Sitting of 9 December 1991

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

    Coal Mining (Productivity)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since 1983–84.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): The British Coal Corporation has achieved impressive improvements in productivity, which is now 105 per cent. above 1983–84 levels.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an impressive increase over that period of years? Can he say whether productivity in the British coal industry is beginning to catch up with productivity in the coal industries of our major competitors?
    Mr. Wakeham: Certainly the productivity of the coal industry has improved greatly over the years, but further improvement is still required. Although our productivity compares well with coal industries in Europe, it has some way to go before it is at the level of some of the coal industries outside Europe.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain has the most cost efficient coal industry in Europe, producing the cheapest coal, and that if it were in any one of the other 11 European countries there would be no question of its further contraction at this time? What is his view of the European Commission's proposals for reference pricing, which would allow Governments to support certain mines which produce coal for less than £50 per tonne?
    Mr. Wakeham: No communication has been sent to the British Government about European reference prices, so I have not had a chance to study those, but I pay full tribute to the improvement in productivity. What is important is that the British coal industry should achieve contracts with the generators in the next round of contracts due to start in April 1993. The size and volume of the contracts secured is the best safeguard for the future of the coal industry.

    National Grid Company
    Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now take the National Grid Company back into state ownership.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): No. The National Grid Company has played a central role in the development of the new competitive electricity market.
    Mr. Norris: I thank my hon. Friend for that entirely commendable answer. Was his calculation based on any assessment of what he thinks the cost of that renationalisation might be? Perhaps more important, given that it is Labour party policy, what impact would that have on the price of electricity for consumers?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To take the grid company back into public ownership would cost about £2 billion. I do not know how the money would be found, except from higher taxes or higher electricity prices, or both. Such a move would reimpose the dead hand of state control and political interference. That is Labour party policy, so taxpayers and electricity customers had better beware.
    Mr. Hague: Is my hon. Friend aware that although it would be wasteful, unnecessary and expensive to renationalise the National Grid Company, the company has incurred great unpopularity due to its proposals to build pylons through the finest parts of our rural landscape in Cleveland? May I welcome his decision to hold a public inquiry about these proposals and urge him to ensure that the inquiry is held in such a way, in such a place and at such a time that the concerns of many thousands of people about the proposals can be fully communicated?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know of the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers and I know that he has vigorously represented the concerns of his constituents. I wish to ensure that environmental considerations are properly taken into account. I can tell my hon. Friend that there will be a public inquiry into the proposal and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce that formally in due course.
    Mr. Dobson: Before the Minister starts to make criticisms of the cost to the taxpayer of buying back the grid company, may I remind him what happened when his right hon. Friend sold it? He so underpriced the shares that the taxpayer lost £1,200 million on the first afternoon of dealing. Since then, the directors have done little other than line their own pockets, award themselves enormous pay increases and indulge in dodgy share options, all of which has been done at the expense of the domestic customer, whose bill has gone up by 40 per cent. since privatisation was announced.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The taxpayer and the electricity customer have benefited in every way from privatisation and restructuring of the electricity supply market. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, for the first time, domestic electricity customers are protected by a price cap which ensures that, for the next three years, electricity prices will not rise by more than retail price inflation.

    North Sea (Capital Investment)
    Mr. Donald Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of capital investment in the North sea in 1990, and in the first half of 1991.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Capital investment in the North sea in 1990 was £3·5 billion. In the first half of 1991 it was £2·1 billion, which is some 30 per cent. higher than in the first half of 1990.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that continuity of orders is most important for manufacturers in my constituency who produce valves, pumps and pipes for the North sea oil industry? I welcome my hon. Friend's answer.
    Mr. Moynihan: In this industry as, no doubt, in the rest of the manufacturing sector in my hon. Friend's constituency, my hon. Friend has continued to work assiduously for his constituents. I believe that we shall have greater continuity of orders throughout the 1990s than we did in the 1980s, due to the maturing nature of offshore oil and gas work, including refurbishment, sub-sea systems and satellite developments.
    Mr. Wilson: In relation to the North sea, I am sure that the Minister will recall that during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election, various hints and half-promises were given about the transfer of the petroleum exploration division jobs to Aberdeen. We understand that consultants have now been appointed, so can the Minister give us an assurance about the timetable for those inquiries? Will he also guarantee that there will be an announcement this side of the general election? The Government may believe that once the Kincardine and Deeside election was out on the road—somewhat unsuccessfully for the Government—those promises might be out of sight and out of mind, but they are still in the mind of the Opposition.
    Mr. Moynihan: We are seeking tenders from a range of consultants to review the location of the petroleum engineering directorate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce who is to carry out that review as soon as the consultants have been chosen.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 1990 was an all-time record year for activity in the North sea, with the drilling of 224 exploration and appraisal wells resulting in 16 significant finds? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that 1991 has been a vibrant and exciting year in the North sea? On the eve of discussions at Maastricht, will my hon. Friend confirm that such activity in the North sea enables this country to provide 82 per cent. of Europe's indigenous oil?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can confirm those three points. If company intentions on wells to be drilled, as recorded in a survey by my Department, are realised, the total of such wells in 1992 could yet again be extremely high indeed, as high as 220.
    Mr. Hood: I welcome the capital investment, but will the Minister join me in condemning those oil companies which use the Economic League to blacklist workers and potential workers? Surely the best way to look after the industry is to stop the nonsense of blacklisting people simply because they belong to a union or for whatever other reason?
    Mr. Moynihan: I think that is it is the hon. Gentleman who is talking nonsense on this occasion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on many occasions
    594
    in the House, the Department is more than happy to receive representations from the hon. Gentleman or anyone else about specific cases of blacklisting.

    Straw
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research is being undertaken into the use of straw as a renewable source of energy.
    Mr. Moynihan: The Department of Energy has funded research and development into the use of straw as a renewable source of energy within its biofuels programme.
    The results of this work were disseminated most recently at a workshop in Peterborough on 7 November 1991 which we jointly sponsored with the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that about 7 million tonnes of surplus straw is produced each year, much of it from the cereal-growing area of East Anglia in my constituency, does my hon. Friend agree that it is an important source of energy? The ban on straw burning will come into effect in 1993, so does my hon. Friend agree that we in East Anglia have a ready market for such initiatives?
    Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In particular, the ban on burning straw in the field from 1993 could stimulate the use of straw as a fuel. That practice has already been very successful—as, for example, in straw combustion for space heating, which was demonstrated at Woburn abbey. There is good potential for straw as a fuel source, so long as we continue the important research and development programme that we are currently commissioning.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I congratulate the Minister on his engagement? It is about time. The Minister ought to come off it, though. He is under instructions from the Secretary of State. Anything that the Government can burn to destroy the mining industry, they have done and will do. If it is not gas, it is oil. If it is not oil, it is straw. If it is not straw, it is imported coal from foreign lands. Why do the Government not come off it? We in the coal fields know what is going on. The Secretary of State ought to say, through the Minister, that the Government will back off. Let us keep the mining industry.
    Mr. Moynihan: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind opening remarks. I was certainly under no instructions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in that respect. As to the hon. Gentleman's other points, he will be the first to accept that straw is very low in sulphur and will reduce acid rain when it is substituted for—or, as the hon. Gentleman would no doubt hope, co-fired with—fossil fuels.
    Mr. Dickens: Conservative Members also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his engagement. We are very pleased to hear about it.
    If it is true that 7 million tonnes of straw are wasted each year, why is straw so expensive to horse riding, racing, and show jumping stables? If straw is used as a fuel, will that not make it much more expensive to the horse fraternity?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will know the importance which needs to be attached to transport costs

    595
    when considering the economics of straw. For that reason, straw as a fuel is likely to be most efficient and economical when used in heating close to the point of production. That is due not just to its comparatively high transport costs but to its low density.

    Nuclear Generation
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of Nuclear Electric to discuss the future of the nuclear generating industry.
    Mr. Wakeham: I regularly meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric to discuss a variety of matters.
    Dr. Howells: Whatever one might think about the virtues or otherwise of nuclear energy, clearly it is a viable source of base load electricity for the future. However, it requires long-term thinking, in terms of the industry's future funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is too large an area of expertise and of excellence in many ways to be allowed to rely simply on the vagaries of the open market?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government have made it clear that they will review the future of this country's nuclear power industry in 1994. By that time, we want to see a future which demonstrates that nuclear power can be produced safely and economically. Today, Nuclear Electric published its half-year results, which show continuing and encouraging progress towards Nuclear Electric's aims. Its output is up by 13 per cent. compared with the same period last year, its market share is up from 17 to 19 per cent., and its operating profits are up by 50 per cent.—entirely reflecting higher output and tighter cost control.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Nuclear Electric's half-year results confirm a long-term future for nuclear power? It is not important that we keep together the teams that will ensure that the nuclear power construction industry will continue in the future?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I am delighted that the Sizewell B project is being built on time and within cost. That is a testament to Nuclear Electric's management in respect of that project, which is a major achievement by British industry.
    Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware of the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, which employs up to 200 people in my constituency. Can he give an assurance that if the Magnox reactors are indeed approaching the end of their days and Trawsfynydd has no continuing nuclear future, the Government will accept responsibility for finding jobs for those who depend on the industry? Such responsibility has been taken in other areas where a major rundown of significant employers has taken place.
    Mr. Wakeham: I think that we must deal with such matters stage by stage. First, we must satisfy the nuclear installations inspectorate that the reactor is safe; it will not reopen until that has been done. The same applies to any other Magnox stations whose safety is being reviewed by the NII. We shall see what happens after that.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the nuclear power programme were abandoned completely, 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide would be pumped into the atmosphere every year? That is one thing that we should avoid. If my right hon. Friend holds a review in 1994, he may find that not much of the industry is left by then, because many of the teams will be broken up.
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend has said: nuclear power certainly makes a valuable contribution to the environment by curbing carbon dioxide emissions.
    My hon. Friend mentioned 1994. That is the year in which the Sizewell B project will come on stream, and will start to produce electricity. I feel that that is a good time at which to review the implications for the future, and I very much hope that the expertise that now exists will not be lost to the industry.
    Mr. Morgan: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, notwithstanding the encouraging programme that he has just reported, Nuclear Electric's directors could not continue to pay the £1 million per day that it costs to continue the Sizewell B construction project if they were not covered by a letter of comfort from the Treasury, without which the company would be technically insolvent?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that in 1994, when the review is completed, that safeguard protecting the company's directors against the threat of unlawful trading while technically insolvent should be lifted? Will he also tell us when he expects the nuclear levy, which is still rising, to start to fall in the light of this morning's results from Nuclear Electric?
    Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Nuclear Electric was formed out of the old Central Electricity Generating Board and has remained a Government-owned project throughout. It is therefore entirely proper for the directors to be given proper assurances by Government about the funding of a project undertaken on behalf of Government.
    The nuclear levy is set to decline over the 1990s, and at present runs only until 1998. The calculation is quite complicated, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. The actual amount of cash is not rising; it is the relation of that cash to the output of electricity and, therefore, the area that must be covered, which make the difference to the percentage. [Interruption.] The percentage went up last year, but the amount of the levy is still set to fall over the 1990s.

