been an exodus from the South-East, not an influx into it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has referred to infrastructure costs being
604
borne by the developer. Would he care to tell us what guidance he gives to local authorities on the appropriate level; otherwise the infrastructure costs could very well be seen to be more than just a sweetener?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I did not totally follow what the noble Lord was asking. What level is he referring to?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that certain developers enhance their applications within planning guidelines by offering to provide community, civic or other such amenities. I am simply asking the Minister what guidance he gives to authorities as regards the kind of control that they need to apply. Otherwise, some developers may be seen to be doing more than getting their planning applications through strictly on merit.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the planning application has to be considered on merit. The point that I made was that it might be possible to have new settlements where the infrastructure costs were met if there are additional items outwith the planning application for development (for example, housing development) which might be of benefit to the community. That will of course be for the local authority to decide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State our sympathy, but our heavily qualified sympathy, for the political difficulty he has got himself into by his laissez faire attitude towards regional industrial and economic development? Does he net recognise that it is the failure of a real regional policy that is causing the overcrowding and the planning difficulties that have been discussed this afternoon?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the idea of sympathy from the noble Lord is always welcome. But I can assure him that the Government have very sensible policies and that is why there has been such a substantial reduction in the amount of agricultural land that has been taken for all kinds of development from the 1960s and 1970s to the present day. It is under a third of what it was in the 1960s and 1970s.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister able to explain the recent wild fluctuations in the forecast demand for housing in the South-East of England?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure what fluctuations the noble Lord is referring to. However, those matters are considered very carefully, particularly as regards the South-East of England, where my noble friend Lord Sandford and SERPLAN are involved. Where changes have been made, as they were last week, that has been done as a result of further evidence from SERPLAN.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about three weeks ago there was an increase of 150,000 which was cut back to 50,000 about one week ago?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord knows that there were good reasons for that. As I have said, SERPLAN produced further evidence that there were likely to be more houses available by 1991 as a result of actions which have been taken by the Government, in particular in the private sector rental market, which should allow about 35,000 more dwellings to come on stream. I hope that, as a result, the noble Lord will support the Housing Bill.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the policies of the Government are always sensible, why is there complete confusion and consternation about the policies of the Minister's right honourable friend as regards the green belt and regional development generally?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any confusion as regards the green belt. When we came into office in 1979, the green belt consisted of 760,000 acres around London. It now consists of 1.2 million acres.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if there is an exodus of population from the South-East, does not that weaken the case for building more new towns there?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the moment all we have are two proposals.

Nuclear Disarmament: Verification
3.2 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the degree of acceptance by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries of systems of verification to bring about the reduction and abolition of nuclear weapons.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we consider that nuclear weapons will continue to be an essential part of NATO's deterrent for the foreseeable future. But like other NATO governments we support arms control agreements and believe that they should be stringently verified. We play a part in ensuring that that is the case for the INF treaty.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister agree that the science of verification must be at the heart of every disarmament treaty? We are all involved. It appears that since December, when there were discussions regarding the INF treaty between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan, the Americans have arrived at what they call an open regime verification for the INF treaty. We were not involved in that. Other NATO countries were not involved. We do not have any information about the involvement of the Warsaw Pact countries. Does the Minister believe that we should become more closely involved on the vital issue of verification? Without complete and foolproof verification, no disarmament treaty will be worth a light.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that verification is a critical aspect of such treaties. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we were fully consulted by the United States on the verification and other provisions of the INF treaty. The noble Lord may he aware that there is an agreement between the United States and the so-called basing countries as regards the verification of the agreement. There has also been an exchange of letters with the Soviet Union as regards aspects of the matter which affect that country and ourselves.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does verification extend, as I believe it ought, to all forms of underground tests and also to weapons which are not nuclear but which can, with modification, become nuclear weapons almost immediately? Are they included in full and comprehensive verification?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the possibility of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that that is another question.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, do the Government support the statement made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the undesirability of working towards a nuclear-free world?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not seen the words to which the noble Lord refers. As I said in my Answer, we certainly agree that for the foreseeable future the prospect of a nuclear-free world is likely to be elusive.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are the Government prepared to talk with our allies as regards possible cheating on verification tests?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the heart of the verification aspect of any agreement that cheating should not be possible.

European Communities Committee
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Oliver of Aylmerton be appointed a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of Lord Goff of Chieveley, resigned.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotch Whisky Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Reform Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the curriculum]:
Lord Joseph Lord Joseph moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 17. after ("to") insert ("the whole school curriculum including").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 5, 14, 17, 27, 39, 43, 44, 46, 64, 65, 107, 110, 117 and 120. With those amendments goes Amendment No. 36. However, the Minister has added her name to that amendment and I propose to leave her to introduce it.
I strongly support the Bill. However, in my view the national curriculum is over-prescriptive and will damage the large non-academic proportion of children. It is very surprising that this aspect of the Bill conflicts sharply with the Government's philosophy. Their philosophy is that we have been over-governed, and that in many fields the Government should provide a framework and leave people in their infinite variety to pursue their own purposes within that framework. Yet here, in the national curriculum, we have over-government and, in my view, straitjacket government.
I strongly support the need to raise school standards, particularly for the non-academic. Indeed I helped to raise that issue to the top of the agenda. I accept the need for a mandatory core curriculum —English, maths and science —and testing. Noble Lords will please note that defining even the three core subjects has not proved easy. However, the Government suggest with the Bill that there are nine other subjects which each child is to be required by law to take. It is to the removal of the mandatory prescription by law of eight of those nine subjects regardless of the student's capacity, gifts or enthusiasms that this group of amendments is addressed. Of course I am in favour of breadth —breadth, yes; uniformity, no.
I may be told that the academic child will be able to cope and will have time for extra work in his or her strong subjects. However, I should prefer that the national curriculum sat less peremptorily and extensively upon such children so that their individual diversity could be met; or alternatively that Ministers would consider extending the school week or year to give all children more time to study. The huge proportion of people for whom I am, above all, pleading in these amendments is those who are non-academic. If the Bill goes through as drafted, the non-academic will suffer most. It is the non-academic child who is most likely to be de-motivated by some subjects, even though that child is lit by other subjects, including technology. Yet he or she is to be compelled to take the full range of foundation subjects.
Perhaps colleagues imagine that the Government are following France and that French education is satisfactory. I suggest to your Lordships that both judgments would be suspect. Napoleon did indeed want each school pupil to follow an identical course.
From that we tell each other that the French Minister of Education knows at any hour, at any minute of the day exactly what every child anywhere in France is studying. The anecdote is a myth. It was probably always a myth even in Napoleon's day when only a small minority of the children over the age of 10 were at school at all.
What is true is that at the primary stage the French require all children to devote over one half of their time to French and maths —15 hours out of 27 hours a week. Those 27 hours include sports. The French curriculum is still largely imposed after the primary stage from the ages of 11 to 14. But from the age of 14 there is far, far more choice than is provided in this Bill. There are three different streams —the baccalaureate, the technical baccalaureate and the brevet de techniciens.
In the two "bac" systems there are at least 15 different curricula ranging from the highly academic with Greek and Latin components to applied hairdressing. In the brevet system there are over 60 different curricular choices. Every school is different. What is done at the great Henri IV Ly Ćee in Paris where the polytechniciens send their children bears little resemblance to what goes on in other schools in Paris and in the provinces.
What the national curriculum system does in France is to ensure that any variations in all those different curricula are made not by the head and the teachers on the spot in accordance with what they know of the children they are teaching but by bureaucrats in Paris. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged in France that the centralisation of education is something near a disaster and that the decentralisation going on in other areas of French policy is needed even more in schools.
If we pass the Bill as drafted we, who have never had such a rigid system and are leaders in decentralisation, are plunging headlong in the wrong direction. We in Britain have long known that the great school is an autonomous school. Only in an autonomous school can the head feel and be responsible for picking and inspiring a teaching staff to perform to the highest professional standards. Only an autonomous school can be made accountable in the one way in which a school can be made accountable —by allowing parents to remove their children if they find the school unsatisfactory. If the teachers are no good no amount of national curriculum will produce better education. I submit that good teachers should not be demoralised by reducing each school to mechanical conformity.
All this has been recognised by the Government in the general thrust of the Bill which is to give schools more autonomy and to allow heads, governors and teachers the power to meet those responsibilities. This is an excellent policy that is embodied in the bulk of the parts of the Bill dealing with schools. It means giving heads and teachers discretion over the input and exercising control by testing the output. It means insisting on the core subjects. I fully agree that they should be mandatory —English, maths, science —but leaving heads and teachers free to assess the needs of each particular child in relation to a broad range of other subjects.
Of course it is reasonable for the Government to provide means of assessing whether children have achieved levels of competence in each subject taken so that parents can judge whether the education is satisfactory. That is the way to enable parents to make sound choices between schools and to apply pressure for the stretching of each child without a straitjacket.
I ask the Government, I ask my noble friend, to think again, to keep the core subjects mandatory but to leave the foundation subjects at discretion. I ask this particularly for the non-academic children who have so far not had nearly as much benefit as we would all wish from their schooling. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, having added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I should like to support it briefly but nonetheless warmly. As I made clear in Committee when we discussed earlier amendments to the national curriculum, I should have preferred a less binding curriculum which could have embraced all pupils and did not entail modification and exclusion clauses for some pupils with special needs.
I feel, however, that the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has just moved with such eloquence and such conviction offers a very great deal more flexibility than is at present contained in the Bill. Schools would be more able to respond sensitively to individual needs, not only of pupils with special needs but of the non-academic and the very gifted. They could ensure that pupils get the very best out of their education and that their education gets the best out of them by catering for their individual diversity, as the noble Lord expressed it so well. More time would be available to study a wider range of subjects and there would be more opportunity for cross-curricula teaching and learning.
Many organisations concerned with children with special needs have been very worried that the national curriculum as set out in the Bill could put a serious brake on the move towards integration. The Rathbone Society, when commenting on the Secretary of State's plans for a national curriculum said:
"A national curriculum can only be that if it is a curriculum for all children … Significant discretion as to the content of what is taught to any particular class should be available to the classroom teachers, subject to broad guidelines. Teacher discretion in identifying and dealing with the educational needs of pupils at any given time is particularly important for the disadvantaged and for those with moderate learning difficulties in mainstream and special schools".
The national core curriculum proposed in this amendment would, I repeat, entail disapplication and modification for some but I am convinced that it would allow more room and more time for that discretion to operate. Without the emphasis on teaching and testing foundation subjects mainstream schools would be better able to look after pupils with special educational needs and more willing to admit them. That would ensure that they develop to their full potential and give them the maximum chance when the time comes of going out to live, work, compete and contribute to the able-bodied adult world.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support every single word which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has said. I do so for four reasons. First, the amendment gives the teachers the scope to use their professional judgment in the way that only they can. If we are to have the schools we want we must give every possible encouragement to the improved professionalism of the teachers.
Secondly, it does something for the non-academic child. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, both when he was Secretary of State and since has recognised the need to do something for the non-academic children whom we have failed to a large extent over the years. Yet they are probably the most important section of the school population with whom we need to deal. If we do not deal adequately with the needs of the nonacademic child we shall develop that underclass which both economically and socially will be extremely threatening to this country.
Thirdly, the amendment also gives scope for the more gifted children who will not be put into a straitjacket. We need to consider them too. We need our gifted children to be able to develop in the ways and at the pace which are best suited to them. We must not cramp them in the interests of the development of those in the middle of the range.
I think that my final point has not yet been made. The amendment means that certain subjects which would otherwise wither will continue to be taught in schools. If subjects wither in the schools they will wither in the universities because there will be no source from which students can be recruited. If we limit the teaching of modern languages —as it looks as if we shall if we stick rigidly to the programme that is laid down in the Bill —then at a time when we need to be developing such subjects as Russian in the schools and universities, and surely we need to revive Russian studies, there will be so little teaching of those subjects in the schools that students will not be forthcoming to fulfil our requirements. That is only one example.
I beg your Lordships to think again and to note the very wise guidance of the ex-Secretary of State for Education.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, these amendments direct our attention to the question of whether or not children should be taught the foundation subjects as well as the core subjects. I believe that there are two ways of looking at that question. I should call one of them internal and the other external.
If we are thinking only about our own society and how we want our children to be educated and to become reliable British citizens, if they are well grounded in the core subjects perhaps we could leave the schools to introduce in addition whatever other subjects they consider appropriate. No doubt schools would differ in their ideas. They would have regard to their available resources and progress would probably be leisurely. It would certainly be patchy.
There is then the second, external reason for reforming the curriculum. The world outside the British Isles is putting enormous pressure on us to prepare our children for the global society in which they will work and live. All advanced countries, not

611
just Great Britain, are under pressure to respond to that challenge. In the United States the two presidential candidates —Vice-President Bush and Governor Dukakis —are both making their top priority the reform and expansion of American education. That has never happened before in the United States. Republicans and Democrats say that there are grave deficiencies in their home subject teaching but the appeal of both parties is strongest and most effective when they describe the competition coming from Japan and the Pacific rim.
The Far East may not seem very near to us, but what about Europe? Very soon we shall enter the single market. What should our children be taught about the territory, people and resources of Europe? It means the study of history and geography, which are two of the foundation subjects. Help in making friends and influencing people will come from knowing a foreign language, and that is another of the foundation subjects.
It may be objected that English is now the world's common language. It is lucky for us that it is. However, there is another new and all-pervasive common language, which is technology. I always hoped that it was love that made the world go round, but now I perceive that I must add to that notion technology. The pressures from outside compel us to direct the attention of the schools to history, geography, foreign languages and technology. That is not a departure from our experience and traditions. We have long believed that education should take account of local interests, the patterns of employment, agriculture, the cotton and coal industries and shipbuiding. Now we must take account of Europe. Of course we must pay attention to the way of life in our community and strengthen it. The local school has a great part to play in that process.
However, the whole world is becoming our village. The foundation subjects mentioned in Clause 2 of this Bill stand in recognition of that fact. This House should not allow them to be dropped. The amendments would do that. If that is done one will lose any hold on the next century. It is not in the interests of our children to refuse them the opportunity to learn those foundation subjects. I know that it is difficult, but they should have the opportunity. I hope that the amendments will be rejected.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, when I made my maiden speech in another place 43 years ago the speaker who followed me was the gentleman who is now the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He was very kind to me, as is customary in the other place, as everyone will know. I shall be kind to him now.
Having listened to two former Secretaries of State, I believe that it is right to remember that those who are called to the teaching profession possess special gifts and have received special training. When the noble Viscount said that the amendments would mean dropping the subjects to which he referred, he implied that the head teachers would drop them. That is a load of —well, it is not exactly what I would call common sense. Head teachers have a sense of
612
responsibility toward this country equal to that of any noble Lord who sits in this House. Teachers come face to face with individuals whose lives they can influence. It is said that Whitehall knows best. I am surprised that that sentiment comes from those Benches; it used to be said from other Benches. I do not believe that London necessarily knows best; nor do we who are gathered in this Chamber.
We ought to trust more in our teachers. I know that there are some areas of education in which problems have arisen, but it is foolish policy to seek to legislate just because there are certain blemishes that we wish to remove. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has shown great courage but he has also brought before us a critical issue on which he deserves support.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the House will be aware that there was on the statute book a crime known as infanticide, which related to a mother suffering from post-natal depression who put an end to the life of her newly-born infant. I cannot imagine why the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, should wish to commit such a crime. We owe the concept of raising education standards in this country by a determined effort of central and local government and the education professions to the noble Lord's pioneering work when he was Secretary of State.
Surely if we are to have any way of measuring whether or not we are succeeding in that task, which is of great importance to the whole nation, as the noble Viscount pointed out, we must have some idea of the subject matter and the direction of studies that we wish to see pursued and in some cases tested. I find it very hard now to understand why it should be advocated that all but three subjects should be dropped. Apparently there are two arguments, which I shall rehearse briefly.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spoke primarily about the needs of non-academic children. That is a concept which has crept into our discussions and is largely unchallenged. We do not know what is meant by "non-academic children". In this country —and I do not speak about children who suffer from the disabilities to which the noble Baroness referred —there is a very large proportion of children who, if properly taught in properly run schools, could surely make a good shot at all the subjects that are proposed. On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is more worried about those children who again are difficult to define but who exist, if you like, in the upper bracket of intelligence or application.
However, as was pointed out at the Committee stage —when we debated all these matters at great length —with the degree of flexibility in the time allotted, the speed at which children can advance through these subjects is provided for. I very much hope that the House will reject this and the allied amendments, because if not they are rejecting the primary purpose of this Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I do not think that I can add anything new to the arguments that have already

613
been deployed this afternoon and at Committee stage. However, I want to re-emphasise what I said on the latter occasion. Over-prescription is a real danger to good education. It may seem that by laying down ever firmer rules standards will be raised, but I do not believe the connection is really there. A general levelling down is a more likely outcome. When the 11-plus was abolished the good primary teacher did not say to herself, "Good, now we can all sit back," But, "Good, now we can begin to educate."
I remember the comments of visiting French teachers whom I met some years ago on a tour of English primary schools. Their main reaction was, "What could we not achieve given your freedom from central control?"
There is also the creeping bureaucratisation of education to consider; and I speak as an ex-bureaucrat. The more we legislate, the greater the education industry that is needed to support those at the sharp end with day-to-day contact with pupils. I have seen it happen during the 10 years since I left the classroom: we have been flooded by more directives, circulars, regulations and Acts of Parliament than in any comparable period before. These siphon off people's energies from the proper business of education.
We are at an unfortunate stage in the cycle of educational confidence. Historically these issues go in waves. It is not the case that our industrial underachievement and increase in social problems are largely the fault of our education system, as addressed in this Bill. I phrase it thus because there are improvements to be made but they do not feature here. If we could find it in ourselves to convey a mood of confidence in our schools —and this point has been made by other speakers —the self-fulfilling effect might surprise us. The increase in morale and performance that I believe would result is more to be desired than any statutory regulations.
However, if regulations we must have —and one has to accept that the Government are determined in this respect let them be as few and as loose as possible. These amendments seek to achieve that end. If your Lordships prefer the approach adopted in the next group of amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David —an approach which is freer in one way and a little tighter in another —then I for one would lose no sleep about it. However, to me, the important lesson is that one does not raise standards in education by tightening screws. What the Government are proposing in this Bill is too tight for the good of our schools.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe I am not alone in very much regretting that my noble friend Lord Joseph should have seen fit to put down at Report stage an amendment very similar to the ones which we discussed at very considerable length on Committee, and indeed divided upon. The Committee took a very clear view on this matter. I must therefore say, as I said at Committee stage, that were they to be carried this afternoon the effect would be wrecking amendments on the whole of this part of the Bill, because both the core subjects and the foundation subjects stand together as a package and need to be so considered.
614
I should like to give one response to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who has just spoken about the educational system. One criticism which came out at Committee stage, and was certainly very apparent to me when I was a DES Minister, was that boys tend to give up languages far too soon and girls tend to give up maths and sciences far too soon. This is self-evident if you go round schools and have a look for yourselves.
One way of meeting what is acknowledged to be a very real criticism is to have the spread of core and foundation subjects. There are of course others but at this stage of the proceedings I shall not enlarge on the arguments. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister, when she comes to reply, will answer again the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made about the importance of the scope that teachers need, and the use of their professional abilities. We all, including myself, share concern about this issue of the importance of the role of the teacher.
It was brought out time and again at Committee stage that there was to be flexibility within both the core and the foundation subjects, and that there would be many opportunities for teachers to use their professional skills. That is absolutely crucial to the success of this part of the Bill. That said, I hope very much that the House at this stage will reject this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. We have made quite clear from the beginning that we disliked the rigidity and inflexibility of the national curriculum as it appears in this Bill. We think that it will make no difference to raising the standards of education in this country. It does not have the confidence of the teaching profession, nor indeed of the administrators in the county councils and in the metropolitan councils. This Bill has a great many enemies. The rigidity of the curriculum underlies that.
The point that I take up is the need for confidence. That is what is needed in our schools as well as a belief in the teachers. What the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, is all important in our efforts to raise the standards in our schools, which is what we all want. I do not believe, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that this is a wrecking amendment. I think that is totally wrong. The amendment leaves the framework. It leaves the curriculum councils and the examination assessment councils. I believe that the Government are supporting the TGAT report. A great deal could be made of this Bill but I do not think that this extremely rigid curriculum with these old-fashioned foundation subjects —the list goes back a great many years —will do any good to our system. I therefore hope that the House will support the noble Lord.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, perhaps I may first clear up a small

615
point. In introducing the group my noble friend Lord Joseph referred to Amendment No. 36. This applies to Wales and will be dealt with separately at a later stage. I am disappointed that my noble friend Lord Joseph and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), have felt it necessary to revive at this stage amendments which have in substance already been debated and rejected by your Lordships in Committee.
As my noble friend Lord Joseph, and indeed others, have done, I am forced to repeat this afternoon what I said in Committee. I must ask your Lordships to reject these amendments because a national core curriculum would not serve the purposes of a true national curriculum as set out so persuasively in the White Paper, Better Schools, as practised in other countries and as seen in operation in a number of our schools at present. These amendments would distort and perhaps worsen an already unsatisfactory position. I know that we are all agreed on aiming to improve standards in all our schools, to increase expectations, and above all to help the average and below-average pupils.
I quoted at some length in Committee from my noble friend's previous speeches, as well as from Better Schools, in all of which he made the point that a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils, covering the very areas which the foundation subjects together embrace, was the most important aim of any curriculum policy. My noble friend felt obliged to remind me at Committee stage that he still accepted these aims, but that he had never thought of imposing any mandatory requirement that they should be met. It appears that he is now convinced, as we have been for some time, of the need to take a further step and that some statutory provision is required if we are to guarantee a good curriculum for all pupils. I should have expected him to follow this logic to its conclusion and to wish to legislate for the broad and balanced curriculum for all that he previously advocated. But instead he and the other supporters of the amendment are proposing legislation for a narrow core curriculum.
The movers of the amendment propose to give statutory protection to two subjects, maths and English, which already form part of the curriculum for virtually all pupils. Science for all would certainly be an improvement, as would agreed attainment targets and assessment for all three subjects. But by legislating in such a narrow way my noble friend and the other movers would increase the chance of pupils, particularly the less able, for whom he has so much genuine concern, ending up with a curriculum which only went beyond the three core subjects in a very limited and unco-ordinated way and was narrow and unbalanced in its overall impact.
We are not prepared to contemplate such a distortion. If the policy of breadth and balance is seen to be in need of statutory support we must legislate for that policy and see that its benefits are available to all. The arguments we have heard against the 10-subject national curriculum boil down, as they did during the arguments at Committee stage, to a concern about flexibility and freedom of choice,
616
particularly in years four and five of secondary school. I said then, and I repeat. that we must not confuse flexibility with laxity. There will be ample provision in the new arrangements for teachers to offer their pupils the right curriculum in the right way. But there will not be the opportunity to take the soft option by omitting to teach, for example, as my noble friend Lady Young has said. modern languages to pupils of less than average ability or technology to girls.
We have plenty of evidence of good practice on both these examples as well as in other subjects. Why should we not attempt to extend this good practice? We expect teachers to use the flexibility that has been built in to ensure, for example, that pupils with difficulties in English are not introduced too quickly to another language; that pupils who move very rapidly through the national curriculum targets are not held back; and that groups of pupils with specific handicaps, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred are given a suitably adapted curriculum. In this way we shall ensure that what is prescribed reflects the full range of what is needed.
But the real flexibility in our proposals is much more basic. I dispute the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that all teachers are against the national curriculum. Many of the best teachers already apply the national curriculum and many more are looking forward to the Government's proposals being made law. But the real flexibility in our proposals is much more basic. It comes from what is not prescribed. We shall be setting out a framework for teachers to use and adapt. We are not setting out detailed syllabuses. We are prevented from prescribing teaching methods and materials or requiring that subjects are timetabled in any particular way. Teachers will be able to decide what level of attainment is right for any pupil at any age within very broad limits, and for years four and five we have said that some 30 per cent. of the timetable over one-and-a-half days a week will be available for pupils' own choice of subjects.
I believe that when the recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study, which we expect shortly from the first two working groups on science and maths, are available it will be easier for all those who are concerned about flexibility to understand our intentions better.
As my noble friend Lord Joseph returned again to the theme of France in his opening remarks and referred admiringly to the arrangements made there for technical education for non-academic pupils, I should like to be clear. In France such provision is not a matter of positive choice. It is for those who have been failed by the ordinary system. That in itself, whatever my noble friend may say, is rather more rigid than our proposals. Pupils who are not up to the academic standard required in French primary and lower secondary schools are required to repeat the year. Those who do so more than once, particularly in primary school, may therefore arrive at the secondary stage one, two or even three years late. They and those who fail in the first two years of the lower secondary school may then be guided into technical and vocational classes to prepare them for technical or vocational work in the appropriate

617
upper school. The aim of this practice is to ensure that such pupils obtain some qualification. That is very laudable.
But my understanding is that the presence of these classes gives rise to considerable misgivings in France. In effect, they cut pupils off from the mainstream curriculum, and the work seen by HMI in its visits led members to criticise the extreme narrowness of the technical work in particular. For example, no modern technology is taught in these schools. But we note also that the curriculum is not confined to technical activity since it contains general subjects such as French, maths, science and topic work. Although practice varies considerably, the best practice was in those schools which were using the technical and vocational work to exemplify in a practical and relevant way more general educational matters. That of course is the equivalent of our technical and vocational educational initiative (TVEI), which is fully compatible with the national curriculum.
I believe that when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. But in this case the evidence is conclusive. The standards in many of our schools are not what they ought to be and we must do something to change them. It is generally recognised that a broad and balanced curriculum, well taught by motivated teachers, brings satisfaction and success to all the fortunate pupils in those schools where it is applied. That is what we seek for all our schools.
I am sorry to have had to repeat so much of what I said at an earlier stage on this topic. I hope that it convinces the Committee as much as it did on the previous occasion, and that noble Lords will again join me in rejecting the amendments if my noble friend and the noble Baroness again press them to a Division.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am afraid that what the Minister said on a previous occasion did not convince many of us and it does not convince the second time round. I was very disappointed with much of her response and in one respect at least I thought she was being somewhat disingenuous in suggesting that many teachers support the national curriculum as proposed in the Bill because they are already teaching it. That is not the case. The fact that many teachers are teaching it might be a reason for not being quite as prescriptive as the Government are being. It does not seem to me to be a good reason to introduce a straitjacket of this kind.
Even where teachers are teaching the national curriculum they do not accept that it is desirable to be instructed in what they should teach and how they should teach it by the centre. That is what is entailed in the national curriculum as presently proposed.
I should like to support almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said, in introducing this group of amendments, but there are a couple of additional points that I should like to make. The first is that I suspect that the Government are biting off far more than they can chew and that there is a real danger that they will get totally bogged down in trying to prepare attainment targets, programmes of
618
study and assessment arrangements for as many as 11 different subjects for 11 years of schooling from the ages of five to 16. Surely it would be far better to try to create a really successfully core and later, when that has been achieved, to consider whether we want to go any further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, argued that one could not separate the core from the foundation. I know of absolutely no educational reason why that should not happen. There could be a centrally-prescribed core of subjects that we regard as of particular importance and at the same time schools could be allowed to teach a wide range of alternative and additional subjects. Even if the Government want to be prescriptive and go beyond these subjects they would do far better to be much less ambitious at this stage. I suspect that by being so over-ambitious they are jeopardising their own objectives.
At the Committee stage, in answer to questions about the many subjects and areas of study left out of the peculiarly outdated and old-fashioned list of subjects a list which does not differ very much from the 1906 secondary regulations the Government frequently said that many additional subjects could be added to the curriculum over and above the list. I believe that that was most unconvincing. If the 11 subjects are to be covered properly it will take up the whole of the school week. The danger is that when schools try to add other important subjects, pupils will face overload because there are already so many prescribed parts of the curriculum.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, did not appear to fully understand the purpose of the amendment. It is not to exclude the study of history, geography, technology or modern languages. It is to allow combinations of those subjects to be taught to pupils at different times. Most importantly, it is to allow professional teachers to have control over what is taught, what should be expected of pupils and how they should be assessed. Instead the Bill hands that over to the Secretary of State and to a small group of civil servants and hand-picked outsiders.
No other country in North America or Europe has gone down the road of providing such a highly centralised curriculum. If we do so we shall destroy a great deal that is good in our system and which gives some choice to pupils, parents and teachers. The effect of the Bill will be to leave that choice available in the independent sector but not in the state system. As currently proposed the national curriculum is a straitjacket. It is also inconsistent with the Government's aims to provide more choice and diversity. I support the amendment.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I did not like to interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that the recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister at Report and Third Reading stages. The committee believes that that recommendation by the group is in accordance with the practice of the House, with the proviso that it does not refer to short questions for elucidation, and that where a Minister wishes to speak early to assist the House that should not prevent subsequent debate.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I hope that the House will move to a decision on this issue.
Lord Annan: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question. Will the national curriculum preclude schools from constructing courses in technical education for those children who, at the age of 13, have not shown any ability or willingness to learn what are called academic subjects? I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that such schools have been a great success in Germany where they have created a literate and numerate workforce. Will the national curriculum exclude the establishment of what in the Butler Act was called a technical school?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall attempt to respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. As regards the national curriculum, our intention is to allow certain specialisation in the fourth and fifth year. Although it is intended that the full national curriculum should be followed through to school-leaving age, it can be followed through at different rates of progress and to a different standard. Not all subjects are expected to be taken at GCSE level, for example. In any event, we anticipate that a substantial amount of the curriculum time —approximately 30 per cent. —will enable pupils who wish to specialise in a certain direction to do so. I believe that it is fully compatible with what the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 162.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Airedale, L.

Ennals, L.

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Annan, L.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Aylestone, L.

Flowers, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Glenamara, L.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Bottomley, L.

Greenway, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Gregson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimond, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hampton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hayter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Hylton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ilchester, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ingleby, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

620

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Jay, L.

Rugby, L.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sainsbury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Joseph, L.

Seear, B.

Kagan, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kearton, L.

Serota, B.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sherfield, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Somers, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Stallard, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Swann, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Milford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Underhill, L.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Walston, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Nathan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Willis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Porritt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cox, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Craigton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

De Freyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Denning, L.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Bessborough, E.

Eccles, V.

Blanch, L.

Effingham, E.

Blatch, B.

Elibank, L.

Blyth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Borthwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Brightman, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Caithness, E.

Gainford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gibson, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hankey, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Harvington, L.

Chorley, L.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L.

Combermere, V.

Hives, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hood, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Hooper, B.

Cowley, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

621

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Reay, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Reigate, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Renwick, L.

Kitchener, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Layton, L.

Rodney, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Romney, E.

London, Bp.

St. Albans, Bp.

Long, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Luke, L.

Salisbury, M.

McFadzean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandford, L.

Mahnesbury, E.

Seebohm, L.

Manton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Shannon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Sharples, B.

Mersey, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Middleton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Sudeley, L.

Moran, L.

Swansea, L.

Morris, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinton, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teviot, L.

Moyne, L.

Teynham, L.

Munster, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Trafford, L.

Nelson, E.

Tranmire, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trefgarne, L.

Northbourne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Truro, Bp.

O'Brien of Lothhury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Westbury, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Wolfson, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, after ("to") insert ("the framework for the teaching of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 26 and 28.
These amendments try to change the national curriculum in a slightly different way from that proposed in Lord Joseph's amendment which we have just discussed. My purpose is to give greater flexibility to the Bill and to provide a more modern and appropriate framework for the national curriculum than the current archaic subject-based model set out in Clause 3.
One remarkable omission from the presentation of the Government's case for the national curriculum so far has been any reference to work currently going on in Scotland. As a result a number of noble Lords may not be aware that a very detailed process of preparation and consultation on the content of the curriculum guidelines in Scotland has been going on for a considerable time. The reason for the Government's failure to draw attention to this is that they have been pursuing a wholly different policy in Scotland compared with the approach in the current Bill.
The approach in Scotland is advisory. Guidelines for a national curriculum and assessment are being introduced without legislation. There is to be no national prescription by the Secretary of State of the subjects to be included in the curriculum nor of the assessment arrangements. As consultative documents for both the Scottish Office and the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum state, the approach is to issue guidelines on the curriculum and advice and guidance on assessment. The approach has been specifically endorsed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Rifkind, who issued a consultative document in November 1987 entitled Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland: a Policy for the 90s which states that:
"the CCC … —"
that is the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum,
"is issuing with the Secretary of State's approval guidelines on the curricular framework for the years S1 to S6",
that is the secondary years of education.
I should like the Minister to answer three questions. Why are the Government pursuing a different policy in England and Scotland? Why are guidelines appropriate in Scotland but not in England? Why is it appropriate to proceed without legislation in Scotland but not in England and Wales?
The current proposals for the secondary curriculum in Scotland were issued in August 1987 by the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum entitled Curriculum Design for the Secondary Stages. Guidelines for Head Teachers. Paragraph 2.1 states:
"In Scotland guidance issued by the CCC with the approval of the Secretary of State is designed to assist education authorities and schools in devising curricula appropriate to the needs of the locality and individual pupils, within a broad national pattern based on the consensus implicit in the partnership between central and local agencies".
Paragraph 2.3(b) of the document states that local authorities have an important role to assist schools to adapt national guidance to local circumstances. The curriculum for an individual pupil is then negotiated between the school and the parents from national frameworks. The head teacher has primary responsibility for selecting the individual curriculum for each pupil.
The pattern set out in the guidelines proposes a number of broad subject areas as reflected in our amendments. Thus there is no suggestion that the traditional subjects which are normally regarded as being at the heart of the school curriculum should not be taught but that they should be presented in a flexible way which does not ignore other important cross-curricula areas and links them in a way which makes sense to pupils, particularly at the younger ages.
Paragraph 3.12 of the document states:
"The curriculum of all pupils should include systematic and active study within each of the following modes: Language and Communication, Mathematical Studies and Applications, Scientific Studies and Applications, Creative and Aesthetic Activities, Technological Activities and Applications, Social and Environmental Studies, Religious and Moral Education and P.E".
We have left religious and moral education out of our list as RE is treated separately in the Bill.
I point out that this list is very much nearer to the proposals in Better Schools than what appears in the Bill. Better Schools states:
"The Government's policies for breadth and balance require that … the curriculum for all pupils … should contain English. maths and science: a study of the humanities; aesthetic subjects: practical subjects; physical education; and a modern foreign language for most pupils".
It recognises the place in the curriculum of a range of other possible subject areas. Contrast that with the English situation. By seeking to impose such an insensitive stranglehold on state education in England and Wales, the Secretary of State has alienated an already demoralised school system. Advisers, inspectors, administrators, teachers and support staff have all united with organisations of parents and governors in criticising his plans. We hope that no one remains convinced by the suggestion that there is any sort of consensus in favour of this detailed, centrally imposed and subject-based national curriculum.
The damage that pursuing these plans and using these unprecedented powers may do to our system, our teachers and, above all, to our children is incalculable. Saddest of all, it could easily have been avoided. The Secretary of State could have been content to follow the path of his predecessors —the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in Better Schools, from which I have just quoted, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in a number of DES and HMI documents presented in his time —a path of encouraging positive curriculum development and positive methods of assessing children's and school's performance; moving forward in the tradition of our education system with the teachers, with the administrators and with the parents and children; leading from the centre, but not controlling and throttling from the centre.
The present collision course, which may well turn out to be that, could have been diverted if the Scottish system had been followed all over the United Kingdom. Instead of the Secretary of State issuing orders setting out syllabuses which are required to be taught in every state school classroom and testing arrangements which must be used everywhere and prohibiting any curriculum development or experiment that does not have his prior approval, the Scottish guidelines —and I quote from the letter:
"aim to provide head teachers with the basis for designing local and individual curricula in relation to a national curricular framework".
What an infinitely more educational, more trusting and more civilised approach that is than the language of this Bill. For example, there is the duty in Clause 6 for the head teacher,
"to secure … that the National Curriculum as subsisting at the beginning of that year is implemented".
The letter continues:
"The overriding consideration is to achieve an appropriate curriculum balance for the individual pupil. The guidelines stress that a curriculum that wholly fails to take account of each essential element would be inappropriate; one which disregards special circumstances is equally inappropriate".
Contrast that sensitivity for special circumstances with the language of the Bill in Clauses 12, 13 and 14 which allows children with special needs and others
624
to be excluded from the national curriculum. These formal exclusions —made necessary again by the range of powers to prescribe in detail that the Secretary of State is taking —will intensify segregation and set up barriers to achieving equal opportunities and whole school policies.
The conclusion of the Scottish document Curriculum Design for the Secondary Stages emphasises that it:
"does not attempt to deal with detailed issues of organisation and management of the curriculum at school level, believing that these can only be satisfactorily considered by education authorities and schools in relation to their own decisions on policy and priorities and the resources available to them".
Why has such thinking been aggressively dismissed south of the Border? Obviously providing a sensitive national framework of individual curriculum planning cannot break it up into narrow subject boxes; hence the language of this amendment following the Scottish model with areas of study or modes which can encompass the balanced and broader based curriculum which Clause 1 seeks.
In responding to the English consultation paper on the national curriculum many organisations pointed to vital components of education missing from the bald list of subjects in Clause 3: home economics, child care and parenting, health education, citizenship, the classics, economics and so on. We have a list of amendments bringing in those subjects yet again. Those subjects would be embraced in the broad headlines of the subject areas in our amendment. I ask your Lordships to look at the appendices to the Scottish document which make this clear.
Replacing the subjects with this more thoughtful framework would reflect some understanding of what modern schools are about instead of trying to move them back to the early years of this century. It would avoid relegating vital areas of learning which are not included in the present core and foundation subjects. It would not insult to the same degree the skills and experience of our teachers. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. When one considers that we are talking about a Scottish amendment there may well be a moral in it —the Scots have always taken education seriously; the English have only ever put up with it. I have a feeling that the Bill reflects that situation.
If your Lordships want to know what a national curriculum should be, I suggest a look at the proposed Scottish system. It gives the flexibility that we have been pleading and begging for in vain with the Government. I mention only one or two aspects of it. It speaks of creative and aesthetic development —I think those are the words. This embraces the visual, plastic and performing arts —the performing arts embrace dance and drama, which have no mention in our national curriculum —as well as music. Instead, in our curriculum we have just art and music; baldly that. Where do dance and drama come in for children for whom these activities are much more important or which may become more important at any stage of their school career?

625
Children may suddenly have a need to take up those subjects when they reach the age of 14 or 15 when they did not have the need previously.
There is also the matter of social studies, mentioned in the proposed curriculum. These will include the life skills for which we feel there is a strong need. In the troubled society in which we live in our urban areas the teaching of life skills to children is all-important, especially when one bears in mind the extent of family breakdown with children not being taught in their homes the skills they have traditionally been taught.
What could be more important than the care of the environment in which we live? One has only to walk through our streets to see the litter. We should compare that with the condition in any other European country. We must then ask whether some education of our children on the care of the environment is not necessary.
I strongly support this amendment and beg your Lordships to consider it seriously.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is good to hear the Scottish education system being extolled so strongly in your Lordships' House, especially by an English Lord and an English Baroness. Far be it for me —
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lord, the tag after my title indicates the contrary. My family came from north of the Border.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' forgiveness.
Far be it for me in any way to deningrate the system which has been evolved through the years and in which I played a small part, but I must point out to the House that the different approach to the curriculum has been developed in the somewhat different context of Scotland. As I said at Second Reading, Scotland is a very much smaller place. Historically education has been much more centralised than it has been in England and Wales.
The exam system in Scotland —and most young people take the Scottish exams, the same exams —has set the curriculum to a greater extent than in England and Wales, at any rate until now. The exam system in Scotland covers a wider range of subjects during the first year at university. As the noble Baroness very accurately described, in Scotland the curriculum is defined much more by areas than by specific areas of subjects so that the menu can be chosen from those areas. From the age of 16 the menu includes a number of possibilities in colleges of further education where more technical subjects can be incorporated into the subject areas.
When I first looked at the Bill I wondered very much whether the defining in law of subject areas for the national curriculum was a possible approach. I had the opportunity to discuss this both with local government officials in Scotland and with officials of the DES in England. I came to the conclusion that where the national curriculum will operate it will be as flexible as the way in which the Scottish system operates though the operation is under the headings
626
of specific subjects rather than subject areas. If that is not the case I shall be very disappointed.
The reply which my noble friend the Minister gave as regards the earlier amendment confirmed to me that that flexibility is there. Though the comparison between the two systems is an extremely useful one at this stage of the Bill, I do not believe that it need worry your Lordships that the English curriculum is all that more prescriptive.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I rise with a certain amount of diffidence. I appreciate that on numerous occasions in the past I have asserted, sometimes to the irritation of some of your Lordships, that Scotland does it differently and the different way is better. I make it quite clear that I fully accept that the Scottish education system is in need of a considerable amount of improvement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord agrees. I believe he has less experience of it than I have.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have experience of the Scots.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, there are certain elements in the consultation paper with reference to testing where the local authorities do not agree. However, I quarrel with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on the question of centralisation. I realise that Scotland has only a limited number of local education authorities, but within the guidance of the curriculum council there is a considerable difference in the way in which they approach the matter and in the arrangements of the schools.
If one compares the framework for the third and fourth years at secondary schools in the Scottish system with the framework that we have in the Bill in Clause 3, we see that people must be taught history, geography, technology, music, art and physical education. I believed that history and geography as separate subjects had disappeared from modern thought. If one looks at the Scottish system one discovers that social and environmental studies cover contemporary social studies, economics, geography, history or modern studies. I suggest that that is more appropriate and more in tune with the way in which people are taught.
As regards language and communication, one finds that the core area is English but the elective area includes classical studies, French, Gaelic, German, Greek, Italian, Latin, Russian and Spanish. Apart from Gaelic, which I would not suggest should be taught as a foreign language to the English, are all these languages to be included? Classical studies or Latin do not appear in the grouping of a modern foreign language.
The other matter which I consider to be very important and which is missing from the wording of Clause 3 is application. It is a matter which noble Lords on both sides of the House have continuously asserted is important, and I totally agree. I am sure that one of the reasons why children become bored

627
with school —and many of them do —is that they cannot see the point of things. If they are taught why it is necessary to learn something they will learn it a great deal more willingly. One sees throughout the Scottish wording "application" time and time again and I consider it to be crucially important. It is that which seems to be missing in Clause 3 of the Bill from the foundation and core subjects. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, twice your Lordships' House —once a few minutes ago and once at Committee stage —made it clear that it supports the provisions in the Bill for the core curriculum, foundation subjects and the rest. In those circumstances I hope that your Lordships' House will not think it necessary to spend very much time on this amendment which might well be described as the core curriculum and soda; it is a diluted version of the provisions in the Bill as they stand for the core curriculum. It seeks to contradict in some considerable measure the considered decision of your Lordships' House both a few minutes ago and at Committee stage.
I do not think the fact that different provisions exist in Scotland is necessarily very relevant to your Lordships' consideration of the provisions in this Bill for England and Wales. If I may be allowed to say so, sometimes your Lordships are a little wearied with statements by Scottish Peers and from that Bench of the special, peculiar and different needs of Scotland and the demand that Scotland should be treated very differently from England in so many respects. Therefore, it is perhaps a little lacking in consistency for the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to argue that the English system should be adopted or adapted to the Scottish.
Looking at what is proposed for England, I have no doubt that in good schools most of these provisions could be worked. In very good schools the need for the core curriculum is the least and the need for provisions in statutes is the least. However, we are dealing with all schools in the public sector in England and Wales. Your Lordships know very well that there are many very inferior schools in this country and, without wishing to prejudice the issue, including many in the ILEA area. Your Lordships will need only to reflect for a moment to consider what would happen in some schools of that kind if they were asked to take as subjects creative and aesthetic studies, technological activities and applications, social and environmental studies. I imagine that would boil down to Labour Party politics.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been in Glasgow or Edinburgh recently, but there are certainly areas of deprivation in those cities. Cynics in the younger age group would take these subjects if they were treated in the way the noble Lord is treating them, and would laugh at them in the way the noble Lord is laughing at them. So be it; they laugh at history and geography also.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, though I am far from clear what the point of it was. If he is saying, as apparently he is, that young and cynical people in not very good schools in Scotland would not operate very well under this system, I am wholly prepared to agree with him. What I am arguing about —and it is more relevant to this amendment —is that it would be quite disastrous in inferior schools in England. That, I notice, he did not contradict.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as always the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made some good debating points, but he has not dealt with the substance of the amendment. The important point here is how teaching should be handled —whether it should be on a cross-curricular basis or subject by subject.
It is worth while having this amendment in order to ask the Minister whether the way in which these subjects are presented will make it difficult for cross-curricular teaching to take place. That is what it is about. The crux of the matter is how the testing will be done. If the testing is to be related to each specific single subject, the teaching will be done on a single subject basis. If the testing is done in a way that encourages cross-curricular teaching, that problem will not arise.
People will be influenced by what appears on the face of the Act. If it is a list of subjects, and if that list of subjects is matched by tests that are closely subject related, it will undermine the opportunity for cross-curricular teaching which nearly all modern pedagogic specialists would advise.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it is also necessary to lift the reference to social and environmental studies out of the slightly specious political joke that was made about it. Social and environmental studies have been for 15 years a very important part of the curriculum of all schools, private and public. Where the environment is poor and where the society is limited it is even more essential that enrichment of the curriculum should take place. It is in that sense that social and environmental studies are in the curriculum of schools.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I rise to speak on this amendment because I am especially interested in the arts side. "Creative and aesthetic studies" seems to be a much better way of dealing with what at Committee stage, admittedly very late at night, we found to be a difficult problem. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is wrong if he thinks that this was discussed at Committee stage. Arts were discussed only on the amendment which I moved on music. That amendment was contained in a group and did not really get a fair hearing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I was referring to the fact that at the Committee stage, as earlier this afternoon, your Lordships came down in favour of the other system —that embodied in the Bill —of the core curriculum and that this is simply an attempt to go back on that.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with great respect, it is not. This deals with the foundations subjects. It alters the list. It makes it very much more practical and logical and provides a better way of teaching. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, a cross-curricular attitude is extremely important, especially in the area of aesthetic and creative studies. This would make it inclusive rather than exclusive, and we would not have the unwelcome introduction of the hierarchy which is at present in the Bill. If the amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, I shall be able to withdraw my amendment on the arts, which evidently caused the Government some problems on the last occasion in Committee.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the principle of a national curriculum has now been approved more than once by the House. I am not persuaded that our use of a list of subjects in Clause 3 betokens a very different approach to the curriculum from that adopted by the Scottish education department.
Why are we different from Scotland, and why do we need legislation in England which is not thought to be necessary in Scotland? The first question is a large one, but on the second we have been helped by noble Lords from north of the Border. Scotland has had a centrally directed curriculum for many years, and after all, 12 local education authorities can more easily carry out that central direction than the 97 that exist in England. Furthermore, there is a tradition of consensus on the curriculum in Scotland which, as experience shows, does not exist in England. This explains the need for legislation.
Those noble Lords who examined the Scottish proposals will see that they intend pupils to cover the same ground as is included in our foundation list —English, maths, science, a foreign language, history, geography, technology, music, art and PE. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that the areas of experience are not unfocused but represent subject groupings. Similarly, cross-curricular themes like health education will be dealt with in our foundation subjects, with room outside the national curriculum to reinforce those themes. The Scottish proposals for such themes are therefore very similar.
On areas of experience, HMI has analysed the curriculum in these terms and has not claimed that this is the way to organise a school timetable or to establish curriculum objectives. In its document on the curriculum it recognises that secondary schools will wish in the main to start from a subject base, and suggests that primary schools also will find it easier to plan for continuity and progression where some work at least is organised in separate subjects. Indeed, HMI's Curriculum Matters series will include separate volumes on English and modern languages, and on history and geography from five to 16, rather than seeking to wrap them up as language and communication, or social and environmental studies.
HMI states clearly that the areas of learning and experience are not in any sense discrete elements to be taught separately from one another, as our foundation subjects are now separately taught in most schools. This shows the inadvisability of trying
630
to replace our list with the one suggested by this amendment. The important thing for our legislative framework is that it should be readily understood and capable of translation into a workable system of national curriculum orders which define together our main educational objectives.
There is little doubt that working with the list of subjects helps in both these respects. Parents and teachers know what we mean by the broad subject headings. We also know that they must be defined in ways which cover all the essential areas of experience, including the necessary cross-curricular themes. In terms of dance and drama, which have been specifically referred to, I can quote as an example the fact that drama is firmly in the terms of reference of the National Curriculum English Working Group which was set up just after Easter.
Under our proposals the Secretary of State has no power to control how the national curriculum is taught. While we expect as now that most foundation subjects will normally be separately taught and timetabled, we are not constraining the development of cross-curricular or modular approaches, whether under the auspices of TVEI, to which I referred earlier, or otherwise, or the continuation of good practice in primary schools. In fact, by giving schools a clear framework against which to test the contents of any modular or integrated course, we are helping them to ensure that it is making an effective contribution to their overall objectives, something which may be lost sight of if such developments are not carefully monitored. Thus it is evident that nothing would be gained, and a good deal in terms of clarity and comprehensibility would be lost, by the rewording that has been urged upon us. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she intends to respond to the intervention of her noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who said that social and environmental studies, which include economics and economic awareness, could be taught in our schools in such a way as would amount to Labour Party indoctrination. Is that now the view of the DES on the social sciences?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not wish to respond too often in this way. I took my noble friend's remark to be somewhat rhetorical.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think that we all took the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with several grains of salt.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, "pinch" is the right word.
Baroness David: My Lords, "pinches", that is right. What I fail to understand —and this has been the case throughout the Bill —is that the Minister assures us that the framework is flexible and that there will be cross-curricular possibilities within the curriculum. Why is that not on the face of the Bill? Parents and teachers do not like such headings. They do not understand them. Every effort we have made

631
to achieve more flexibility has not been accepted. Parents and teachers still do not like the way matters are arranged.
The Secretary of State has a great deal of power under the Bill. He appoints councils and working groups. He can direct what is in Clause 11. He can direct what goes on in the way of experiments. There is more centralised power in the Bill than in anything we have experienced. I am extremely sorry that the new headings are not acceptable to the Minister. It does not seem to me that we should slavishly follow Scotland. If we see something sensible, I do not see why we should not take it over. I am sure that these headings would be more readily understood by the population, especially those involved in the education world. I can see that we shall not get any further on this point, so I shall ask the House to divide at once.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 176.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Amherst, E.

Hayter, L.

Annan, L.

Hooson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hunt, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hylton, L.

Banks, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kagan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kearton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kennet, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milford, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Flowers, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Parry, L.

Glenamara, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grimond, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

632

Russell, E.

Underhill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Vernon, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Walston, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Somers, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Stedman, B.

Wigoder, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Willis, L.

Swann, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winstanley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fortescue, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Allerton, L.

Gibson, L.

Arran, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Auckland, L.

Grantchester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Belstead, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halsbury, E.

Birdwood, L.

Hankey, L.

Blatch, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwich, L.

Harvington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hastings, L.

Brahazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brightman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Burton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caldecote, V.

Ilchester, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Joseph, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carnock, L.

Killearn, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kimball, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kitchener, E.

Chelwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chichester, Bp.

Layton, L.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

London, Bp.

Colnbrook, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Luke, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cowley, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Manton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marley, L.

Craigton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Denning, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dundee, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eccles, V.

Morris, L.

Effingham, E.

Mottistone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Moyne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Munster, E.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Ferrier, L.

Norfolk, D.

Foley, L.

Norrie, L.

633

Northbourne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Shannon, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Orkney, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Perth, E.

Porritt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Portland, D.

Swansea, L.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Quinton, L.

Swinton, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reigate, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Renton, L.

Tonypandy, L.

Renwick, L.

Trafford, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Truro, Bp.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Waldegrave, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Sandford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.52 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 3 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one question of procedure before the right reverend Prelate starts. There are grouped with this amendment some 65 other amendments, which is quite something on a Report stage. It is quite a problem for the right reverend Prelate. Obviously I do not quarrel with it, but we may well have something like a Second Reading debate.
However, a number of amendments are not included in this grouping, some on religious collective worship and some on religious education. The House may well feel, as I do myself, that while we may have a Second Reading debate covering the whole field of over 65 amendments, we shall probably be wise to reserve some of our comments for a detailed discussion on these rather important points. I think that is probably the way in which the House may wish to proceed.
There is one other point. Included in these consolidated groupings are Amendments Nos. 339 and 341 which are to be moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. They certainly cannot be in this group because they are amendments to a later amendment of mine which is outside this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am in some difficulty on this. I support everything that my noble friend has said. The difficulty is that although it is most welcome to have a general introduction to the amendments, as I understand the right reverend Prelate wishes to have, any detailed consideration of religious education which arises under Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 —two of which are in my name —cannot be dealt with and it has been taken out of the mass of grouped amendments. However, the sister
634
amendments on collective worship, also in my name and to which my noble friend has just referred, are left in. The difficulty is that they raise two points of principle: one, that the act of worship shall be Christian and the other, that there shall be separate acts for other faiths. How is one to deal with that? I seek some assistance.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I may help my noble friends. The amendment which has just been called in the name of the right reverend Prelate is a paving amendment, I think, to two or possibly more amendments. It is always necessary, where there are several amendments on the same subject, for the movers of later amendments to have the right to talk on the first one because the outcome of their later amendments may well be affected by the decision of the House on the earlier amendments.
I think that it is right that we should have, I hope not quite as large a debate as envisaged by my two noble friends, but certainly a comprehensive debate on the whole issue. After that, if there should be a decision of the House on the first amendment, some of the other amendments may fall. Others may come to be discussed rather more shortly when we reach them. I think this is the way in which the House normally carries out these procedures. I do not see that there is any other way in which the House can do it.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, perhaps I might ask my noble friend to consider what he is saying on that point. Nobody could possibly object to the first amendment; it is a drafting amendment. To say that the decision of the House on a drafting amendment will affect the length of debate or the closeness of the analysis of other matters which raise far more important issues later cannot be right.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that the practice in your Lordships' House is for a decision on a series of amendments to be taken on the first one, even if it is only a paving amendment. If the House should divide on the first amendment or if it should accept it on Question, that would be a decision binding on the other two later amendments which come with it. That is the way in which both the Committee and Report stages are always carried out in your Lordships' House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will bear with me for a moment, because it will save time. There are amendments in my name. Subject to what is said, I am opposing the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate which are part of this paving amendment. But I am supporting this amendment because it paves the way to my amendments. In other words, I shall support this amendment although I am opposing the other amendments of the right reverend Prelate. Therefore, what are we doing with this amendment? There can be no objection to the amendment because it accepts that religious education and collective worship are inseparable and there should be a common approach. Everybody would agree with that. Where the divergence lies is on the means of implementation. The right reverend Prelate has one package and, with respect to the House, I have another, with those noble Lords who support me.
5 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, surely this is more trouble than it is worth? We all make our separate speeches on the first amendment, supporting it if need be and describing our attitude to the later ones. If need be, we vote separately on the later ones.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not think that the difficulty envisaged by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway really exists. Suppose your Lordships refused to accept the amendment of the right reverend Prelate and wished later to accept the amendment of my noble friend, then the paving amendment on which we had taken the vote on the amendment of the right reverend Prelate could always be put in at Third Reading as a consequential amendment. There really is not a difficulty with this because this is the way the House always proceeds. To seek to alter what has been a very well understood and very well tried procedure of the House at this stage would have us all in a total foment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in the notes to the groupings it is quite clearly stated:
"Although every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal and not binding."
What precisely does that mean?
Lord Denham: My Lords, what my noble friend must not confuse is the amendments which are linked together —in other words, the paving amendment of the right reverend Prelate plus the little group that come after it —and those that are discussed. A decision on the paving amendment is always taken in your Lordships' House as a decision on the substantive amendment or amendments that come later. They do not affect any other amendments that are grouped with it. But it is right to discuss those together because some later amendments may well be affected by the decision of your Lordships on the earlier ones. I hope that my noble friend will understand that. I think that the House usually does find that this procedure works. The only difficulty on this occasion is that there is such a large number of amendments grouped together, but this I am afraid cannot be helped.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may support very much what the Government Chief Whip says. As I see it, a decision on the paving amendment —Amendment No. 3—will also be a decision on the other amendments standing in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Lords, Lord Soper and Lord Elton—Amendments Nos. 69 and 71 — as the right reverend Prelate will no doubt tell your Lordships when he moves his amendment.
Lord Denham: My Lords, that is absolutely right. It is the custom of your Lordships' House that the decision on the paving amendment is taken as binding on the others and that the ones that are linked with it, that are agreed to be linked with it and
636
are generally accepted to be linked with it, should be taken formally when they are reached in the order in which they come.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clear up one point on the ruling he has just given? If one is in the position, as I think I am, of favouring some of the subsequent amendments of the right reverend Prelate but being against others, how am I to vote on the paving amendment?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should hate my noble friend to think that I am giving rulings. I hoped that I was giving an interpretation of what is the generally accepted practice of this House. I think that these three amendments do go together. I am afraid that all I can suggest is that if my noble friend does not like them as a group—I do not think that they stand apart from each other—he can perhaps make that clear when he addresses the House on the subject.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can sympathise with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway simply by saying that surely the principle is consistency. What my noble friend the Chief Whip is saying is that no noble Lord may ask the House to do after one decision something which is inconsistent with that decision. When we get to the subsequent amendments, it will be clear whether or not they are consistent with what has already been decided.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, that cannot be so because if the principle is consistency, this amendment, which my noble friend the Chief Whip has not appreciated, is consistent with—I shall support it—both the amendment of the right reverend Prelate and with the amendment that stands in my name supported by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and the other supporters. It is consistent with both. So when it is said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that if we support Amendment No. 3 we support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, that totally puts out the other amendments. And there is a consistency between both of them.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that we should get into the most tremendous difficulty if my noble friend seeks to alter a very well-tried and very well-understood procedure of the House. If my noble friend were to vote for the first amendment of the right reverend Prelate, the one we are engaged on at the moment, he would be supporting the substantive amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I am afraid that there is no way one can get away from that. If the group of amendments of the right reverend Prelate is not accepted, then my noble friend may move his. It will not have the paving that is common to his amendment and that of the right reverend Prelate, but that can always be put back again on Third Reading. That is the purpose of Third Reading—a tidying up after the previous stages of the Bill.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I should like to remind my noble friend that I have taken the prudent course—bearing in mind that something like this might present itself—to withdraw all the relevant

637
amendments from this group. So we shall have no difficulty whatever in moving them. They will not be hound in any way by the decision on the drafting amendments. However, there is a slight problem in that when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London comes to move his amendment on religious worship (which I take it he will do formally when it is called) I have an amendment to it which is not grouped with it. But I take it that my amendment will be perfectly in order.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it must be right that the amendment which I hope my noble friend will discuss with this particular grouping—the amendment to the group of the right reverend Prelate—will of course be moved later when we reach it chronologically.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I shall not discuss it here. I only discussed it in the most general terms on Second Reading. I shall not move it formally, but with a considered speech at the appropriate point in the Bill.
Lord McNair: My Lords, may I suggest that we take the advice of the two Chief Whips and listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London?
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 3
Page 1, line 17, after ("education") insert (", religious worship").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am moving Amendment No. 3 as a paving amendment. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 80–82 and 336. I shall inevitably have to refer also to some amendments to be moved by the Minister because they are intimately connected with the implementation of those amendments.
In Committee widespread concern was expressed about the provisions for religious education which it was felt would not deal with the present situation in our schools. Deep concern was expressed about the failure to express the centrality of the Christian faith, both in teaching and in worship, and its replacement by what is commonly called the comparative religion approach which fails to do justice not only to Christianity but to any faith, or by the abandonment of anything which could be described as religious education.
While, as I then indicated, I had great sympathy with this concern (which I share) I could not for a number of reasons support the various amendments which were proposed to deal with the situation. I did not believe that it could be remedied simply by the insertion of provisions, however laudable the intention behind them, without relating them to the education system as a whole, depending as it does for its efficient operation upon the co-operation of a number of partners recognised to be such. Consultation with those partners was essential if new provisions were to be effective. I therefore gave an undertaking to your Lordships that having undertaken such consultations I should on Report try to bring to the House a package of amendments which would both implement the desires expressed in
638
Committee and do so with the understanding of all who are involved in their implementation. This I now do.
In presenting them to the House, I wish first to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State and his officials for the assistance which has been given and for their creative approach in our negotiations. I also wish to express my appreciation for the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which has provided the necessary stimulus to keep the discussion directed to the right end. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked me to express his deep regret that pastoral demands prevent him from being in the House today to support the amendments in person. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, also strongly supports the amendments. However, he cannot be present as his wife is undergoing an operation this afternoon.
Discussions have taken place with representatives of all the major Christian churches; representatives of other faiths; those representing local authorities; the teachers' unions; parents' and governors' organisations; and educational organisations such as the Religious Education Council, which has over 40 member organisations from the education world and the faith community. If any feel that they have been left out, I assure them that that is simply due to the pressure of time and for no other reason.
To avoid any doubt or confusion, I asked those who have been consulted to confirm their response in writing. In the majority of cases, I received letters from the responsible people concerned to that effect. Not only have I received widespread support but none whom we have consulted wishes to oppose what is proposed in the amendments. What I now present is more than a number of isolated amendments. It is a package. The individual amendments relate to each other to produce an overall effect which is more than the sum of the effects of each amendment taken separately.
The package provides a new basis for religious education in our schools. It both secures the centrality of Christianity in religious education and does so in a way which is appropriate to our education system. It acknowledges and provides for the valid concerns of other religious communities in Britain as part of our nation and does so within that system and not by requiring them to meet their concerns by withdrawing or opting out.
One fundamental change is the use of the term "religious education" instead of the term "religious instruction" which was used in the 1944 Act to cover both the agreed syllabus and denominational teaching. Because RE was used in that Act with a wider meaning, it is now proposed to refer specifically to worship alongside religious education. Amendments Nos. 3, 69 and 336 are all intended to implement that change. It is also reflected in the additional responsibility for worship which is given to the standing advisory councils by Amendments Nos. 74 and 76. The councils, which under earlier amendments accepted in Committee are now mandatory and given the right to require a revision of the agreed syllabus, are given the responsibility for ensuring that the provisions relating to religious

639
ducation and worship as a whole are implemented locally.
The changes for the agreed syllabus itself are reflected by Amendment No. 71. That provides that the syllabus shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian, while taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain. In other words, while affirming clearly the place of Christianity it provides for a flexibility of emphasis in areas where the vast majority of pupils are from other faiths. It will be open to the standing advisory councils on religious education, as established by Clause 7 and amended in Committee, to advise as to how that flexibility is to be used. However, it will have to be done without prejudice to the distinctive position of Christianity. The complaints procedure will enable representations to be made if the implementation of the agreed syllabus is regarded as unsatisfactory in any school.
Similar provisions are made for worship by Amendment No. 69. Normally that will be Christian. But where the occasion requires—for example, in a school in which the family tradition is predominantly Moslem—the act of worship can draw on that tradition. Again, in respect of worship the advice of the standing advisory councils must be given and the complaints procedure lies. I should point out that amendments to be put forward by the Government restate the provision of the 1944 Act in respect of the right of parents to withdraw children from religious education or worship or both so that they will be on the face of the Bill and not remain as unrepealed provisions of the 1944 Act.
There is a significant change in the constitution of the standing advisory councils. Under the amendments, the committee of other denominations must include representatives of Christian denominations as well as those of other faiths. To meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in Committee, Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 provide that the voting in those committees will be by majority. Each committee (or, as they will be called under the Bill, representative group), except that which represents the LEA, will have one vote each. Unanimity will not be required. That will prevent the representatives of one faith from vetoing a request for the revision of the syllabus.
It will be apparent that the standing advisory councils will have a very important role to play in ensuring the effective implementation of the new provisions. So far as concerns the Christian churches, I have already emphasised the need for active and vigorous participation. In the Church of England, that will be pressed upon the bishops and the diocesan directors of education. Cardinal Hume has agreed that the Roman Catholic Church will play a full part in the process—considerably fuller than in the past. The Free Church Federal Council has also indicated that the free churches will contribute to the process with enthusiasm. There are a number of points which we are still discussing with the department. However, they are points which do not affect the package on religious education and
640
worship and I shall speak to them as they arise in our debates.
I believe that this package could signal the end of what has been described in this House as the mish-mash approach to religious education, which those of other faiths, as well as Christians, deplore. I believe positively that it represents a new approach to religious education. In the past, teachers may have too often appeared to accept secularism because they feared that to do otherwise would mean indoctrination—a process, in its pejorative sense, which many in this House have also deplored. The package will lead to recognition and acceptance of the fact that the avoidance of indoctrination does not require the adoption of a mish-mash. Nor does it require the adoption of a neutral approach which limits religious education to no more than information about religion. Nor does it require the adoption of a separatist approach in which religion is isolated from education and which divides both the community and school and the wider community in which the school is set.
I do not claim that the package is perfect. I do not claim that it provides exactly what every interested party (or indeed every Member of this House) wants. That frankly would be impossible. However, I do not see it as a compromise. I see it as a positive and creative approach to religious education which, while taking the interests of all seriously, achieves those three aims that I mentioned earlier in my speech of acknowledging and providing for the valid concerns of other faiths in a way which is appropriate to our educational system, recognising that those who profess those faiths are part of our nation, and at the same time securing centrality of the Christian tradition of this country.
While commending the group of amendments as a whole. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing great appreciation of the endeavours of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London by saying how much many of us value the progress he has achieved since we discussed these matters in Committee. With these amendments there is a profoundly significant move from a position where Christianity was not on the face of the Bill to a situation where it is explicitly identified as the main component in both worship and religious education.
It may be helpful at the outset for me to clarify my own position by speaking not only to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate but also to those which carry my own name, and especially Amendment No. 25. In so doing, I shall discuss the objectives as I see them behind those amendments with which I am associated and indicate why—subject to further clarification which I hope that the right reverend Prelate may be able to give with regard to one or two specific problems—I hope to be able to support his amendments and the associated amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hooper. I cannot of course speak for other noble Lords whose names are joined with mine on some of the other amendments.
The concerns which prompted me and I believe my colleagues to seek to amend the Bill were three-fold.

641
First, as the right reverend Prelate has said, there has been widespread anxiety about violation of the 1944 Act in that in too many schools now there is no act of worship and many pupils receive no religious education.
Secondly, there is concern over the content of religious education and worship in those schools where it has become either excessively secularised and politicised or where the multi-faith approach has been adopted to the extent that all faiths are trivialised and faith itself may be destroyed. The noble Lord the Chief Rabbi summed up this problem in Committee with a quotation from Rabbi Jonathan Sachs in which he referred to a "fruit cocktail of world faiths" and argued that,
"in trying to teach all faiths, it's possible that we succeed in teaching none". —[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 420.]
Thirdly, there was the related concern over the need to protect the integrity of Christianity and of other world religions. I and many other Members of your Lordships' House argued that Christianity as the main spiritual tradition of this country for nearly 2,000 years should have a primary place in both RE and in collective worship. Noble Lords may recollect that we originally used the word "predominant" but we then agreed that it has undesirable connotations.
The extent to which Christinity is not being taught adequately in some schools has since been vividly illustrated in a radio broadcast recently in which third-year pupils from a London comprehensive school showed an astounding ignorance of even the most basic aspects of Christianity such as the meaning of Whitsun and the Gospels. Indeed, they thought that the Gospels referred to the disciples.
The amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate should reverse that deplorable situation and ensure that all young people receive a good grounding in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. However, I have always stressed that I do not wish to adopt an exclusivist approach which would be conducive to intolerance despite press reports which imply otherwise, most notably in the Observer. Indeed, I have always argued that pupils should have the opportunity to study not only Christianity but also the other major world religions in ways which respect the integrity of each faith. That will help them to have a greater understanding of faiths especially those held by others who live in our community.
Moreover, I and other noble Lords also wish to protect the rights of pupils of other faiths or those of none, reaffirming the conscience clause of the 1944 Act which enshrines the right of parents to withdraw their children from RE and from worship. In Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 I and other noble Lords go further than the 1944 Act, seeking to make explicit provision for pupils of other faiths to have the opportunity for worship and education according to those faiths if their parents wish it and if numbers justify making such alternative arrangements.
Having had the opportunity to study the right reverend Prelate's amendments and those in the name of my noble friend the Minister, I think that they seem to satisfy the major objectives, subject to clarification on two issues. That clarification is crucial and centres on the meaning of the words "in
642
the main". With regard to RE, I and many other people wish to be assured beyond any doubt that the phrase "in the main" is not intended to be an endorsement of the kind of multi-faith approach so aptly criticised by Clifford Longley in The Times on 2nd May when he pointed out that religions lose their coherence when broken into bits for the sake of comparison. Most religions have elements which, when taken out of context, can only seem absurd to those not of that faith.
I am perhaps even more concerned about the meaning of the phrase "in the main" with regard to worship. If it is to be interpreted as the expectation that worship shall be Christian except for the provision for other faiths as specified elsewhere in the Bill, that seems to me acceptable. However, if it is to be a mandate for some confusing multi-faith assembly, I believe that that would be unacceptable not only to Christians but also to those of other faiths. Worship implies worship of a god not gods. Many people would not be able to accept that wording which left open the opportunity for the destruction of the purity of worship according to the integrity of their faith. Therefore I believe that many people need to be very strongly reassured about the legal meaning of the wording "in the main" in Amendment No. 69.
Very briefly, the other major concern which lay behind my putting down Amendment No. 25 was the need to respect the rights of pupils of other faiths. Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 25 (which is in my name) attempts to achieve that objective. As noble Lords will see, that is now adopted in Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and other noble Lords. I naturally support the substance of those amendments; but I believe that those provisions are met by Amendments Nos. 67 and 101 in the name of my noble friend the Minister which allow pupils of other faiths to have provision for worship and education according to those faiths where appropriate.
As I conclude perhaps I may point out that I am aware that legislation alone will not solve all the problems confronting those responsible for RE and worship in our schools. The acute shortage of teachers will not disappear overnight. It is hoped that some remedies may emerge in the near future. I have been told by many Christian teachers in different parts of the country that they have not been able to teach RE or to take acts of worship because the multi-faith commitment of those in authority has meant that they have been forbidden to use the name of Christ in schools. Understandably, they then felt that to teach or to lead worship without any reference to Christ was a betrayal of their faith and consequently they withdrew their services. Now, with the explicit recognition and endorsement of Christianity in the Bill, they should be free to teach and lead worship as appropriate.
Finally, with clear provision for appeals procedures relating both to RE and worship which are now included in the Bill there is an opportunity—indeed an obligation—for parents, teachers and governors to ensure that schools no longer violate the letter and the spirit of the law.