    Sizewell B
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of construction of the Sizewell B nuclear power station.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to say that the Sizewell B project is progressing on time and to cost.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that all those involved in the work on the power station, many of whom are constituents of mine, deserve great credit for the fact that it is proceeding so well? Does not that provide a welcome contrast with the bad old days of the 1950s, 1960s

    597
    and 1970s, when all too often the construction of power stations—nuclear and conventional alike—fell years behind?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. The project remains eight months ahead of the committed 72-month programme. That reflects very well on the management and work force concerned. It contrasts markedly with similar past projects which often suffered from appalling industrial relations and were sometimes years late.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of North sea oil reserves and how long it is anticipated they will last; and what were the corresponding estimates five years ago.
    Mr. Moynihan: My Department's central estimate of reserves remaining in existing discoveries at 31 December 1985 was 1,230 million tonnes. The corresponding estimate at 31 December 1990, after production of 549 million tonnes in the intervening period, was 1,195 million tonnes. These estimates confirm that the United Kingdom will remain an important oil producer.
    Mr. French: Do not the figures reveal that those independent oil analysts who, in the early and middle 1980s, forecast a substantial depletion of United Kingdom resources in the early 1990s got it wrong? Is not the position that the United Kingdom will remain a very substantial oil producer until well into the next century?
    Mr. Moynihan: It is certainly the case that, due to the substantial improvements in the technical ability to recover oil, in particular by means of enhanced oil recovery techniques, many of the past estimates have proved inaccurate. Many of the reserves that were not then technically capable of being produced economically will come on stream and, in my view, will ensure that we are a major oil producer until well into the next century.
    Mr. Doran: As well as North sea oil, we have also been fortunate enough to discover gas in the North sea. Can the Minister provide similar figures for the amount of gas discovered in the North sea and an estimate of the life of our gas supplies? That issue is the subject of debate, given the recent Office of Fair Trading report into British Gas. I should also be interested to hear the Minister's views on the Government's policy regarding gas imports. I noticed that last week permission was given for gas exports. Will the Minister make a statement on that issue, too?
    Mr. Moynihan: In 1990, gas produced from the United Kingdom continental shelf increased to 50 billion cu m, compared with 45 billion cu m in 1989. That included gas used by operators for drilling and production operations. As for gas imports and exports, United Kingdom continental shelf gas reserves should also be capable of supplying the expanding United Kingdom gas market well into the next century. The Government's objective is to work towards freer trade in gas throughout Europe. For that to happen, we need to be able to export United Kingdom continental shelf gas. The European gas market, which is dominated by large and often state-controlled monopolies which shun competition, needs to be liberalised.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that we need to ensure that we should have as a priority the conservation of resources and energy efficiency, whatever the amount of reserves of oil and gas, what progress has been made by the Department and the Treasury in discussions with the European Community on the value added tax harmonisation talks with a view to the introduction of a lower level of VAT for environmentally friendly technologies which conserve resources?
    Mr. Moynihan: I will happily refer the hon. Gentleman's latter point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Energy conservation and environmental pressures are rightly being placed on oil and gas producers in the North sea. A very high priority is placed on both issues. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his concerns are well reflected in all the discussions between operators and Ministers.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest danger to the North sea would be an incoming Labour Government, who would seek to shackle the oil and gas companies by imposing new controls and high taxes?
    Mr. Moynihan: The answer is yes.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the Government's support for combined heat and power schemes.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government fully recognise the environmental and energy efficiency benefits of combined heat and power. The Energy Efficiency Office in my Department continues to promote the wider use of the technology under its best practice programme. Interest in CHP is at a high level and the prospects for CHP in the 1990s are excellent.
    Mr. Vaz: In view of Leicester Energy Limited's continued interest in the establishment of a combined heat and power scheme in Leicester, will the Minister give his wholehearted support and instruct his officials to give their wholehearted co-operation to Leicester Energy Limited in the tremendous efforts that it is making to promote that scheme?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject. He will know that my Department gave a grant for a feasibility study into large-scale CHP in Leicester, but the scheme did not proceed. The privatisation and restructuring of the electricity industry have offered new opportunities for independent electricity-generating schemes, particularly those that combine heat generation with electricity generation. That will assist those in Leicester, if they decide to revive the scheme, and those elsewhere.
    Mr. Rost: Under the Electricity Act 1989, the regulator is directed to monitor the progress of combined heat and power. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Office of Electricity Regulation the complaints of the Combined Heat and Power Association that existing regulations contain barriers to the progress of combined heat and power, which should be removed?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know that the Combined Heat and Power Association recently submitted a report to OFFER pointing out some institutional and administrative barriers that it should like to be tackled. That is being considered, with our support, by the Director-General of Electricity Supply.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister cannot fail to acknowledge what has been common knowledge in the combined heat and power industry—that the major block is electricity prices. Despite the so-called new market that the Government have created, they have never recognised the price differences between electricity from combined heat and power plants and that from conventional generation. When will they act instead of saying at every Question Time how much they are in favour of combined heat and power?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The combined heat and power industry was held up for many years because it was in the hands of a state monopoly. We have ended that and have given unprecedented new opportunities for independent generators, particularly those that employ combined heat and power technology.

    Oil-related Fabrication Sector
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the implications of the single European market post-1992 upon the United Kingdom oil-related fabrication sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moynihan: United Kingdom companies that have a good track record and are competitive will continue to win orders. It is up to United Kingdom industry to demonstrate and promote its strengths—its productivity, its advanced capabilities, its technological edge, its reliability and its safety record, all of which are vital ingredients of a bid package.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful for that reply. I am sure that, from the Minister's knowledge of and visits to the area, he will agree that companies such as Highlands Fabricators at Nigg, which has an excellent work force, a good track record, is competitive and highly skilled and has diversified on site, are well placed to take advantage of the single market. Will he recognise the persistent anxiety and doubts of United Kingdom-based fabrication yards about indirect subsidies finding their way to yards based in some of our main European competitors? Will he continue to press our interests on that front?
    Mr. Moynihan: On the former point, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that all of the most recent fabrication contracts have been awarded to United Kingdom yards. For many of the reasons that he gave, the contract for a Shell Sole Pit compression platform has been awarded to Highfab. The Offshore Supplies Office will continue to play an important role in promoting fair commercial opportunity in all oil and gas markets and in supporting EC initiatives for the creation of open and commercially fair markets.
    Mr. Moss: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on securing a 40 per cent. increase in the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office for next year? It will total about £59 million, which compares favourably with the
    600
    measly £3 million that Labour spent in its last year in office. May I extend the grateful thanks of Mr. and Mrs. Emery of Eye in my constituency, whom I visited this morning and who have just had their home insulated under the Government's home energy efficiency scheme?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am delighted to accept those congratulations, not least on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who have spearheaded the campaign.

    Oil and Gas (Irish Sea)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest situation in respect of oil and gas exploration in and around the Irish sea.
    Mr. Moynihan: Since the beginning of 1990, a total of 13 exploration and four appraisal wells have been drilled in that part of the United Kingdom sector of the Irish sea generally known as the Manx basin. In addition, four exploration wells have been drilled in surrounding onshore areas of Great Britain. Four significant gas discoveries and one significant oil discovery, all offshore, have been announced resulting from this activity.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree about the urgent need to exploit the resources of the Irish sea, in the hope that there will soon be a Government who will not dissipate the revenues from such exploration, as happened so tragically in regard to the North sea? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, which is urgently needed on Merseyside, that every effort will be made to ensure that contracts for Irish sea exploration are given to firms in the north-west of England in general and to Merseyside in particular?
    Mr. Moynihan: I have no doubt that companies in that area which have proven expertise will be in a strong position to win contracts on merit.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many jobs are both directly and indirectly supported by the opencast coal sector.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no precise figure available about employment in the opencast coal industry, but the number is likely to be of the order of 17,000.
    Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend will know of the considerable worry in the Radcliffe part of my constituency about the prospect of an opencast coal mine being developed there. That matter will be determined by the local council a week on Thursday. Although jobs are always welcome, particularly at this time, does my hon. Friend agree that the environmental impact on the locality is also important, because a safe environment will protect the area for future generations?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has vigorously represented the interests of views of those who may be affected by this project. I agree that there must be a balance between the need to exploit economic coal reserves and the need to pay close attention to any possible environmental impact. That is done through the planning

    601
    system and the fact that appeals are heard not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by the Department of the Environment.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that there will be fewer jobs in opencast mining as a direct result of the Government's policies? Will he confirm that, for example, opencast mines and jobs in Ayrshire are threatened by the Government's proposals to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity? Will the hon. Gentleman explain to miners and other people in Ayrshire how the Government can try to persuade them to vote for Tories in marginal seats when Government policies, because of their privatisation obsessions, lead directly to job losses in Ayrshire?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. Jobs in the opencast sector are at risk from the vendetta against opencast mining conducted by the Labour party. We know that a successful deep-mine sector and a successful opencast sector are complementary. We need the output from both for blending purposes.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is not opencast coal a vital national resource in the same way as sand and gravel in my constituency are? Does my hon. Friend agree that, except in areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of scientific interest, our mineral resources must be exploited?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend that an important balance must be struck. Provided that environmental concerns are met and are specifically addressed in the planning process, we believe that output from the opencast sector must be blended with output from the deep-mine sector. Indeed, the coal industry as a whole would be put at risk through premature shutdown of the opencast sector.
    Mr. Dobson: If the Department of Energy believes that 17,000 people are employed directly or indirectly in the opencast coal sector, why did the Secretary of State for Employment recently say that 40,000 people were employed there? Who is right?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The figure that I gave was of those who are directly or indirectly affected by the opencast sector. The figure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment gave included those who might be affected in other ways by premature closure.