643
Where there is already good practice—and it is important to appreciate that many schools are doing an excellent job in both the provision of RE and worship—it can continue to flourish, but where there is cause for concern there is now opportunity for appeal and improvement.
Perhaps I may conclude by congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his endeavours and my noble friend the Minister on the amendments in her name, which must have involved extremely hard work by many people. I hope that these amendments will serve as a clarion call to all who have responsibility for RE to give all our young people the opportunity to have a firm grounding in Christianity, as it is the main spiritual tradition of this land, together with an understanding of its influence on our history and culture. I believe that these amendments should also provide increased understanding of other faiths, especially those held by many of our fellow citizens.
Without a vision the people perish. For too long many of our young people have been denied a spiritual vision and we have allowed too many of them in recent generations to grow up without knowledge of the faith of their forefathers. I believe that these amendments should help us as a nation to remedy this betrayal of our spiritual heritage. I therefore support them subject to the clarifications and reassurances that I have requested.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think perhaps I may raise a dissenting voice early in the debate. I may be one of the few noble Lords to do so. I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to what is before us this afternoon. It is more than a question; it is a crusade—a crusade to extend the boundaries of the religious presence in our maintained schools far beyond the agreement and the Act of 1944. That is the issue. It has been part of a steady approach to what I would describe as a form of Moral Rearmament by notable people in religion and elsewhere to secure some more stringent discipline upon the nation's intellectual and moral affairs.
I do not know who or what is behind this movement. R. A. Butler complained very bitterly about the bishops but this afternoon the right reverend Prelate presented the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with an accolade for her part in this matter and I fully acknowledge the part that she has played. As I have told the noble Baroness more than once, I only wish that she were on my side. What a doughty protagonist she can make! But of course her extreme views are on the one hand as unacceptable as I hope my views may be acceptable to noble Lords on the other hand.
When I read her amendments, which for some reason have been given a separate battlefield in the grouping process. I thought that they were what would be described in financial circles as a hostile takeover bid suitable for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because in them there is provision for entry into the classroom of incumbents
644
from various denominations who may deputise for teachers who are unable or unwilling to carry out the task which the amendments propose.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill arrived in this Chamber in a state of neutrality on the subject of religion. I understand that it was not the Government's intention to resurrect the religious controversy, which R. A. Butler called "this religious business". So far as I understand, it was intended to allow the 1944 Act to continue in that regard, so that we need not have a re-run of the controversies aroused on previous occasions: 1902, 1917 and 1944—all of them about religion. When R. A. Butler was complaining about the bishops, he said that too many of them came from Oxford and went on to add that it would probably he a good thing to abolish Oxford. That is an illustration of the state of mind produced by the pressures upon the Government at that time.
The significance of the 1944 compromise was the survival of the denominational schools, in which sectarian religion could be taught, and the agreement on religious instruction—not education but instruction—for the maintained schools based upon the agreed syllabus. It is that with which we are mainly concerned now. In this paving amendment we are dealing with an act of worship. An act of worship is provided for in the 1944 Education Act. It is what follows upon the amendment that makes such a substantial change from 1944, and in a moment I shall be asking why we need that change.
What is proposed is not religious instruction. For some reason or other a distinction is being drawn between instruction and education. The 1944 Act did not refer to "religious education"; it used the word "instruction" throughout. We are now in the course of changing the word "instruction" to "education" in some parts in order to match the new ethos that these amendments propose, and this time Christianity is to be the basis of religious education. That is precisely what was rejected in 1944. We are now asked to reverse that position and accept Christianity as a defined purpose of religious education.
To begin with I ask whether this is a suitable time to raise this question when there are some difficult and still unresolved problems in our society. In the 44 years since 1944 this country has seen a growth of ethnic minorities with different faiths from our own. Still unresolved is the question of whether we shall have a multiracial society or a fully integrated British people, and, if the latter, what shall be the predominant religious or cultural influence upon our affairs. I mention it not in any kind of racial spirit but I feel that there are too many sensitive aspects, possibilities of disharmony and potential sources of friction in our society for there to be even the suggestion that there might be a bias in what your Lordships' House is asked to do this afternoon. Is it to identify here and now before we go any further the predominant role of one particular religion in British society? Is that the underlying purpose of what is afoot today?
I believe that this amendment is an admission of the failure of religious instruction over the past half century. There have undoubtedly been some

645
shortcomings and they probably would be admitted by the Churches themselves, but the remedy now being sought is a stronger line on Christian education. However, there is no evidence whatever —
Lord Somers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there is no evidence whatever that religious education will contribute to the objectives that were sought in 1944 and which presumably are still prominent today. When the Secretary of State says that our children should be exposed to spiritual experience and belief, I wonder whether religious indoctrination is the only way to get our children to behave better. Is there no other guidance which can be brought to bear except the fear of God—that was my experience as a youngster—or the love of God, which we are trying to promote in the new realism of our religious life? Is Christianity a unified doctrine of teaching? Is it some abstract study separate from denominational differences? If so, the Christian Churches ought to tell us what it is, because they appear not to be agreed upon that.
Where does one go for Christian teaching except to the various denominations of Christian Church? It is members of such denominations who will enter the classroom if they are called in to give religious education. The signs and portents are not reassuring. The Churches are not keeping their congregations. They become interesting and attractive only when they stray into politics. The bishops become outspoken, and we take an interest in the Bishops' Bench for the first time. Sunday schools have long since gone out of fashion, and the Churches wish to take over the day schools instead.
I suggest that a conscripted adherence to any cause spells decline. In a society that has so much incitement to misconduct and violence, it is difficult to believe that conscripted education in our day schools will make any contribution. We should not be trying to instil religious belief by law but, rather, hope, confidence and inspiration for the young.
The Churches cannot wish to make their failure to reach the parents a reason for the statutory right to access to the children. Let us consider the position further before we change the statute law. There is time enough yet for that. There is no impending crisis which requires immediate legislation. This Bill in its amended form will not have gone though the elected Chamber; it will not have been the subject of political discussion. I say, let us leave it alone and let us make a better approach to the problems of the young than the simple remedy which is merely re-writing—and writing it larger—the 1944 legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I always listen with great respect to the consistent views expressed by the noble Lord. I have known him for over 30 years and he has never changed his views. He does not like the teaching of the Christian faith. I accept
646
his sincerity. It so happens that when he refers to 1945, his memory fails him. That is the kindest way to put it. I took part on behalf of the National Union of Teachers in the negotiations with R. A. Butler about the 1945 Bill.
Noble Lords: The 1944 Bill.
Viscount Tonypandy: The discussions were in 1944, my Lords. It was quite clear that thanks to his convictions and ours, we had agreed syllabuses across the land. The anxiety of the government then was entirely different from anxieties today. Then it was Catholic and Protestant quarrelling with each other or being suspicious of each other. We heard the right reverend Prelate explain that now there is unity on this question between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
As I listened to the noble Lord, I asked myself why we should be agitated about whether our faith is taught or not. We are a very tolerant nation. There is no more tolerant a nation in the world when it comes to guarding minority rights. Both Right-wing and Left-wing will proclaim the right of minorities to hold on to their faith, and to their beliefs. Indeed, in the amendments, provision is made to protect them. However, our parliamentary democracy owes everything to the teaching of the New Testament, to the Christian interpretation on the value of the individual. Our fathers built on that truth.
If one looks at the history book, one will see that the countries in the world that were first to proclaim human rights—democratic parliamentary rights—were those countries where the Judaeo-Christian belief was practised and taught. The world has been shaped by the faith of people. One can look at the different nations with their different faiths. One sees the characteristics of each faith in the respective countries. In this country, we built a welfare state on the basis that we are each other's keepers; that we are members of one family. Such a basis comes out of the New Testament.
We have a responsibility to tomorrow's world, because we are talking of tomorrow's world when we decide an education Bill which will probably endure for another 40 years. Tomorrow's world will be very different. It will be as different as today's world is from when most of us were young. However, different as it will be, it will need the old values. It will require the eternal verities. If the Christian gospel that Christ is the Son of God is true—and I believe it is—have we a right to say that we step back in the name of toleration, and will not put that faith forward? We should be betraying ourselves, our heritage, and tomorrow's world.
I regret to say this, because I was called to be a teacher and I took the calling seriously. It is a great privilege when total strangers will give you their children and allow you to influence their thinking and their attitude to life. However, thanks to the neglect of the teaching in our schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded is, there are young people who know no more of our faith than they knew in darkest Africa when we sent missionaries there. These youngsters have been the beneficiaries of a society created by people who have these values.

647
I say to the noble Lord, we must remember that in a changing world, there are some great permanences. People's beliefs make them what they are. They decide their relationships with each other. They decide the form of society that they will have. That is why I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London with all my heart. He did not have an easy task. I do not believe that many could have achieved as much from the respective organisations as has the right reverend Prelate. I share the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, but I am aware that we have the opportunity now, if the House so decides, to ensure that in the education system of this land the Christian faith shall be strong and secure.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I must not be guilty of turning this debate into a debate on the re-education of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think that he has gone too far for that and I shall not try it. I should like him to know that from the start of this series of debates my concern has been that the story of Christianity should be told to the children, because I do not believe that one can understand the nature of our country unless that story is told and unless it is known.
Secondly, the basic values of the Christian religion of which the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, has spoken should also be known and taught. I believe that over a generation or more the ignorance of these values has made it very difficult for our boys and girls to tell the difference between right and wrong. We are at present suffering a good deal from the ignorance of that generation.
I put my name to Amendment No. 22 along with my noble friend Lady Cox. But that was before the right reverend Prelate put his amendments on the Marshalled List. Having listened to the right reverend Prelate today, like my noble friend Lady Cox I have come to the conclusion that he has made a very significant advance: an advance further than I thought he would when we were in Committee.
While wording is important—my noble friend Lady Cox says she looks forward to some interpretation of the right reverend Prelate's amendment in certain respects—I am rightly or wrongly influenced by a very practical matter. What went wrong after the 1944 Act was that the Churches did not involve themselves in the teaching of religion in schools. That was true of all the Churches. There was a great opportunity and they missed it. From the recent account that the right reverend Prelate has given of his activities, I believe there is now a good chance that this attitude will be changed and that the Churches will take a positive lead. I hope that that will be so. In that belief and on that understanding, if the matter is pressed to a vote I shall be inclined to throw my vote on the side of the right reverend Prelate's series of amendments.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, at the last meeting of the Committee, I tried to persuade noble Lords to accept the amendment that we left with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to see what could be done with it. I now realise that he has done a great deal. I pay tribute to the work he has
648
done among all the denominations in the way that he has brought this amendment hack to us.
I cannot represent the Free Church Council. I am a member of the Free Church, but obviously I cannot represent it. However, I am sure that if my noble friend Lord Soper were here he would agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate has said.
If this proposal goes through this afternoon—and I hope that it does—I look forward to it as a challenge that we have to accept in our schools. It would be a new look in the teaching of religious education in our schools. But when we have introduced it in our schools we will still have a long way to go. Regardless of all the best teachers and the best intentions of people in this House, the real place for teaching religion is by example in the home, and, secondly, in the Churches. None of us, regardless of what we do or say in this Chamber, can take that responsibility away. The responsibility lies on me to teach my children and on my son to teach my grandchildren. That is the first responsibility, regardless of what we say or what we do. I wish this amendment well. I hope it goes through and that the teachers accept the challenge of the new look presented to them.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I should like to say first what an extraordinary privilege it is for anyone with an historical sense to be taking part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to the Education Act 1902. The debate has been going on for long before that. It goes hack to the Cowper Temple clause in the 1870s. But I believe that what is remarkable about this debate as opposed to some of the debates in the past is that although people have spoken with passion no one has spoken with any bitterness. That is an extraordinary transformation.
Personally, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It was a classic statement of the secular position. It was put so persuasively that I was almost converted! But then along came the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who put the other attitude also in a classical, well-argued and passionate way so that I was re-converted back into my old position.
I should like to express my strongest support for the principles underlying the group of amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate. They are not only his amendments, but they are the amendments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who is the acknowledged leader in the lay world for the Roman Catholic community. That is of very deep significance. I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord not only on the principle but on the language in which they have contained the principle because the rightness of the principle is matched only by the adroitness of the language. It is a quite extraordinary double achievement, because while I join in congratulating my noble friend Lady Cox—because without her we should not have this amendment—I believe that the wording of her original amendment was not quite right. She herself was uneasy with it and I certainly was uneasy with it, because of that word "predominant". The word "dominant" seems so out

649
of place in the religious sphere, which is after all a matter of service to others not an attempt to dominate them.
I believe the right reverend Prelate's amendment significantly extends the meaning of the Bill. The Bill recognises that morality cannot be sustained in society without the support of religion. Of course I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on his position, but he is a remarkable individual. One cannot have a nation entirely made up of people like the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: What a terrible thought!
6 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: It would explode! But one has to consider not the outstanding individual, hut the ordinary child in a school. One cannot teach morality effectively to the ordinary child unless there is some higher sanction behind it.
The amendment recognises the fact that Christianity has been the principal source by which spirituality has come to this country. It might have come through another source. It might have come through the Enlightenment, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had had his way. It might have come through the philosophe of the French nation or through Hinduism, Mohammedanism or Buddhism. However, it did not; it came through Christianity. Therefore the amendment is based on a statement of fact and not on ideology or theology.
I should be the last person to maintain that good theology is a guarantee of good government. If I tried to maintain that, I should be put in a difficult position by the history of the government of the Papal state. However, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that our democracy, institutions and freedom are dependent upon Christian insights. Therefore it goes beyond a morality. The noble Viscount said that our institutions are based on the recognition of the rights of the individual; the sacred nature of the individual personality. I agree with that, but in deference to him I say immediately that there is another principle which he did not stress. It is that there is also a duty on the individual to collaborate with and to help other people. We must include those two principles if we are to see this in its full form.
I should like to return to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about the 1944 Act. He said that this is a different Bill and it has made a new departure in a new situation. I do not believe that that is the case at all. In 1944 the situation was that Christianity was so accepted as the religion of the country that it was unnecessary to include it explicitly. However, it was included implicitly. If one reads any of the discussions which took place between R. A. Butler and various bishops one will see that it was an accepted fact.
The situation has changed and we are now a multi-faith society. I certainly accept that. However, we are still a Christian country. We are not a Christian country in the sense that everybody is a churchgoer;
650
my dear mother used to call it "running to church". We are a Christian country in the sense that we are a people of deep ethical instincts; that we wish Christianity well; that in moments of distress and difficulty we turn to it for help. We are not a secular society at all in the sense as described by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. We have not made a choice for a secular agnostic model of society from which all associations with Christianity are excluded. That is not the case at all. A simple example is the prayers which opened today's Session in both Houses. Therefore one can still say that the basic underlying situation has not changed since the 1944 Act. However, there has been sufficient change and we must make the situation explicit instead of relying on something which is implicit.
The last point that I should like to make is this. The enshrinement of provisions in law is not the end of the argument but the beginning. That is not to say that it is not vitally important but it is the beginning of a great task. That has been stressed by a number of noble Lords. We must pass on to the question of what the manner of religious education should be. What is it for? I believe that all noble Lords are agreed that it is not for proselytism. Religious education is not evangelism. In my view it is in order to open up the spiritual heritage of this country to children and young people so that they can have the possibility, if they so wish, of making spiritual and religious commitments. The purpose is to enable them to do something, not to force them to do something. Neither men, women nor children can be forced to believe. It was put pithily by Cardinal Manning in one of his great sermons. He said:
"Booted aspostles never yet converted nations".
I believe that this group of amendments enshrines the rightful recognition of Christianity as the principal religion of this country. At the same time it gives a legitimate place to other religions. It would be quite wrong to go too far and to claim an exclusive place for Christianity. If those of us who are committed to the Christian cause attempted to do that, we should be undermining the very cause that we were trying to promote. The amendment is an example of fidelity to principle combined with tolerance to others who do not share those principles. As such I believe that it is a masterly piece of work and deserves our support.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I believe that I should apologise for raising an issue which is only a point of detail as compared with the great pronouncements of principle to which we have listened with so much interest and admiration. However, I believe that it is an important point of detail. I want to see schools having a collective act of worship. I want it to be one which will not cause anyone to feel excluded and thrust into a corner, neither so colourless as to dissatisfy many of those who take part in it.
I remember how we dealt with the problem in the school in which I taught some 40 years ago. About one-sixth of the boys were Jewish. Accordingly, the day began with whom I was about to describe as the "Christian" boys; but remembering some of them, I ought to describe them as the "Gentile" boys,

651
meeting in the school hall for prayers. At the same time, the Jewish boys met in a large room sufficient for their needs and carried out their own service in the presence of a Jewish member of staff. There remained two boys. The parents of one of the boys were atheists and did not wish him to attend any religious service. The parents of the other boy were Roman Catholic and did not wish their son to attend either of the forms of worship which were taking place in the school. The two boys therefore remained in the playground during prayers and the inevitable result was that they became fast friends throughout the whole of their school lives. One would have thought that that was the obvious, common-sense way of dealing with the problem. It came as near to satisfying everyone as one could hope.
I have looked at Amendment No. 69 and also at the text of the Bill. It appears that if today one behaved in such a way one would be behaving illegally. The amendment provides that there shall be arrangements for a single act of worship for all pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or different school groups. The Jewish boys were not a different age group, nor were they (in the sense of the Bill) a different school group because the following definition is given in the amendment:
"'school group' means any group in which pupils are taught or take part in other school activities."
The only purpose for which the Jewish boys met as a group on their own was for prayers and religious collective worship in the morning. They were not in any other sense a different group.
Therefore I cannot see that what we did, sensible as it was, would be in accord with Amendment No. 69. Nor for that matter would it be in accordance with the Bill now before us, because those parts are the same in the amendment and in the original Bill. Therefore, with great respect, I invite the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to look at the Bill to see whether or not I am right about this. If one makes what seems to me a very sensible arrangement to satisfy everyone's conscience, is one in conflict with the law and, if so, can something be done to put it right before we finish with this piece of legislation?
Lord Morris: My Lords, as with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, I have a purely drafting, concern about Amendment No. 3, which is the amendment about which we are meant to be speaking. I restrict my remarks solely to that amendment.
I am concerned about the inclusion of the words "religious worship" and that they go outside the scope of the Bill. The Long Title of the Bill is quite clear. It states:
"An Act to amend the law relating to education".
If the right reverend Prelate believes that religious worship is a totally separate part of the nurturing of a child—and that is what the word "education" means—then, as such, the inclusion of that phrase could be deemed to be outside the scope of the Bill.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 69 seems to have been drafted under the impression that religious worship is part of religious education, which I
652
happen to believe is so from a legal and not theological point of view, because the cross heading in Amendment No. 69 is "Religious education" under which he traps, so to speak, the provision with regard to religious worship. I only rise to ask my noble friend whether she will be good enough to have a word with parliamentary counsel in order to ensure that there is no contradiction in a purely drafting sense with regard to these amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 3, and I do so deliberately because I was informed at 2.45 p.m. today about the grouping of the amendments. I was also informed in an informal way that my Amendment No. 8 had been included in that grouping—not with my encouragement and not according to my wishes. I raised the matter with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees when he was on the Woolsack and he tells me that we shall vote on this amendment. dispose of the next three amendments and then I shall be free to move my amendment and to have a vote on it. All the other amendments are grouped. I say that because I do not wish to be told to sit down because I am out of order. This time I have made sure that I am in order.
Having said that, I am speaking to this amendment only and I wish to deal with some of the points that have been raised. Perhaps I may deal first with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He spoke, talking about the West, I suppose, of the democratic countries of which we are proud, which would include the United States of America. Certainly I place an equal value on those democratic states. Perhaps I may point out to him that there is no question of religion in state education in the USA. Their constitution—something which this country does not have—has been credited to Thomas Paine, who wrote The Age of Reason.
I throw that in to prove that one should not listen to all statements that sound good. As the noble Lord said, one should look at the facts. The fact is that the United States of America, the biggest democracy in the Western world, is a secular state. One should bear that in mind when one is voting on this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that we should tell children the story of Christianity. My first lesson was learnt in Liverpool. I was regaled with a little magazine issued by a certain denomination in Liverpool. At the top was a slogan which said:
"Hammer away, ye hostile bands, Your hammers break, God's anvil stands".
That was issued by one Christian denomination and the hostile bands were the other Christian denominations. That was my introduction to Christianity. As a young child I really believed that Christianity, in some way or other, had been visited upon this earth by a divine being. It was not until I was 28 years of age that I heard about a committee which sat under the tutelage of the Emperor Constantine and which decided that the Christian religion, as we know it, or roughly as we know it, should become the state religion of Rome. That is teaching religion. I am all for teaching religion if we

653
are going to teach children about religion—all of it, warts and all. We should teach them about the wickedness of man.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord that I not only lived in the United States but actually went to school there. I am very glad that I now live in England.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am talking about the United States Constitution. I almost feared that I was going to be told to sit down. While I have been reminded about the United States, I should say that there is a movement in the United States which should give very real concern to a great many people in this country. It is called the Moral Right. It makes money on television and stands and uses the name of God Almighty in order to make 10 million dollars. Therefore, one should be careful about the United States.
Of course the story of Christianity should be told. I am not going to take up any more time because I have made my speech and my argument is for Amendment No. 8. However, I should say that I had rather hoped before I entered this battlefield that I should have received some of the answers which somebody said I was to receive. I have not received them. There is still plenty of time because the debate could go on all night. I shall listen with interest to the replies to my questions.
Noble Lords: Campbell, Campbell!
Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I stood my ground because it is the turn of this side. Perhaps I may say a few words in relation to amendments which stand in my name and in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I shall be brief.
The concerns to which my noble friend Lady Cox has referred so eloquently and on which—and let us never forget it in this debate—the noble Baroness has sought specific, firm and categoric assurances from the right reverend Prelate are the concerns that largely prompted the amendments which stand in my name and in the name of the noble Lords who support those amendments. Those are Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, on religious education, and Amendments Nos. 339 to 341 on the collective act of worship.
The reasons behind the concern are simple to state. They are the principal reasons in which all noble Lords who support my amendments believe and it is on the principles involved that we seek a specific and categorical assurance. They marry inevitably and very largely with the concern of my noble friend Lady Cox.
The principles are, as we see it, that Christian children should be taught the Christian faith and should have their own Christian collective act of worship. The second principle is that children who adhere to other faiths—and I was extremely
654
interested to hear the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, because it marries with our second principle—should be taught such other faiths and have, respectively, their own collective acts of worship in such other places if it is reasonable and practicable to do so. The third principle—and that is all there is on the question of principles—is that all religious education, Christian or otherwise, should promote respect, tolerance and understanding for those who adhere to other faiths; but that there should be no multi-faith collective act of worship for all children irrespective of the faith to which they adhere.
It is on those principles, and those alone, which I and the noble Lords who support me take our stand; not to confront the Government and, least of all, not to confront the spiritual Benches. Indeed, everyone in your Lordships' House must be covered in admiration for the efforts that the right reverend Prelate has made to produce the result that he has. I say that without any false sincerity but with total sincerity. However, those are the principles upon which I and those who support me seek an assurance that they are met by the package of the right reverend Prelate.
Again I stress that I am not seeking any form of confrontation hut, looking fairly at the right reverend Prelate's package, I do not think that some of the proposals are merited. That is the problem. In due course we shall move our amendments in the irenic spirit, seeking accommodation. It is only if there is no accommodation and no satisfactory assurance that the matter might go to the House for an opinion.
If your Lordships will bear with me for one more moment, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, whose name appears on both sets of amendments and who I am delighted to see in his place, has specifically asked me to say at the earliest possible moment that he supports the amendments which stand in my name because he wishes to ensure that the three principles to which I have referred are safeguarded.
There is not much more that it would be proper for me to say because—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I may intervene, does the noble Lord calculate that if the right reverend Prelate's amendment is carried it will be possible to have a debate on his amendment and a vote?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the House for any confusion that I may have caused. It was obviously in my mind that the House was not confused at all. Perhaps we can have some assistance from the Chief Whip. I understand that, when we have spoken briefly and in broad outline, in due course we can speak to our own amendments.
Lord Denham: My Lords, this is a broad run on the general scope of religious education. When my noble friend's amendments are reached, although he will have made what is almost the equivalent of a Second Reading speech on the broad area, of course he may speak to his individual points.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Chief Whip. There is not much more that I wish to say, save to make two comments. First, on Amendment No. 3 surely it would be premature to entertain the detailed discussion which is bound to ensue on the other two sets of amendments. Secondly, I should want to support the amendment because it would pave the way to my amendments, but I cannot do that.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will again give way for a moment. This is the exact question that he asked me at the beginning of the debate. Amendment No. 3 is the paving amendment to the right reverend Prelate's group of amendments. If the House does not accept the right reverend Prelate's group of amendments and subsequently prefers my noble friend's amendment, it will be possible at a later stage, at Third Reading, to put in the paving amendment to make sense of my noble friend's amendment. That is the way it is done. What we are addressing ourselves to on this paving Amendment No. 3 is the right reverend Prelate's group of amendments. A vote for Amendment No. 3 will be a vote for those, and a vote against Amendment No. 3 will be a vote against those amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if Amendment No. 3 is accepted, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway falls. I think that is the position.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the position will be—and it will be for the House to decide—that if the right reverend Prelate's amendments are accepted, and they may subsequently themselves be amended by the amendments tabled to the individual parts of them, and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell is not incompatible with them, then the House has every right to accept that, too. If it is incompatible, the House will have accepted the right reverend Prelate's amendments. Therefore, it would be unwise to put in two groups of incompatible amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to both my noble friends. I shall not say more about this rather complex matter. My noble friend Lord Renton has tabled Amendment No. 22, and others, and I shall be moving amendments to those amendments. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft has tabled an amendment and I have an amendment to that amendment. We will deal with them on their merits in due course.
In conclusion, I want to say that if the great Archbishop William Temple, who was one of the architects of the 1944 Act long before we became a multi-faith society, argued that it was essential and of supreme value that children should know the teaching and traditions of the Bible, would he not have argued today, in a multi-faith society, that each child ought to be taught its own faith and that the supposed collective act of worship—multi-faith—is a confusing nonsense to the child? That is one of the matters which goes to the heart of what could be a divergent approach.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, in speaking to and supporting the right reverend Prelate's amendment, I should like to declare an interest. I lecture in religious studies at the extra-mural department of London University and I am past chairman of the World Congress of Faiths.
Perhaps I may first welcome the fact that RE has now at last been accorded a place in the Education Reform Bill as a basic subject. The question now is to what extent Christianity should be taught and to what extent other religions should have a place in the RE curriculum. I have no doubt at all that Christianity should have a prime place in any RE syllabus in this country. Our country is a Christian country and on those grounds alone the study of the Bible is essential quite apart from the importance of Christianity in terms of our heritage and culture.
However, having said that, I believe that a sensible proportion of the time allocated to RE should be given over to the teaching of some other major world religions. I argue for this primarily on education grounds. RE is now a basic subject and it should be as important as geography and history with a comparable amount of school time devoted to it. A child who left school without any knowledge at all of the history and geography of any country other than England would be regarded as badly educated. So also with the study of religion, a subject which is of immense importance in terms of history, spirituality and moral values—and I mean religion in its broadest sense.
Religions such as Judaism. Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism have centuries of cultural, moral and spiritual history behind them. We would be thoroughly impoverished in all senses if we were to be denied any knowledge of them, but selection here is very important. I believe also that the teaching of other religions should have an important but not a predominant place in the curriculum on the grounds that it provides very important background knowledge to current affairs. For example, I do not see how one can make sense of what is happening in the Middle East without some knowledge of Islam. How is it possible to understand anything about Iran today without having some knowledge of Shi'ism.
I also argue that a knowledge of the faiths of people in this country who are not Christian is essential for race relations and is very important in trying to deal with prejudice and discrimination. Though the numbers of people who adhere to a faith other than Christianity are very small (perhaps in the region of 4 per cent.) that does not mean that their religious beliefs and values should be ignored. In any case, in some areas of our country in this connection the population is very much higher. Ignorance and intolerance go frequently hand-in-hand as we have seen, for example, in Northern Ireland.
If Christianity were to be taught exclusively in our schools it would be an educationally retrograde step. It would undermine the teaching of RE as a subject and hence it would undermine the teaching of Christianity. Further, the degree of mutual trust which has been carefully built up between the various faith communities would be in jeopardy. One cannot

657
expect young people to respect one religion if, implicitly or explicitly, they are taught to disrespect others.
It is true that in some cases RE, including the teaching of religions other than Christianity, has not been well taught. This has led to accusations of Christianity being diluted to a multi-faith relativism or to being submerged in a multi-faith mish-mash. These accusations are neither fair nor accurate. RE has been badly taught in certain instances, but to nothing like the extent that has been implied despite a scandalous shortage of teachers trained in the subject.
Behind these accusations lies the view that when local authorities have adopted new agreed syllabuses, virtually all of them recommended world religions or a multi-faith approach. In fact, most make some provision for this, but between 1975 and 1987 the majority of LEA agreed syllabuses made specific statements about Christ and Christianity and the majority also gave prime place to Christianity in both primary and secondary school curricula.
Turning to examinations, the majority of GCSE and A-level candidates elect either a biblical subject or a subject related to some aspect of Christianity. To an extent RE has been badly taught in the past and it has even been ignored. In other cases its treatment can only be described as mediocre. The reason for this state of affairs is, first, that RE has had a derisory amount of time allocated to it in school timetables. How is it possible to treat a subject as important as this when on average, and including Church schools, only half-an-hour is allocated on school weekly timetables. In the fourth and fifth forms it almost disappears altogether. Only 3 per cent. of available pupil curriculum time is allocated for RE in secondary schools.
Secondly, and of at least equal importance, is the poor provision for RE. This is due to the lack of qualified teachers in the subject, over half having no specific qualifications at all. How can a subject be adequately taught in these circumstances? I would welcome clergy, Imans and Rabbis coming into the schools to teach RE, if required, but if they do so they must have proper educational qualifications. If they do not, then, with the best will in the world, the approach could become confessional and this would be a retrograde step. I am not advocating a cold, clinical approach to RE—far from it—for RE above all subjects must be taught with empathy and insight. Committed Christian, Moslem and Jewish teachers would do that. However, educational qualifications are essential and one looks here to the Government to provide adequate staffing resources in this respect.
Finally, perhaps I may refer very briefly to worship in schools. On balance I support the right reverend Prelate's amendment in this regard. I was in broad agreement with him when he spoke on the subject in your Lordships' House last month. Certainly, legislation must be avoided which requires pupils and staff to be insincere or hypocritical in their approach. Care must also be taken to avoid dividing the schools into religious groups which fail to foster mutual understanding.
As regards the right reverend Prelate's amendment, I have some reservations. It does not
658
explicitly make provision for British religious communities who are not Christian to plan and to take part in assemblies which reflect their own religious traditions and in which all pupils can be given the opportunity to participate. I am glad that he touched on this aspect in his opening speech. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in this respect. However. I welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate's amendments take account of what takes place in schools and I support them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that we have gone on almost too long. It is clear that there is a measure of agreement in your Lordships' House, with one or two dissentient voices, about the principles enshrined in the right reverend Prelate's amendments. This rejoices me both as an ex-teacher and as a committed Christian. There are later debates to follow according to the extent of the clarification which the right reverend Prelate can give to the meaning of certain terms in the amendments. It would be precocious of me to try to provide those in advance. I believe that they are entirely satisfactory and that what is provided answers the failure of the 1944 Act which arises from two principal causes.
One of the causes was the arrival in our society of large numbers of people of different faiths and the other was a retreat in our society from insistence upon traditional Christian values which may have flowed from a failure of the Churches to teach religion adequately in schools. It seems that the right reverend Prelate has done what he was asked to do at the Committee stage. We asked him, first, to see that all Christian children received unequivocally Christian education; secondly, that this should be done by writing the word "Christian" on the face of the Bill and, thirdly, that this should be done in a manner which retained respect for minority faiths. I believe that all those three things have been achieved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think he fails to appreciate—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not believe that we need go into the detail of the next debate. I have to speak because my name is on the amendment. I believe passionately that it is right and later I shall give passionate reasons for thinking that other amendments are wrong. I beg your Lordships now to seize an historic opportunity to defend and promote the teaching of true religion in our schools in a way that does not subordinate but enrols the loyalty of the minority faiths to the education system of this country and at the same time does not dilute the faith of any one denomination or belief.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as an Elder of the Church of Scotland, I do not know whether I have to declare an interest. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I shall not say a word about Scotland being superior.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Shame!
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we on the Opposition Front Bench agree almost entirely with what is in the right reverend Prelate's amendment. It is clear to everybody that Christianity has played a crucial role in the development of the history, ethics and morality of Britain. I would remind some of my noble friends that it has played (and still plays) an important part in the history of the development of the party to which we belong. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that perhaps we should move on to the more detailed debates. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on managing a virtually impossible job in achieving what he has achieved and achieving it by agreement. I hope that the amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I speak in the absence through illness of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi in order that the religious minorities so frequently referred to in this debate may have a voice. We remember his earlier speech on the Bill and the emphasis that he laid on the need for religion to be taught pure rather than mixed. Although I have no authority to speak for him, it seems to me that the right reverend Prelate has come a long way to meet those needs. I feel that any member of my faith would be justified in supporting the amendments.
I am also certain that the noble Lord would give his support to the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. They seem to flesh out the suggestions that the teaching and practice of minority faiths should be encouraged and that the teaching of all religion should be in a context which leads to due respect for those of different beliefs. In that sense, I agree that we are much further towards a consensus than might have seemed possible earlier.
There are one or two minor worries but they arise from the complicated nomenclature of our education system. For instance, the word "maintained" technically covers voluntary-aided schools so that a school that was publicly supported but for the teaching of Jewish children would be called a maintained school. For this reason one might question some of the wording of Amendment No. 25, and in particular Amendment No. 69A which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. It could make a school, all of whose pupils were Jewish, teach Christianity instead. I am sure that that is neither his intention nor that of the movers of Amendment No. 25. It suggests that some work will have to be done in putting the final touches to the agreement. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, had to say about the Jewish pupils in his school. I hope that similar arrangements would be legal under the Bill in its final form.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, we have gone a long way, and we are indebted both to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to the right reverend Prelate for having gone so far. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rather encouraged me. I felt that we had gone further than I thought when I listened to him.
660
The right reverend Prelate said one thing of supreme importance. He said he believed that this was the end of the mish-mash approach. That was by far the most encouraging thing I have heard. There are in a way two possible approaches to this matter. One group of people—I do not attack either group—believes that the Christian faith should be taught undiluted; that it should be respectful and compassionate to other faiths, as Christianity teaches us to be, but that the faith should be undiluted. It should not be muddled by trying to teach it with overtones of something else infiltrated into it. That is one approach. It has its problems but it also has immense prizes.
There is another approach, and it is powerfully held. There are those who say that we were a Christian country and perhaps still are a Christian country but that we are all kinds of other things as well. They believe that it would be easier if we tried to devise a way of approach, whether in instruction or in worship, which somehow subsumed all these things. They believe that we must not offend anyone and that if it is Christian some people may not like it. They want to try to dilute it all and try to put it away. What we want is an assurance that that second way is out. Our amendments do not attack the right reverend Prelate. They are supposed to support his view that the mish-mash is out. When we come to look in more detail at these later amendments our test will be: is it Christianity that we are teaching; is it our Saviour that we are worshipping? If we are satisfied on those points we shall all be together.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Denham has made it clear that the amendments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London must be accepted or rejected as a package. I must make it clear that the amendments tabled in my name also represent part of that package. Without them the right reverend Prelate's amendments will not work in the way he has described to your Lordships. My amendments cross-refer to his, and vice-versa. Having said that, I should go on to say that the Government welcome and fully endorse the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate on both collective worship and religious education in maintained schools.
We are well aware of the considerable lengths to which he has gone to find agreement in this matter both in responding to the deeply felt concerns of so many of your Lordships and also in consulting with the leaders both of the Christian Churches and other faiths. I strongly believe that his efforts have been rewarded. He has been able to come forward with a formula which has met the legitimate concerns of all sides.
Many of your Lordships and others outside the House have felt that our Christian heritage has become undervalued in some of our schools. While Christian worship and religious education undoubtedly still occur in the majority, there is no doubt that what is provided by some schools is unsatisfactory. I believe that the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate make it clear that such practices should not continue and that the concerns expressed by your Lordships have been met.