    Wave Energy
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the level of investment since 1979 into wave energy research; and what initiatives he has undertaken to promote its use.
    Mr. Moynihan: My Department has invested £17 million since 1979–80 on wave energy research, including £900,000 for an experimental shoreline wave energy project on the Scottish island of Islay, which is the most technologically advanced of its type in the world. The review of wave energy currently under way is due to report early next year.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which is most impressive. Can he give the House more details about the important review of wave energy and will he also tell us which other projects it will cover?
    Mr. Moynihan: Yes. The current review includes a detailed, technical and commercial assessment of the leading wave energy devices ranging from large offshore to shoreline systems, including Professor Salter's duck, the National Engineering Laboratory's breakwater device, the Bristol cylinder, Coventry polytechnic's circular clam and other devices. The review has covered four main areas of work—wave resource modelling, capital costing, availability assessment and economic modelling.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Mr. Rost: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the Combined Heat and Power Association about the barriers to the wider use of combined heat and power; and what action he proposes.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations from the Combined Heat and Power Association. I am aware that the association has provided a review paper to OFFER on the perceived barriers to the development of CHP, and the issues raised are primarily matters for OFFER.
    Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main barrier to CHP is that producers have to sell their electricity to the pool and then buy it back at a much higher—an uplift price? Is not that regulatory nonsense, and what is my hon. Friend going to do about it?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly pronounce on alternative measures and I think that my hon. Friend will be pleased with the outcome.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Legal Profession (Recruitment)
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the Bar Council and the Law Society concerning the impact on the effective operation of the legal system of the quality of recruitment to the legal professions.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Neither the Bar Council nor the Law Society has raised with me the question of the quality of recruitment to the legal profession.
    Mr. Jessel: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I could not hear as an hon. Friend was standing up.
    The Attorney-General: Neither the Law Society nor the Bar Council has raised with me the question of the quality of recruitment to the legal profession. I think that I put it the other way round last time.
    Mr. Jessel: Whatever the quality of recruitment of barristers and solicitors, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the deep weakness in the British legal system in that justice is readily available to the poor who can get legal aid and to the rich who can easily afford it anyway but that to a large proportion of people in between it often seems barely accessible and yet they have to pay taxes to provide justice for others? Is not that in itself an injustice, and should Government and Parliament tolerate it?
    The Attorney-General: I am well aware of the widespread anxiety about the thresholds of eligibility for legal aid. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor expects to issue a consultation paper next year on the financial conditions for legal aid in criminal proceedings. He has already done so in respect of civil non-matrimonial legal aid and is considering the responses to that. His purpose is to try to target legal aid on individual need and he continues to seek ways—as we all must—to reduce the cost of litigation, both criminal and civil.
    Mr. Fraser: I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that it is important that women, blacks and other ethnic minorities, and working-class people should be able to get into the legal professions. Is he aware that at the moment there is great difficulty in obtaining discretionary grants for professional training and for the final qualifications for both professions? Will he discuss with his Cabinet colleagues whether the discretionary grants for vocational training for the professions might be made mandatory or whether the training and enterprise councils might provide money to help those with little means to train for entry into the professions?
    The Attorney-General: I very much agree with the desirability of the objective expressed by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his question. As for the remainder, I shall draw the suggestion to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Attorney-General: The Metropolitan police are conducting a major investigation into alleged war crimes. It is too soon to say when a decision whether to prosecute will be taken.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the House is united in abhorring war crimes—and no doubt there were many—but that the House will want to consider early-day motion 275 which draws attention to some articles in the Evening Standard and elsewhere which remind us that mistakes have been made? We hope that we do not make any here.
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of the article to which my hon. Friend refers, which involves a case that was tried in Israel, and of the fact that, apparently, KGB records recently made available in Moscow suggest that there was mistaken identification. That is one of the matters that feature in any such consideration, and would always feature with a court.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Attorney-General confirm that in many of the war crimes cases now under investigation in this country the issue of identity does not arise? How many cases are being investigated? Bearing in mind the urgency of the matter now, after so many years, when does he believe that action will be taken?
    The Attorney-General: Naturally, each of the cases referred to in the report by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers has been and is being investigated. I cannot give a reliable date as to when the Metropolitan police report in the case of the first matters will be available, but
    604
    I have no reason to suppose that it is not being prosecuted with all celerity by the dedicated team that the Commissioner has made available.
    Sir John Stokes: My right hon. and learned Friend knows how highly I regard his judgment, but is he still satisfied that it is wise to go ahead with the charges after all the mistakes have been made, and after such a long time has passed? Will not the whole matter cause nothing but trouble and tears to him, his Department and the Government?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind remarks at the beginning of his question. I have to be loyal to the decision of Parliament, which passed the War Crimes Act 1991. All those involved in the prosecuting process will approach their task in a fair arid proper way, as the House would expect.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement about job vacancies in the Crown prosecution service.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Over the 12 months to 31 October this year, 209 lawyers have joined the Crown prosecution service and vacancies have fallen from 17·4 to 10·8 per cent. Vacancies for administrative staff are currently 5·3 per cent.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Solicitor-General share my concern that years after the CPS was established, vacancies still exist among its professional staff? There has not been a single year when the CPS has been fully staffed. Does not the Solicitor-General accept the views of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which conducted an inquiry into the CPS, that it is now time for a full inquiry into why the CPS is not up to its full complement?
    Also, when does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to fill the post of Director of Public Prosecutions?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman is less well informed about the Crown prosecution service than he was a year or so ago. He certainly underestimates the effective recruiting campaigns that the CPS has carried out during the past year and he seems to have ignored the fact that, in order to carry out its work as well as possible, its total manpower requirement has been increased. Consequently, the figures do not appear to have risen as much as they actually have. The CPS has been recruiting successfully.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any temporary difficulties of manpower in the Crown prosecution service will not in any way affect prosecutions that may be necessary as a result of the discovery of potential fraud in the Maxwell case? Will he confirm that the possible political connections of any individuals will not be taken into account in relation to any prosecutions that may be necessary?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the investigation of anything to do with the Maxwell empire is being undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office. I can certainly confirm that that investigation will be carried out and any decisions taken without fear or favour, affection or ill will.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people in this country find it almost inconceivable to understand how such a crook as Maxwell could have got away with what he did for so long without the Crown prosecution service being in any way involved? Is not it necessary to recognise that in future the Crown prosecution service should be far more willing to listen to allegations and to investigate them?
    The Solicitor-General: It is important in these matters to remember where the responsibilities lie. The Crown prosecution service is not an investigating body. Investigation in these areas is carried out by the police. The Serious Fraud Office has powers of investigation, and it is exercising them.

    House of Fraser
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement setting out the action which he has taken since the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry about the circumstances relating to its consideration of the House of Fraser issue.
    The Solicitor-General: The Metropolitan police have been making inquiries. Their preliminary report on this matter has been received and is under consideration by the Crown prosecution service.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Select Committee has made serious allegations about interference in its important work, is not it worrying that it has taken quite so long to make any progress in dealing with its complaint? Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many people are genuinely mystified by what appears to be the astonishing delays—in some cases of years—in dealing with issues of any sort relating to the activities of Mr. Fayed?
    The Solicitor-General: We are certainly not talking about delays of years. The preliminary report was received within the time notified to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in an answer to his recent question. That preliminary report on a matter by no means without complexities and evidential difficulties is being carefully considered.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    East Timor
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Indonesia to discuss assistance to East Timor.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): May I begin by paying tribute to the long and distinguished career of the late Baroness Hart of South Lanark? No one in the developing world or the ODA will forget her great contribution.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is: no, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: As chairman of the Labour party, I thank the right hon. Lady for her tribute to my good friend Dame Judith Hart. She was a former chairman of the
    606
    Labour party and she performed noble duty both to her party and to millions of people from the dependent territories.
    I suggest that the best aid that could be given to East Timor would be an arms embargo on Indonesia until an independent United Nations inquiry has been held into the slaughter of many defenceless men, women and children by the Indonesian army.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will probably already know that we do not permit the sale of arms or other equipment that could be used internally against the people; but I fully agree that it is necessary to see the report of the commission of inquiry. I gather that a draft will be presented to President Suharto at the end of this week. That inquiry is not being carried out by the military or the police, and when we see what it reports, we will decide, together with our EC partners, what to do next.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members who remember Lady Hart will wish to be associated with her tribute to her?
    Is my right hon. Friend further aware that she is supported by our party in being circumspect about jumping to conclusions before the official inquiry report to which she referred is received? Is not this a particularly suitable case for the development of an EC attitude?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.
    Together with our EC partners, on 13 November we condemned the violence against the people in East Timor and urged the Indonesian Government to ensure that the Indonesian armed forces and police stopped using violence and that those responsible for these acts were brought to trial. On 3 December, the European Community repeated its condemnation and called on the Indonesian authorities to respond to the serious concerns expressed by the international community. We supported the demands for a thorough and credible investigation by independent and impartial experts.
    I believe that we are right to wait until the independent report has been received, but I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that all EC partners who have worked well together on this are carefully considering future relations in the light of what appears to have happened, as shown on the video which so many of us have seen and which the families of the people involved have had to witness in their suffering.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I thank the right hon. Lady and hon. Members for their condolences on the loss of Dame Judith Hart. We are all very saddened that she has died.
    I am very puzzled by the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). She continues to maintain that we do not allow the export of arms and equipment that are likely to be used against civil populations. However, in a letter to Canon Michael Doe, who wrote to her, the right hon. Lady said:
    "it is not practical to monitor their use once they have reached their destinations."
    How does she square her answer to my hon. Friend with her letter to Canon Michael Doe?
    It is incredible that both the Minister and the Prime Minister whitewash the inquiry by describing it as independent. In no way can it be described as independent when the chairman of that inquiry is a former general who is responsible for some of the worst atrocities against the

    607
    East Timorese. There are continuing violations of human rights against the East Timorese while that farce of an inquiry is being carried out. The Government should freeze supplies of military equipment and aid to the Indonesians forthwith.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not prepared to take action until the facts have been established. There is absolutely no whitewash as far as this Government are concerned, and nor will there be. Right from the beginning of that terrible saga, I have been absolutely determined that the United Nations and any other body that it may be necessary to involve in order to get to the bottom of this and to resolve matters for the people of East Timor—they have gone on since 1975—should have our support. We have told the United Nations Secretary-General of our support for his efforts to resolve the problems in East Timor. On this latest apparent atrocity—I see it as that; I have seen the film as much as anybody has—I have to be absolutely certain of the facts before I take action. I cannot act without facts.
    Mr. Alexander: My right hon. Friend's measured response will be widely welcomed in the House and elsewhere. Although all of us are deeply concerned to know precisely what happened in East Timor, will she bear it in mind that, since Indonesia took over East Timor a few years ago, there has been considerable development of the infrastructure in that country, and that, although no one condones that massacre, we must know what has been going on before we adopt the language that we heard from the Labour party?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said a moment ago, I will wait until I have the facts, but I have already undertaken to review co-operation with Indonesia in the light of the response by the Indonesian Government. My right hon. Friend the Earl of Caithness called in the Indonesian ambassador and expressed our grave concern. We have taken action—indeed, led action—at every possible turn, but we must establish without doubt exactly what is going on.