661
It is particularly relevant to our debate that the form of words proposed has been agreed not only by different Christian denominations but that they are also seen as a way forward by leaders of the other faiths.
Perhaps I may deal first of all with those amendments relating to worship. I wish to make it clear that they have the full support of the Government and that our support includes a placing of all the provisions relating to collective worship in Chapter I of the Bill. as the right reverend Prelate also proposes. We now see considerable merit in the provisions for worship being placed alongside those for the rest of the curriculum. There is undoubtedly value in the schools establishing links between worship and religious education, as well as on occasion with other areas of the curriculum. In saying this, I believe that I meet my noble friend's question.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it is a minor point, but in the right reverend Prelate's amendments and the government amendments where "religious worship" is used and at other points where "collective worship" is used are the words intended to mean the same or is a distinction being drawn between the two?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that the worship referred to is the same. It is perhaps to some extent historical that it is referred to differently on different occasions.
I was about to refer to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Morris about collective worship, which has been in the Bill from the start and is in what is now Clause 97. I am assured that worship, as it is provided in schools, is related to their educational provision.
As the Government have indicated previously, we attach particular importance to a daily act of worship being provided for all pupils in maintained schools. That is why, while proposing greater flexibility for schools in some respects, we have resisted pressure from some quarters to make daily worship discretionary. We have no doubt of the value of such a daily gathering; it has as much relevance in 1988 as it did in 1944.
The content of the worship is of course the crucial factor in determining its worth. That is what the right reverend Prelate's amendments are intended to get right. But given the agreement which he has reached with the leaders of other faiths, we believe that his amendment also allows worship to be a truly collective act. This is important in order to foster tolerance and understanding among pupils. The Government would certainly not wish to see a significant number of pupils withdrawing from worship. We strongly believe that the form of words suggested here makes this much less likely.
However, the amendment does that while also addressing the concerns expressed by many of your Lordships about protecting our traditional Christian faith and practice. I therefore believe that your Lordships should recognise, and indeed many have done so, the efforts made by the right reverend Prelate and give full support to his amendments.
662
I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Cox has been able to welcome what has been achieved by the right reverend Prelate. I hope therefore that other noble Lords will consider seriously whether to press their amendments on this matter. At first sight the alternative amendments put down by other noble Lords have considerable merit, but I believe that the right reverend Prelate's amendments achieve what they rightly seek and that their other amendments, if approved, could create practical difficulties for schools in a way that the amendment of the right reverend Prelate will not.
There is no doubt in my mind that the other amendments on religious worship which are before us could increase the number of withdrawals from collective worship, perhaps substantially, and as a result sharpen divisions within schools. I am sure that this was not the intention of the noble Lords when drafting their amendments. The amendment from my noble friend Lady Cox could additionally allow for separate acts of worship for children of different faiths. But to enshrine provision of this in statute would create major practical difficulties for schools in trying to organise and accommodate separate acts of worship. It would also place an unfair burden on governors in having to determine when demands for separate worship are justified, given the numbers of pupils involved.
I believe that these difficulties apply equally to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I hope therefore that he will also agree to withdraw his amendments.
Moving on, I should refer to the proposed government new clause after Clause 6. This rewrites what is now Clause 6 of the Bill in order to reflect a government commitment given at Committee stage to my noble friend Lady Cox to place a duty on local education authorities, school governors and head teachers to secure delivery of the statutory requirement concerning collective worship. We shall be considering in due course a further government amendment to Clause 18 of the Bill to provide for complaints relating to collective worship to be covered, as religious education is now, by the local education authority complaints machinery which that clause requires the authorities to establish. This will fulfill the second part of the commitment which the Government made to my noble friend at Committee stage.
I turn now to the amendments concerning religious education. All of these are important and worthy of your Lordships' attention. The most important, however, is the new clause put down by the right reverend Prelate. As he promised at Committee stage, he has come forward with a form of words which places Christianity on the face of the Bill in relation to religious education. As with his proposals for collective worship, this new clause is the result of his careful consultation with the other Christian denominations and with leaders of non-Christain faiths. He has again produced a form of words which is seen as a workable way forward by those whom he consulted. In the Government's view this new clause fully addresses the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords at Committee stage. It represents a

663
notable achievement for the right reverend Prelate by meeting the concerns expressed when the House was in Committee.
This has been generally acknowledged and I hope therefore that other amendments tabled on religious education will be withdrawn in due course. In saying this, however, one cannot doubt the personal conviction behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. But I think your Lordships will agree that his amendment fails to acknowledge the widely felt belief and concern that the Christian faith should receive particular attention within religious education because of the traditions and history of this country.
My Lords, the amendments tabled by other noble Lords to strengthen the position of Christianity within religious education are now, I suggest, unnecessary given what the right reverend Prelate proposes. They also bring with them difficulties which might not have been recognised in the drafting.
I now turn to the Government's amendments about religious education. These are large in number and in large part consequential. Your Lordships will see that we are fulfilling our commitment at Committee stage to amend the provisions of this Bill and existing legislation in order to refer to religious education rather than religious instruction. We are also for clarity proposing to rewrite a number of provisions of the 1944 Act on the face of this Bill and to bring into Chapter I all the general provisions relating to religious education and collective worship in maintained schools, including those for grant maintained schools.
I turn now to the amendments tabled concerning the standing advisory councils for religious education. I should like to give the Government's wholehearted support again to the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate concerning the operation of these councils. As in the case of his earlier amendments, these are once again the result of comprehensive consultation. I believe that it is a sensible addition to the duties of the standing advisory councils for them to be responsible for advising local education authorities on religious worship in schools and on the application in individual county schools of the requirement that worship shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief. This could be a difficult task for schools which contain many pupils who are not of the Christian faith. It is right therefore that they should have the source of informed and helpful advice which is proposed here.
The amendments would change the Bill in two further ways. First, Amendment No. 77 improves the reference in Clause 7(4)(a) of the Bill to the other denominational group. If accepted by your Lordships, it would read:
"such Christian and other denominations as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the religious traditions in the area"
The Government's new Schedule 1A, applies the same words to the other denominations committee of a conference which the LEA calls to prepare an agreed syllabus. Secondly, Amendment No. 81 removes the requirement for a unanimous vote of the
664
non-local authority groups of the standing advisory council before the standing advisory committee can require a local education authority to set up a conference to review its agreed syllabus.
I urge the House to support these amendments. I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox and other noble Lords will, as they have indicated, accept that the alternative amendments that they have tabled are now unnecessary. I invite them to withdraw their amendments and to join with the Government in supporting those moved to Clauses 7 and 8 by the right reverend Prelate.
To conclude, I urge your Lordships to acknowledge the substantial progress that has been made since our debates on religious and collective worship on Second Reading and in Committee. I believe that the House should welcome that progress and give it its support. I must emphasise that the government amendments and those from the right reverend Prelate stand as a coherent package affecting county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools. It would be inconsistent in terms of the requirements of the Bill for noble Lords to support these amendments and then vote in favour of amendments on these matters from other noble Lords.
The right reverend Prelate has achieved what we all hoped might be possible. He has produced amendments to the Bill which recognise the rightful place of Christianity within religious education and worship. But he has been able to do this with a wide range of support from the leaders of different Churches and faiths. This is a notable achievement. It is an achievement that has been welcomed by many in the course of our debate. Perhaps I may be permitted to mention in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who expressed their concerns so convincingly at an earlier stage and who now see the way forward and indeed have reminded us that it is the implementation of these provisions which will be all-important now. I believe that that should be recognised in giving full support to the amendments of the right reverend Prelate and to the government amendments.
7 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she say why she referred to my amendment when it has been neither moved nor debated?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am speaking to the group of amendments which are listed with agreement. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, to make reference to his amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, with all due respect, I specifically said that I had not agreed on any of the amendments. It was purely an informal arrangement, and I certainly had not agreed to it being grouped.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not think that I heard the Minister respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, which is also of very considerable interest to me. The noble Lord,

665
Lord Stewart, referred during the discussion on the amendment of the right reverend Prelate to separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups.
He asked whether this would or would not mean that he could continue the practice of having a separate act of worship for his Jewish pupils. I am afraid I also had thought that this provision meant that it was possible to do so. But from what the noble Baroness said it occurs to me that in fact it would not be possible. All that would be open to the Jewish students would be to withdraw entirely and not to have a separate act of worship.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my understanding is that the provision for withdrawal from religious worship is contained in government Amendment No. 67, and that the existing rights of parents in this respect are preserved.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I rise to seek the clarification which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked for.
Noble Lords: No!
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am sorry. I must be mistaken.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to all those who have taken part in this debate and my very warm appreciation of the spirit which has been evident in it. There is need for me at this stage to comment on only one matter, which is the phrase "in the main", which clearly has concerned a number of noble Lords.
Before I do that I should make it clear that Amendment No. 3 is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68, 101, 273 in the name of the Minister and my Amendments Nos. 69, 74, 76, 270, 336, 442 and 443, to which I have already referred.
I have another introductory point to make, which is that the Minister very kindly referred to the consultations which have taken place. She referred to those between the Churches and the other faiths. I wish to stress that there have also been consultations with the authorities, with educational organisations and with representatives of parents and governors. We saw this as essentially an education exercise and not a purely religious one. We did not see this as purely a Church concern. Therefore, we thought to draw in the widest possible consultation with all who are concerned with our educational system.
The use of the term "in the main" is, I am told, to be found elsewhere in legislation. I am told that it does not present legal problems. That is one reason why we used it. As regards the agreed syllabus, the term is descriptive. It refers to the factual situation in this country—which no one has disputed—that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian. That is the use of the term "in the main" there. That, we say, has to be reflected in the content of the agreed syllabus while taking account of the teaching and practice of the other principal religions.
666
But in the case of worship it is prescriptive. We say there that the worship should reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief. I did not have time to make this point before. We believe that worship and religious education of any kind should spring from belief. It is not something which is arbitrarily produced out of the blue. It does actually reflect people's beliefs. It should be reflected in ways which are appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved. We have taken a descriptive situation which is applied to the agreed syllabus and then is made prescriptive for worship. As regards the agreed syllabus, as I understand it and intend it—I am told that the amendments fulfil that intention—it means that for all pupils a study of the Christian faith and traditions will have a fundamental place in all agreed syllabuses. That goes without question.
Further, it is recognised that certain areas of our country, because of the situation as it now stands, have particular requirements and demand particular provisions. My amendment for agreed syllabuses gives flexibility to take account of this without in any way impugning the position of the Christian faith in the country. I must emphasise that it is school worship we are talking about. That is the significance of the word "collective" to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, referred just now. It is the collective worship of the school that we are talking about. It is not simply a collection of groups of individual Christians indulging their own private devotions in the way that they or their parents think best.
There is an element of worship in our schools which reflects, if one likes, the school itself. That has been built in right back. That will be Christian. Again that is provided for in this amendment. But again, if the nature of the school demands it—and one can think of certain schools where the vast majority of pupils are of another faith—then that is their family background and that would be taken account of in the collective worship of that particular school because it is a proper and appropriate approach for that school in the light of the faith of the pupils.
But I wish to make it quite clear that the term "in the main" does not mean that one looks at the whole country and says x per cent. will be Christian and y per cent. will be something else. That is not what is intended and it is not what the law states. The phrase "in the main" means that account can be taken of the needs in particular localities. However, the overall requirement is necessary.
Perhaps I may conclude by making one important point. I do not believe that the problems we are discussing can be met by the use of withdrawal or making separate provision. That divides the school community and it can contribute to dividing the community at large. I asked myself two questions. The first was: How can I provide properly for my group and for those of other faiths to worship in their own way without in any way impeding the Christian tradition of this country? The second was: How can other groups worship, not as a group which has been pushed to one side as though it was not part of our community but as part of the educational system and part of the community being educated in a particular school?

667
I believe that my amendments provide for that. They enable us to take such concerns seriously and properly. We are not saying to such groups: "Go and do what you want to do somewhere else. You are not really and properly members of -our nation". The amendments say that we shall take account of those groups because of the nature of a particular school in a particular place. I believe that the emphasis on schools is very important and that, for that reason, our amendments meet the situation in a way that amendments that are based on partition do not.
I am grateful for the response which my amendments have received. I hope that they will receive the warm approbation of the House, showing that they reflect the intention of the House for our schools at this time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page line 23, after first ("of") insert ("all").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved at Committee stage. However, it was not pressed to a Division. I have tabled the amendment again for two reasons. First, there is still considerable concern in the whole field of special educational needs about the effects of the Bill on children with such needs. Secondly, I have read with great care the Minister's reply at the time and I have found it less than satisfactory.
The inititial clauses of the Bill set out the fundamental educational philosophy on which the Bill is based. We can all agree that the phrasing must be logically sound and must emphasise the basis on which all children are to be offered an appropriate curriculum. The Warnock Report pointed out that:
"The purpose of education for all children is the same: the goals are the same. But the help that individual children need in progressing towards them will be different. Whereas for some the road they have to travel towards the goals is smooth and easy, for others it is fraught with obstacles. For some the obstacles are so daunting that, even with the greatest possible help, they will not get very far. Nevertheless, for them too, progress will be possible, and their educational needs will be fulfilled, as they gradually overcome one obstacle after another on the way".
To give a practical example of the point which was made by the Warnock Report, perhaps I may quote from one of the many moving letters which some of us have received from the parents of handicapped children who are still worried about the effect of the Bill on the education of their children. I shall quote from a joint letter written by three families in Wales. All the children concerned have Down's syndrome and other handicaps. The letter states:
"For Tom to say his own name; for Nicholas to tie his own shoelaces; for Billy to sit and draw anything would constitute real achievement".
At the end of the letter, the parents say:
"We would point out that our children, Tom, Neil, Billy and Nicholas are in fact the consumers of education and have a fundamental right to a normal pattern of life. This includes attending their local mainstream school, which is also to the benefit of their peers as it enables them to overcome the fear and ignorance of handicap".
The amendment emphasises the point that the aims of the whole curriculum should be to promote the
668
development of all pupils, including those with special educational needs. At the Committee stage, the Minister said, on 3rd May 1988 at col. 457 of the Official Report:
"Although the phrase 'all pupils' is not stated explicitly in Clause I. it is there implicitly, and the clause would be interpreted as if it were included… We accept wholeheartedly the need for the national curriculum to cater for pupils of all abilities and in a range of circumstances: in particular those with special needs whether as defined in the 1981 Education Act or otherwise".
If the meaning is implicit in the Bill, why should we not put at rest the fears of parents, teachers and educationists who are concerned with special educational needs by making the statement explicit? If it is the Government's intention that the Bill should cater for all children, surely it would be easier to say so. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I realise that both the 1981 Education Act and this Bill should apply to all children. It may be said by the Minister that the amendment is not necessary for that reason. However, we must look at history and experience. Unfortunately, we must face frankly that, since the 1981 Act was passed, it has been well implemented in some areas, in some areas it has not been implemented at all and in some areas it has been badly implemented. For that reason, we ask for the word "all" to be put on the face of the Bill in order to reinforce what is contained in the 1981 Act and what we know is intended to be the effect of this Bill. We ask for that because we know that to date the 1981 Act has not been fully implemented.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I rise to seek information. Is Amendment No. 7 to be considered a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 84, 92 and 99? I ask that question because at Committee stage it escaped my attention that important amendments were going to be discussed on the basis of the inclusion of the innocuous little word "all" and I missed the entire debate. I should not like to have that happen again.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It seems to be very much in the spirit of the 1972 and 1981 Acts. It is favourable to the integration of handicapped children into normal schools. That has been a matter of public policy for quite a long time. Perhaps I may quote briefly from a letter from the chief executive of the Somerset County Council of 11th April. He wrote:
"There is a further need to ensure that the curriculum can be modified to take account of those children with special needs. There has been an acknowledgement in principle that the special needs point is recognised but as yet no amendment has been proposed to back that acknowledgement".
I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in proposing the amendment. I am only sorry that he did not find my response adequate at Committee stage.
Whatever its intentions, I have to say that the addition of the word "all" as proposed does not alter

669
the meaning of the Bill in any respect. Since "pupils" is not otherwise qualified, it is taken to mean all pupils at the school, and so the duty to offer a good curriculum extends to all pupils, as we all intend.
Every care has been taken in the drafting of the Bill to ensure that its provisions are sufficiently flexible to accommodate all pupils. The national curriculum, for example, has been designed as a broad framework within which pupils of almost every ability or aptitude may be accommodated. That is made clear in the report of the task group on testing and assessment. Provision has also been made for disapplication of its requirements for pupils such as those with special educational needs who would do best under some other approach.
The very fact that exceptions are provided for means that the general provisions of the Bill include all pupils. So I believe that the Bill as drafted ensures that its provisions are sufficiently broad and flexible to give all pupils the best possible education without the need for the addition which the noble Lord proposes. Therefore I am unable to accept his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what the Minister has said. I have to admit that I fail to understand, if it is implicit in the Bill and would put at rest the fears of a number of people concerning some aspects of the Bill, why she cannot accept the amendment. However, I understand what she says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page I. line 23, after ("society") insert—
("( ) promotes an understanding of various religious beliefs and living beliefs such as humanist and secular points of view, but does not promote any particular religion or belief;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I noted a statement made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to the effect that an act of worship springs from a belief. I accept that entirely. I also accept the right reverend Prelate's remarks that:
"we in the Churches cannot expect the state to do our work for us".—[Official Report. 3/5/88; col. 414.]
I assume that by "us" he meant the Churches.
At col. 417 the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is reported as saying that it was taken for granted in 1944 that when one referred to religion one referred to Christianity. In that debate the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi—who I see is not in his seat; I suppose that I should have told him that I intended to quote him and I apologise to him for not having done so—said:
"the principal enemy of all religion is no longer heresy… it is simple paganism…. That leads to the moral anarchy which is now so rampant and pernicious".
In the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, (reported at col. 421 of Hansard) said:
"We are talking about what should be taught about religion in state schools".
He went on to say that it is the job of the Church to teach religion.
At that point in the debate I spoke but was stopped. I am not too sure why I was stopped. I have had several explanations and I accept that it was in
670
good faith. I do not believe for one minute, as some people have suggested, that I was stopped because I was saying something that was unpopular—not in this Chamber. If I had been allowed to finish—and two or three minutes would have been enough for me to finish I should have tried to point out some of the contradictions which exist between long-established religions and modern knowledge.
I was very concerned because I had had a letter from a school teacher who complained about the fact that he was expected to teach about Christ and God when he did not believe in them. My reply of course was, "Don't teach it". However, he felt that there was undue pressure on him socially and in the job.
I am so glad to see that one of the amendments specifically deals with the fact that there must be no penalty visited on any teacher who does not believe in or have the ability to teach various religions.
I tried to show that in two areas alone—Genesis and the Resurrection—there was a dispute as to their authenticity even in the Church, and therefore it would not be right in the light of modern knowledge to expect children to be educated in a subject about which even the Churches had doubts. Having established that point, I was quite prepared to sit down and say no more about it because I follow the principle that if you think that something should be said, you should say it. One need not necessarily go through the time-honoured formula of moving Motions.
Having been prevented from making that point, I now feel compelled to put down this amendment. Noble Lords have the amendment, I shall not take much time over it. I put the amendment down because I believe it relates to intellectual integrity. I have listened to debates on the Education Reform Bill about freedom of tenure for academics, which concerns intellectual integrity. It concerns the people who teach at a high level and the ability of those people to teach without being subjected to the possibility of being given the sack. I believe that intellectual integrity is important in religion, and it is extremely important in education. No man anywhere, regardless of his title or rank, has the right to stand up and give support to something he does not really believe in. People will ask themselves that question and decide whether or not they should do so.
I resented being told that as a pagan I was responsible for the moral anarchy which is now so rampant and pernicious. That compels me to inform the Members of this House of my position as a pagan, a man who cannot believe in God. I cannot believe in God. I excuse those people who have had a revelation; I accept that they have had a revelation and I would not quibble about it, but I cannot believe anybody who says to me: "I believe in an omnipotent god; I believe in an all-powerful god; I believe in a creator". To believe that means that you have the intellectual ability and skill to understand all. That is how I see it. Because I see it that way, I cannot accept a god. I just do not know. But to honestly stand and say that I do not know does not mean that I am responsible for those perversions of human nature.
I have a religious creed, a belief, which is as good as that of anyone in this Chamber. I accept for

671
instance the Decalogue. There is nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments as far as I am concerned. The only thing that is wrong with some of the commandments is that these days we do not pay very much attention to the implicit spirit behind them. I do not believe for one minute that they were brought down on tablets of stone for Moses. But I do believe that within the culture and the society that existed at that time, when mankind was beginning to struggle away from a primitive civilisation into a modern civilisation where he was placing on record for the first time his thoughts and aspirations and beliefs for future generations, that in that atmosphere a morality was beginning to grow.
So when thinking about the Ten Commandments I always search for the meaning implicit within them. Let us take "Thou shalt not kill". I have no dubiety about the rightness of that but I know that people are killed in war even when it is considered a just war. I know that people are killed in the heat of the moment and people kill when they are provoked. But that is a different story from urging judges in a court of law coldly and clinically to pass sentence of death upon someone who has killed another. So far as I am concerned "Thou shalt not kill" is not a commandment that is always adhered to. I do not forget in that respect that not many years ago certain proponents of certain religions thought that the world would come to an end if we stopped executing people or stopped deporting them to Australia for the offence of stealing a lamb.
Let us take next "Thou shall not commit adultery". Apparently the real lesson to be learnt about adultery comes not from someone telling you when you are young that it is wrong; it comes from not being honest with your partner. One does not necessarily have to be married to commit adultery—not in the spirit behind the act, and we are not speaking about technicalities. If one has vowed to one's partner that one will share everything with him or her, then one does not go out of the house at night and meet one's secretary or someone else and have a sexual relationship with that person without telling your partner. That is why I believe that one should not commit adultery.
Then there is theft. I dissociate myself from the idea that theft is merely stealing something from somebody else. It also has something to do with taking from other people wealth to which you have not contributed by your efforts. What does that mean in practice? To my mind it means usury. It would not be a bad idea if the Church looked back into its history and its attitude toward usury. I do not wish to be told that the meaning of usury concerns excessive interest because I do not believe it. I am equally opposed to the City of London today. I would accept my own guilt if I were to pay some money into the bank and earn interest on it. I raised that point with the former Archbishop of Canterbury and asked what the Church did with the interest that it makes out of the funds it invests. I regard that as theft.
As regards false testimony, I follow the same line of argument that I used earlier when speaking about adultery. One should not give false testimony because that is breaking down a concordat with one's fellow
672
man and there is no way of building the brotherhood of man in that fashion.
Let me deal with the commandment that I learned at my mother's knee: "Honour thy father and thy mother". Of course one should honour one's father and one's mother in equal proportion. One should not in that respect distinguish one from the other. Certainly one should not, as the Church once did, consider a woman as being full of sin when she has had a baby. I was brought up with the idea that my mother had to go to church to be churched because in some way or other she had to be purged of that sin.
I am a unionist. I do not know God. In the last few minutes of my introduction I should like to turn to some of the reasons why religion should not be taught in state schools. As I said in replying to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I have no objection to children being taught about religion. One should tell people about religions and tell them how they spring up, what they have done and what is still being done in the name of religion. One should let people understand. However, one should tell them about all religions and about the other beliefs. They should be informed about humanist beliefs and the person who is a secularist.
I do not intend to frighten your Lordships but I must tell noble Lords that I spent days going through the booklet called Education for All. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I extracted a few pages from it. It is the Swann Report and it says at paragraph 2.2:
"The phrase itself 'religious education' seems to be almost a contradiction in terms, the task of education being to teach children to exercise flexibility of mind and to seek rational explanations for situations while the essence of religion is seen by many as belief and in many faiths as an acceptance of revelation".
The passage continues:
"By 'religion' we mean some pattern of belief and behaviour related to the question of man's ultimate concern. For some it is an Eastern religion, for some it is Christianity; for others it is agnostic humanism".
The Durham Report, which incidentally was produced under the sponsorship of the Church of England states:
"To press for acceptance of a particular faith, belief or system is the duty and privilege of the Churches and other similar religious bodies. It is certainly not the task of a teacher in a county school".
Those are not my words; they are from the Durham Report printed in the booklet Education fir All.
Lastly, perhaps I may quote the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who said in 1980 that:
"a truly pluralist society, if such we are, should not merely tolerate diversity but value and nurture it".
Those are quotations from a body of people who spent literally months studying religion and its relaitionship with education.
I move this amendment with a specnic purpose in mind. I am becoming tired of it being implied that if one is not a Christian and if one does not worship in any religion then somehow or other one has to be associated with all the bad elements of life. I resent that implication. I move this amendment in order to point out that morality is ingrained in a man even if he honestly admits that he does not know God, just as much as it is ingrained in anyone else. It is absolutely wrong for anybody to suggest that it is not. Until we get over that idea we shall never understand some of the major problems affecting the modern world.
I said before—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is not in his place, would I think agree with me—that there is no need for me to raise the question of Northern Ireland or speak about the Lebanon. There is no need to make a point to this House about the divisions that have occurred in the world which in some way or another have their origin in religion. I have deliberately restricted my time to the same length as the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London so no one can accuse me of abusing a privilege, but there is one last matter that I want to raise. The other evening I was sitting in the comparative security of my home and watching television. Some words that I learned at my mother's knee came into my mind. She was a Christian and none better. The words were: "Suffer little children to come unto me". The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who accorded me the honour of telling me to shut up the last time this matter was debated was appearing on television that night. They were talking about our trouble spot, Northern Ireland, and she said almost as a prayer that if only we could get the children in one generation to learn together.
My amendment seeks a wider understanding of moral and ethical issues. I ask your Lordships to think about the children of Northern Ireland and what keeps them apart—it is certainly not atheist and certainly not secular. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I referred to the amendment of the noble Lord in the course of my contribution to the general discussion. I cannot recommend to the House that his amendment be supported.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, am I to understand that in this House that is the only comment on my amendment? If so, I can only conclude that everybody in the House must agree with it. We are not talking about the price of stocks and shares on the London Exchange. We have been talking about a matter that is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of people and their relationships with each other. I am therefore strengthened in my view. I have heard no case against my amendment. I press the matter to a Division.
7.41 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mulley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

674

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Joseph, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff L.

Lawrence, L.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Blease, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Borthwick, L.

London, Bp.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Longford, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mersey, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhys, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Coleraine, L.

Moyne, L.

Combermere, V.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cowley, E.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Craigton, L.

Northhourne, L.

Croft, L.

Orkney, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southwark, Bp.