    OECD
    Mr. Shore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Overseas Development Ministers of OECD countries on aid matters over the last month.
    Mrs. Chalker: I met all EC Overseas Development Ministers present at the Development Council meeting in Brussels on 28 November, and most other Overseas Development Ministers at the OECD joint ministerial and development meeting and the OECD development assistance committee high-level meeting in Paris from 2 to 4 December.
    Mr. Shore: I thank the Minister for that reply. It has been made plain that Government policy on aid will be
    608
    increasingly conditioned by the performance of recipient governments in terms of human rights and observance of democratic practices, and I wholly welcome that. Have the principles of United Kingdom policy been discussed with colleagues in the OECD and, if so, with what response and result?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have had discussions on that matter both in the European Community Development Ministers' meeting the Thursday before last and at the OECD. As a result of those two meetings, we now have resolutions that support the line that we have consistently taken—that aid will be dependent on the trends shown by all countries—and I mean "all countries"—with regard to their respect for the rule of law, human rights, the development of good government practices and of an independent judiciary, and the following of sound economic policies. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the whole aid community is firmly behind those principles.

    Global Environmental Facility
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role he sees for the global environmental facility in helping developing countries with their environmental problems.
    Mrs. Chalker: The role of the global environment facility is to help developing countries act to reduce threats to the global environment. It will finance costs that are justified only by their global benefits. It will play a key role in helping to finance responsibilities accepted by developing countries under the conventions on climate change and biological diversity, which we hope will be agreed over the coming months.
    Mr. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that excellent facility is not supported from the aid budget? Does she agree that it should be reinforced and strengthened so that the developing countries can play their full part in dealing with the world's acute environmental problems?
    Mrs. Chalker: I can, indeed, assure my hon. Friend that the £40·3 million for the GEF is additional to and separate from the development aid budget. In addition, there is up to a further £9·4 million for the Montreal protocol fund. We very much hope that that money will help many countries to phase out CFCs much earlier than they might otherwise have done.

Rail Crash (Severn Tunnel)
3.31 pm
Sir John Cope(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the rail crash in the Severn Tunnel on Saturday last.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): At about 10.35 on Saturday morning 7 December, the 07.00 hrs sprinter diesel train from Portsmouth to Cardiff collided with the rear of the 08.30 hrs InterCity 125 train from London, Paddington to Cardiff inside the Severn tunnel, about one and a quarter miles from the Newport end.
I understand from British Rail that the impact was less severe than it might have been, since both trains were on the move at the time, but some 90 passengers and the driver of the Portsmouth train were injured. Eight people, including the driver, were still in hospital this morning.
The House will wish to join me in expressing our sympathy with those who were injured and our hopes for their speedy recovery. I also pay tribute to the professionalism of the emergency services, who naturally faced difficulties in getting to the injured and in getting them out of the tunnel for treatment. The response by all involved was magnificent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
British Rail has accepted responsibility for the accident and will be starting its own internal inquiry tomorrow. I understand that the signalling and axle counter system, which is used to detect the location of trains in the tunnel, was not working normally at the time. An emergency procedure was in operation which should have ensured that only one train was in the tunnel. There are a number of questions to investigate, which may take some time. British Rail will make its results available to the Health and Safety Executive.
A principal inspecting officer from the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate visited the scene of the accident. After consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, I shall be appointing an inspector to carry out an inquiry into the accident under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. The inquiry will be wholly independent. The report will be published, and I have asked the inspector to report to me as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile, British Rail will, of course, take immediate corrective action should the need for it emerge during any of these investigations. At this stage, the cause of the accident is not yet clear, and we cannot reach any conclusions until all the evidence is available.
Sir John Cope: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement and, on behalf of my constituents, join him in sending sympathy to those who were injured in the accident. In addition, I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his well deserved tributes to the emergency services.
It is peculiarly frightening to have an accident in a tunnel, but that should not obscure the fact the Severn tunnel in particular, and the railways in general, have a very good accident record and that travelling by rail is safer than travelling by road. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a bit more about communications? These days, we should expect the drivers of all trains to have two-way communication at all times with the signal box and those who are in control of the track. Does my
610
right hon. and learned Friend think that such communication would have contributed to avoiding the accident?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. He is right to emphasise the general safety level of the railways, which compares favourably with all other modes of transport. Tragically, some 5,000 people die on our roads every year, whereas only about 84 died on the railways during 1990.
As for communication, there is no way of knowing whether a cab radio would have made any difference in this accident, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable that cab radios should be fitted into locomotives and multiple unit fleets. Already, some 60 per cent. of British Rail locomotive and multiple unit fleets have some such radio installed. All regional railways will have such radios installed by June next year.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the Welsh entrance to the tunnel is in Caldicot in the Newport, East constituency? Local people there have been worried for some time about safety factors which affect the tunnel. For them, last Saturday was an accident that had been waiting to happen. I wrote to Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, over 12 months ago expressing my constituents' concern. I also tabled early-day motion 186 in the last Session of Parliament, which was supported by no fewer than 39 hon. Members, calling for lighting throughout the tunnel and for closed circuit television. Certainly those facilities would have helped in the evacuation of the injured last Saturday. The Severn tunnel is a wonderful structure, which has served the travelling public well for over 100 years, but it is now badly in need of modernisation.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that the Severn tunnel has served the travelling public extremely well for many years. Indeed, as far as I am aware, there have not been any previous accidents of this nature within the tunnel. I was interested in the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. Clearly the inquiry which is to take place will take into account any comments made by the hon. Gentleman which may be relevant to the cause of the accident or to reducing the prospects of any future incidents.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that on the train were constituents from not only the Portsmouth area but Southampton. We are gravely worried that a series of accidents seem to have taken place in which trains simply run into each other. Surely it must be tantamount to neglect of the safety of our railways if we do not spend more and more money on a system which can give early warning. Aircraft have transponder systems which locate the aircraft exactly so that everyone for several miles around knows where the aircraft is. Surely research and development can provide similar high technology for railway cabs. It is all very well to have two-way communication, but we need some high technology which will prevent trains from slamming into the back of each other.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that British Rail needs to use available modern technology to reduce further the incidence of accidents involving loss of life and injury on the railways. He will be pleased to know that the latest report of the railway inspectorate on railway safety

611
showed a modest reduction in the number of collisions between passenger trains in 1990 compared with the previous year. I know that that will be welcome to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Alex Carlile: May I join in the Secretary of State's praise for the emergency services, which acted magnificently, and also in his best wishes to those who were injured? This accident, and the collapse of a railway bridge within the recent past in Wales, together with declining standards and quality of service, raise serious questions about the competence of British Rail's management of the rail network in Wales. Will the Secretary of State please ask the chairman of British Rail to report to him as a matter of urgency on the state of British Rail in Wales an on its financing? Will he also ask the chairman to prepare—at long last—a strategic plan for co-ordinated rail services in Wales, as those services are in a poor state?
Mr. Rifkind: We naturally expect British Rail to attach the greatest importance to safety considerations. That is also the view of the chairman of British Rail, and is matched by the resources that the Government make available. The resources available for safety have increased from £140 million to about £200 million for the current year, and are likely to continue at at least that level. It would be unwise for the hon. and learned Gentleman or for anyone else to draw conclusions about what might have been the cause of this accident. We do not have the information today which would entitle us to draw any conclusions of that kind.
Mr. David Martin: May I associate myself with my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about the injuries of people on the train? May I also welcome the inquiry that he has announced? As the cause of the accident is not clear, will he deplore the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and others who are already speculating on the causes of the accident and criticising the Government for not investing enough in the railways? That is always the knee-jerk reaction of Opposition Members, who say that we are not spending enough money, without saying precisely how they would improve situations such as this.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has a regrettable tendency not to bother with the facts, but to jump to conclusions in the immediate aftermath of any accident, before any of the facts are known to him or to anyone else.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Without going into matters which might be the subject of the inquiry, can the Secretary of State confirm, first, that there have been recurrent problems with the signalling at either end of the line, as a result of the damp; and, secondly, the system in case of an emergency and a red light was for the relevant engine drivers physically to get out of the cab and use a telephone near the tunnel? Although that will be remedied by next June, is it not somewhat antiquated that such a system has persisted for so long?
Mr. Rifkind: I said in my orginal response that there was a failure in the signalling system at the time, and that is why the emergency procedure was in operation. I agreed with the other hon. Member who mentioned radios in
612
cabs—they are being introduced into all new cabs and into existing cabs. All regional railways will have such equipment by June next year.
Mr. Ian Grist: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it took the emergency services an hour to reach the injured, and that another hour went past before the 125 was able to move off? Many people were therefore trapped for a long time. Does he not think that that could be improved on in any future, but hopefully never to be repeated accident?
Mr. Rifkind: I think that it must have been a frightening experience for people trapped within the train for that time. I understand that one of the reasons why it took longer than one would have wished was that the emergency services went to the inappropriate end of the tunnel, further away from the train, and had to be redirected to the other end, which gave easier access to the two trains.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State recall that, earlier this year, when he was talking about the increase in BR's external financing, he said that there would be £70 million more for safety matters? Does he accept that a fail-safe system—an automatic train protection system—would cost nearer £390 million and is a matter of urgency? If we are to overcome this sort of problem in future we must put even greater resources into British Rail to safeguard trains, crews and passengers.
Mr. Rifkind: British Rail is at the moment testing automatic train protection, and the Chiltern line has a pilot scheme which, if successful, will enable ATP to be implemented elsewhere on the network.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he will ask the chairman of British Rail urgently to look at the position of the tunnels further along the line to ensure that precautions similar to those that are being instituted in the Severn tunnel will also be made in those tunnels if signalling changes have taken place recently associated with the general modernisation work?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, it will be appropriate for both British Rail's internal inquiry and the inquiry that I have announced under the railway inspectorate to look at all the implications that may be relevant to the work being, undertaken.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State, without waiting for the report, send for the chairman of British Rail and, exceptionally, offer him enough money to allow him to put into operation an immediate emergency programme for the renewal of signalling systems? It is clear that signalling is one of the vital factors that, unfortunately, has contributed in the immediate past to several major accidents.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady should not jump to conclusions. My understanding is that the signalling in the Severn tunnel area is relatively new, and was installed in the relatively recent past. The suggestion inherent in her question—that the signalling is antiquated—does not appear to be justified.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) that the crash in the

613
tunnel was frightening, but that the problem was not caused by junctions, so we should not associate what happened at Purley, for example, with what happened in the Severn tunnel? Is my right hon. and learned Friend familiar with the automatic warning system of the Great Western railway, which has kept this tunnel and hundreds of miles of railway line safe for years?
We now seem to have a serious problem with some of the new technology. My right hon. and learned Friend has announced an internal inquiry. In view of the importance of signalling and telecommunications to the railways, would it not be sensible quietly to contemplate the proposition of an independent inquiry into all the technological changes that are taking place on British Rail signalling?
While the subject—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly please.
Mr. Adley: As the subject of funds for British Rail has been mentioned, will my right hon. and learned Friend have a look at two points quickly—
Mr. Speaker: One point.
Mr. Adley: One point. On locomotive-hauled trains, a flashing red light is used by British Rail, while on multiple units a static light is used. Is not that one matter that could be rearranged? Surely a flashing red light would be far more visible in a tunnel than a static light?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of these matters. I will direct his point to the chairman of British Rail, so that the matters are taken into account. My hon. Friend suggested that there would be only an internal inquiry. British Rail is conducting an internal inquiry, but the inquiry that I have announced today, which is to be held by the Health and Safety Executive, will be a public inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871.
Mr. John Prescott: May I on behalf of the House offer our deepest sympathy to those who were injured and hope that they have a speedy recovery? Indeed, may I express once again our great admiration for the skill and courage of those involved in our emergency services?
614
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is almost three years to the day that we heard of the Clapham rail tragedy, which was caused by faulty signalling and negligence? Is he further aware that last week we heard of a thousand signalling faults on British Rail followed by this further terrible accident in the Severn tunnel, involving signal faults and negligence yet again? [HON. MEMBERS:"HOW do you know?"] British Rail has already accepted responsibility for the matter, as the Secretary of State has pointed out.
That undoubtedly goes a long way to explaining the inspectors' report. I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at the figures, instead of looking at them superficially as he has done, to see that, in the past five years, the incidence of passenger train collisions has increased by 40 per cent. over the average for the past 10 years. That is the point that is causing the travelling public great concern.
Can the Secretary of State tell us, three years after Clapham, what the total cost is of implementing the Hidden recommendations to make our system safer? Has the Department completed the review of the investment for safety, as required by Hidden? Finally, does he accept that the general public want to see him and his Department using all their energies to ensure the implementation of a safe, reliable railway, instead of producing a White Paper on the privatisation of British Rail?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is really behaving disgracefully—[Interruption.]—when he accuses British Rail of negligence before an inquiry has even begun, and when he has not the slightest idea of what caused that accident. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of becoming like a vulture scavenging around every incident, irrespective of the facts and of the accusations that he makes against other people.
The hon. Gentleman referred in his question, and in a conversation on radio during the weekend, to what he describes as "an increasing number" of passenger train collisions. As the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well from the railway safety report, published only last week, the total number of significant collisions in 1989 was 85, and in 1990 it was 59. If that is what the hon. Gentleman describes as an increasing rate of passenger train collisions, it shows that he does not deserve the attention or respect of the House.

Bus Plant Closure (Workington)
3.50 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The need for a debate on the closure of the Volvo bus plant, formerly known as Leyland National, in my constituency".
This matter is urgent, as west Cumbria is now on the eve of a renewed spate of large-scale redundancies. Last week, job losses were announced at Allbright and Wilson, and last weekend Volvo announced the closure of its bus plant in Workington with a loss of 370 jobs. That closure will, from July next year, leave empty a modern factory of 650,000 sq ft in my constituency. The area will face a herculean task if it is to find a new occupier for that factory. The House will also be aware of the impending rundown of the THORP—thermal oxide reprocessing plant—construction project at Sellafield with the loss of several thousand jobs.
The matter is important, as Volvo clearly blamed the Government's economic policies for its decision. In the press release announcing the closure, Volvo states:
"The actions are the direct result of deregulation of bus services and the recession, which have combined to severely depress demand."
The matter is specific, because the Leyland/Volvo plant in Workington is Britain's principal bus producing plant. Surely it cannot be right for a foreign company, faced with recession and a lack of profitability at home, in Sweden, to cut its overseas operations and, in doing so, close down the United Kingdom's strategic bus manufacturing plant. Such a decision is surely a matter for Government.
The plant was built under a Labour Government, with a large amount of taxpayers' money, as part of efforts to consolidate bus manufacturing within the United Kingdom. Its loss can lead only to an invasion of imports when the recession ends and the market picks up. In the absence of adequate bus production capacity in the United Kingdom, we can face only danger in terms of the future bus market. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow us to have a debate on this matter today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The closure of the Leyland Volvo bus manufacturing plant in Workington, with the loss of 370 jobs, announced this weekend."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said about this matter. As he knows, I must decide whether to give this matter precedent over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that his application does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit the hon. Gentleman's application to the House. I hope that there may be other opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter this week.

Points of Order
3.55 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are probably aware, when astronomers discover a new star, there are special procedures for registering it. I wonder whether you follow any special procedure when you spot a new political party in the House. For example, will you instigate an investigation and action to change the Short money as a result of the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) ceasing to be members of the Labour party? Will you expect the size of that new political party to increase, as other non-community-charge-paying Labour Members join it?
Mr. Speaker: I regularly look for stars in the Chamber, and I believe that the stars are on the Floor of the House. However, I am not certain that such a point of order falls within my area of responsibility.
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security to be allowed to make a statement on the withdrawal of moneys from Mirror Group Newspapers' pension fund? The revelations from MGN show that there is a gaping hole in the law covering pension funds. There is no legal provision for an independent chairman, 50 per cent. independently elected employee representation on the board, or full and up-to-date disclosure of information covering a fund's financial state or the allocation of its surpluses.
As there is no provision either for fully protecting the interests of fund members, the Government's proposed regulation on self-investment is irrelevant to what has been revealed in respect of the MGN pension fund. Millions of employees and pensioners are deeply worried about the future of their pension funds as a result of the MGN revelations, so will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to seek an early statement to the House by the Secretary of State, so that the public's doubts and apprehensions can En allayed?
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can save time. That matter was raised at business questions and in points of order to me last Thursday. I said then that it seemed to me that the Consolidated Fund Bill would provide an opportunity to debate it—possibly at some length.
Mr. David Sumberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may support the request of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Such a debate would give right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those whose constituents, like mine in the north-west, are suffering from the loss of their MGN pensions—an opportunity to ask the Opposition to account for the way in which some of their members who were trustees of the MGN fund behaved in a wholly negligent way.
Mr. Speaker: That point could also be raised in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Leaving aside cheap party political propaganda, I put it to you, in all seriousness, that literally millions of people in this country will rely when they retire on occupational pensions. They know that, if anything went wrong, they would lead a life of poverty or near-poverty. Concern about that is likely to spread beyond those immediately affected by the revelations about Robert Maxwell's actions at Mirror Group Newspapers. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State to come to the House to say what steps are being taken to try to ensure that the sort of dishonesty and crookery that went on at MGN is not being repeated elsewhere? The people of this country are entitled to know that.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot say anything more. If that topic is submitted as a subject for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I will certainly give it careful consideration. Such a debate would give the hon. Members who have raised those points of order an opportunity to participate, and for a Minister to respond.
Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What more can I say?
Mr. King: You kindly reminded the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Consolidated Fund Bill may provide an opportunity to debate the MGN pension fund, but I wonder how far such a debate could go—particularly in respect of references to Mirror Group Newspapers, the Daily Mirror, payments to the Labour party, advertising in Labour party journals, and so on. Would we not be touching on areas that are sub judice, or which are the subject of possible legal action, which may or may not be taken? Would an application for a full debate on Robert Maxwell, Mirror Group Newspapers and the Labour party be permissible?
Mr. Speaker: We shall have to consider the sub judice rule in relation to what is said, but at present I can see nothing sub judice in this matter.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a spirit of Christmas unity, may I agree with the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? A full debate on the issue would indeed be very helpful to us all. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he wishes to raise a matter that may be embarrassing to his hon. Friends.
Would it not be a good idea, given the suggestion that all these shady capitalist things happen on only one side of the House, to discuss pension funds and how they are to be controlled? Regardless of what company is involved in such matters and of whether it has a socialist supporter, a Conservative supporter or no political supporter at all, it is our duty as a House to enable everyone in the country to feel that his or her pension is well protected.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is called to speak in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Adjournment motion, he could well raise those points then.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I appeal to your Christmas spirit, Mr. Speaker. Will you allow such a debate?
Mr. Speaker: Those are not matters for me.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark): it does not matter whether those involved in fraud, the rip-off of investors of the misuse of pension funds belong to any political party, or to no political party. There have been plenty of City frauds and scandals involving Conservative supporters. This is just the latest in long line of such scandals, which besmirch the country's financial institutions as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is right to point out that revelations such as these terrify people whose lifelong pension contributions are at the mercy of those responsible for the action taken at Mirror Group Newspapers. It will seem strange to them that the House has not been given the opportunity to hear a statement on the matter, or to debate it. I strongly support my hon. Friend's request for a statement.
Mr. Speaker: Any statement is for the Government—what has been said will have been heard by the Home Secretary and other Ministers. As I have said, there will be opportunities for hon. Members to debate this matter during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, if the subject is submitted.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Shaw: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Absolutely different?
Mr. Shaw: Yes, Sir.
Can you say, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order, during any debate on the Maxwell group pension fund fiddles, to raise the subject of the fiddles carried out by the Labour Government in 1976—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That point of order seems to be related to the matter that we have just been discussing.
Mr. Michael Irvine rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think that we need to hear any more points of order. Let me tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I heard what he said about this matter on Thursday, and I agree with him.