Greenway, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torrington, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hastings, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Truro, Bp.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hooper, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.49 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps this is a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.50 to 8.45 p.m.]
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 9:
Page I, line 23, leave out second ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of myself, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friends Lord Soper and Lord Rea. Unfortunately neither the right reverend Prelate nor my noble friend Lord Soper can be here tonight. I couple Amendment No. 9 with Amendment No. 12 so that it makes some sense.
We debated this amendment at Committee stage. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, in reply to the debate said that it had undoubtedly been a lofty and noble debate. I agreed with him. Unfortunately the reply was ignoble rather than noble: it was a sterile reply. It answered none of the very pertinent questions that had been put from all sides of the Committee and it left the Government looking arid, insular and parochial. It is for that reason that my noble friends and I have put down this amendment.
Among the many things to which the noble Earl did not reply was why the Government found it necessary and advantageous in publishing their White Paper Better Schools to put in the exact words that are contained in the amendment:
"helps pupils to understand the world in which they live, and the inter-dependence of individuals, groups and nations".
The Government later agreed that the general aims of their White Paper had been accepted educationally. Why then, if this provision has been drafted in the White Paper and if it has been approved by the Government, did they not wish it to be in the Bill itself?
The noble Earl did not answer. I hope that tonight the reply given to this amendment will be by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who I know has had discussions on this subject with a number of organisations, rather than by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who answered last time.
During his winding up the noble Earl said that these were very important aims for the school curriculum. If they are important aims for the school curriculum surely they should be in the Bill as a lead to the whole educational world. He went on to say, defending his Government's opposition to the amendment:
"But can it seriously be suggested that, 'the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life' to which Clause I refers do not already cover life as members of society and inhabitants of the earth, or the need to understand the world and the complicated and diverse relationships on which our existence depends? I think not".—[Official Report, 3/5/1988: cols. 479–80.]
I think so. There are many educationists, many teachers and branches of the education service who have not yet recognised the importance of the global view in the teaching of all subjects and in the preparation of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for the challenges which they are bound to meet in the world we are bequeathing to them. Yes, it can be seriously suggested, and it ought to be the Government's lead to the educational world, that the global view, the internationalist view, the concept of citizenship of the world, be put into the Bill as a lead to the whole education system of our country.
I make one special point about this issue. How many of our teachers have ever been trained to consider their subject from the international point of view? Some years ago I used to go to Balls Park Training College for Teachers where there was a special course on the third world. So far as we could discover at that time it was the only course on which teachers could opt for training in the problems of the third world and the relationship of the third world to this country and to Europe. How many teachers today are given such a training? How many teachers have the opportunity to learn through each one of their subjects that there is an international dimension, that the nation's state is becoming outdated and that our children and grandchildren have to learn to be citizens of the world if the human race is to survive and if they are to have any opportunity for a happy and positive life? I do not need to go into the number of issues which have a global dimension. Every issue is now an issue of international importance.
When the noble Earl replied to me on the last occasion he suggested that education for international understanding is a very important aim for the school curriculum. Yes, it is, and that is why the amendment has been tabled and is being moved tonight. What are the Government doing about it? What are the Government doing to ensure that the important aim for the school curriculum, which was included in their White Paper and approved by the educational establishment, is laid down in the Bill so that they are seen to be giving a lead to the educational establishment to ensure that throughout the education world, through all courses and subjects, children are being taught in a global context and in a global environment?
The noble Earl also said that the amendment represented some of the important anxieties which the school curriculum must address. He said:
"We intend that it shall do so and indeed within the national curriculum shall take steps to ensure that these issues are appropriately covered. They will be dealt with in many subject areas."—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 480.]
This is far more important and significant than "these issues". It concerns the whole meaning and significance of education for the next generation. When the noble Earl says "in many subject areas", why does he use the word "many" and not the word "all"? Is there a single subject area in which the international dimension is not of vital significance?
After all the pious words that have been spoken on behalf of the Government in favour of the concept of the amendment, I should like to know tonight what the Government are doing, and intend to do in practice, to ensure that our education system is internationalised. So far as I know there is no evidence that the Government have demonstrated their belief in the importance of that vital issue in any practical form—not in words but in practice.
Although the noble Earl referred to two specific working groups, so far as I know the subject working groups that have now been established in science, maths, English and technology have not had the global perspective brought to their attention. The Government have included environmental and multicultural education up to a minor point. However, to

677
my knowledge they have said nothing about development education upon which the future of the world and of this country depends.
I should like to ask the Government this specific question. If they are still so stubborn as to resist the amendment which they drafted for their White Paper, will they give a promise, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the last debate, that the international dimension, the global dimension, will be brought to the attention of every working group? Will the Government also promise that every subject working group will be given a brief and an instruction to frame its terms of reference so that the global concept, the global dimension, of its subject is included in its recommendation?
If the Government will not refer to that issue in the Bill, and if they fail to ask the subject working groups to incorporate that dimension when devising the curriculum for their particular subject, what will the Government do? What encouragement will they give to teachers to have the opportunity of being trained in internationalism in their subjects? What is the Government's intention as regards what they have laid down as an important issue in the new education system which they are devising?
Will the Government pledge themselves tonight to instruct all the working groups in every subject area to include in their discussions and recommendations the global dimension of the subject that they are studying and so report to the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support this amendment. It is perhaps most strongly supported by the foreword to the Brandt Report which states:
"We are convinced of the great role education has to play. The commission feels that schools all over the world should pay more attention to international problems so that young people will see more clearly the dangers they are facing, their responsibilities and the opportunities of co-operating globally and regionally as well as within their own neighbourhood".
We have had an example of that very recently in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's, as we understand it, successful move to help the poorer countries by the action at the Toronto summit. That kind of action is to be encouraged and, it is to be hoped, understood. Unless that kind of approach is understood and taught in education, it is very difficult to see how it will happen.
Perhaps I may make a short point. I find it difficult to see how in each of the working groups in the foundation subjects in Clause 3 as it stands it is possible to put these matters in. However if one took Amendment No. 2 which the House turned down and which was spoken to by my noble friend Lady David and used the more appropriate modern language of the Scottish divisions, one could easily cover these matters in social and environmental studies which include history, geography and economics. However, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. It would relate to the entire curriculum, but particularly to the two foundation
678
subjects of history and geography since, as my noble friend said, social studies do not appear in the curriculum.
There is a need to relate teaching to today's worldwide problems in a constructive way. One major benefit is that it makes the subjects taught much more interesting and relevant to the pupils and children to whom it is taught. I believe there is a need to set the approach of tomorrow's citizens to new knowledge in a framework which respects the values and rights of other peoples and nations and which emphasises that a co-operative approach is best. That applies both locally and in an international world sense. I believe the wording of this amendment covers most of those aims and needs and I strongly support it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to say that from these Benches we also support this amendment. There are three areas which are lacking in this Bill and this is one of them. Another is the environment and the third is life skills which children should be taught and we shall discuss that later. However, we strongly support the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, accused me of having uttered the words in Committee: "in pious hope" or at least of having used the word "pious". I may have used that word but the piety with which I spoke or the manner in which I spoke at that time I happened to feel was correct and I considered it to be totally accurate and truthful.
We are heartened that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and other noble Lords attach such importance to widening the educational horizons of pupils beyond their immediate environment, to include the understanding of the world in which they live and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations.
I am sure that we all share their belief that there is a need to promote tolerance and understanding. The recognition of an individual's place within the world and the need to take into account the needs of others is an essential ingredient of the preparation for adult life. Indeed, many of us need to be reminded once we become adult. But it is because we have already covered in general terms the "preparation for adult life" in Clause 1 of the Bill, that we cannot commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
As noble Lords will recall from earlier discussions in the House, we have deliberately set out to phrase the wording of Clause 1 in the most general form. By this means we hope, in the way that similar wording was used in Section 7 of the 1944 Act, to establish general principles which will stand the test of time.
I cannot believe that the present wording of Clause 1, concerned as it is with the promotion of the development of pupils and society and the preparation of pupils for adult life, is insufficient to cover the intention of the amendment.
Those who have moved the amendment will recognise, I know, that there are other, equally worthy, objectives which need to be dealt with in the context of the school curriculum. We intend that they shall be. But we do not want, in Clause 1, to give

679
special weight to any particular subject, or cross-curricular theme, however important. We have resisted earlier attempts to embellish Clause 1, and we remain convinced that this is the right approach.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will accept the strength of this argument, which I am sure he will appreciate does not seek to devalue his concern, and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl, Lord Arran, whether he can imagine anything wider than helping pupils to understand the world in which they live? That is all-embracing, if ever anything was, and there surely can be no harm in adding it. It surely makes the point that whereas 100 years ago people would not have been thinking in these terms, we are now concerned with a world which, as people constantly say, is growing narrower and narrower. As regards the general statements which we are making in Clause 1, surely this very general statement which gives full recognition to the fact that we are living in a world which is very interdependent is worth recognising on the face of the Bill.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in reply to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I have already said that that point is covered on the face of the Bill as it stands, which is extremely comprehensive and all-embracing. To add anything further would be completely pointless and would destroy the meaning.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to intervene and to ask a question, assuming that the noble Earl is referring to subsection (2)(a) or perhaps (a) and (b). Can the noble Earl give a further explanation because, from my reading of it, the subsection is completely impossible to interpret in the way that he says. Does the noble Earl not agree that it simply does not cover the points made by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness? I am perfectly willing to be persuaded by the noble Earl about the all-embracing nature of the subsection, but from my limited knowledge of English it simply is not as he says it is. Perhaps the noble Earl can give an explanation that we can all understand.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think one can get much more explicit than what is on the face of the Bill. Subsection (2)(b) states:
"prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life."
I cannot see how one can get more all-embracing than that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, one can get more all-embracing than that by including my amendment. That makes the subsection more all-embracing and makes it much more specific. It gives a much clearer lead to those of us who believe that the future of the children of this country depends upon their understanding from an early age of their position in the world as a whole, not just in this country.
I do not accept the noble Earl's response to my amendment that I will realise that there are many
680
other subjects of equal importance. There are not. There is no subject whose importance is equal to that of understanding the world in which children live and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations. I stress the word "interdependence". If the noble Earl, who, I believe, has some connections with Scotland, will go to Bathurst and ask the workers at British Leyland why they do not have work, he will be told that it is because the Nigerians cannot afford to buy the products that the plant was tooled to build for them. That is why British workers are out of work; it is because the Nigerians cannot afford the goods which British workers wish to make. That is interdependence. One could extend such examples all night.
I am extremely disappointed that the Government are taking this narrow, parochial view. I gave the Government the opportunity in Committee to think again on this matter and on the words which the Government themselves used. I have asked the noble Earl tonight for a specific answer to a question on the Government's guidance to the working parties, and he has not given an answer. In the circumstances, I am left with no option but to ask for the will of the House.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mulley, L.

Blease, L.

Parry, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Combermere, V.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ampthill, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cowley, E.

Auckland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Beloff, L.

Craigton, L.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eccles, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Fortescue, E.

681

Gridley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Norfolk, D.

Northbourne, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harvington, L.

Pender, L.

Hastings, L.

Reay, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home of the Hirscl, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joseph, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinloss, Ly,

Torrington, V.

Lindsay, E.

Trafford, L.

London, Bp.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

McFadzean, L.

Truro, Bp.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Middleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Moyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 10:
Page I, line 25, at end insert ("in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood is unable to be present today, I wish to move the amendment standing in her name on the Marshalled List. It seeks to add the words,
"in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society".
In reply to the previous amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, invited us to look at Section 7 of the 1944 Act. I took the opportunity of doing just that. There is a remarkable difference, which perhaps reflects the philosophy of this Government in the change from the government of Mr. Churchill, as he then was. Clause 1(2) refers to a curriculum which,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and (b) prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
The amendment suggests that we should add,
"in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society".
The comparison with Section 7 of the 1944 Act could not be more precisely put. It refers to the community. It says:
"it shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community"—
not of the pupils but of the community—
"by securing that efficient education throughout these stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area".
The individual pupil is not mentioned in that sentence. It speaks of community need and it is perhaps unfortunate that we now have this individualistic flurry that each pupil must be considered.
This amendment is of crucial significance because, whatever was the position in 1944, we are now in a multi-cultural society and the education system must recognise that. The pupils or the society, whichever way we look at it, must accept the reality of a diverse multi-cultural society. In his 1985 report Education for All the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said that the role
682
of education in relation to prejudice is to equip the pupil with knowledge and understanding in place of ignorance and to develop his or her ability to formulate views and attitudes and to judge situations on the basis of this knowledge. The report recognised that such education would have to face the problem of correcting any mistaken impressions or inaccurate hearsay evidence which he or she may have acquired within the family peer group or more broadly from the local community or in the media.
There have been reports about the frightening picture of young people facing unemployment and insecurity who drift towards racist or fascist attitudes. In this context, the need for a clear reaffirmation by the education system of the goal of an open pluralistic multi-cultural society cannot be overstated. Perhaps even at that stage the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would admit that Scots may have a word in edgeways at times.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: They usually do!
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am sorry hut no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Home, will quarrel with too many words.
We should never forget that the pupils of today are the citizens of tomorrow and that our education system should enable them to respond to the issues what will confront them in adulthood. We must have a general statement in the Act if it is to last for any time that it is a multi-cultural and multi-racial society in which we live and that the education system must meet that. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I had my name down to a similar amendment in Committee. I support the amendment. I am sure that the Government will say that it is unnecessary and that the point is already covered. The situation is relatively new. It did not exist in a similar way in 1944. There can be no doubt that we are a multi-racial society, multi-cultural society. There can be no doubt that in parts of the country that fact is not accepted, and there are alarming signs of racism in certain areas. It can only do good to have the statement included. If the Government refuse to accept the amendment now that it has been composed, that will be interpreted by many of the ethnic minority groups as showing that the Government do not care to promote a multiracial society.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that there will be no support for the amendment because it has a tendency to push into an inferior position the ethnic and religious minorities which exist in this country and to encourage prejudice against them. There is a great difference between saying what is obvious—that we have become a country of many races and religions—and saying something different, that it is multi-cultural, because we are then suggesting to those minorities that they cannot participate in the mainstream of the culture in which they and their families will live.
We know from experience throughout the world, from Sri Lanka to Ulster, from Azerbaijan to Armenia and wherever else we like to look, that

683
where a society is multi-cultural in the full sense—that is to say, a society in which the people believe themselves, not only in religion, race or colour, but in their attitudes to life and in their general understanding of their position to be a separate group—democratic principles cannot flourish.
Surely our aim towards the minority communities—ethnic, racial or however we define them—should be to say that the doors are open, that our constitution is colour-blind and that we hope to make our employment laws colour-blind. An amendment of this kind goes strongly against the natural and, I hope, tolerant instincts of the British people towards the latest accretions to what, after all, has been the course of British history—the assimilation to a single culture of generations of migrants, from the Anglo-Saxons onwards.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12, but I doubt whether the Bill is the appropriate place for them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Hylton: I thank the noble and learned Lord. A more appropriate place for expressing such important sentiments would be in circulars, in guidance, in teacher-training, in in-service training for teachers and in preparation for school governors as they take office. I feel that the amendment should not be written into the Bill.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I support the amendment, mainly because such preparation is going on within the maintained school sector. I come from Birmingham where there is a large ethnic minority component in the schools and where in some schools the overwhelming majority of pupils are from the ethnic minorities. For that reason, the schools are facing up to the need to spread multi-cultural activities. These start more often than not with music, dance and art in schools.
Only in the last month there was a television programme in the Central Television area showing the schools in Stratford-on-Avon which are perhaps not the kind of schools which would be found in the inner parts of the city of Birmingham. They were spreading out to make quite sure that pupils were well aware of what they call the cultural activities of the people who have come to live among us.
I must repeat that the majority of schools in this country are good and enlightened schools. We have heard on many occasions during the course of the debate on this Bill of bad schools and atrocious schools, but nobody ever names them. In supporting this amendment, I say that it is recognised by schools, by staff and by parents that their children are bringing their friends home from school these days so the parents need to understand the background and cultural activities of the ethnic minorities. It is because the schools are doing so that I support the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to say a short word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Long before there was a substantial number of immigrants into this country from the ex-British Empire, we had a multi-cultural society. There is no British culture; there is a culture in Northern Ireland, there is a culture in Wales. In parts of Wales there is a separate language. There is a culture in Scotland. All that has happened over the last 30 years is that additional cultures have enriched the life of British society. We were a multi-cultural society; we are now and even wider multi-cultural society. Children in schools should recognise, know about and understand the nature of our multi-cultural society. This amendment would help them to do so and help their teachers to lead them in that direction.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the Bill, paragraphs 2(a) and (b) in my view cover all that is required of the educational system to prepare our children for the society in which they live. It seems to me that if we get right much of the debate which we have been dealing with earlier today—the religious education debate—and if we encourage the full spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of our young children as individuals, that will make us a much healthier society. It will promote tolerance and a healthy attitude to minorities, whether they are ethnic minorities, mentally or physically handicapped children or whatever. This breeds a tolerance and understanding, and a harmonious way of living for our children. It will make ultimately for a better society.
I believe that an amendment such as the one proposed will be divisive. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Beloff when he says that this amendment will put the very people about whom noble Lords opposite are concerned at a disadvantage. The last thing we want—and, frankly, this is one of the fears I have about the amendment—is that at the end of the day it will mean subordinating much of our own culture. We shall end up not just with a mish-mash of religious education, but with a mish-mash of almost everything else. including history and geography. I believe that we must concentrate very strongly on bringing up spiritually and morally healthy individuals and we must breed a tolerance for other people. In that way, we shall have a much healthier society than by introducing artificially divisive methods to bring our peoples together.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for moving this amendment in the name of his noble friend Lady Lockwood, I have to tell him straight off that the Government's attitude towards this amendment is very similar to their attitude towards the previous amendment. As stated in Committee and indeed in relation to the previous amendment, the wording of Clause 1 of the Bill is designed to be very general.
While the Government have every sympathy with the intentions behind this amendment, we believe it is again an unnecessary addition to the comprehensive

685
list of educational purposes described in subsection (2) of Clause 1. That is because, given the nature of our society, preparation for adult life, and indeed the promotion of the cultural development of our society, must automatically include those attitudes and activities which this amendment seeks to encourage. The amendment therefore has only declaratory force, and we do not wish to start identifying separately particular skills or particular attitudes which might be given a boost by a mention in the Bill, however laudable they may be.
The words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, reflect certain important concerns, but these are only some of the important concerns which the school curriculum must address. We intend that it shall address them, and within the national curriculum we shall take steps to ensure that these important issues are appropriately covered. It was made clear in Committee, and we shall reiterate here, that our unwillingness to accept this amendment is no reflection on our commitment to its underlying objective. That commitment is every bit as strong as that of the noble Lord. This Government have set in hand in the light of the Swann Report numerous initiatives to meet educational needs in a multi-ethnic society. These include projects supported through education support grants and a new national priority area for in-service teacher training. The need to take account of ethnic diversity has also been included in the criteria used by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education for the approval of initial teacher training courses and the national criteria for the GCSE.
In the context of the national curriculum, the first subject working groups have been asked to bear in mind in their drawing up of attainment targets and programmes of study is the multi-ethnic nature of society. Furthermore, we know that the task group on assessment and testing has also considered these issues very carefully. We shall certainly ensure that all future detailed work follows these same principles.
However, we believe that Clause 1 already offers the right context for this detailed work and strikes the right balance between the various objectives of the school curriculum. We have consistently resisted the attempt to hang upon it additional trappings, however worthy the cause in question, and we remain convinced that this is still the right approach. I hope therefore that, having made his case and in view of the reasoning of the Government's case, the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I shall ask at the end leave to withdraw this amendment but certainly not as a result of the reasoning put forward by the Government. If one looks at Clause 1(2) and considers the very unlikely but possible chance that a
686
National Front government took power in this country, one can see that there is nothing in subsection (2) to offend M. Le Pen or anyone who thought like him.
Where is there anything to stop such people saying that all coloured people must be sent home to their patrial areas? There is nothing there. I am very much obliged for the help that I have received from noble Lords —that is perhaps the wrong sex to mention but it is the tradition—such as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Fisher of Rednal. I think that we obtained some clue from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as to the thinking behind this Bill. She said that we must not have anything that would subordinate our own culture. What we have is a whole variety of cultures.
We have had cultural input from the many kinds of people who have come to this country. They have benefited the country in many ways and no doubt they will continue to do so. There is no single culture in this country. There are certainly people who have come to this country within the last 50 or 60 years who have not been wholly assimilated. They have their own culture, be it Chinese, Indian, Cypriot or whatever. They will help the development of this country just as the people who escaped from the Nazi regime in Germany in the 1930s and just as the Huguenots have helped it.
Perhaps I may speak for a moment as part of an ethnic minority. The difficulty is that the English have always said: "As long as you join our culture, that is fine. However, don't bring your culture to us. We shall be totally tolerant if you will try as hard as you can to become good English people". Perhaps the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord speak in this interminable debate earlier this afternoon and say that we should join the Scots. Now he complains that the English want to do their own thing.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I was attempting to say—I apologise for having said it so often—that on occasion the Scots have something slightly better than the English. The ethnic minorities of this country continually say to the English: "At least consider what we have, what we are doing and what our lives are like. Don't just say: 'We are perfect and you must come up to our standard' ". I shall not take the matter any further. I do not wish to widen the Scottish-English divide. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("as individuals, members of society and inhabitants of the Earth").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 stands in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who regrets that he cannot be present. The amendment would change the subsection to read:
"prepares such pupils for … adult life as individuals, members of society and inhabitants of the Earth".
With this amendment I seek to improve the drafting and the scope of the Bill, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said earlier, may have to stand for the next 40 years. It has become all too apparent that the physical and biological systems that make life possible on this earth are being progressively degraded and thrown off balance by the increasing population and its ever-growing demand for natural resources. We want every human being to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Conventional belief is that that can be achieved by economic development. The snag is that we cannot have economic growth without increasing the exploitation of the world's natural resources.
Those are not my words. They are the views of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, President of the World Wildlife Fund, now the Worldwide Fund for Nature, on 17th May. He added that at the present rate of exploitation it was difficult to imagine how much would be left for the people inhabiting the earth two generations from now. For future generations some world deterioration is inevitable. The next generation must be informed and prepared to cope with this not only as members of society but as inhabitants of the earth.
Those last dozen words were the words I wanted to add at the Committee stage and which my noble friend Lord Arran declined to accept. He gave detailed reasons for refusal which are reported in the Official Report of 3rd May at cols. 479–480. If I am to prove to this House and the Government that my amendment should be accepted I must show that my noble friend the Minister and the Government were not entirely correct in their reasoning.
The Minister described Clause 1—and he did so again this evening—as very general and done on purpose. He wished:
"our wording to stand the test of time in the way that very similar words in Section 7 of the 1944 Act have done".
The wording of Section 7 of the 1944 Act is not very general. It lays a specific duty on every education authority to contribute etc., etc.—the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has already quoted the section to the House—to meet the needs of the population in the local authority's area. That is, the local education authority had to secure efficient education in the community to meet the needs of the population of the local authority area. This Bill is broadly in line with Sections 1, 2 and 2(a) of the 1944 Act although the Bill adds the development of the pupil and refers to the development of an undefined
688
society instead of the area community. Clause 1(2)(b), which I seek to amend, really is in general terms and there is nothing remotely similar or like it in Section 7 of the 1944 Act.
At Second Reading and in Committee I complained about the correct interpretation of the word "society", which in this context is not as clear as it should be. In fact it has been differently interpreted by two Ministers. The Minister of State, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, speaking at the Committee stage of this Bill in another place (as reported in Standing Committee Hansard of 15th December 1987 at col. 114) on an amendment to remove the words "and of society", gave the following as the Government's interpretation of "society" in this Bill:
"The 'society' encompasses the different communities that make up our society today …I hope that by using 'society' we shall ensure that… children are educated in such a way as to promote the ultimate development of all the communities within our society".
That is admirable but there is no thought of the wider world at all. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench could not have realised the narrowness of that interpretation. When talking about the needs for the present very general clause, he said (at col. 479) that he wanted future generations to develop an
"understanding of what 'the responsibilities of adult life or the needs of society' involve".
I am sure that he did not mean his colleague's "different communities" that now make up the local education authority areas.
My amendment clarifies the confusion by defining society as the pupil society. Earlier this evening my noble friend Lord Eccles referred to society in the context of the whole world. Society is not the whole world. As I explained at Second Reading, "society" is defined in the dictionary with a narrower interpretation.
I now turn to subsection (2)(b), concerning the preparation for adult life. While subsection (2)(a) follows the 1944 Act in being fairly specific about the educational development of the pupil in society, there is no guidance on the scope of the curriculum also to achieve preparation for adult life. As now worded the curriculum prepares for adult life the pupil developed as a member of a society which is not defined. Theoretically, there is no obligation—and certainly no instruction—for the teacher to prepare the pupil to understand and perhaps contend with the responsibilities and experiences of world problems.
In declining in Committee to accept my amendment, which would have added the words:
"as members of society and inhabitants of the earth",
the Minister was right to point out to me that, by emphasising only the social and collective, my amendment might appear to devalue the pupils' individual experiences and achievements. Consequently, I have added to this amendment the words "as individuals".
My noble friend the Minister was also right in saying (as reported in Hansard at col. 480) that he did not wish to emphasise in Clause 1 any subject or

689
cross-curricular theme, however timely or important, nor to mention certain important concerns, but only some of the important concerns which the school curriculum must address. I agree entirely that such a list, however long, could never be comprehensive. That is why I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. To prepare pupils for an adult life in the situation in which they are in fact individuals, members of society and inhabitants of the earth can add no particular subject or theme to the curriculum by being added to this Bill, but they do give badly needed clarity and direction.
I suggest that the added clarification which I have given would improve the whole purport of the Bill by making it a little more specific. The Minister was wrong to say that my wording could not reasonably extend the scope of the clause. It defines "society", as does the dictionary, as "the pupils' society in which the pupils live with others of similar interests". It widens those interests by adding those other societies in the world of which the pupils are not and cannot be members but about which, in the interests of all the inhabitants of the earth, there may be reason for action or concern.
Perhaps I may recapitulate. There is no precedent in the 1944 Act for a provision which is so loosely worded and undefined as in subsection (2)(b). The precedent in the 1944 Act was for the definite instruction in subsection (2)(a). The right curriculum must have three essential elements: the pupil as an individual is in this Bill but he was not in the 1944 Act; the pupil as a member of his society—which must be clearly defined in this Bill, and in the 1944 Act it was the pupil's local education authority area; and the pupil as an inhabitant of this complex and changing world. This is a comparatively new situation which could not have been envisaged in 1944 and which already assures us of changes and dangers for the next and future generations.
To stand the test of time this Bill must surely acknowledge that fact. My amendment meets all three essentials without altering or emphasising in any way a single word or subject in the Bill, but it conveys an overall impression about how those words and subjects in the Bill could be interpreted in action which is in the best interests of our pupils, our society and the inhabitants of this earth. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, one of the very best speeches at Second Reading was made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who has moved this amendment. I should like to assure him of the support of these Benches. A more wide awake and forward-looking drafter of the Bill could surely not have overlooked the painfully obvious fact that in the next quarter or half century our wise stewardship of the small planet on which we live will have to be our main preoccupation.
We live in alarmingly increasing numbers on a thin crust of topsoil supplemented only by the harvest of the seas. Both are endangered by our ignorance, greed, nationalism and pigheaded refusal to look
690
ahead more than a year or two. When life-threatening dangers to the air we breathe and the atmosphere that surrounds us are pointed out to us, we pay far greater attention to preventing disruption of the production lines in our factories or the pattern of our trade than to the protection of this earth. This earth is all we have. That should be recognised somewhere in the Bill. I believe that Clause 1 is the right place.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I wish to be perfectly impartial and perfectly consistent. I have listened to my noble and admired friend behind me and I have listened to the other debates on the three preceding amendments. When I first saw them on the Marshalled List I realised that I was implacably against them all. I gave them absolutely full marks for intention and absolutely no marks for definition.
The truth is that education is co-extensive with life both in school and in adulthood. One can go on talking about multi-racial societies until the cows come home. One can go on talking about being an inhabitant of this earth until the cows come home. One can go on talking about multi-ethnic and multiracial societies until the cows come home. I believe that, with about half an hours' work, I could have drafted 150 amendments or so all of which could have been in Clause 1 and not one of which would have added anything to the sense of the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment and the theme of the three amendments about which we have been talking. Whatever the noble and learned Lord may say, there are many people who feel that something is missing from the Bill. It is a recognition that the world has changed considerably since 1944, and so indeed has this country. If the noble and learned Lord could have drafted an amendment which would have covered this, it is a great pity that he did not take the trouble to do so, because that might have saved us a great deal of time. Perhaps he may still try to do so and that would be a help to all of us.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness. However, the point that I was trying to make was that if I had drafted my 150 amendments I should be beating the air as she is doing now.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord still fails to recognise the problem which the people who moved these amendments are trying to address. That is a pity and in a way it shows the narrowness of this Bill about which we complained a good deal in Committee and are now complaining at Report stage. All I wish to say is that here is a problem. It has not been resolved. I should like to voice my support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I wonder whether he has taken on board that the point of this amendment is that one day the cows will not come home.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, surely the amendment is totally unnecessary. It is covered by the word "responsibilities" in Clause 1(2)(b).
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, one thing has been forgotten by noble Lords who criticise this amendment. The noble and learned Lord said that he was impartial and consistent. No doubt he is consistent, but what he means by "impartial" will defy any range of definition.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I intended to express that I was impartially hostile to all these amendments.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, in fact the noble and learned Lord was wrong at every point. Has he asked himself why there should be amendments of this kind? It is because there have been certain important changes in the world since the last great Education Act. We have become much more aware of the fact that we live in one world, that the actions of one nation can affect the rest of us. That is truer now than it was in 1940. We have also become more aware of the dangers of the way in which we are devouring the resources of this planet.
These considerations are of importance. They ought in some way to be mentioned in the Bill. It is quite easy to pick out one method of doing so and to say that it is not right; it ought to have been done in some other way. I am saying that there ought to be some recognition in this Bill of the change in the world since 1940. It is the failure to realise that which accounts for the triumphal return of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to the wrong end of the stick on every occasion.
One of the great evils of the way in which the present Government are asking us all to regard the world is that they think of man as if he were chiefly an individual, which is rather like trying to write the biography of a fish out of water because mankind is by nature a social creature. As one of the blessed spirits in paradise said to Dante,
"Is it not good for man to be a citizen?"
Dante, who had had experience of being a citizen and a magistrate at one time and an exile at another, replied:
"Indeed, and of that I need no proof".
It is good for man to be a citizen. He needs to be reminded of it and he needs to be reminded of it more emphatically now that he has become aware of the dangers of living as if he were living for himself with no regard to the planet as a whole. He needs to be reminded of that more emphatically than he did in previous generations.
We have had various amendments offered to us, and the case to be made against any one of them individually. I do not believe that there can be a case for not having anything in the Bill to draw attention to the increasing demands which are made on man by the fact that he is a member of society and an inhabitant of the earth.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am truly grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton for his genuine desire to improve Clause 1 which I know he does with feeling and with compassion. But despite the Government's firm commitment to his worthy objectives, nonetheless we must once again disappoint him by speaking against his amendment. In doing so, I hope, albeit briefly, to be developing a somewhat different argument.
The words that noble Lords would have us add cannot reasonably extend the scope of the clause, worded as it is in such general terms. The three strands of preparation for adult life that my noble friend's amendment would highlight are already implicit in the wording of Clause 1. Preparation for the demands that adult life will make upon them as individuals is clearly included in the specification, in the first part of subsection (2)(a), of the need to encourage pupils'
"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development".
The subsection goes on to widen the scope of this requirement to include the encouragement of these values in a social context as well as an individual one. Noble Lords have contended that this widening is not sufficient and that the Bill does not define "society" in such a way that would ensure that the curriculum made sufficient reference to concerns of a global nature.
Clearly that application of the concept of society to which a pupil's education will address itself first must be the child's immediate social context. It is to this interpretation of the concept that my honourable friend the Minister of State referred, as my noble friend said, during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, when she spoke of education promoting
"the ultimate development of all communities within our society."
However, it is never possible to divorce a community from its wider social context. To understand fully one's own community one must be aware of that wider context and of the complex inter-relationships that knot together all humanity. An awareness of global concerns, those that affect all pupils as "inhabitants of this earth" is thus implied automatically by our reference to "society". So it cannot seriously be suggested that the references in Clause 1 to the development of the individual pupil and of society, and to
"the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life",
do not already cover life as
"individuals. members of society and inhabitants of the Earth",
and the concomitant need to understand the world and the complex inter-relationships on which our existence depends.
What the suggested words do is to reflect specific concerns; certainly they are important ones, but they only constitute some of the important concerns which the school curriculum must address. For this reason it would be wrong to single them out in the Bill's preamble. We are just as determined as the noble Lords that these issues should be addressed, and shall take steps to ensure that they are appropriately covered within the national

693
curriculum. They will be dealt with in many different subject areas. The science working group has already been reminded of the need to help pupils develop respect for the environment and the care of living things, and we can expect relevant attainment targets to be developed in geography, history, and elsewhere.
We believe that Clause 1 has struck the right balance between the various objectives of the school curriculum. Here at the Committee stage, and in another place, we have resisted attempts to hang additional embellishments upon it, however worthy the cause in question, and I must repeat that we remain convinced that this is the right approach.
In view of the reasoning and understanding of my argument against this amendment, I particularly ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. He did not answer a. question that I asked during the debate in respect of my amendment. Will he answer it now in the context of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton? The noble Earl mentioned the Government's concern regarding "many" subjects. Should not that be "all" subjects? Will he also answer this question? Do the Government intend to give any guidelines, any encouragement, to all the working groups on all the subjects within the curriculum in order to bring to their attention the necessity of including a global dimension in their research, discussions and reports?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can go no further than to repeat the arguments which I put forward in respect of this amendment and the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. The Bill stands as it does at the moment and there is no going back on that; there is no change.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful reply, as I am sure are other noble Lords. I am sufficiently satisfied with his assurances and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 2 [The National Curriculum]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 15. The amendment was put forward in Committee and withdrawn. At that time we recommended that home economics should either be included in the core curriculum or it should be a foundation subject. In this amendment we recommend that provision should be made:
"for all registered pupils for Home Economics which includes personal and social education, and lifeskills, and may or may not be part of the National Curriculum".
Although we should like home economics to be part of the core curriculum or the foundation subjects we are not asking for that. However, we are asking that any pupil who wishes to study the subject should be able to do so. It might be said that this is possible now. However, I must point out to the House that there are a number of courses throughout the country at either universities or polytechnics which are closing down. If courses continue to do so it will not be possible for students to learn home economics at school.
Perhaps I may say, as I said in Committee, that home economics has two sides to it which are interrelated. There is the practical side requiring imagination, skill and intelligence. So often in this debate today we have talked about academics. I believe that practical skills need intelligence. The setting up of a home, the buying of a house, arranging insurance and indeed the activities of home making. healthy diet, cookery, and so on, require much teaching. That teaching is often received in the home and indeed should be so received. However, reality faces us. It is not always received in the home. Last year the NSPCC spent £ 1 million on family centres for parents, all of whom had passed through the education system and did not have practical skills in running a home, caring for the children and looking after the husband.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who is the president of the National Children's Homes, will know the kinds of case with which his organisation deals. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is concerned with the Children's Society, and he also will know of the problems that are dealt with. Why should we have to spend money on children and families, teaching them in adult life what they should have learnt in school?
There is another side to this matter. There is the whole question of commerce and industry. Many home economists advise commerce and industry and the statutory services on equipment, diet and the layout of homes and houses. It is very important that there should be this input. I believe I mentioned in Committee how much British Gas is indebted to the home economists for the help and advice which they give.
When we had the great debate on intellectual freedom I could not help but look at the tremendous number of quite outstanding and notable vice-chancellors—all outstanding people. I happen to know that a number of their students in their colleges were ill-fed and not receiving a proper diet because their colleges were not properly looked after on the home economics front.
There is a second side of home economics which is, I believe, as important. That includes personal and social education and life skills. That cannot be dealt with on a cross-curricular basis which was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This subject covers pupils' preparation for parenthood and family life. The subject should surely concentrate on the study of child development, on the role and responsibility of parenthood and the dynamics of family life. The introduction of this subject has never been so vital as it is now. Young people today carry uncertainty about norms, standards and expectations into their

695
parental role. Without the knowledge, training and appreciation of the subject, their children in turn will suffer in the families in which they live.
Our delinquency rate is high. People talk about the behaviour in our country of those who do not conform. The prisons are full. We have a great deal of care in our community; but we equally have a great deal of neglect. I believe that if this subject were to be taught, not on a cross-curricular basis but as a subject in schools, then we shall enrich our children, and in turn society will benefit. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment. Since the dinner break we have been debating, to my mind, the three most important subjects that children should be taught. So far, in each case the Government have produced a firm negative.
I cannot imagine that anything is more important than that children should be taught about the environment or about the fact that increasingly we live in one society. Now we have before us the proposition that children should be taught actively about how to live and that this should be on the face of the Bill.
I draw two factors to the attention of your Lordships. The world that children enter when they leave school these days is infinitely more complex, dangerous and difficult than the world we entered when we left school. I take one example to illustrate what I mean by that: the sexual licence that has come about in the permissive society. Perhaps two of the gravest effects have been the spread of AIDS and the spread of extra-marital births. I believe that over 45 per cent. of all births in the borough of Lambeth are extra-marital. Most, but by no means all, result in one-parent families.
There are many other dangers that we know about—drugs, child abuse and so on. In other words, leaving school nowadays is very dangerous. I believe that it is wrong that a Bill with the pretentions of the one now before us should have nothing to say on the face of it about this subject. I know that we shall hear that this will be treated in a cross-curricular manner. That is the reply we always receive. However, we want the subject to be on the face of the Bill so that it should have due prominence. We should indicate on the face of the Bill what I remember was the motto of one school in which I taught:
"We teach about life".
The school did not teach just about history, geography, maths, technology and so on but about life. For those reasons I strongly support the amendment.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, North Yorkshire, where I live, is on the border of Cleveland. Those noble Lords who have read the Economist this week will have seen that the majority of child abuse cases there are likely to be confirmed when the official report is published. According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, it is not only in Cleveland that these appalling cases are on the increase.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? He is misquoting the article in the Economist. The article did not say that the majority of the cases were true. It said that between 70 per cent. and, I believe, 90 per cent. may turn out to have some foundation in fact. That is very different from saying that they are true, with respect to the noble Viscount, as far as the parents of Cleveland are concerned.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The quotation reads:
"Private evidences during last autumn's hearing suggested that between 70 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the cases had some foundation".
However, child abuse is only one of the dangers against which young adults and adolescents should be warned. There is also the danger of promiscuity, AIDS and drugs, to name only a few. On the positive side, the subject of life skills embraces the whole field of creative human relationships; of marriage, friendship, bringing up children and making a home. It also deals with the need for budgeting and the need to avoid the debt trap into which it is so easy to fall these days. No one taught me about those matters.
However, Harrow, one of our major public schools, has for the past two years and after much thought and preparation decided to teach an excellent course called "The Way of Life" to all of the sixth form. As the school put it, it is a course designed to introduce young adults to an exploration of how to relate to our environment, to society, to ourselves and to God. It is taken in small groups of eight to 10 people for a year, much of it being done by group discussion. Though these young people will be slightly older than the ones we are considering, the reasoning behind the course will be the same for those taking GCSE. As the headmaster of Harrow put it:
"Millions of pounds are being spent on locking the stable door after the damage is done and nothing is being done to prevent it".
What can be more important than giving all pupils the opportunity to learn about life skills?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that at Committee stage there was a colourful list of subjects to be added to the core curriculum and foundation curriculum, but they got very short shrift from the noble Baroness. I put my name to this amendment because I feel the subject is of such importance that if we can, get any further assurances we should try to do so. My particular concern is that which has been expressed so well by noble Lords who spoke earlier; namely, the problem of home and family building, personal relations, home care and the care of children among them. These are the kinds of skills that used to be passed on from parents to their children. But with broken homes in the inner cities constituting perhaps between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the family units, these skills have to be taught at school.
The only way to break the cycle of deprivation is to give priority to this group of subjects in schools especially for children in the third and fourth periods of their school careers. Perhaps I may read to your

697
Lordships from the speech which the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi made at Committee stage. He said:
"I believe that particular attention should be given to the moral dimension in preparing the rising generation for responsible marriage and responsible citizenship. For example, these days, youngsters receive little if any guidance on dating, courtship, the choice of a partner and the expectations within marriage."
He goes on to say a little later:
"Broken homes cost the nation far more, socially and economically, than [the scourge of] AIDS."—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 420.]
I believe the inclusion of this subject in the curriculum of every child should not be left only to the decision of heads or governors of schools, but in some way should be either written into the Bill or into government directives. It should be part of the curriculum of every child in the third and fourth periods of his or her school career.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, we have before us a group of amendments; namely Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 35, 70, 131, 452 and 453. I shall mention them afterwards. I should like to speak now to Amendment No. 35 which has my name and that of others attached to it. Because this amendment has a star I should not like your Lordships to think that we have just tabled it. I spoke to a similar amendment in Committee at 4 a.m. and not many Members of the Committee were present at that time.
After attending a conference last Thursday on addiction in Newcastle-on-Tyne, I discussed the amendment with head teachers and health educators. We came to the conclusion that these words now before your Lordships were better words. What we wish to see is something positive written into this important Bill to make clear this vital part of life education which is helping to prepare our children of today for the future in the big, pressurised society that they must learn to live and to compete in. With the recent upsurge of violence and alcohol abuse and the problem of solvent and drug abuse, children need to learn to respect their bodies. To do this they need to know how their bodies work.
Last week our parliamentary committee on drug abuse watched a video on the life education programme started in Australia. This country is slipping behind other countries in realistic health education. Nobody could speak out more about healthy eating than the Health Minister, Mrs. Edwina Currie. Have we not one of the highest death rates due to heart disease in the world? Why do government departments not work more closely together for the good of the country?
There are many aspects of learning which help to encourage a responsible member of society—aspects such as how to handle money, how to write a cheque, how not to get into debt, how to cross the road safely, how to avoid spreading AIDS, how to run a family and budget and how to prepare a meal. This could be included in home economics. All these and many other important aspects of life skills would be covered by the amendment. These are aspects of life that the brightest to the most handicapped child
698
should learn at different stages and at different levels of their school life, starting from an early age at primary school.
If the Government do not place importance on this matter I am sorry for the future of this country. With rising costs in health care and the spread of violence in society, every effort should be made to leave no gap in our children's education. They should learn respect not only for themselves but for their neighbours and for society at large.
I hope that the Government will accept Amendment No. 35. If not, I hope that your Lordships will see the importance of it. Amendments Nos. 70, 131, 452 and 453 on road safety, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, are important because of the increase in and pressure of traffic on our roads. They could be included in my amendment if stated in regulations. Amendment No. 15 is not positive enough. It only says "may". There is nothing in the Bill to say that these subjects may not be taught and therefore it seems unnecessary. My amendment, Amendment No. 35, says "shall". It is positive and flexible and many people from the teaching and health professions feel it is necessary.
What is the point of the Government spending millions of pounds on advertising about the dangers of drugs and AIDS and not giving our children the necessary education to understand all these important matters? I ask your Lordships to look at pages 1 and 2 of the Bill. Health is not mentioned but many other things are. I consider good health more important than anything else. It is an investment. With the scourge of AIDS and the possibility of some even worse virus there may not be many people left in the world in 40 years.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I do not wish to denigrate anything that has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Faithfull, but I hope that the Government will not accept this series of amendments. I say that because with this clause we are looking at what should be in the national curriculum in the core and foundation subjects. It is easy to add continuously to that list subjects such as home economics. I accept the importance of home economics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. said. However, our curriculum has been criticised often both for being too narrow, in that it encourages pupils to give up subjects too soon, and too wide, in that we fail to concentrate on what are the necessary basic subjects at school.
Parents should be able to expect in all our maintained schools a curriculum that will provide for a standard of attainment in certain basic subjects. I believe that they are accurately portrayed in the core subjects and the foundation subjects, as set out in Clause 2. If we start to add subjects such as home economics, we shall dilute the importance of the national curriculum. I do not deny the importance of home economics and the teaching of personal and social skills; but I think that in the national curriculum we would be right to concentrate on those subjects which appear in the Bill at the moment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendments.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, at an early stage in the Bill I asked the Minister whether there was a possibility of appointing someone from the Health Education Authority to the National Curriculum Council. She was kind enough to write to me on 17th June. She referred to the commitment made by Mrs. Rumbold in another place to the chairman of the Health Education Authority concerning the remit to be given to the National Curriculum Council to look at personal and social education at an early stage. I assume that that commitment will remain in place.
Another matter which occurs to me as relevant to the debate is the press release put out by the Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, on 20th May. He said:
"I have chosen not to fill all the places available on each council —15 if the Bill is passed—because I wish to consider further appointments in the light of the councils' early experience and of further comment about interests which should be reflected".
He continued:
"I also intend to ensure that people knowledgeable about special educational needs are appointed to both bodies".
That is one area that the Secretary of State recognised.
When one turns to the back of the press release one finds that eight people out of the proposed total of 15 have been appointed to the shadow council, which leaves a little leeway. Will the Minister make a commitment that in the appointments that remain to be made consideration will be given and importance will be attached to the appointment of someone who has genuine expertise in that area which can be brought to bear on the council's considerations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Carlisle said about the national curriculum. Will my noble friend the Minister say that the point raised in her amendment by my noble friend Lady Faithfull about home economics, or however the subject is described, could be met by the use that is made of the time left after the core and foundation subjects have been completed? That is a point to which a school must address itself.
Everyone will recognise the importance of the issues that have been raised. The amendment does not suggest that the subject should be an obligatory part of the national curriculum. It is something which may be a part. It would be for the school to determine. It is a subject that would not necessarily be taught from 5 years to 16; it could usefully and properly be taught at certain stages of a child's school life. It could be taught in the time that is left over from the other subjects. I should have thought that that would meet the point raised in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, which, as she properly pointed out, is not the same as the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Masham; but I should declare two interests. First, I am a practising doctor—I am a general practitioner. Secondly, I am vice-chairman of the
700
National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention which links 30 national organisations which have an interest in preventing that disease. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, it is the leading cause of deaths in this country. As a doctor, I find that more than half of a list of 20 patients in a surgery on some occasions may have a social problem underlying the reason for their consultation. I echo very much what the noble Baroness said about the need to prepare young people for adult life and for all the stresses and dangers to which they will be subject. I feel that schools are the place where some headway may well be made and in which some progress is already being made in good schools.
With regard to coronary heart disease, it is now becoming quite clear that we must do something in this country. Northern Ireland and Scotland lead the world in mortality from coronary heart disease, with England and Wales trailing not far behind. Our rate has not gone down like the rates in the United States, Finland, Australia and some other countries which have taken measures to do something about it. It is now fairly clear that at least part of this epidemic is preventable, particularly in that not unimportant section of the population aged 75 or less; 30,000 people under 60 die from coronary heart disease at the moment.
There are three main factors which I think the population is beginning to realise are important: smoking, diet and exercise. There is increasing evidence that childhood is the time when these habits start and when one can already detect the origin of troubles which will later develop into arterial disease.
I should like to quote one or two remarks from a recent report produced by the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Action in the UK 1984–87. It says with regard to health education:
"the Government's recent proposals for reform of the education system"—
this Bill—
"appear to have relegated health education and home economics to a non-essential role, and downgraded physical education".
This is despite a major programme of curriculum development which the Health Education Authority has been working on, costing over £1 million per annum. As I was saying, there have been the beginnings of some success in some schools.
The report further says:
"Sustained efforts to influence the key gatekeepers of local education authorities and school policies are essential if the present promising beginnings are to be developed".
The gatekeepers, the local education authorities, will surely take note of the need to pay more attention to health education if the words are in some way written into the Bill. I am not pressing the words of either of these amendments, but I hope that when the noble Baroness replies, she will assure us that these very important aspects are being taken into account in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked.
Later on this evening, I shall also be talking about the same subject. I have put down an amendment asking whether a member of the Health Education Authority can be a member of the National Curriculum Council. This again was a way of asking whether the Government could indicate to us that

701
they take this whole matter seriously. I hope that this can be taken as part of the general subject when the noble Baroness replies to us.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to support in particular the amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on health education, to which I also have put my name. It is admirably grouped with another set of amendments under the heading of road safety. These would have been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who is unfortunately not able to be with us today.
The amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is very timely and very important. I do not believe that many people could ignore in this day and age the rising scenario of alcohol abuse, particularly, as the statistics show, that which occurs within the 15 to 19 age group. Indeed it has now been taken up conspicuously by organs of the press which had, up to now, remained rather lukewarm about the whole subject of alcohol abuse.
There is now in this country a picture of young people whose ignorance about alcohol and whose abuse of alcohol shows us in a very poor light in comparison with other countries and particularly within the European grouping. It seems that one of the major factors in this situation is the complete lack of knowledge and of educational background from all schools—not only those covered by this Bill—as to the nature of alcohol. I doubt whether, if one took a random selection of pupils in many schools today and asked them whether alcohol was a stimulant or a depressant, they would be able to give a correct answer. The ignorance of the nature of alcohol is staggering.
In the complete education of children the place of health education, in particular with regard to alcohol and drugs, is something which should be considered very carefully indeed. This situation will not suddenly improve. The problem seems to be growing to almost epidemic proportions. We see young people coming from schools, going out and, as a form of relaxation—I am not talking about football violence particularly—buying alcohol and consuming it with the specific object of getting intoxicated. We all know what the results of that intoxication are. I doubt whether very many of those children understand the consequences of their actions in terms of intoxication and its immediate effects, let alone the health damage which can result from consistent abuse of this kind. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness wholeheartedly.
I wish to move on to the road safety aspect because it is so closely connected with the abuse of alcohol. The appalling situation that exists on our roads is of concern not only to the motoring organisations, to Government and to schools, but to everybody who has children. The number of accidents which occur every year is really horrifying. These accidents concern not only people who are in charge of motor cars—many of those these days are young—but those who are vulnerable to being injured by motor cars.
Here again there is ignorance of the age in which we live. There will be more and more motor cars, more and more speed and more and more necessity
702
for young people to have a thorough background and a thorough knowledge of what it means to be in a society where cars and other motor vehicles are commonplace, where the roads are becoming more and more crowded and where it is becoming more and more possible to have accidents with motor vehicles.
It is also important that people should be taught how to conduct themselves. My children are certainly taught how to conduct themselves on the roads and I think most responsible families make sure that that information is imparted to their children. But I think there is a role in the schools for teachers in making children understand something not only of the dangers of the motor car, but what it means to own and to drive a motor car and the kind of responsibilities which they take on when they become qualified to drive cars. Of course this ties in very strongly with the points about alcohol which I was making earlier.
If we are educating people for a complete life, and if they are going to live to enjoy that quality of life for which we all hope that we are educating our children, surely it is fundamental that we should make sure that children are educated about the dangerous substances to which they will be exposed. They should also be educated about the dangers of the vehicles which they are likely to encounter and to drive when they reach the age of 18 or so. I believe that that is very important. If the matter is not dealt with and if the Government do not take those arguments on board, I believe that we shall see some sad results in short order.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister say what arguments, as opposed to assertions, she will advance against the proposition that at the age of 14, with the agreement of teachers and parents, youngsters should have the option of dropping one of the foundation subjects—geography, for example—and putting home economics in its place? I have not given the Minister warning of my question. Therefore, if she cannot give the House those arguments now, perhaps she will bring them back at Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is back in her place. She argued that the subjects under discussion could be dealt with in the time left over from the subjects in the national curriculum. If that argument were capable of carrying conviction on these Benches, these amendments would never have reached the Marshalled List.
There is a widespread feeling that there will be very little time indeed left over from the core and foundation subjects unless there is a significant drop in the standard to which the core and foundation subjects are undertaken. I therefore fail to see how we can talk about having time left over. That is the problem with specifying a list of subjects; inevitably, however little you intend it, you devalue all the subjects that are left out. That is why there is such a rush of subjects trying to get in before the guillotine falls.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have listened carefully to all that has been said. I recognise the concerns which have been expressed about what the Government have consistently acknowledged to be an important area of the curriculum—home economics, personal and social education, life skills and so on. However, I must dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, suggests—that the response to previous amendments was negative and that he expects a similar response here. I believe that we have been very positive and clear in explaining how, in what is a framework Bill, we believe that these important topics are capable of being covered.
As regards the group of amendments now before us, I explained at Second Reading that elements of home economics such as food—science and textiles are valuable contexts for scientific and technolgical work and both the science and the design and technology working groups have been asked to take account of these links in making their recommendations. Personal and social education and the various topics covered by the term life skills touch on many parts of the curriculum, including several foundation subjects. Health education, for example, is another area where the working groups have been asked to cover the scientific and technological aspects of health education within their recommendations on attainment targets and programmes of study. Other working groups will be asked to cover health and safety matters, as appropriate, as and when they are established.
I hope that I have also made clear previously that some of the issues likely to be covered within a course of personal and social education will eventually be covered within the national curriculum as cross-curricular themes. That has been acknowledged during the course of our debate. For instance, we would expect the development of interpersonal and social skills to be a matter to be covered in different ways throughout the national curriculum. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to single out home economics or personal and social education from the many important cross-curricular themes and make them the subject of a separate provision in the way proposed in Amendment No. 15.
Nor would it be right for personal and social education to be a foundation subject as proposed in Amendment No. 35. The range of topics which can be covered within PSE can include highly sensitive areas of the curriculum which should rightly be left to the schools themselves to determine. Sex education in particular is a case in point, where the law already requires school governors to have responsibility for determining what, if any, sex education is provided in schools. Our proposals for the national curriculum will not change this in any way. Other aspects of PSE might be equally sensitive and the schools themselves should be left to determine whether and how such matters are dealt with.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, reminded the House, we anticipate that one of the first tasks of the National Curriculum Council will be to look at cross-curricular themes as a whole so that they have proper frameworks for considering the working group's recommendations. We also envisage that personal and social education will be one of the areas
704
which the NCC will want to consider at an early stage, not least to improve general understanding of what should normally be included in what schools provide under the title of PSE.
To respond to a specific question, the Secretary of State is looking further at appointments to the shadow NCC. While I can give no commitment I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Rea, that I shall draw their remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. But, in any event links can be made at specialist committee level. The NCC will be setting up various committees to cover different aspects of the curriculum and the health education authority input to an appropriate committee can certainly be considered. Furthermore, staff links between the bodies will be important.
I hope that my noble friend will accept from the remits given to the existing working groups that these matters are not going by default. There will be opportunity during the consultation process set out in Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill for further representations to be made on matters of this kind. Furthermore, there is that part of the timetable not taken up by the national curriculum to which my noble friend Lady Young referred which enables schools that so wish to teach subjects other than foundation subjects.
I now turn to the subject of road safety. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, tabled identical amendments at Committee stage. As we said then, the Government take seriously the need for safety education of which road safety forms an important part. I cannot believe that the noble Lord or any of those who have spoken to his amendment intend that it should be studied as a school subject like English or mathematics. As your Lordships will recall from debates on Clause 1 of the Bill in Committee, there are a number of important topics and themes which are not spelt out in the Bill. Our intention is that the teaching of these will be considered, as I have already explained in relation to home economics, by appropriate working groups with guidance from the Secretary of State and in due course from the new National Curriculum Council. I have no doubt that elements of road safety education can also be dealt with effectively in the course of teaching foundation subjects or through other subjects which schools may provide in the time available outside the national curriculum.
Furthermore, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 to carry out local road safety work, including dissemination of information and advice relating to the use of roads and giving practical training to road users. Parents, voluntary organisations and schools as well as the local authorities all have an important part to play in instilling proper habits of road safety in children and in preparing them to be considerate road users.
In answer to the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I would say that it is our hope and intention that in planning the school timetable, schools will take into account that at a certain stage—possibly in the fourth and fifth years—it will be possible for children to follow the various subjects of the national curriculum at varying levels. We

705
certainly have never said that we envisage that all subjects should be taken to GCSE level and there is therefore scope for time to be allotted in a different way. It may well be that certain schools would then give more emphasis to topics such as those which are the subject of these amendments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is agreed that some subjects can be dropped from the foundation curriculum and not taken up to the age of 16? If that is what she is saying it is very important indeed.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was only reconfirming what I said previously in that all subjects in the national curriculum will not necessarily be taken up to the same standard—that is to say, to the GCSE standard. Under the testing and assessment arrangements that we shall be discussing later there are various levels of attainment which allow for certain flexibility in planning the timetable. Having said that and given all the circumstances, I trust that my noble friend and movers of the other amendments will not feel it necessary to press them. If they do, I must urge your Lordships to reject them.
Lord McNair: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 70 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tordoff. He did not ask that this should become a school subject. The amendment seeks to insert the words:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring schools to provide road safety education for their pupils in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed".
In other words, can we have an answer as to whether the Secretary of State will make regulations to that effect?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe I said that it is possible that this matter might come up in terms of a recommendation to working groups on various curriculum subjects in connection with the criteria that are to be given to them. It is quite possible that it will come up in guidance from the department subsequently.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that we did not recommend in Amendment No. 15 that it should be either in the core curriculum or a foundation subject. The point of Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 was to argue that there are so many boys, girls and parents who want the subject home economics and the allied subject of personal and social education and life skills that if we believe that this is a Bill for children and their parents, that subject ought to be available to be taken in the schools should it be so wished. From discussions during the Committee stage of the Bill we realised that it would not be a core or foundation subject; but for it not to be available in the schools so that parents and children can ask for it would, we think, be a great mistake.
706
I cannot speak for other noble Lords who have spoken to other amendments, but I can say that we are very grateful to have had this debate today and hope that the National Curriculum Council will take note of all that has been said. We are disappointed to think that home economics and personal and social education and life skills will be cross-curricular themes instead of a subject on its own, but we leave that matter to the National Curriculum Council. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("which shall be nationally agreed targets within which teachers will have freedom to tailor specific provisions to the needs of the pupil").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with your Lordships' permission I should like also to say a few words on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. In doing so, I move back to what I suppose one might call the mainstream of the curriculum.
Both during the Committee stage and earlier this afternoon I was aware that, having considered what many noble Lords believed to be improvements in the national curriculum—and, I might add, improvements which would achieve the objectives which the Government say they have in mind—your Lordships rejected them, whether they were those of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, or my noble friend Lady David. I do not want to leave noble Lords in doubt that I regret that course of action, because I think that those amendments were attempts to achieve the ends upon which we all agree. That is now water under the bridge, and—to mix metaphors—I do not wish to be accused of flogging a dead horse.
I then proceed to the next tack: that if we cannot make wholesale changes to what we are doing then the least that we can do in dealing with the rather irrational and archaic position that remains with regard to the curriculum is to try to produce some minor changes to improve the position. That is the role of these and—perhaps I may anticipate—one or two other amendments with which I shall be connected.
I have found it frustrating to listen to the debates concerning the nature of the national curriculum. If noble Lords often—from this side—rise to say that the curriculum as specified is not flexible enough, the Minister rises and says, "Yes, it allows fully for flexibility." If, however, noble Lords—often on the Minister's side—say that they want something inflexible, then the Minister states that the curriculum is completely inflexible; it stops people changing things and so on. I have found it more and more irritating that this national curriculum does whatever any noble Lord rises to ask that it should do: it is the most perfect of curricula. It is rather like other responses that we receive when we criticise the wording. We are guided to some word that can always be interpreted to cover almost anything. Perhaps I may say philosphically that things that

707
cover almost anything are ipso facto vacuous. However, that is another matter that I draw to your Lordships' attention.
We have in mind something of which the noble Baroness said she was in favour and which the Government had in mind. It is to emphasise, first—and it seems a pity to have to do it but I think that we must—the needs of the individual pupil. So much of the national curriculum is written as averages, norms and so on. Many of us have pointed out that it seems very strange that those of us on these Benches are the ones who have to emphasise the needs of the individual pupil, especially as we have not made our intellectual living out of emphasising individualism. Others have done so—often noble Lords who have not taken part in these debates.
However, we must emphasise the needs of the individual pupil. If we consider how this will be taken into account, it must take place through the actions of teachers. For teachers to do this, it must be stated explicity that this is their role; and that within the national curriculum they have the freedom to do this.
I am a person who favours a national curriculum. There need be no doubt about that. Having said that, we need the role of the teacher reiterated in taking cognisance of the requirements of the child. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in a different context, raised that issue earlier in the day. Somehow one seems to have forgotten what it is that teachers do; or perhaps those who have talked on those subjects have no idea what teachers do because they have never seen teachers do it.
That is the purpose of these amendments. I could read out various quotations that I have to hand from the columns of Hansard where the noble Baroness has said more or less what is in these amendments. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that their origin is to make explicit in the Bill precisely the points that she herself has made.
In summary, as regards the national curriculum, we must focus on the needs of the individual child or pupil. We must not stifle initiative. Indeed quite the contrary; we must encourage the teacher to do the job of the teacher which is precisely as specified in these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seek to introduce into the Bill a declaration that the framework established by the national curriculum will be broad enough to leave teachers with the freedom to interpret the curriculum to suit the needs of individual pupils. As the noble Lord has said, the Government are committed to the maintenance of that freedom. The dedication and professionalism of the individual teacher are crucial to any education policy. And it is essential that teachers should continue to be able to operate within locally and nationally defined policies as professionals allowed to make their own judgments about the needs of pupils and how best to meet them. But I believe that there is no need to amend the Bill in this way in order to achieve those objectives.
The Bill itself and the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 establish a framework which does
708
not threaten the professional status of teachers and which gives head teachers specific responsibilities to determine and organise the school curriculum. Under the Bill at present before us, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State cannot constrain teachers' freedom to choose their own teaching styles and methods or the materials that they wish to use. We are very clear on that point and had it not been so we should have amended the Bill to secure that effect.
We did amend the Bill in another place in order that it should be clear that national curriculum orders cannot determine the time to be allocated to any subject nor the way in which it is timetabled; for example whether it should be in combination with other subjects, as a distinct module in a TVEI course, or as an individual examination subject. It is clear, therefore, that the dangers against which the amendment purports to protect the teacher are not real and the protection is therefore not necessary. The details of the national curriculum will be the subject of extensive consultations leading to the making of statutory orders. We have said that the degree of prescription in such orders will be different for different subjects, and the consultation and ultimate test of parliamentary scrutiny will ensure in each case that the level of prescription is appropriate.
We believe that that process would not be helped by these amendments and I hope therefore that the noble Lord, having made his point, will consent to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer and I am glad that she has placed it on the record. I believe that all of us, not least the teachers, would be more reassured if it were in the Bill. However, I do not wish to delay your Lordships at this time, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (1)(a) above shall not apply in the case of a maintained special school.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Religious education.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) and (3) below, Christianity shall be the basis of Religious Education in every maintained school, provided that teachers, clergy or other qualified people are available to teach such education in the school. School governors may make provision for clergy or other qualified people to give such education with or without remuneration. No teacher who declines or is not competent to teach religious education shall be directly or indirectly penalised for not teaching it.
(2) Where a maintained school has been established as a denominational school, Christian or otherwise, the religious education in that school shall be of the denomination concerned.
(3) Parents shall have the right to withdraw their children from religious education at a maintained school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with religious education. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, which are amendments to it, will be moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I welcome and accept them. I join other noble Lords in acknowledging the efforts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, my noble friend Lady Hooper and the Secretary of State—I know what part he has played in these matters—which have resulted in the amendments in the name of' the right reverend Prelate and of my noble friend.
However I am sure that neither my noble friend nor the right reverend Prelate would claim perfection for their amendments. It would not be in character for them to do so for one thing, nor would it be in accordance with the tradition of your Lordship's House, which seeks to improve our legislation all the time.
Having said that, I believe that their amendments require clarification and amplication. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 is to obtain that. Also we feel that there are several gaps to be filled in their amendments and those are dealt with in our amendments. We hope to obtain from my noble friend an undertaking to consider what is said in this debate with a view to further amendment at Third Reading. If no such undertaking is given, we shall of course have to consider in the light of this debate what it will be best for us to do at Third Reading.
I should like to turn to the specific proposals in Amendment No. 22. Several matters of principle are raised. The first is that, subject to what follows, Christianity shall be the basis of religious education provided that teachers, clergy or other qualified people are available to teach it. Earlier today my noble friend Lady Cox asked most eloquently for clarification of the phrase "in the main Christian". It appear in Amendment No. 71, which deals with religious education.
Will my noble friend consider introducing an amendment at Third Reading to ensure that Christianity is the basis of religious education in our schools and that there is not just a vague reference to it being a religion in a country which is in the main Christian? If religious education is being taught to Christian children in a country in which there is an established Christian Church, we believe that we should ensure that Christianity should be the basis. We acknowledge that other religions have the right to have their own religious education. However, that is a separate point.
Secondly, in Amendment No. 22 we suggest that school governors may arrange for clergy or other qualified people to give religious education as well as teachers being able to do so. I should like to ask my noble friend whether the Government agree with that suggestion. If so, can she say whether it is already covered in other legislation or in other amendments? I have not found it to be covered in other amendments. If it is not already covered, I should be grateful if my noble friend would say that the Government will give an undertaking to move an amendment at Third Reading to provide for it.
Thirdly, we suggest that no teacher who declines, or feels that he or she is not competent, to teach religious education should be penalised directly or indirectly. I acknowledge that the point is dealt with in Clause 78(5) in relation to grant-maintained schools. Surely it is an important principle which should apply to all schools. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will agree with that suggestion and ensure that it is applied in all schools.
Fourthly, we say that in a denominational maintained school, Christian or otherwise, religious education should be of the denomination concerned. That is a pretty obvious proposition, I believe. There is a reference which I find to be too oblique in Amendment No. 101 on page 20 of the present Marshalled List. It is there referred to in subsection (4)(a). We believe that that important principle, which is a statement of the obvious, should be spelt out more expressly. I hope my noble friend will agree that that should be so.
Lastly, we say that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from religious education. However, I shall not trouble my noble friend with that point because it is already covered in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 67 on page 12 of the Marshalled List. Therefore, we can leave the matter at that. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to describe the welcome ways in which Amendment No. 24 amplifies Amendment No. 22 and, indeed, amplifies the amendment already presented by the right reverend Prelate and by my noble friend. However, I look forward to assurances from my noble friend on the first four principles which I have described. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 22, Amendment No. 23:
In subsection (1), line 1, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that studied and authoritative introduction by my noble friend and sponsor Lord Renton, there is very little to say, save this. Of course one does not claim perfection. We are entering into an area where every 30 years or so we have to devise, as best we can, a law to govern the next 30 years; it is difficult.
I had the advantage of an informal and inevitably very friendly discussion with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, by chance, in the corridor. I found him, as we all do, most sympathetic but he pointed out that this amendment is somewhat adrift as it stands because it refers only to maintained schools. That could cause a form of differentiation which would be unfair. I am not here to divide the House on the amendments standing in my name. Indeed, I have asked noble Lords who had attended to support this amendment on a Division to go their ways if they so wished. It is a matter of objective, constructive discussion.
My problem arises from the groupings. Your Lordships will realise that at an early stage I was in some trouble. I acknowledge with gratitude the help I received from my noble friend the Chief Whip and from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and of course

711
I accepted their decisions. However, there has been no true in-depth, objective discussion on the principles which affect this matter.
It is not for me to criticise the procedure of the House. One accepts it as it is. However, this is a matter to which, no doubt, we shall have to return on Third Reading with an amendment to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, if so advised.
There are gaps, as my noble friend Lord Renton said. As regards this amendment, I accept everything that he has said. In fact, it reflects the first principle which I raised with the right reverend Prelate that Christian children should be taught the Christian faith and, in a sense, it is all one problem with the collective act of worship. They should have their own Christian collective act of worship. I have asked the right reverend Prelate to respond to that question.
The amendment raises other questions which, as my noble friend says, are perhaps not wholly relevant. But the amendment also raises the other question of principle. It is a crucial question of principle for which, frankly, I would go to the stake. I would divide the House with two Members, or one, with me against the rest. That principle is that children who adhere to other faiths should be taught such other faiths and have, respectively, their own collective acts of worship in such other place if it is reasonable and practicable to make such a provision.
There has been no true effective discussion of that principle, or any of these principles. The reason is the amendment groupings. They come in from the government departments and the Whips have to get the Bill through the House. There is no possibility of a fair, reasonable and objective discussion on a matter of principle that will affect the education of our children for the next 30 years. I reserve my position on this matter to come back on Third Reading, always subject, of course, to the wisdom of the right reverend Prelate and to what he has to say on this principle. I shall of course listen with respect and reverence as one of his flock. But there has been no due discussion in your Lordships' House on this principle.
The other matter concerns subsection (5) in my Amendment No. 24. This proposes:
"The Governors … shall use their best endeavours to seek to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths and a spirit of social unity within the realm subject to the rule of law."
That applies to all religious education. I confess that the amendment is my own hopeless drafting. Nobody told me how to do it, save my own belief in what my own religion dictates. Inevitably, it is inadequate.
However, surely the amendment is worthy of discussion. Surely it is worthy of consideration. Surely someone can criticise and improve it. We have had no opportunity for such discussion. I reserve my position on this amendment for Third Reading for the reasons that I have given; but, again, always subject to the observations of the right reverend Prelate. I shall listen with attention to what he says.
This is perhaps one of the most serious decisions that we can make. I am not an educationist. Frankly,
712
I have always sought to avoid it. What little education I have had allows me to say that this could be one of the most important provisions for the future welfare of this country and its children over the next 30 or 40 years.
I shall not divide the House tonight. However, in the light of what is said, I reserve my position for Third Reading. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that his amendment was not a compromise. As a statement of his intention I entirely accept that. However, I believe that the right reverend Prelate would probably agree that the agreement of this House to his amendment was a compromise. If that compromise should break down in one quarter of the House, it may also break down in others. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is not the only person in this House who wishes to reserve his position.
It seems that this amendment crosses a very narrow and important boundary. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that it is important that people should know a great deal more than they now do about the Christian inheritance of this country. It seems that the boundary is crossed when one moves from that to proposing—as I understand is proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—to teach that a particular religion is true. That seems not within the proper functions of a school.
Those are areas of legitimate dispute and where such areas arise it is not within the proper functions of education to commit academic authority to teaching that one of those disputed views is true and the others are not. I was glad to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, said about the rights of those of other religions. I would take it kindly if they would also add "the rights of those of none".
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, in supporting my noble friends, perhaps I may put one point to which I should like an answer. I am in a rather curious position. The right reverend Prelate will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he himself believes that Christianity should be the basis of religious education. I shall be very surprised if he says anything else. However, he has a very real problem which faces not only him but everybody, namely, that in a certain number of areas of this country there are very large populations that are not Christian.
If that situation did not exist I am absolutely certain that the right reverend Prelate would accept this amendment. In fact, it would not have been necessary to table it. He would have said that in 80 per cent. of the country Christianity should be the basis of education. We have to face that problem because it is one that faces us all. What are we to do about those areas? Broadly speaking, there are only two ways of approaching the problem. One way is the way put forward in the amendment by the right reverend Prelate. He also put it into his speech, or the noble Baroness did.
The right reverend Prelate said that we are mainly a Christian country and therefore to deal with the