BILLS PRESENTED
  COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE
  Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Commonwealth of Europe; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

  CHEQUES
  Mr. Conal Gregory, supported by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Richard Luce, Mrs Marion Roe, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Alan Williams and Mr. Robert Wareing, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to

  619
  cheques: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together the two motions on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Appropriate Fraction and Rateable Values) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During my 20 years of practice in the law, there has been a great deal of vehicle taking, in precisely the kind of circumstances that led to the promulgation of the Bill by the Government. The courts have had powers over the years to deal with those offences. I wonder whether you could define the circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Government to introduce a law reform Bill and seek to push it through all its procedures in a day without it going to a Standing Committee to be considered carefully as to its detail, when it happens that there is no particular circumstance of urgency and when the reform concerned could lead to considerable difficulties for the courts if the measure is not fully considered?
  Mr. Speaker: It is within the knowledge of the House that Bills have gone through all their stages in one day. The House itself will take a decision on the matter later this evening when the Question will be put whether the Bill should or should not be considered in Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), presumably the Government's contention is that, either because of prevalence or because of some emergency, it is necessary today, without the normal consultation, to go through every stage of the Bill. If there is such an emergency, why is it that there is no analogous Bill for Scotland? Is it the Government's contention that such an emergency, if there be an emergency, is relevant only in England and Wales? What are the intentions, therefore, in respect of Scotland?
  Mr. Speaker: Of course, this Bill will go through all its stages in the normal way. The unusual feature is that that may happen in one day. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Question will be put from the Chair at the appropriate moment, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House will then decide to agree—or to disagree.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that other Bills have gone through all their stages in one day. That is true of some uncontroversial matters, but recently there have been several Bills of this kind, such as the one after the Hungerford massacre—that was rushed through the House and not dealt with properly—the council tax Bill —that was rushed through the House and is a mess—and the Dangerous Dogs Bill that was also rushed through all its stages. Yes, you are right, there are precedents, but most of them have ended in tears.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that perhaps we had better hear the Home Secretary explain it.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has two simple aims. The first is to make sure that everyone who gets involved in the taking of someone else's vehicle is made criminally liable for the consequences. The second is to give the courts power to sentence the serious cases in the way that they deserve.
  Car crime, I think it is generally agreed, is a curse on our society. Let me give just a few facts and figures. In the 12 months to June 1991, over 550,000 cars were stolen. There were over 800,000 thefts from vehicles. About 30 per cent. of all recorded crime is car crime, and car crime is rising rapidly. It accounted for more than a third of the overall increase in recorded crime this year.
  It is a curse that affects us all. Many hundreds of thousands of members of the public have had their cars stolen, or their cars broken into and their possessions taken. We have seen recently how car crime can destroy the peace of mind of whole communities in Oxford and in Newcastle.
  We are taking action on a number of fronts to tackle this problem. Over the last year, I have held a series of meetings with the major motor manufacturers to see what action they can take in the battle against car crime. Many manufacturers have made great improvements in the security of their vehicles. I welcome that, but there is much more that can be done. When I last met them in September, I asked them to consider urgently three specific point: first, the introduction of visible vehicle identification numbers; secondly, the fitting of deadlocking across all their vehicle ranges; and, most important, the development of an effective vehicle immobilising device that would make it impossible to move a car even if it had been broken into.
  I am meeting the manufacturers again this Wednesday, and I shall ask what progress they have made. I think that all hon. Members have been sent a circular about the Bill by the Consumers Association. It says that it has been urging motor manufacturers to make cars more secure since 1961. I applaud what it and Which? have done.
  The Government have an important role in improving vehicle security. We want to see the British standard on vehicle security adopted as a compulsory European Community directive. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have raised this with our European colleagues. The standard covers locking systems, glass marking, security of in-car entertainment and deadlocking. We are working hard in the EC to get all member states to accept those requirements.
  The insurance industry is also very concerned about rising car crime. When I met the Association of British Insurers about six months ago, it was reluctant to take a collective view, but when I met it about two months ago, its views had changed considerably, because the claims paid by insurers rose by 46 per cent. to £225 million in the first half of the year—a substantial sum. That is equal to the value of the claims in the whole of 1989.
  Since that meeting, I am glad that the industry has announced its plan to double the number of insurance ratings, for the first time taking account of factory-fitted security measures in assessing insurance grouping. I have
  622
  asked the ABI to consider whether there is scope for offering discounts to car owners who fit effective security devices after initial sale.
  There is much that the Government, the car industry, the insurance industry and others are doing to prevent car crime, but tackling the roots of car crime means, in part, tackling the roots of criminality. We must consider what leads young men—it is predominantly young men—to see crime as a better outlet for their abilities and energies than lawful activity. What causes young people to fall into crime? This year, I have been having a series of informal discussions with Church leaders, the voluntary sector, leading members of the police, probation and prison services, magistrates and others to consider what we can do to get at the roots of criminality. I intend to set out our proposals in the new year.
  Mr. Gary Waller: Has my right hon. Friend seen the view of the chief constable of west Yorkshire, Mr. Peter Nobes, that the upsurge in the taking of motor vehicles has probably occurred since the change in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which reduced the unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle to a summary offence triable only at a magistrates court? He believes that the deterrent effect, which no longer seems to exist for young people, should be reinstated. Is my right hon. Friend willing to consider that further?
  Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend should bear in mind the fact that, before 1988, only 3 per cent. of sentences were longer than six months. That effectively answers my hon. Friend. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary.
  The Bill is one of a wide range of urgent measures that we are taking to stop the plague of car crime getting out of hand.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I am glad that the Home Secretary recognises that we must tackle the whole question of crime to get a grip of the dreadful problem of stealing vehicles, which has affected my area of Newcastle. Is the right hon. Gentleman frustrated by the edicts of the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose rate-capping proposals have reduced Newcastle city council's ability to tackle the core of the problem? Many youth clubs in Elswick, Benwell and Lemington have had to close because of that lack of funding.
  Mr. Baker: Deprived urban areas have had one of the largest increases in expenditure since we took office. From memory, I believe that the figure was about £100 million when we took office but about £900 million or £1 billion this year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year I secured not only a good standard spending assessment for the police but an urban crime fund for the Northumbrian police of £3·66 million. That shows our commitment to dealing with those very problems.
  The Bill is not the whole answer to car crime, nor does it pretend to be, but it is an important, new and urgently needed part of the legislative answer. It is difficult enough to identify anyone who was in a vehicle. It is much more difficult to establish precisely when damage occurred, who was responsible and what they intended at the time.
  What is new about the Bill is that, where a vehicle is taken and damage or injury are caused, all those involved in the taking, including the passengers, will be equally

  623
  liable to the more severe punishment for the aggravating events. All the criminals involved in taking the vehicle will be held responsible for what followed the original taking.
  Of course, not all cases of vehicle taking are so serious: our whole approach to sentencing—brought to fruition in last Session's Criminal Justice Act—is to have a range of custodial and exacting community penalties graduated to fit the seriousness of the offence. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has raised that matter with me on other occasions.
  For example, my Department funds various motor projects which have played an increasing role, and there are some excellent examples which focus on demanding programmes to get motor offenders to change to adopt responsible attitudes and behaviour. I believe that, organised properly, those can be effective. My Department is providing £200,000 this financial year to motor projects dealing with young offenders, thereby keeping them out of custody. That includes more than £150,000 to projects supervising offenders through the young adult offenders grant scheme. That fund is set to increase by a further £1 million next year, and I certainly expect motor projects to figure significantly within that increased expenditure.
  What we are talking about today is the need to ensure that bad cases do not elude tough penalties, because the present law puts burdens on the police and prosecution which they can have difficulty in discharging.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman said something a little earlier that was factually inaccurate. He has implied that all those who are involved in taking a vehicle are not already committing an offence, but they are. Everyone who is involved in taking a vehicle is implicitly committing an offence. The right hon. Gentleman has implied that those who travel in such a vehicle are not already committing an offence, but they are. There is the offence of being carried.
  If the right hon. Gentleman took the measure which has been suggested of restoring indictability to the offence of taking and driving away, would not the courts be left with a wide range of penalties? Would not the courts therefore be able to take into account the facts of offences without going through the restrictive provisions in this ill-considered new Bill? Every item in clause 1(2) imposes a restriction on the courts. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is setting an obstacle course for the courts which will make it more difficult for them to pass tough sentences in serious cases?
  Mr. Anderson rose—
  Mr. Baker: Let me reply to one point at a time.
  I knew perfectly well what I was saying with regard to the Theft Act 1968. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is right—when a person is charged with taking and driving away, there is a collective responsibility on all those in the car. We are extending that provision to the aggravated events that follow the taking away. The hon. and learned Gentleman can rightly say, "Leave the present offence and just increase the penalties," but it would be difficult, in respect of the offence of taking and driving away, to prove culpability for the aggravated offence and the damage that followed. That is the point of the Bill, and I shall justify it in a moment.
  Mr. Anderson: I wish to follow the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
  624
  If the Government were serious about this matter, would they not remove some of the obstacles that now stand in the way of successful prosecutions under section 12 of the Theft Act? Under that section, the prosecution has to prove mens rea in respect of "knowing", whereas, under section 22, the handling provision, it has to prove a case in respect of "knowing or believing". By importing into section 12 "knowing or believing" for the purposes of means rea, could not the Government give an extra tool to the prosecution to deal with this prevalent offence?
  Mr. Baker: With great respect, to begin with, that involves a fundamental re-examination of this and other offences under the Theft Act.
  Mr. Anderson: Why not?
  Mr. Baker: We believe that the right way to deal with that offence is to build on the offence under the Theft Act 1968—the taking and driving away—and add to it the aggravated offence covered in clause 1. Clearly. the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) take an entirely different view which I do not believe would be an effective way in which to deal with the problem. My view is shared by all the chief constables to whom I have spoken.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the Bill deal with the problem of people reoffending while on bail'? Chief Superintendent Riding of Bolton said that one youth has been arrested 30 times so far this year for taking vehicles.
  Mr. Baker: That is a separate matter. I shall publish—shortly after Christmas, I suspect—the results of our survey of research on reoffending while on bail, and I shall introduce proposals. However, the Bill does not deal with that point.
  I resume my explanation of the Bill, and this goes to the very heart of the issues raised by the two hon. Gentlemen. Let us consider the problems that there may be in proving the more serious offence of criminal damage. Let us suppose that the vehicle is found abandoned in a wood, seriously damaged or completely burnt out. Perhaps one of those involved in the taking—perhaps the original taker—is caught. His fingerprints are all over the car. He admits that he took the vehicle, but says that it was already damaged when he got in or that it was not damaged when he left the scene and that it must have been damaged by someone who took it later.
  Perhaps the vehicle was seen colliding with another as it swerved around a corner. The witness says that he cannot be sure—at that speed, everything was blurred or it was dark—that the person being questioned by the police was behind the wheel or even in the vehicle. The accused says that it was not him, or perhaps he says nothing at all. In that case, there is a great deal of uncertainty.
  What is certain—what is well beyond all reasonable doubt—is that none of the damage would have occurred had the vehicle not been taken in the first place. It is that certainty which drives the Bill.
  The facts are that at least 40 per cent. of cars which are criminally taken are damaged when the owner gets them back. Home Office statistics show, however, that criminal damage is charged in only 6 per cent. of cases. So, whatever the serious damage, in the remaining cases it goes