713
situation in those areas we should have a mainly Christian education. That is one way of looking at the issue. However, it inevitably means a mish-mash. Let us consider a Jewish situation—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart. Let us suppose that there is an area where there is a large Jewish population in the schools. The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate says that we must still have a mainly Christian education, but tuned over a little to the Jewish side. The Jews dislike this aspect as much as the Christians. If there is a large Jewish population, they would much prefer those people to have a Jewish education. That is what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is saying.
There are two quite different approaches. One says that if you have a mixed population in the school you must have a degraded educational approach but one that is sufficiently degraded not to offend anybody very much. I ask the right reverend Prelate to think this over again. I know he has thought it through carefully but I ask him to think this over again. Is this really the approach we want? It offends some Christians perhaps but, more importantly, it bitterly offends a very great number of the ethnic minorities who dislike their religion being trivialised in this way.
Would it not be better to square our shoulders, face the situation, admit that there are these positions around the place and say that every child should be encouraged and taught his own faith to the maximum possible ability? That is the choice we seriously ask the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lady to think over between now and Third Reading. I do not think they have an answer this evening—I hardly expect it—but I ask them to try to come up with some considered approach to a really difficult problem that is central to the situation today.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, most of us have less problem with the teaching of Christianity as the basis of religious education in schools than with the logistics of carrying through that fine intention. It must be 13 or 14 years since this House discussed a Motion on the training and supply of teachers of religious education. It was one of the early debates in this House in which I took part. One of the difficulties of the amendment is that it says:
"Christianity shall he the basis of Religious Education in every maintained school, provided that teachers, clergy or other qualified people are available to teach such education in the school".
Early in the decade after the passing of the 1944 Act we found little difficulty in the schools in which I was teaching in implementing the Act in its fullest form. Christianity was the basis of the teaching of education and it was not difficult to staff the curriculum. The position has changed a great deal.
When the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, caught the attention of the House this evening, as he so often does, he made a point which I can also underline. In a school in which I was teaching not only was it possible to teach the children of the various denominations in a service which was conducted voluntarily every day by various members of the staff, it was also possible for the Roman Catholic priest of the district, Father Green, who incidentally became the first elected mayor of a
714
borough in Wales while he was doing that work in the parish, to teach the Roman Catholic children in the library block. It was one of the amusing things about that school that the block was called "L-block". We were able as a joint group of many denominations, Catholic and Nonconformists, to join in a song at Christmas time, saying,
"Our religious life is free from strife
and doing very well,
And Father Green is daily seen on the stairs that lead to 'ell".
It was a deliberate joke. We were able to implement the Act and we were able to staff the policy.
Today there would be great difficulty in the average school in finding people who cared enough about the Christian or any other religion to staff such a programme. It is not easy for headmasters to write into the curriculum the various subjects that we are asking for. It is not easy for them to find competence, nor is it proper for people to go into schools who do not have the qualifications that match the qualifications of the profession.
I shall be unable to support the amendment because I believe that the logistics are not possible at this stage. I believe that it is better to go along the road that is suggested in the original Act and to leave it to the right reverend Prelate, who has been fortunate in rallying to himself support from all parts of the House tonight, to work out an effective means of implementing it. Please let us not imagine, however, that merely by passing at this late hour of the night an amendment to an Act, even in so difficult a situation, we shall effect a change and make it possible to provide teachers of religious education where they do not exist.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for all that the right reverend Prelate has done in getting the amendment which we passed this afternoon, but I am left with one anxiety which has been highlighted in the proposed amendment. I am most reluctant to support it. I can follow, theoretically at least, how religious education could be conducted in the way that the right reverend Prelate has described. What worries me a great deal is his subsection (3)(a), which provides that the act of worship will reflect—I know that the words "in the main" are there—the broad traditions of Christian belief.
We did not have an aswer to what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said, and I hope that there is an answer. How can that provision be made satisfactory for members of the Jewish and the Moslem faiths? If the act of worship is broadly Christian, is it appropriate to expect that Jewish or Moslem children will attend, however broad it is? I hope that the right reverend Prelate can reassure us on this point, because as it stands I cannot understand it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the amendments. For once, I did not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as to the relevance of the act of worship to the amendments, which seem to be dealing with religious education rather than worship, but perhaps that is being too pedantic. The amendment would drive a large hole in the compromise—if the right reverend Prelate will allow

715
that word to be used—that we agreed earlier. It would be unfortunate if, having agreed one situation, we went to another.
There are other difficulties. If to begin with one looks at Amendment No. 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one sees that there is no definition of "clergy". What clergy? There are a number of people who put on dog collars, to take only the Christian religion, and one sometimes wonders whether they all have the same level of qualification.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the word "clergy" has frequently been used, without qualification, in previous legislation. Its meaning has been understood throughout that legislation. It therefore seemed to be the right expression to use in the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with respect, that does not seem to meet the point. I want to make clear that I speak as the son of a Church of Scotland minister so I am not totally biased against the clergy. But there are other smaller groups and one wonders about their qualification to teach. We are talking about the qualification of clergy to teach. As I read the amendment of the noble Lord, there is no test to be put on the clergy as to whether they are qualified to teach. Under the amendment, so long as they have a dog collar on, they can teach religious education.
Then we come to the next phrase, "other qualified people". The qualification is not defined. Is it qualification by belief or is it qualification by teacher training? The second of those is perhaps more important.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene. I only do so because I am the great-grandson of a Church of Scotland minister. Perhaps I might suggest that at this hour of the night these matters which the noble Lord is raising are fine matters of criticism; they do not go to the principles. We have vast important principles at stake. Perhaps it would not be profitable to pursue this much further.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, we have just one further opportunity to discuss this Bill at Third Reading. The rules of the House, so far as I understand them, are that the areas which we can discuss are sometimes slightly limited. Therefore I think it is proper to raise these issues at this stage. It seems to me difficult to know exactly whom we are dealing with, and it becomes even more difficult when one comes to the suggestion that these people are to give such education with or without remuneration. If a whole variety of people are to give it with remuneration, who is paying for this in a maintained school? That is a very serious problem, if there is—
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord, Lord Parry, sitting behind him made an extremely well informed speech just
716
now about the really desperate difficulty that schools are in under any disposition, whatever we do about this amendment, to find the teachers to deal with it. The noble Lord is making a great point about the clergy, who after all have to be invited in; they cannot just walk in. What solution does the noble Lord have to the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Parry?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not think that this amendment gives any solution to the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Parry. The solution is to increase the number of places for training teachers of religious education. But this amendment does nothing to achieve that result. I should have thought that it would certainly not help by adding a whole group of enthusiastic amateurs to teach religious education to children. I do not think that works. I am all in favour of religious education, but this could be interpreted as religious amateurs, I think that would be unfortunate.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as my name is also down on Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, perhaps I could seek some clarification from the right reverend Prelate. While in no way doubting his belief that his amendments, to which this House agreed earlier, will have the effect which he says they will and which was the same as the intention of our Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 (and incidentally 239 to 241) that is not, as I understand it, what his amendments say.
As they stand, it seems to me that the amendments will leave the way wide open for anyone who wishes to do so to interpret the act of worship as a multi-faith act of worship and religious education to be multi-faith education, both of which are quite unacceptable in our view. When the right reverend Prelate gets up to reply, will he please give us some clarification on these points because that is what we did not have earlier and what we feel we need now.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, may I first say that there is one part of this amendment which I welcome wholeheartedly that is subsection (5) which relates to the spirit of tolerance and other matters. I should not wish that welcome to be obscured. Secondly, I wish to make the point that I do not think it is fair of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to say that the reason for our difficulties (such as they are) is the groupings. I think they are simply due to the way we have had to handle this whole thing. I ask your Lordships to realise that it is perhaps little more than a month since I was asked to perform this operation. When one thinks that there was consultation and discussion for nearly three years before the 1944 settlement, I am astonished that I have actually arrived here with something as coherent as this.
We have to discuss this matter not by looking at the whole package; we have to do it in the terms of the amendments as they are spread out through the Bill. That does make it very difficult. I tried to keep my opening speech on Amendment No. 3 to 15 minutes. I am not sure how nearly I succeeded, but I tried to do that as I understood it was proper for me to do.

717
But I must confess that the brevity which I was expected to maintain must have led to considerable obscurity.
I said at one point that I believed that his package could signal the end of what has been described as the mish-mash approach to religious education which those of other faiths, as well as Christians, deplore. Then to be told again this evening that this is the way to the mish-mash is very unfortunate. People may not agree with me, but to be told that is nevertheless very unfortunate. The difficulty hinges partly on the words "in the main". I spoke to those words in replying to the debate on Amendment No. 3. That phrase does not mean "mainly" as I said then. It does not mean that there will be a percentage of Christian teaching spread throughout the country with a proportion of other faiths. It means what it says which is that in the main, looking at the country as a whole with its present multi-cultural composition, the bulk of it will be Christian. The norm will be Christian if one likes to put it that way. But there will be exceptions because of local areas and what is proper to them in the educational setting. That is what we mean by "mainly"—not "mainly" in the sense of two-thirds rice and one-third tapioca or something like that. This provision is not in that sense a mish-mash at all. It is a matter of applying it directly to the situation in the country.
I certainly believe in the Christian faith—I hope that goes without question. But at the same time, in considering an education matter, one has to look—as one must in any place where one exercises Christian discipleship—at the situation where one is actually exercising it. In this case we are concerned with the education system. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed, although I am prepared, I hope again with the Government, to look at any possible points. As a matter of fact the actual wording of this provision needs serious attention. "Maintained" includes county and voluntary schools. The actual phraseology is very loose. There are other amendments—not these particular ones—which if passed as they stand would require, as was said earlier, a Christian act of worship in a Jewish school because it was a maintained school. There is obviously a looseness there which will need to be tightened up.
The point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, worries me. It referred to opening the door to anyone whom the governors chose to ask to serve. The package I produced relates to local authorities, the standing advisory conference, the partners to that conference and the governors. They should all have one concern—to ensure that the provisions set out in the package are maintained. In effect, that cuts out the standing advisory council and the governors will be free to invite anyone whom they wish.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of qualifications—although I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said on that subject—I should be very worried about such a provision. In answer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, perhaps I may say that I know only too well from my work in the diocese of London
718
the large number of little churches which set themselves up and ordain people whom they call clergy. Some of them are of rather extreme sects and of varying nationalities. They might well gain control of local governors and people would be invited to serve who, frankly, are not suitable to come into our schools and teach either the Christian faith or whatever the agreed syllabus provides. I am worried because I believe that that system is much too open. It does not appear to relate to the responsibility of all those who are concerned with educational standards.
As regards the conscience clause for teachers and the provisions for denominational teaching, they are either contained in the unrepealed part of the 1944 Act or repeated in the amendments to this Bill. They seem to me to be unnecessary. Also, there is a provision in Schedule 1 for withdrawal for denominational teaching. That is clearly set out. The provisions of the 1944 Act are repeated there.
Earlier in our debate, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked me about the three principles. Partly due to lack of time, I did not reply as clearly as I should have done. I believe that I can give him the assurance that he requires on that matter with respect to the package which I have proposed. It is the purpose of that package that Christian children should receive teaching in the Christian faith. Secondly, it is the purpose that children of other faiths should be taught their own faiths.
However, I made the distinction earlier between denominational teaching, which is in a sense a withdrawal, and the recognition that there are other faiths within our society which are part of our nation. The arrangements to be made will enable account to be taken of their needs within the provisions that are made for agreed syllabus teaching. I believe that that is a very right and proper thing to do. It is done without prejudice to the distinctive nature of the Christian faith in this country.
As regards the question of worship, perhaps I may make two points. First, it is precisely to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we have brought worship under the standing advisory councils which will decide what the right form of worship will be for a school of a given character. That does not mean that we shall have a mish-mash but the council will ask what is right for a particular school given its situation, composition and so on.
The other point that I want to make I have really made already in my remarks about the mish-mash. It is not the intention of this package—in fact it is designed to avoid it—that what is taught should be a mixture of Christianity and other faiths. It is a recognition that in our country there are situations in which it is right to acknowledge that there are those of other faiths and to ensure that proper instruction is given to them while maintaining the basic principle of religion being the main tradition and heritage of this country.
I do not know how far I have gone to meet the concerns of those who propose these amendments. I for my part am prepared to look at anything again. I said when I introduced my amendments that they were not perfect; they cannot be perfect in fact. They

719
are the result of extensive consultation. I am prepared to go on with that consultation for as long as need be. I hope that that assurance will satisfy noble Lords. I think that we are aiming at the same thing.
It is important to ensure that we do not try to solve a religious problem independently of the education system in which it will operate. I think that that is a fundamental principle, and that I believe we have to maintain.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the consultations which the right reverend Prelate has generously offered to continue may possibly be helped if I try to take what he has said a stage further. It still seems to me that in some people's minds there is a gap between his intention and the language in which it is expressed. I think it is proper for me to speak because the difficulty to which the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton is addressed seems to me to lie in the two amendments to which my name is added, namely Amendments Nos. 69 and 71.
In the first of those two amendments, Amendment No. 69, on page 14 of the Marshalled List there is reference in subsection (3)(a) to collective worship reflecting in the main the broad traditions of Christian belief. The second Amendment No. 71, on page 15, in subsection (3) states that religious education shall reflect the fact that religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that at this stage one should point out that we are discussing only religious education. Discussion of religious worship will come on later amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am merely following the noble Lord's supporter who sits immediately behind him. I am happy to mention either or neither. The principle is now the same. I have adduced it. In each case we can refer simply to education.
The words "in the main" when referring to an event or procedure suggest that it shall partake partly of the nature of one thing and partly, though to a lesser extent, of the nature of another. It suggests the pudding to which the right reverend Prelate referred. Incidentally, I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Renton retracted his original definition, which was "the right relevant Prelate" because I thought that under the circumstances that was quite appropriate too. The right reverend Prelate said that it was not intended to produce something which was largely tapioca but partly sago.
As I understand the phrase "in the main" it means as nearly as possible the same as normally. In other words the agreed syllabus shall normally provide a Christian education, but in the exception it shall provide something else. That something else is achieved by the composition of the standing advisory committee on religious education, which includes representatives of the minority faiths among the denominations other than Anglican. They are in a position to produce within the syllabus that part of it that will be applied for those children which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway so compassionately and rightly wishes to preserve.
720
It seems to me that if the language and structure is understood, what is produced by these amendments —not the ones that we are discussing but those which the right reverend Prelate and I seek to persuade your Lordships to adopt—is in the first instance a structure in which if there is a majority of Christian children there will be a Christian syllabus and a Christian form of worship, which is not in the main Christian but Christian full stop. That is what happens in the main. On the other occasions the provisions that the right reverend Prelate has worked out and agreed with other minority faiths allow for their contribution to the SACREs to provide a valid syllabus for those children.
This is not a mish-mash. It is exactly the reverse. It is designed with the same purpose in view as that of the drafters of the amendments now before your Lordships' House. I am in my peroration; but of course I shall give way to the noble Baroness.
12 midnight
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to raise only one very important point that I should like to be clarified. What happens to the minority in all those cases? I agree that where there will be an overwhelming number of Jews or Moslems in the case of a non-Christian religion, there will be a residue—will there not?—of Christians. What is to be done about them? Do they just not come?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as now, they withdraw. This is neither an advance nor a retreat; it is a maintenance of the status quo, which may be a good or a bad thing; but I believe that it is acceptable under the circumstances. I wish to persuade your Lordships —and in particular my noble friends who tabled these amendments—not just of the bona fides and good intentions of the right reverend Prelate and myself, which I hope are not in question, but that what is now before your Lordships delivers what all these people want. Our difficulty lies in explaining how it does it.
I hope that I have gone some way toward doing that. I do not doubt that my noble friends will be besieging London House between now and Third Reading, and I hope that I shall be involved in those discussions. I trust that I have started to convince them not only of our good wishes but also of our success in providing what they want.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I respond as the main mover—?
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to speak very quickly to support the spirit behind Amendment No. 22 and both the amendments to it. I was extremely worried when the right reverend Prelate wound up on Amendment No. 3 because my impression was that 100 per cent. of any one religion would not be taught to children of that religion but that all children would in the main be taught Christianity and also taught other religions. I may have mistaken what he said, but that was my impression.

721
As I read the amendments before the House at the moment, they show that each child has the opportunity of being taught 100 per cent. about his own religion and also toleration of other religions. As I understood the right reverend Prelate when he wound up on Amendment No. 3, if for instance a game of soccer was being played it would be quite legal and relevant if the person in charge of that game thought fit suddenly to bring in the rules of rugger. It does not make an awful lot of sense.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I really must insist that the noble Lord has quite misrepresented what I said in winding up. I do not have the text because that is not yet available, but I think that if he will look at it, it will be made quite clear that I was suggesting nothing of the sort. I was simply making the point that under my amendments one will not be in a position to look at every individual place and say that here is x per cent. Christian, and x per cent. of something else.
If one looks at the country as a whole, one will see that there will be areas in which it is 100 per cent. and areas in which it will be less, and so on. Perhaps I should not have spoken in that way and I think I am out of order, but I am trying to intervene.
Perhaps I may put a question in order to make myself respectable! Would the noble Lord kindly look at Hansard in the morning?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with pleasure.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, if in the main the interpretation placed on the words by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is indeed the correct interpretation, would it be possible to ask the right reverend Prelate to consider introducing an amendment which would express this intention on the face of the Bill rather than in these words which are not entirely clear?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I realise why my noble friends have felt it important to move their amendments in spite of the earlier extensive debate, and indeed the unanimous agreement to the amendments of the right reverend Prelate and the Government. I am grateful to them for the spirit in which they have moved them.
In discussing the earlier amendments of the right reverend Prelate and the Government, I believe that it was generally recognised that they form a coherent package and fit within the legislative framework already set down in the 1944 Act for the provision of religious education. It would be difficult to revise it as a package since that would unravel the careful agreement reached with all the interests and Churches. I therefore urge your Lordships not to ask us to do that. I do not believe that we should therefore add further to the Bill in this respect.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, which are amendments to the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Renton, seek to meet some of the difficulties which are inherent in that new clause. However, even if those changes were made, I do not believe that the House should put the new clause on the face of the Bill. Furthermore, I am advised that
722
the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway would also be inconsistent with Amendment No. 71 in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
I believe that the important factor now, as my noble friend Lord Home said earlier, is to accept the spirit of the package and to seek its effective implementation on the ground with co-operation, as has been promised between the Churches and all those concerned. I trust therefore that my noble friend Lord Renton will forgive me if I do not attempt to respond to his detailed questions. I believe that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, have responded to the other substantive points raised. I recognise the deeply held convictions of my noble friends on these issues, but I hope that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate. It has been a full, interesting and, I believe, a very worthwhile discussion. I was particularly encouraged by the statement of the right reverend Prelate that he would continue consultation with the Government over the exact wording of his amendments. He suggested that he would consider the matters raised in this debate. I hope that that will indeed be so.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that, at the moment we are discussing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell, are we not?
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are discussing Amendment No. 22 which I moved.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the amendment before the House is Amendment No. 23.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I may say this to my noble friend. Amendment No. 23 in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell is an amendment to Amendment No. 22 in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton. If my noble friend Lord Campbell has the right to reply first, then my noble friend Lord Renton has the right to reply to the substantive amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is most encouraging. I am grateful.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to save a lot of time, I can adopt every single word that my noble friend and sponsor Lord Renton has just said. However, I wish to emphasise—as my noble friend the Chief Whip and others know—that I had serious reservations as to whether on this vitally important issue there had been an opportunity for fair, reasonable, full, objective discussion as to what we should do.
Having heard the right reverend Prelate and the contributions to this debate, which, albeit in a thin House, has been a very interesting one, I withdraw all those objections. I am totally convinced that now this matter will be taken back, as a result of our discussions, for further consideration in the right

723
spirit. Good Heavens! How do you get any legislation right? This is perhaps some of the most important legislation with which we have been confronted for years. If it is accepted by the right reverend Prelate, if it is accepted by the Government—I was not prepared to believe that it would be accepted—that what we have said will be considered and that we should try to improve on it before Third Reading, then this House has served its purpose.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 to the amendment not moved.]
Lord Renton: My Lords, I put your Lordships' minds at rest. I propose in due course to withdraw Amendment No. 22. I shall not repeat what I had started to say but shall continue with the few remarks that I intend to make.
My noble friend Lady Hooper, unlike the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, did not give any hope about further consultation. But, in view of what the right reverend Prelate said, I think that she and the Government would find themselves very embarrassed if they entirely ignored what had been said in the debate.
I wanted to say a few words about some of the issues raised. It would be wrong for me to take up time commenting on all the speeches, but I start with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, who was very realistic and spoke from long experience. He said that there are many teachers who simply are either not qualified or are unwilling to teach religious education. He is right and that is one of the problems with which the right reverend Prelate has been faced and with which we are all faced. It is a problem which I and my noble friends who have been working with me have attempted to deal with realistically in the amendment.
When I referred to,
"teachers, clergy or other qualified people",
being available, these words were very carefully considered. Let me give an example. I speak as an Anglican. In the Anglican Church, we have, besides the clergy, who are known to be qualified people in the Anglican Church as they are in the Church of Scotland, what are known as lay readers. They would be qualified people. In any event it would be for the governors of the school in each case to decide whether the people who, because there were no teachers available, they were inviting into the school to teach religious education would be suitable. The responsibility would lie upon the governors.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the noble Lord is very gracious. I thank him. They would be qualified as Christians. They would not be qualified as teachers, one would imagine.
Lord Renton: My Lords, one could have people who were qualified as teachers and not as Christians. One could have Christians who were not qualified as teachers. It could be either way round, but we would hope to have people who were both teachers and qualified to teach and who were Christians. That is the obvious situation and, quite frankly, it is a point that is hardly worth arguing about.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Report stage!
Lord Parry: My Lords, surely the House will give me the right to speak. Although it is Report stage I have every right to do what I am doing but I shall be guided otherwise. The point I am making is that the Secretary of State insists that teachers in schools should be qualified. If lay readers who are qualified in teaching are available they will be welcomed in the schools, otherwise they would be illegally in that office.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point, although I have reservations about it.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Hooper will take the matter back to the Secretary of State. The right reverend Prelate has an open mind. Various important matters of principle have been referred to in the debate which if considered further by the Government might lead to further improvement in the amendments tabled by the right reverend prelate. He was not present during the first few minutes of my opening speech which lasted only seven minutes. Therefore I should like to assure him that we admire and acknowledge what he has done and we are grateful for it. However, as there is no such thing as perfection first time round, we hope for something better as a result of the debate. With that in mind I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Foundation subjects and key stages]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 2, line 30. leave out ("music, art") and insert ("the Arts").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in dealing with this amendment we move to another subject and I hope that it will move rather faster than the last one. We come now to the question of the arts in education. The case for the arts has already been established in these debates and Ministers have repeatedly expressed their personal commitment to the arts in education. Indeed, they have said that the arts are safe in the national curriculum. Yet the place of the arts, as formulated in the national curriculum, is dangerously uncertain. The Bill neither reflects the best of current practice, nor does it encourage the extension of that practice; it is rather the reverse. Drama and dance teachers in particular see the Bill as a direct threat to the very existence of their subject and Ministers have failed to reassure them.
The amendment, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in my name, proposes that the words "the Arts" be substituted for the words "music art". Such an alteration would be entirely in keeping semantically with such other collective terms as science, mathematics and technology, all of which subsume a number of separate subjects. Even English is taken to include at least two examination subjects; English language and English literature.
The term "arts" is commonly and popularly understood to include art, music, dance and drama. No one has any difficulty with the idea of an Arts Council or a Minister for the Arts. Replacing the present wording in the way we propose would sustain the claims of music and art and protect those of dance and drama. In failing to provide specifically for dance and drama the Bill effectively cuts them out of the curriculum. Those subjects are comparatively new in schools and have made enormous strides in recent years. For instance, drama is the fastest growing subject among 16-plus examinations. Dance teachers have recently formed their own national association in order to cope with the expansion of dance in schools and colleges.
The Bill introduces a most unwelcome hierarchy among arts subjects where none exists at the moment. It is art and music at the top and the rest nowhere, or at best in feudal relationship to other subjects not centrally concerned with the aesthetic in education.
Mentioning only music and art runs directly counter to recent trends in curriculum development. School and local education authorities' management structures, the new GCSE examinations and technical and vocational education initiative arrangements, all show increasing recognition (as of course does the work of many distinguished contemporary artists) of the principle of the commonwealth of the arts. However, maths, English, science and technology are the presiding deities as the Bill now stands. In those areas the new working groups are either already in place or shortly will be with the task or determining the content and testing of curricula. I understand it could be two years before the arts are looked at. The excuse currently given is the lack of personnel at the DES available to service the exercise. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is really the case.
The amendment will ensure a future for dance and drama in the curriculum and will reinforce the principles of breadth and balance, as stated in the Bill, in the arts curriculum itself. The amendment would give fresh impetus to much-needed improvement in the initial and in-service training of the primary generalist and the secondary specialist in the arts. The amendment would also enable schools to pay proper attention to the fuller aesthetic development of their pupils.
So far the Government's response has been unacceptable. Ministers have said that drama is to be catered for within English lessons. That never works. That is why the DES published its own special report on drama in education and appointed a senior inspector with special responsibility for drama. Drama taught by English teachers tends to be a
726
minor branch of literature instead of a performing art in its own right, with its own special history, tradition and conventions.
We were told by the Minister in Committee:
"Dance is best left to PE teachers or should be taught by the music department".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 352].
Apart from the fragmentation implicit in such a dismal proposal, it is ridiculous to suggest that either of those departments would have the trained staff or the time to give to the proper teaching of dance. As a recent Gulbenkian National Foundation education research report pointed out, PE main course students training for the primary sector can receive as few as 20 hours of dance in four years.
As I say, in Committee the Minister dismissed this amendment saying that it threatened the individual arts. I hope that I have now demonstrated that she has failed to understand the intentions of my proposals which were of course precisely the opposite; that is, to preserve a full range of the individual arts subjects. I do not believe that is surprising because this matter was raised at 2 o'clock in the morning among an enormous group of amendments covering a wide variety of subjects. It would have been very difficult for the Minister to deal with them all—which she did—in one winding up speech.
The Government have repeatedly stated that the Bill does not encroach on the delivery of the curriculum, upon what the teachers will do or how the subjects will be taught and yet, in the same breath, they claim that this formulation will threaten what they call "rigour". Breadth and balance are not inherently damaging to rigour, otherwise how could the Bill cite those as among its central tenets? The proposal is in no way inimical to the pursuit of the higher standards of arts education.
The National Curriculum Council would offer schools guidelines on what would constitute a broad and balanced arts education; guidelines which would facilitate rigorous teaching and secure the sovereignty of individual arts subjects without placing impossible demands on schools. A generalist teacher in infant or primary schools will be able to continue to provide children with a full range of artistic opportunities and scope, both to sample all the major art forms suitable to their stage of development and to begin to develop a special relationship with some media rather than others. The same principles would be maintained through the early years of secondary education. Option systems would then operate to allow a measure of selection and specialisation. For that to happen, schools would have to provide a full range of arts teaching.
The GCSE examinations would continue to offer art, music, dance, drama, creative arts and designcentred studies. Full specialisation in the sixth form would be complemented by general arts courses for non-specialists since there would be an adequate supply of trained teachers available.
Finally, we are asking for the most modest of amendments to be accepted. It is one that in no sense can be seen as threatening the Bill's practical objectives. Quite the reverse is the case, since it would substantially enhance the general character of the

727
national curriculum, bringing reform where it is genuinely necessary and encouraging the best of current practice.
I hope that that reason rather than obduracy will prevail and that a principle that has widespread endorsement among arts teachers and commands the support of the main head teacher organisations will now, in the light of that explanation, commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, at this late hour I shall speak only briefly. I put down my name to this amendment because I think that it would be extremely helpful at this stage of the Bill to have a much clearer definition of what is meant by music and art. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said on the subject. I am grateful also to my noble friend the Minister for our discussion on this matter and for the copy of the letter she sent to me setting out the further views of the Government. I hope she will be able to elaborate on those views when she replies to the debate.
Much has been said about the criticism that has been made of the education system, but I for one would say that one of the great developments of the education system, certainly since 1944, has been in the realm of the arts. Music in schools has been simply transformed over the past 40 years, as well as painting, art, pottery and a great variety of arts unknown before then which reach an extraordinarily high standard in schools.
I am particularly interested in this amendment because my attention has been drawn to the role of drama and dance in the curriculum. There are many schools which offer these subjects as courses and it would be a great pity if they came to believe that art and music somehow excluded dance and drama as separate subjects, not as part of PE or something else.
I feel certain that that must be the Government's intention because, if I understand the Bill correctly, the testing and assessment arrangements will not apply to art and music as they will to other subjects. But this is an opportunity to have a broad but at the same time an effective component of the curriculum by including music and art. What is important is the definition that is given to those terms.
This becomes increasingly important of course as pupils reach the age of 16. It is obviously absurd to continue an art subject for which a child has no particular talent when there could well be an art subject, or at any rate an appreciation of an art subject, which he or she could enjoy very much indeed. It would be most helpful to know from the Government whether when they refer to art and music it means the arts in the wider definition which has been given. That would be a great assurance to teachers of all these subjects and to many in the House today who are concerned about the definition of music and art.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I add my support to the amendments from these Benches. I was a teacher of drama and I have seen the transforming power that drama has on children, particularly on those who lack confidence or who
728
speak badly. To discover that they can perform on a stage in front of an audience, that they can lose their identify and have their imaginations fired, has a most remarkable effect. It is a great pity that the words "art" and "music" used in the Bill do not make clear that drama, among other things, including of course dance, is covered. I cannot imagine that the substitution of "the arts" for "art and music" could possibly raise any objection. I defy even the gnomes of Elizabeth House to find a reason why this change could be in any way objectionable or could be in any way against the spirit of the Bill.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to what has been said. Anyone who has seen a primary school where the arts are taken really seriously knows that, where work that excels is taking place, it is quite impossible to say, "This is music, this is painting", or whatever. Often there is an amalgam of drama and music and also painting and crafts coming in. People move in different parts of the room, moving from one territory to another without there being any distinction between them.
Something similar happens even in a secondary school, where the arts are treated as a totality and where there is not this kind of mad subject definition and narrowing that goes on if people think they are just learning music, visual art or whatever and nothing else. The point of the arts is that they should be all-embracing or at any rate should cover a very large range and not even stop at what are conventionally thought of as the arts but should merge with crafts and design. The distinction between arts and crafts is a very arbitrary one which very few people devoted to the arts wish to make. I add my support to what has been said already and express the hope that there will be agreement that the proposal made in the amendment is superior to what is said in the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I also very briefly express my support for this amendment on the ground that it provides an alternative to the compulsory study of music? I have no lack of sympathy for music. I followed my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge into the Lobbies for music in the course of the debates on this Bill. However, it is something that some of us simply cannot do. One can take a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink. That is a proposition in which I declare an interest.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, we had a short discussion on a similar amendment during the Committee stage. I believe I then said that I was glad the noble Baroness felt able to welcome the inclusion of music and art in the list of foundation subjects. I hasten again to reassure your Lordships that the Government attach importance to the arts in schools and we certainly do not intend our proposals to have

729
an adverse effect on what may already be happening in the area of the arts and which in many schools is exceptionally good.
We have named music and art as foundation subjects because we intend that at the primary stages and in the early years of secondary school pupils should be enabled to build on their artistic or musical talents or, at the very least, to have a better appreciation of those subjects.
In terms of the phasing in of the national curriculum subjects—something about which the noble Baroness asked specifically—it is envisaged that this phasing in will happen over a number of years. We expect that by the autumn of 1989 all foundation subjects will be taught to all pupils in the first three key stages, even if attainment targets and programmes of study are not yet available on any of those subjects. This will apply to the fourth key stage by the autumn of 1990.
The fact of naming music and art as foundation subjects does not imply that dance and drama are squeezed out. Drama is firmly in the terms of reference of the National Curriculum English Working Group, which was set up just after Easter. It is there not only in the context of the great dramatic works of literature but also as a medium for the development of a range of oral skills which are relevant to all subjects.
I know that my noble friend Lady Young is particularly concerned about the place of dance. I have also received representations from the directors of a number of dance schools and companies. Let me stress that, where dance is already established in the curriculum of a school—and this is by no means universal—there is no reason for its place there to be threatened by the introduction of the national curriculum. While it is not named as a foundation subject, it may nevertheless feature within some of the other foundation subjects, especially music and physical education. We also intend that it shall be part of a broad-ranging arts course in years four and five. Some pupils in those years will be taking one or more of the expressive arts subjects to GCSE, but for the majority we intend a course that would cover dance and drama as well as art and music. We shall certainly make plain our intentions in this respect to any group set up to make recommendations on the areas pupils should cover in the arts and on what they should achieve. This would also feature in any subsequent guidance offered to schools by the department.
Let me assure both my noble friend and the noble Baroness that we do acknowledge the claims of the various forms of the arts, and I hope that I have been able to reassure them about the place of the arts in the national curriculum.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed. I do not think that the Minister's answer met any of our concerns. Am I correct in assuming from what the Minister said that visual art and music are the arts subjects that will be considered to start with in primary schools and that the others—with luck, dance and drama—will probably
come in later? Am I correct?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, in so far as art and music are specifically stated as foundation subjects. However, as I have attempted to assure the House on a number of occasions, there will be time outside the national curriculum subjects for other subjects. In any event, physical education will be one of the foundation subjects as well and there is scope in that for dance.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, if the Government intend drama and dance to take place, why do they not say so by using a general term "the arts"? What can be the objection to it? That is what I cannot understand.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the terms "art" and "music" are sufficiently wide to cover the various points that have been made in the course of the debate.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, they do not cover dance and drama.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if music and art cover all things, what is wrong with the words "the arts"? Do they not cover music and art? I should have thought that they did. Why have we wasted 20 minutes on this matter? I should have thought that the Government could have accepted it without any difficulty.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the danger of going for "the arts" as opposed to what we have gone for is what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to as a sampling of many things, an arts mish-mash, with no real knowledge or expertise necessarily developed. We have said that pupils should have exposure to music and attempt to develop appreciation if not skills. We believe that dance and drama will be present throughout the curriculum in the ways I have attempted to suggest.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the only good thing to come out of that reply was the tentative way in which the Minister made her last remark. She may not have been as unhappy as I am, but she did not sound firm or happy about what she said. It is clear from what she said that dance and drama may be brought in later. She talked about the English group discussing drama and said that physical education covers dance. It was for those reasons that I brought forward the amendment once again.
It is an old idea, not a forward-looking one, to include dance with physical education. They are two different subjects. The Minister said that drama is being discussed by the English group. It is not being discussed as a performing art at the moment. She said that we would end up with a mish-mash. There is no reason why that should happen any more than it will happen when we take any number of subjects under the headings of mathematics, science or technology.
I feel badly about this point because I thought that we might get somewhere. The guidelines do not cover the point. I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who joins me in moving the amendment, because I did not intend to divide the

731
House on this matter. I thought we would achieve something better or that at this stage the Government would accept what is a minor amendment but one which makes sense to so many people, not just in the House but outside, especially teachers. I am sure that the Minister has had many more letters than I have from teachers who are worried about this issue. I am afraid that I shall have to ask the House to divide.
12.42 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Parry, L.

Birk, B.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Rochester, L.

Hastings, L.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Leger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young, B.

McNair, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Caithness, E.

Renton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cox, B.