  625
  unpunished by the criminal law. I believe that that is completely unacceptable. People who get involved in such activities need to know that they will be liable for the consequences—the aggravated offence, and not merely the taking away.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: My question arises out of genuine curiosity. Will the circumstances outlined by the Secretary of State also pertain in Scotland? I should be interested to know why Scotland is not included in the legislation. Whether or not this is the right solution, it seems odd that it does not apply to one part of the United Kingdom. Many people in Scotland—including, for example, the Scottish Campaign Against Irresponsible Driving—are deeply upset about the present level of sentencing in exactly the circumstances which have been outlined.
  Mr. Baker: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Bill applies only to England and Wales. I have discussed the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he believes that there is no need to extend the Bill to Scotland, as there is different legislation for this, as for many other Scottish matters.
  It is not for me—as a member of the Executive—to comment on the level of sentencing. As Home Secretary, I do not comment on the length of sentences. I have personal views, but I keep them to myself in such matters.
  I remind the House of the basic statistics. At least 40 per cent. of the cars which are criminally taken are damaged when the owner gets them back, but criminal damage is charged in only 6 per cent. of cases. That is the problem which the Bill seeks to solve.
  I deal now with dangerous driving and the injuries that it causes. Under the law at present, conviction for reckless driving or for causing death by reckless driving needs proof of who was driving at the material time and what was his state of mind. It will be easier to convict under the Road Traffic Act 1991, but it will still be necessary to identify the driver. That is perhaps not so difficult when the vehicle is registered in his name, but it is a different story when he is one of a number of possible drivers, all certainly involved but none of them owning up to it.
  The criminal law demands certainty—and rightly so —before a person is found guilty of having committed a specific criminal act. However, is it relevant to know precisely which of a group of people who are already guilty of knowingly taking or travelling in that vehicle—the point on which we agreed a moment ago—had his foot on the pedal at that moment? The mischief would not have happened had the vehicle not been taken in the first place. Who is to say which of the takers or passengers is sufficiently personally culpable to get extra punishment? The Bill answers that question: they all are.
  Over the past few months we have witnessed a succession of very nasty cases of aggravated vehicle taking. In some cases, the law has been able to punish the basic taking itself. It has also, on occasion, been able to provide more serious charges against some of the offenders involved—in some cases it has been possible to charge for manslaughter. Thanks to the efforts of the police, the Crown prosecution service and the courts, it has, on occasion, managed to bring serious charges in some really
  626
  bad cases, but it has not, and cannot, treat the total mischief with the certainty and severity which it deserves. The Bill will enable it to do so.
  Clause 1, which is the heart of the Bill, defines the new offence and sets out what needs to be proved, and what does not need to be proved, before someone can be convicted under it. It is important to recognise at the outset that the Bill does not create a stand-alone criminal offence. Its penalties apply only to those who took the vehicle or got criminally involved with it before it was recovered. The standard of proof for the basic taking of the vehicle remains unchanged.
  Under clause 1, it must also be proved beyond doubt that at least one of the four specified aggravating events occurred after the vehicle was first taken and before it was recovered. I emphasise to the House that those "aggravating events" are the four events listed at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill:

  "(a) that the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place;

  "(b) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which injury was caused to any person;

  "(c) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which damage was caused to any property, other than the vehicle;

  "(d) that damage was caused to the vehicle itself."

  The Bill will not convict anybody of the crime of criminal damage, or the crime of reckless or dangerous driving, or any crime against the person. It is simply recognising an aggravated form of an existing Theft Act 1968 offence, where a vehicle is taken without the owner's consent, and damage, danger or injury follow which would not have happened if the vehicle had not been taken in the first place.
  The House will also understand that clause 1 does not reverse the normal onus of proving who committed an offence. It does not do so because, under the Bill, who may or may not have committed a separate criminal offence is not relevant. The Bill does not want any legal argument about the precise state of mind of those involved. It does not want to know whose foot was on the pedal, whose hand on the wheel or handbrake, or who might have said what to whom. The Bill is looking at the total aggravating consequences of the whole joyriding event, and it states that everyone guilty of taking, or travelling in the car should be liable for more serious punishment.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: The offence differs from the existing regime, in that there is to be a new maximum penalty of five years. Where the offender is under 18—a juvenile—he is presumably still caught by the ceiling of the maximum of two years for all juveniles. In the north of England, which can readily claim to be the taking-and-driving-away capital of Europe, about 90 per cent. of offences are committed by juveniles. How will the Bill improve the way that they are treated?
  Mr. Baker: At present, 15 and 16-year-olds may receive a sentence of only one year's custody unless they are guilty of an offence likely to carry a penalty of more than 14 years —usually rape, domestic burglary, murder, arson and such offences. That will not change. To answer my hon. Friend's question directly, at present, the maximum penalty for the existing offence is six months, but very few offenders actually receive six months: instead, they receive about two or three months. Due to the custody rule of one year, the period for 15 and 16-year-olds can rise to one year.

  627
  I know what lies behind the anxieties of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—that the onus of proving who committed an offence should not be reversed. I daresay that that will be debated not only on Second Reading but in Committee later today. The only excuses to which the Bill will listen will be the two set out in subsection (3) of new clause 12A: that the relevant aggravating offence—the damage to the car or other property or injury to people—occurred before the person committed his basic taking offence, or that he was nowhere near the vehicle at the time.
  Those defences depart from the liability principle at the heart of the Bill only to this limited extent. When the accused can show that the damage occurred before he got involved or after he had abandoned the car—perhaps two days later—the Bill lifts his liability. The accused has to be able to show that to the court. In common with other statutory defences of this kind, it is for the defence to show on the balance of probabilities that they apply.
  A person convicted under clause 1 could face an unlimited fine and up to five years' imprisonment for the worst cases. Clause 3 also provides for obligatory disqualification in magistrates courts and the Crown court, and for obligatory endorsement and penalty points when, for some exceptional reason, the first penalty is not applied.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: What evidence does the Home Office have that these young people will be deterred by large increases in fines? Many of them are unable to pay fines of this sort in any case, so how do they constitute a deterrent?
  Mr. Baker: Many young people will be deterred from joyriding by this Bill. First, not only the person doing the driving away will be liable to the penalties under the Bill: all the other people in the car will be. That is an extension of the existing offence of taking and driving away. Such people will also be liable to be charged with the aggravating offence. That will have some effect on people piling into a car to go off joyriding.
  There is also a possibility of an unlimited fine. My hon. Friend will know that under other legislation passed by the House, parents can be held liable for such fines. That too is a deterrent. We are building into the offence a series of deterrents, including disqualification. We are trying to prevent these young hooligans and criminals from grabbing cars and creating mayhem thereafter.
  I remind the House that clause 2 provides that the new offence is to be tried summarily if the only aggravating event was damage and the total value of that damage was below the threshold set in the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 —£2,000—for criminal damage. The offence can be tried either in a magistrates court or a Crown court.
  This Bill has been described as tough on joyriders. It is, and I make no apologies for that. It is tough because this so-called joyriding is tough—tough on victims, tough on property, tough on whole communities whose daily life and business have been ruined by hooligans on wheels. The Bill will enable the law to recognise the full consequences of what is involved. It will send the clearest possible message to the people who get involved that society will not tolerate such behaviour.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: No one can or should doubt the seriousness of the problem to which the Bill relates. Car crime is now endemic in Great Britain, and the disease has reached epidemic proportions. The Home Secretary talked of attempting to prevent the plague of car crime from getting out of hand, but it is out of hand already. Last year, there were almost 500,000 recorded offences of theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles—an increase of 25 per cent. on the previous year's figure. Many of those offences were due to young men —it is a peculiarly male crime—taking cars, not to sell them for profit, but to drive them illegally in a fashion mortally dangerous to themselves and to others.
  The question that we must decide today is whether the Bill will achieve a material reduction in the number of such offences. I have no doubt that, from time to time, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will pop up in the House or on television to tell us that it will indeed have exactly the prescribed effect. In the spirit of Christmas, I must say that I have no doubt at all that. if the Government announced their intention to slaughter the holy innocents on 28 December, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend would pop up again to congratulate the Home Secretary on his perception, sagacity, compassion and commitment to the public good. Other more objective observers have concluded that the Bill will have little or no effect.
  The majority of known car crime offenders are teenage boys: 34 per cent. of offenders are aged between 15 and 16 and 39 per cent. between 17 and 20. The need to prevent young men from behaving in a way that is often lethal to themselves and to others, and at the very best causes inconvenience and distress, is not in doubt: the question is whether the Bill will have that effect. Its purpose is the creation of deterrents so severe that young men will think twice before embarking on theft and reckless driving. Unfortunately, the group whom the Bill targets are uniquely unlikely to be deterred even by the threat of a most extreme punishment.
  Deterrents act only on rational men and women who consider and calculate the consequences of their actions. The car thief who takes a car to drive with reckless disregard for his own life and the lives of others does not make a careful calculation of what will happen when he is caught. In any event, those who take cars can already be imprisoned for up to six months for the simple act of taking and driving away. If reckless driving—it is now called dangerous driving—is involved, sentences of up to two years' imprisonment are possible. A young man who causes death by dangerous driving can be sentenced to five years' imprisonment and could be convicted of manslaughter and imprisoned for life. It is difficult to follow the argument that the penalties in the Bill will provide a deterrent which is not available at present. That point was made in an intervention by the hon. and learned member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
  I wish to ask the Minister of State a specific question which I asked his right hon. Friend the Minister of State., Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) during her wind-up speech in the prison security debate. Why do the Government think that, by passing an Act which does little more than duplicate sentences already on the statute book, they will