Trafford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Dundee, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.49 a.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 32, leave out (", a modern") and insert ("at the latest, one or more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very short and simple amendment but it packs quite a lot into its four or five words. Perhaps I may as quickly as possible describe how it works, what it seeks to do and why. It refers, as you will have noticed, to Clause 3(2)(b) which is about foreign languages. We should like to add the words "at the latest" after the phrase:
"in relation to the third and fourth key stages".
In plain language this means at the age of 11 or earlier. We are suggesting, or even asserting, that
732
there can be no good reason why children of eight, nine or 10 should not in suitable circumstances be gradually introduced to the idea that English is not the only language spoken on this earth. Some primary schools are doing this. I ask whether that is to become illegal. Surely many of us—I should have thought all of us—know from experience or from observation that the younger one is when one tries to learn a foreign language the better.
This part of the amendment simply states that a primary school with the right staff may, if it wishes, teach a little French or even a little Latin to some of the children. Or of course it may teach a little Welsh if it happens to be a non-Welsh speaking school in Wales. Can noble Lords imagine living in Wales with all those lovely place names all around which are totally meaningless unless one knows a little bit of Welsh? There is no compulsion; like everything else in this amendment, it is purely permissive.
The next point is that by altering the words "a modern foreign language" to read "one or more foreign languages" we are trying to achieve two objects. First, why is the Bill so restrictive? Why limit it to one foreign language? There are many children who will never become Fellows of the Royal Society or eminent technologists, whatever that may mean, but who have a gift for languages. We all know such pupils. This is a useful skill; it can even be commercially useful. It is also a matter of courtesy and convenience. There can be few of us who have not often had cause to regret that we could not speak this or that language or understand it a little bit better, or even that we could not speak or understand it at all. Surely it cannot be the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we are going to embark on this new era which is opening in 1992 still relying on the deplorable tradition that all foreigners can understand English if one just turns up the volume to a shout.
The second intention behind this part of the amendment—the words "one or more foreign languages"—is to get rid of that curiously unnecessary word "modern". We know that nine-tenths and more of the time spent teaching languages will be spent teaching modern languages—French, German and others. There is no need to say it. So why the word "modern"? The only logical reason for its presence in this subsection would be to reflect an anti-classical bias. And yet every single Minister who has said anything about Latin or the classics has assured us with unmistakable sincerity that there is no hostility towards these subjects in the department or in the minds of the Government. So how did the word "modern" get into the Bill? I am forced to the conclusion that it got in by mistake, like a gatecrasher, when nobody was looking.
I think I can understand how that might have happened. To educationists the term "modern language" is so familiar and trips so unthinkingly off the tongue that I believe we are in the presence of one of those conventional epithets such as are found in Homer. Those well-loved adjectival clichés helped Homer with his scansion. They suited the rhythm of hexameter and it saved him a lot of work if he could know that dawn was always rosy-fingered, that the sea was wine-dark and that the goddess Athene had eyes like a cow.
In just the same way, to an educational boffin drafting a Bill, languages have to be modern. However, there are also classical languages and I devoted the whole of a none-too-short Second Reading speech to the threat under which those languages and subjects lie and to the necessity of protecting them against it. Today I must be ludicrously brief.
Latin and, if possible, Greek have proved themselves potent weapons against the creeping tide of illiteracy and sub-literacy which we see and hear all around us every day of our lives. They unlock the door to an understanding not only of the romance languages—French, Italian and Spanish—but also to a sophisticated understanding of our own language and thereby to mastery of the terminology of any academic subject you like to mention, and not least the sciences. It is a matter of deep regret that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, who supports the amendment, has had to take a train to Cambridge and cannot be present this evening. I was very much looking forward to his contribution from the scientific point of view.
At Second Reading I also put forward the proposition that just about everything that we have in our Western culture which is worth preserving can be traced directly back to its origins either in Athens, in Rome or in the Christian tradition. Christianity has not been starved for time in our deliberations, and there may be more to come. This amendment offers the House the only chance it will have to say whether or not the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome are to remain part of our inheritance or are to be consigned almost casually to educational oblivion.
I hope that we shall not be told that our fears are groundless because the national curriculum is meant to take up only X per cent. of the timetable. Any such figure is arbitrary and meaningless. Indeed, the Secretary of State seems to me to have recognised that when he goes out of his way, somewhat uncharacteristically, to prohibit himself:
"from requiring that any particular period … of time should be allocated … to the teaching of any programme of study".
Those words are to be found in Clause 4(3)(a). The chosen, prescribed subjects listed in Clause 3 and the tests which will be done on them will, whatever anybody says, dictate the priorities for the allocation of scant resources in every LEA, staff room and governing body in the country. The minority subjects will be inexorably squeezed out. I do not know a single teacher who would disagree with that statement.
I also hope that we shall not be offered a kind of consolation prize with the argument that clever children will be able to take up Latin or a second language in the fourth key stage. Two years to GCSE is quite impossibly demanding. The take-up would be negligible and the result would be that no school would find it cost-effective to employ a teacher. I honestly believe that the only escape from that dilemma lies in this amendment.
Perhaps I may close with one or two general remarks. First, the amendment's party political
734
content is the square root of zero. Secondly, it is purely permissive. It would not make anyone do anything they do not want to and it leaves the Secretary of State with the last word on everything and with his national curriculum intact. Finally, perhaps we can apply to it the two touchstones chosen by the Government. The Bill is designed to raise standards and to improve choice. Would the amendment raise standards? Naturally if I did not think that it would I should not have tabled it, but I admit that that is a matter of opinion. When one asks whether it would improve choice, undeniably it would. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I notice that the noble Baroness seems anxious to rise. Before she gets up to say no, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in support of the noble Lord who so ably and persuasively moved the amendment.
I should like to begin by repeating his point that it is a purely permissive amendment. It cannot be said that anyone will be dragooned into anything. In the first place it will allow schools to begin the study of foreign languages when they like. I think that there is a great deal to be said for that because in my judgment the capacity to learn a foreign language, although it obviously makes demands on the intellect, is not a matter of the intellect alone.
Perhaps I may relate an anecdote which relates to someone whom I dare not mention by name because he was Foreign Secretary of another country. Although he is now long since retired it would not be tactful to mention his name. I was interested in him because, although he had spent a good deal of time being educated in this country and had taken a degree at a British university, his command of our language seemed to be very poor. When I got to know him better I saw that the reason was that, although he talked a great deal, he hardly ever listened to anybody.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I think that noble Lords would agree that the Government would have great sympathy with that person.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, he has not become a member of the present Government.
The point I was making was that the capacity to learn a foreign language depends not only on the intellect but also on the quality of personality and being the kind of person who is willing to listen. When for a time during the war I was in the Intelligence Corps I met a number of men who had become very proficient in foreign languages. I noticed very often that those who were best were also some of the most sympathetic characters, the kind of people who did listen. They had the ear and sense of imagination that enable one to capture the idea of a foreign language and to move easily into it.
A clause that would enable schools to start with a foreign language whenever it seems likely to be useful to do so is a helpful one. It will give pupils the opportunity to study more than one foreign language. I do not know how many would wish to do

735
so but I cannot believe that the decision to study another foreign language rather than any one of the present foundation subjects would be a drawback.
Then there is the question that it is not merely to be a foreign language. In fact the amendment would permit the teaching in schools of Latin and ancient Greek. To put it the other way round, without the amendment the study of those languages would disappear from our schools altogether. I do not think that there is any doubt that if they are not foundation subjects they will not be tested. A school will not take on subjects that are not to be tested knowing how much importance the Government attach to testing and the results of testing.
Unless there is a clause of this kind, we shall find that the study of Latin and ancient Greek will disappear from our schools. It may be said that they will be preserved in the independent sector of education; but I do not see why they should be restricted to that very narrow base. If they were, I am not at all sure how much longer they would continue to be studied in the universities except by specialists such as those people who study Egyptian hieroglyphics or ancient Assyrian. I believe it would be a great loss to the world.
Of the two languages, my personal preference, as a matter of the heart, would be for ancient Greek because I believe that it is the more beautiful language and came from a much more attractive people; but one is obliged to admit that on practical grounds there is a good deal more argument to be put forward for Latin. Latin is the base of a good many Western European languages. A facility in Latin is of assistance to anybody who intends to study any of the modern Western European languages. Also, with every new invention a new word comes into our language and it is nearly always a word of Latin origin. Our language is peculiarly distinguished by the fact that it is a mixture of the Germanic and Latin tongues—and I suppose that for that we must thank William the Conqueror for winning the battle of Hastings. But as time has gone on it has become an increasingly Latinised language. Every new idea that has been brought into the language has been given a name that is nearly always taken from a Latin root.
For a time I was a Member of the European Parliament, in the days when it was an indirectly elected body and a kind of Hansard of the debates of the Parliament was published in a document called something like the Rainbow Times. In that document each speech was published in the language in which it was delivered. One had to wait a little before there was a translated version available. It was interesting to turn over the pages of that document and see the differences in the mere appearance of the words between languages such as Italian and French, which are obviously Latinate languages, and those like Dutch, Danish or German, which are Teutonic or Germanic in stock. English appeared to be about halfway between the two; but steadily as time has gone on it has become more and more Latinised.
I think that there is an assistance to the understanding of the structure and make-up of our own language to be found in the study of Latin. Winston Churchill once said that he thought that one
736
should insist on boys learning how to write an English sentence well. He said nothing about girls and I do not know whether he had any interest in girls being educated. He said that he would whip the boys well if they did not learn English, but would let them learn Latin as a lover and give them Greek as a treat. There is something to be said for that point of view.
While I have tried to urge that there are certain practical reasons for wanting to keep Latin alive in our schools and universities, there is the further reason that even if one does not need to know Latin in order to become a lawyer or a doctor—I think that such an idea is long-since out of date and one does not really need to learn Latin in order to know what sine die means, or use various other tags which no Roman ever used—there remains the fact that if one does learn Latin, the door has been opened to the enormous treasury of Latin literature and all that it embraces. When one reflects on how that literature was built up and how, over some 11 centuries or more, the Roman power, ideas and language spread, one realises what a vast part of the whole library of human knowledge is written in the Latin language. I base my case mainly on Latin; one could base it on Greek. That is again one of the flexibilities of this amendment.
I most earnestly hope that while the noble Baroness may not feel prepared to say yes now, she will talk this over, and perhaps recommend it to her right honourable friend. She has not gone as far as that, so far as I know, on any point in the whole of our discussions. It is time that we had—if I may use a word that is fashionable—a little flexibility in the Government's handling of proposals to amend the Bill. I most earnestly commend this gentle, permissive, civilised amendment to the noble Baroness.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, as a former diplomat, I should like briefly to support this amendment. All of us would agree the immense importance of languages. I would emphasise in particular the tremendous commercial value of languages which is constantly being emphasised. Most of us—those who travel abroad or who have worked abroad as diplomats, or in commercial capacities—would agree that we Britons are probably the worst linguists in the world with the possible exception of the Americans. Anything that can be done to remedy this very serious defect is obviously extremely worthwhile.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. I should like to offer support on all three limbs of it. On the proposition about learning languages young, there is a considerable body of educational research as well as a considerable quantity of anecdotal evidence to support the proposition that languages are more easily learned at a younger age. My father at the age of three spoke French, German and English approximately equally well as a result of having a Swiss governess who on one occasion distinguished herself by asking Herbert Gladstone the way to the Lost Propriety Office.

737
I shall not develop at length the case about the economic importance of languages. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has touched on this as a point of some significance. However, it is worth saying that the Government have been concerned recently about the behaviour of English tourists abroad. It is sometimes more difficult to behave well in a country whose language one cannot speak. The frustration tends to show in forms of behaviour which we regard as undesirable. In some ways knowing more languages could avoid trouble.
I should also most strongly like to support the points that have been made in defence of Latin and Greek. If we close those off, we close off a considerable part of our own heritage. If people wishing to do post-graduate research in Tudor and Stuart English history, do not know Latin, I simply cannot accept them. They cannot do the work. To take one single, obvious example, one cannot do a thesis on Milton without reading Latin. A considerable proportion of this output was in that language.
Finally, I should like to support most strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said about the effect of testing on school education. It is the subjects which are included in the tests on which the teachers will spend the time. Those are the subjects on which the teachers themselves will be judged, and judged, so far as we can discover, frequently and in earnest. Therefore if any subject is left out that subject may be threatened. In this case the consequences could be extremely serious.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, during 15 or 16 years of speaking on education subjects in this House, I have heard a great deal of nonsense talked about various education subjects and no doubt have contributed my own share. Of the various subjects talked about, a great majority of the nonsense has been on language teaching, and the necessity for teaching languages to children almost universally.
The history of teaching languages in this country, and to a certain extent in other countries, should be enough to show that we waste endless man-hours and children-hours in teaching subjects of which virtually nothing remains with the pupils, even intelligent and cultured people like Members of your Lordships' House. One will find Members in this Chamber who spent hours and hours learning French and/or German and who cannot speak either language at all fluently.
For that reason I look very sceptically at anything which suggests that we should have more language teaching. But I am totally convinced by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, because it is that very rare thing, an amendment which encourages those who want to learn languages and those who have the ability to learn languages to he able to do so. It gives them a fair wind and it gives them a backing and that is very worthwhile indeed. I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I also should like to support the amendment. It seems to give a certain amount of flexibility. It allows, which the foundation subjects appear to prohibit, people to learn, let us say, French and German simultaneously before the age of 16—a possibility which appears not to be included. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State to keep ancient Greek and Latin out, he can still do it even if he accepts the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, because all he needs to do is not to specify Latin or Greek as one of the languages. That is already in subsection (2)(b) and is not affected by the amendment. However, it would prevent a future Secretary of State having to pass an amending Act to allow classics to be taught. It could be done by an order alone.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity afforded by these amendments to consider again the place of foreign languages in the national curriculum. I welcome even more the elegant way in which they were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. As it stands, the Bill requires a modern foreign language to be taught as a foundation subject at secondary level. We feel that this is important for the future needs of our children, as well as for our future in the European Community and, indeed, to meet the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about travel needs.
As they have explained, the movers of these amendments have a number of points in mind, all with the intention of introducing more flexibility into this requirement. I should make it clear at the outset that we believe that the amendments are not necessary. I do not wish to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in his expectations by reassuring him once again that the national curriculum will not form the whole of the schools' curriculum. Schools will still have considerable flexibility to offer additional subjects, such as a foreign language at primary level, a second foreign language at secondary level or indeed a classical language or languages. The national curriculum, by definition, consists of those essential subjects which all pupils should study at a given stage. It is logically inconsistent therefore to try to add optional elements within a compulsory curriculum as these amendments appear to do.
This is not something that I feel I should take back, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, suggested. But, in saying that, I would point out to him that there have been a number of occasions when I have taken matters back. In fact, during the stages of the Bill in this House more than 23 amendments have been accepted or concessions have been made or Government amendments have been introduced in response to suggestions made during the course of the debates. That relates only to schools and in addition there are other examples in higher education in other parts of the Bill.
In those circumstances I cannot accept the amendments and I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is yet another "No" from the Government Front Bench. At this stage I must say that we on this side of the House have among us people of considerable standing and expertise in the education field. I believe that I speak for many noble Lords when I say that the Government are treating what we have to offer with contempt and we do not like it.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I shall not waste the time of the House by taking a long time to say how disappointed I am. The answer was one of the worst we have had. Mr. Molotov could have put it even more quickly by saying, "Niet". That is all it amounted to.
The amendment does no harm to the Bill; it is purely permissive as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said. I should like the House to pronounce upon it. I beg to move.
1.21 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Russell, E.

McNair, L.

Seear, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Parry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hastings, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cameron of Lochhroom, L.

Renton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Criagmyle, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Trafford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Trumpington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Wynford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.29 a.m.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 2, line 33, after ("State") insert—
("(c) in relation to a school in which the language of origin of a considerable number of its pupils is a foreign language, that school may offer teaching in that foreign language which shall be treated as an alternative to any language specified under subsection (2b) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to what I believe is a very important amendment. I do not have very much hope that the Government will listen or make any concession. What I must describe as the philistine attitude which cares nothing for true education is becoming almost more than we can bear.
The amendment relates to the teaching of ethnic community languages where there is sufficient demand for it and where it is sensible to do so. The Bill states that children shall be taught a modern foreign language that the Secretary of State shall specify. There is a reasonable presumption that the language or languages that he specifies will be modern European languages. We could therefore have the absurd situation of a Bangladeshi child whose command of his own language is imperfect. He may chatter away very well but he may not write it accurately any more than an English child would write English accurately if he had never been taught. The Bangladeshi child will have to speak English so no doubt he will gabble away in English, but again he will have an imperfect knowledge of the language. However, he may be required to learn French, German or Spanish so that he will end up with an imperfect knowledge of three languages.
That seems to be wrong. It is a generally accepted principle among linguists that all children must learn to use their own languages properly before they can hope to learn a foreign language. You cannot learn a second language unless you have command of a first language. It is a psychological fact that one's own language is a thing of value; a cultural necessity. Therefore, it is important that ethnic minorities living in this country should know, speak and write their own languages in such a way as to be proud of them.
If we devalue those languages by not including them in the national curriculum, in a sense it is a form of racial prejudice. That was pointed out in the Swann Report—I am not inventing it. As we know, racial prejudice is a curse and among other things essentially negative. It is important that we should think of the positive opportunities that children in our cities can enjoy today by encountering children from all over the world and learning from them—learning about their perhaps distant countries, their customs, beliefs, ideas, stories and their language. It is most important that minority community languages should be honoured with a place in the curriculum.
I have spoken to teachers in schools, for example, in the east of London which are crying out for teachers of the language mainly spoken in those schools. I am thinking in particular of a school where the great majority of pupils are Bangladeshi. The need to teach Bengali is great but they cannot get teachers with suitable qualifications. I should point out that the provisions of the Bill provide that the Welsh language may be taught in

741
speaking schools. By the same token I suggest that where there is sufficient demand in a school Bengali, Turkish, Greek or whatever it may be should be accepted as a modern foreign language instead of one of the European languages that the Secretary of State might specify. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment. It seems to me absurd that in this country we have an area where a large number of people speak Polish as their natural home language (and therefore virtually learn English as a foreign language at school) and that they should be taught French or German through the medium of English at the expense of being taught Polish. That seems totally absurd and the kind of situation we are talking about without raising any issues of colour prejudice that might arise from dealing with other foreign languages. I totally support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lords who moved this amendment may be jumping the gun a little. The Bill does not specify which modern foreign languages may qualify as a foundation subject. These are to be specified in an order to be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 3(2)(b) subject to the negative resolution procedure. It would of course be possible for noble Lords to pray against the Clause 3(2)(b) order if they thought that the wrong languages were being specified or that the list was unduly restrictive.
The question of which modern foreign languages should be specified when the full provisions of the national curriculum come into effect will of course require careful consideration. There may be educational advantages in requiring children to have the experience and discipline of learning a language which is neither the national language nor their mother tongue and which will be of value to them in adult life and employment. However, it would be wrong for me to prejudge which languages might be taught as the modern foreign language foundation subject before we have undertaken consultations and sought advice from the proposed National Curriculum Council.
In the meantime, no modern foreign languages are ruled out. Noble Lords may rest assured that we shall listen to and carefully consider all the arguments before coming forward with proposals. That includes the arguments that have been advanced this evening. In the light of this, and given that there can be an opportunity for further discussion when the order comes to be made, I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, IH was extremely interested to hear what she said. This subsection has always puzzled me. I now gather from what she said that the fear that I have that some blanket order will be issued that all children should study French, Spanish or whatever it may be is not the case and that there may be considerable regional variation. For example, if a
742
school has a strong Spanish, Russian or French tradition or something of that kind, that will be taken into account. Am I right in that understanding?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the list of foreign languages which will be issued in the order will, I believe, be susceptible to regional variations and it will be a very comprehensive list.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that the number of languages that are spoken in London at the moment is something like 170. If that figure is wrong it is not far wrong. Do I understand that all these languages are to be permitted by the Secretary of State as alternatives to the learning of English?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, what I said was that we were not yet in a position to say which category of languages will be included. We shall consult on this and accept advice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before this subject comes to an end, let me say that I am becoming more puzzled. With leave, I am asking a question. Is it correct that the noble Baroness will return to us with a definition of modern foreign languages? Is that what we are asked to wait for? In particular, will she be telling us what the word "modern" means? Many of the problems raised could be dealt with if we knew what we were talking about. Does "modern" simply mean any language which is currently being spoken?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to ask a question. Does "modern languages" mean European languages, or can it mean the languages spoken by many of the ethnic minorities in this country? The purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for those ethnic minority languages to be taught in our schools.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend has now replied twice to the points raised. We are transgressing very far from what the Procedure Committee has recommended.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, what does one do if one is still not clear in one's mind? May we take it that the Minister will do what she can to persuade her right honourable friend to see to it that the National Curriculum Council weighs these considerations, and that in considering what languages may or may not be taught, it will take into consideration the fact that many children in the country may need to be taught their mother tongue more urgently than any Western European language? If that is the case, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment; but I should like some assurance to that effect. Is it possible to have that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in response to the last two questions I said in my remarks that I could not prejudge what the result of consultation would be. I also said that no modern foreign language was ruled out.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I am still not satisfied with that, and in view of my dissatisfaction I shall have to ask the House to decide.
1.42 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Content, 18; Not-Contents, 33.
1.50 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words which this amendment would remove give the Secretary of State a specific power to exempt schools or parts of schools in Wales from having Welsh as a foundation subject. At Committee stage what is now Clause 12 of the Bill, which covers exceptions by regulations, was amended to widen its scope. As now drafted, this general exemption provision enables the Secretary of State to make regulations disapplying or modifying the national curriculum or parts of it in such cases or circumstances as may be specified. The more general power renders the specific exemption power in Clause 3(4)(b) unnecessary and the present amendment would remove it.
I should like to stress that this does not represent any change in the Government's policy about exemptions from Welsh in the national curriculum.
744
The amendment also has the benefit of making the legal position of Welsh in the national curriculum in Wales identical to that of the other core and foundation subjects. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a useful improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we note with satisfaction that the specific power of exemption in Clause 3(4)(b) is being removed and that the Secretary of State will rely on the general powers in Clause 12 and the regulations to be made thereunder. I am just wondering whether the Minister can confirm that the draft regulations will be the subject of consultation with the bodies involved with Welsh language education.
I should also be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it is not the intention to use the exemption power indiscriminately and that we can rely on the statements which the Minister made when we were in Committee to the effect that about 80 per cent. of schools in Wales currently teach Welsh. Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to allow this level of provision to decline as a result of the national curriculum?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord both the assurances that he has sought.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("(7)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the position of Welsh in the national curriculum. I say "this group of amendments" because I wish to speak at the same time, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 which are of course in the names of other noble Lords. They all deal with the definition of a "Welsh-speaking school". This is a school which will have Welsh as a core subject in the national curriculum.
At Committee Stage, the noble Lord, Lord Prys Davies tabled an amendment which would have relaxed the definition so as to bring in more schools. I explained then why the Government thought his amendment went too far, but I undertook that we would consider the definition further. I believe that Amendments Nos. 37 and 40 meet the concerns which the noble Lord and others expressed then, though in Amendment No. 38, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would have us go a little further.
Our general policy is that Welsh should be a core subject, alongside English, for children in Wales who are receiving a bilingual education. For others it will be a foundation subject. It is important that we should not overstress this distinction. Nothing in the Bill prevents us from setting attainment targets and programmes of study appropriate for Welsh in different circumstances, irrespective of whether it is a core or "other foundation" subject. In any case, whether a school comes within the definition or not will matter little in terms of the attainment targets which children will aim for. The Secretary of State has asked the Welsh working group to recommend programmes of study and attainment targets which can cater for the wide variety of circumstances in

745
Wales. The targets which pupils will aim for will need to be appropriate for the individual's linguistic background. Nevertheless there has been concern that some secondary schools which are genuinely bilingual in character could be left outside the existing definition.
The definition is based on the number of foundation subjects taught wholly or partly in Welsh. ThQ Government's amendments do two things. First they take English as well as Welsh out of the reckoning. It is clearly logical that both should be excluded from consideration in the definition. Secondly, they include religious education among the subjects to be counted. Attention was drawn to this point in our Committee debate and it is clearly right, given the status of religious education in the basic school curriculum, that it should be included here.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in Committee would have brought four more secondary schools within the definition. These amendments would bring in three of those. It will also increase the number of primary schools defined as Welsh-speaking, since religious education is one of the subjects most frequently taught in Welsh.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his Amendment No. 38 would ask us to go a little further. It is of course always possible to argue in these cases that a cut-off point should be set a little higher or a little lower. It is in the end a matter of judgment. Nevertheless the Government's judgment is that it would be unfortunate to lower this particular cut-off point still further. There would, I think, be some substance in the argument that we were pitching the level too high if we were requiring more than half the subjects to be taught entirely in Welsh. But already the definition permits subjects to be counted if they are taught wholly or partly in Welsh. We have been asked from time to time—I know this is a matter which has exercised the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—whether we can elaborate on the meaning of "partly". In law the word "partly" has the same meaning as it does in ordinary speech. I think the most I could say is that where the part of a subject which was taught in Welsh was sufficiently significant that without it the duty to teach the national curriculum would not be properly discharged, the subject would clearly be counted for this purpose as being taught in Welsh.
I ought also to point out that the noble Lord's amendment as drafted would actually exclude schools which taught more than half the subjects in Welsh, as well as those which taught less than half. I know that that is not what he would have intended.
The Government's other concern is that we should not water down the definition of bilingual education in a way which would threaten the quality of what is already provided in these schools. Bilingual schools in Wales have a high reputation. They are schools which aspire to that status and need to be challenged to stretch themselves to respond to the substantial demand that exists for bilingual education. There is a clear risk that in making standards more accessible we could lower the expectations of what can be achieved by the best.
I should like to stress again that by incorporating Welsh in the foundation curriculum the Government are safeguarding its future in education in a way that has never been done before. I hope therefore that Amendment No. 38 will not be pressed when we come to it. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend.
2 a.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I hope to press the government to go a little further on this matter. If I can give the history of the definition of a Welsh-speaking school, its significance is that in a Welsh-speaking school alone is Welsh a core subject. It is a definition that meant that when the Bill was introduced in another place it required at least two foundation subjects to be taught partly or wholly in Welsh.
The Government have moved under various influences in a relatively short time to the definition that is now in the Bill that more than one-half of the foundation subjects other than Welsh should be taught wholly or partly in Welsh for the school to qualify as a Welsh-speaking school. Therefore the shift by the Government, which shows very considerable uncertainty on their side, has been considerable. I am anxious in this situation that we achieve a consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I had the opportunity yesterday of discussing the matter at some length with the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, Mr. Wyn Roberts, and we are very grateful to the Government for having moved as far as they have in Amendments Nos. 37 and 40. Perhaps I may refer in parenthesis to Amendment No. 40. I do not think that the concession of English is any concession at all. English is a core subject in all schools. Therefore, it does not come within the definition in any event. There is no concession.
If one looks at the provisions of Clause 3, the six foundation subjects are contained in subsection (2)(a). They are history, geography, technology, music, art and physical education. A foreign language is added at a certain stage. Amendment No. 40 would add religious instruction. We are faced therefore with eight subjects. To have more than half of those taught in Welsh means that five of those subjects have to be taught wholly or partly in Welsh. I believe that that is too high a proportion.
As I said during the Second Reading debate on this matter, there are Welsh-speaking areas where parents realise that we are living in a world of commerce, industry, the European Community and so on. Although they wish to preserve the Welsh culture, language and background, there is pressure from Welsh-speaking parents that their children, who are naturally Welsh-speaking, should be taught many subjects in English rather than Welsh. I do not want to see a build-up of pressure because too many subjects are required to be taught wholly or partly in Welsh. It would be better to have four subjects, which is enough of a challenge for most schools. That would be a sensible compromise.
I know that the Government have been uncertain as to where the line should be drawn. However, I beg them to look at the matter sensibly and in a detached

747
way. As regards the wording of the amendment, if the words "at least half" were included, that would meet the point. However, that is a technicality. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. Obviously we are a minority culture in a small segment of the British population and we can only hope to achieve results by persuasion. I hope that the Government will take a broad view of the matter and realise that their target is a bit too high. If they accept the spirit of the amendment, I believe that they will achieve a consensus on all sides of the House.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the Minister is right to give credit to the Government for the distance that they have come on this issue. A point which is not always made in debates on languages, and in particular on the protection of the indigenous languages of Great Britain, is that bilingualism is a very important matter. The acquisition of language by children may well be the key to the whole learning process. We need teachers in bilingual education, and the disciplines acquired in Wales over the past 25 to 30 years as concern has grown for the Welsh language are very important. I shall not go into that matter at this hour of the night. However, I lay down a marker for future discussion.
When teachers and representatives of educational interests came to us, they were very concerned that the Government might miss an opportunity. The amendments are raised as a matter of the second mile. Having gone the first mile, it would be such a little step to go further and to consolidate the gains. Reassurance is needed in Wales in the light of questions about the new language Act, and so on. It is essential that everyone should be seen to benefit from the steps taken thus far. If the Minister can go a bit further and accept the amendments, if only for examination, that will be very reassuring indeed.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I want to support my noble friend Lord Parry and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. We readily acknowledge that the Government have come some way to meet the case that we made out in Committee. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, Mr. Wyn Roberts, saw the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and myself yesterday afternoon and discussed our concern about the definition.
I am also grateful for the support we have received from other noble Lords during the Committee stage—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who has steadfastly supported our amendment.
I should like to say a word or two about Amendment No. 40 which is the amendment tabled by the Government. It is an important improvement on the definition in the Bill. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has pointed out, even under the revised definition it will continue to be necessary for more than one half of the foundation subjects —except that we can include religious knowledge as one of them—to be taught wholly or partly in Welsh before Welsh will be given a priority in curricular
748
terms similar to that of English, maths or science. So one will have to teach six subjects through the medium of Welsh. We want the Government to come one small step further by dropping the words "more than" from the definition.
There is widespread support in Wales for the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I should like to place on record that we have been consulted by the Parents' Association for Welsh Medium Education, the Welsh Nursery Education Movement, the Association of Headmasters for Welsh Medium Schools and Welsh Language Education Development Committee who are all anxious to secure a firmer place in the curriculum for the Welsh language.
It is the judgment of the people with whom we have been consulting that it would be helpful if the Government were to agree the small adjustment contained in Amendment No. 38. The Minister may say that that is a small adjustment. The adjustment means that henceforth the threshold will be five instead of six subjects. That is a small adjustment but a great deal could turn on that adjustment.
According to the calculations that have been prepared for me by the interested parties in Wales, the lower threshold of five subjects would mean that two more secondary schools in Gwynedd, four secondary schools in Dyfed, and three more schools in Powys would come within the definition if they were to teach two additional subjects in Welsh. That would be a substantial gain. It would be, as we see it, in tune with the developments in Welsh education over the past 20 years.
Since 17th December when the Government introduced the new definition of a Welsh school, increasing the threshold from two to six, the Minister of State at the Welsh Office has been going around Wales emphasising repeatedly that it is right that the definition of a Welsh-speaking school should present a challenge to the schools of Wales. I think that my noble friend Lord Parry and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would accept that a challenge would not be altogether a bad thing. But we would also say that a challenge should be within one's reach otherwise it introduces a gloomy prospect.
To teach two additional foundation subjects through Welsh, as our amendment would require, in the case of the nine schools to which I have just referred is in itself a considerable challenge. There is a great shortage of suitably qualified teachers who can teach through the medium of Welsh. There are also difficulties in producing a supply of Welsh language teaching material. That is the legacy of the neglect of the Welsh language by the authorities in this century. Therefore our amendment meets the challenge on which the Minister of State at the Welsh Office lays great store. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House why the Government want to make it yet more difficult for a school to attain the status of Welsh-speaking school by insisting on six subjects rather than five.
What is now required is that a definition should give encouragement to those schools which at present teach two or three foundation subjects in the medium of Welsh to continue with their good work. In our

749
judgment that would be achieved by reducing the threshold from six to five subjects. It would present a realistic challenge and an encouragement.
I want to make just two very brief comments on matters which have been mentioned by the Minister. I believe that he suggests that we may be making too much of a distinction between a core subject and a foundation subject. We are told that very little turns on it. If that is so, why is the distinction made in favour of English mathematics and science? Why are they given a priority in curricular terms? In any event, I think that we have shown that a great deal turns on the distinction.
It is said, and I am not quite certain whether the Minister said it, that the debate about the definition of a Welsh-speaking school is getting in the way of the Welsh subject working group. I should have thought that it would be a major contribution to the work of the subject group if Welsh had to be taught to standards equivalent to those obtaining in other core subjects.
Turning to my third and last point, I asked the Minister in Committee whether he would clarify the meaning of the phrase "taught partly in Welsh". We have had a clarification this morning from the Minister but I think that we need to study that clarification very carefully. We are anxious to know how in practice the department will interpret the phrase, because it can be interpreted narrowly or broadly. I am not sure whether the Minister can answer that question, and if not, I should be perfectly happy for him to write to my colleagues who have spoken in this debate. For example, if history is taught in Welsh in year one but not in other years, is history regarded as a subject taught partly in Welsh? Or if it is taught in years one, two and three but not in years four and five, will it be regarded as a subject taught partly in Welsh? I should be grateful if the Government could give a more precise interpretation than the interpretation that we have had to date.
Finally, we urge the Government to have another think and to reconsider the amendments—or reconsider a revised definition in the light of the arguments that were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, my noble friend Lord Parry and myself. If the Government could just move one step by dropping the words "more than" we would achieve consensus. It seems to me that it is on the basis of consensus that we can build in Wales.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for the partial warmth at least of the reception for what I have been able to propose this evening. With regard to the penultimate point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the definition of the word "partly", he posed some hypothetical situations on which he said he would welcome guidance. I shall be very happy to write to him with whatever additional guidance I can.
The Government have moved a very considerable way in the direction sought by all the noble Lords who have spoken this evening. We have agreed to move, rather contrary to the inflexibility of which my noble friend was accused earlier this evening. This is
750
one of several areas in the Bill where we have been alive to the arguments that have been put to us and have introduced amendments at least partially to meet the points that have been made.
I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—who has moved the amendment which would persuade us to go just a little further—will agree that half a loaf is better than no loaf and that we have reached a consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked us to go a little further to reach the consensus. We have moved our position, as he well recognises. I hope that on reflection he will therefore accept the Government's amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will not wish to press his. Accordingly, I commend the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("foundation subjects other than Welsh") and insert ("following subjects, namely—

(a) religious education; and

(b) the subjects other than English and Welsh which are foundation subjects in relation to pupils at the school;").

The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Dartmouth-Kingswear Floating Bridge Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past two o'clock.

  TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS: COMPENSATION
  TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS: COMPENSATION