  629
  achieve a reduction in crime? The only possible reason is the hope that the publicity involved in passing a new Act of Parliament will in itself have some effect. I have my doubts. I do not believe that potential criminals of this type read Hansard or, for that matter, newspaper reports of Parliament with the assiduity that we would all wish. In any case, I am opposed to the idea of legislation as a form of public relations. That can only lead to bad law.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for giving me the opportunity to answer his question, which I shall do in two ways. First, the right hon. Gentleman asked why we need this change in the law. He echoed the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle). It is because of the evidential difficulties of bringing a successful prosecution, under all the different statutory provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, when so-called joyriding takes place. Secondly, we can argue until the proverbial cows come home about whether deterrents work in this or that circumstance, but deterrence is very important, as also is punishment and keeping offenders off the streets.
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the Minister of State did not altogether follow my point. Rightly or wrongly—I believe it to be right—my point is that punishment, by which the Minister sets great store, is already available. The Bill is mere duplication. As to the arguments about evidence, the Minister must know that we are concerned only with the very small proportion of young men who commit this particular offence. On some occasions evidence may be more easily obtained and more readily lead to a conviction, but we are very dubious about the procedures that the Bill sets down for obtaining evidence and obtaining conviction.
  I should like to echo another point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I agree that there are the greatest dangers in completing all the stages of the Bill in a single day—as is the Government's intention and as, no doubt, will be the outcome of today's deliberations—but it seems particularly foolish to rush through the Bill in this way when penalties and punishments are already available to deal with the offence that we are debating. We may, of course, argue about how adequately those penalties and punishments deal with it—
  Mr. Iain Mills: If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Government's approach, does he, on behalf of his party, have any specific proposals for dealing with the problem, especially in relation to 15 and 16-year-olds?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I do. I listed them briefly in our debate on the Gracious Speech and have advocated them on many other occasions. If the hon. Gentleman can bear to remain with us until the end of my speech, he will hear exactly what they are.
  Mr. Devlin: I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because his proposals have not come to fruition in the amendments. Nothing on the amendment paper would beef up the law in terms of the aggravated offence.
  Mr. Hattersley: When the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a little longer—representing another seat after the general election—he will come to understand that one can amend a Bill only according to what is in it. One cannot deal with its inadequacies in terms of its total omissions. If he, too, will bear with me until the end of my speech, he will hear me list some of those total omissions.
  The truth about the Bill is that it is a return to the formula that has characterised the Home Secretary's behaviour throughout the year. A real problem is identified, such as dangerous dogs, prison mutiny and, now, reckless driving. The right hon. Gentleman said several times that this problem had come to light "over the last few months". Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's epitaph will be "over the last few months" or "over the last few weeks" or "over the last few days", because he lives according to a very short time scale.
  The right hon. Gentleman discovered the problem through reading the headlines, and decided to take action on it. There was then much vacillation about what, if any, response was possible and about what that response should be. In the case of dangerous dogs, the Home Secretary said that nothing could be done; then he promised wholesale slaughter; and then he left us with an inefficient and ineffective compromise.
  Today is the culmination of a process which began with the promise to the Tory party conference of "robust action". As we now know, that was said before the legislation was prepared. The process continued with the omission of the Bill from the Queen's Speech, because at that time there was no certainty that the legislation could be prepared. The process now ends with a proposal which is probably ineffective and which does nothing whatever to deal with the generality of car thefts.
  We are again left with the conclusion that the Home Secretary's principal intention is to make headlines rather than to find solutions. It is reminiscent of the great spring offensive against crime, which was based on a massive advertising campaign and encountered the signal problem that neither the thieves nor the burglars seemed to read the advertisements.
  Mr. Anderson: Can my right hon. Friend speculate on the Home Secretary's motive for truncating all stages into one day? Is the Home Secretary saying that allowing the Bill to go to a Special Standing Committee, which might have the benefit of advice from outside legal opinion which might improve the Bill, would have no potential benefit for the quality of the legislation? What is the emergency which demands that the Bill's passage must be completed before Christmas?
  Mr. Hattersley: The only possible conclusion is that rushing the Bill through the House in one day adds to the air of urgency. I have sworn to do two things never in any circumstances. The first is to try to read the Home Secretary's mind and the second is to call for his resignation.
  Mr. Baker: I must continue to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman on both counts. If he wants to read my mind, he should read what I say.
  It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he is opposed to the general thrust of the Bill. If he is so opposed, why do we have an agreement, through the usual channels, to take the Bill through in one day? The

  631
  right hon. Gentleman must have been party to that. He must have been asked about it and approved it. If he is really opposed to the thrust of the Bill—which I assure him, if he is about to criticise whether the law will be tougher, marks a considerable toughening of the law and is much tougher than the right hon. Gentleman could produce—he should vote against the Bill tonight so that the whole country can see how he wants to water the law down and how lame his proposals are.
  Mr. Hattersley: When provoked, the right hon. Gentleman always changes from a second-class Home Secretary to a third-class party chairman—[Interruption.] We shall certainly not oppose the Bill but we shall, of course, vote for the amendments that are necessary to improve it. If the Home Secretary, like some of his Back Benchers, will contain himself with patience for a little longer, I shall describe some of our improvements to the whole area of policy which the right hon. Gentleman touched on but did not deal with in sufficient detail.
  Mr. Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, but this must be the last time because I must make progress.
  Mr. Shersby: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need for urgency and asked why the Bill was being rushed through the House. That is a perfectly fair question, but does he agree that the tragic deaths of several people, as recently as the day on which the Queen's Speech was being read in the other place, must place on all hon. Members a degree of urgency to deal with this terrible problem?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I agree with that in principle, but it begs the question whether the Bill will prevent the tragic occurrences to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We rushed through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but a young boy was killed by dogs a fortnight ago. The idea that passing the Bill will automatically prevent such things is a mistake—
  Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that particular case?
  Mr. Hattersley: In a minute—
  Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I will give way at the end of the next paragraph.
  The Home Secretary has—
  Mr. John M. Taylor: How do we know when the right hon. Gentleman is at the end of his paragraph?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the Whip if he would like to intervene.
  I was in the process of commending the Home Secretary for the Government's one positive initiative. I refer to the attempt to persuade British motor manufacturers to produce more secure cars. However, after three years of attempted persuasion, beginning with a meeting in Downing street in 1988, the initiative has not yet succeeded. I was delighted to see a television commercial last night which commended a car that was unlikely to be stolen. In the age of European car production, there are difficulties in persuading manufacturers to incorporate security features the necessity for which is limited to
  632
  Britain. The French, Germans and Italians do not suffer from the disease to the same extent. That, I suppose, is why it is necessary to obtain common European standards—
  Mr. Baker rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: In one moment. I will let the Home Secretary know when I have finished.
  I congratulate the Home Secretary on initiating and pursuing the idea of a common European safety standard—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What sort of paragraph is that?
  Mr. Hattersley: As this is the first day of the Maastricht summit, I cannot resist asking the Home Secretary why he believes that car locks are a suitable subject for Community competence when unfair dismissal procedures and minimum working conditions are not. By any standard, car locks and safety devices are intruding into what the Foreign Secretary calls the "nooks and crannies" of our normal life. I am in favour of that, but I thought that the Government were not.
  Mr. Baker rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary would like me to give way, I am happy to do so.
  Mr. Baker: A paragraph from the right hon. Gentleman borders upon eternity, but before he started that long, long paragraph, he made a careless, damaging and harmful comment about a tragic accident which took place a few weeks ago when a young boy was killed in his own garden, alas, by three dogs. It is typical of how the right hon. Gentleman argues in his ill-informed way, grabbing at a few facts, imperfectly understood, that he should try to say that the Dangerous Dogs Act was imperfect because it allowed that tragic accident to occur. It had no effect on that tragic accident because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, to do away with the possibility of such accidents, one would have to forbid the ownership of all dogs in almost all circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman should try not to make such cheap points, but I am afraid that that is typical of the way in which he seeks, time and again, to argue his case.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary simply makes the point that I made, at rather less length. The fact that we pass legislation to prevent tragedies of one sort or another does not mean that those tragedies will be avoided, although I trust and hope that that will be so. The contention of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), with which I entirely agree, is that the House has a special duty to move swiftly when it is sure that to do so will avoid a national ill, but I am not prepared to accept the assumption underlying his contention that by passing the Bill we shall solve the problem.
  I welcome the one positive initiative that the Home Secretary has taken, to which he referred during his speech —the attempt to make British cars more secure—but that positive action should have been reinforced by a swathe of other positive proposals. Chief among them should have been a co-ordinated attempt to deflect young men at the first opportunity from a practice which turns into an obsession. The problem with such young men is the numbers in which they commit their crime.

  633
  The Criminal Justice Act 1988 was intended to overcome the difficulty of Crown courts being inundated with young men who had taken cars and been apprehended before they had done any damage to themselves or anyone else. That Act amended section 12 of the Theft Act 1968, which virtually created the offence of taking and driving away. The offence carried a maximum penalty on summary conviction of six months' imprisonment and a £2,000 fine.
  Although the offence was intended to be a low-grade offence with a low-grade punishment, police authorities throughout the country complained of difficulties of getting prosecutions into court. The Crown prosecution service often insists that the cost of prosecution, which is estimated at £190 per hour, is not justified, and proposes a caution instead of prosecution. That is especially the case when the crime is committed by juveniles.
  I have no doubt that action should be taken to prevent young men—some of whom, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, have been cautioned up to a dozen times—from developing an ingrained course of conduct. We know how that can be achieved. The Home Office working group which reported as long ago as 1988 showed that of 4,500 youngsters who, having been held responsible for motoring offences, attended special motor projects, only 100 committed car-related offences in the weeks and months that immediately followed.
  There are examples from throughout Britain of the success of such schemes. One notable example is in south London, where, according to the probation officers who run the scheme, the reoffending rate is 9 per cent., compared with 80 per cent. in adjacent areas. There is no doubt that widespread development of such schemes would cut the number of car thefts.
  However, the schemes that I have described suffer from one disadvantage. They seem to the unthinking to provide pleasure rather than punishment. I take a wholly pragmatic view. If schemes result in a reduction in car crime, I am in favour of them. That seems to be the sensible approach, and one which the sufferers from this epidemic would welcome.
  I admit that many young men who are required to attend such schemes might have to go through the courts to obtain a probation order, but that would be a price well worth paying for an extension of sentencing in the community where it is a proven success. That is why the Opposition regret that, alongside the proposals that the Home Secretary has made today, he has not already instituted a massive programme of the nature which his own research demonstrates to be the most effective way of tackling car theft.
  Such a programme would have tackled the causes of the crime and prevented thousands of young men from developing an obsession which can lead to destruction of property, injury and even death. It would not have sounded spectacular, as the Bill does, and it would not have appealed to the people who believe that the only response to crime is more severe punishment, but it would have been effective. As the only virtue of such schemes is practicality, however, they do not appeal to the Home Secretary.
  I ask the Home Secretary specifically what is happening to the proposed scheme in Oxford, where the Blackbird
  634
  Leys incident last summer caused so much damage and distress. I understand that the police and the probation service are anxious to develop motor projects and are waiting for Home Office approval and the promise of a Home Office grant.
  There is one immensely important objection to the Bill as it is currently drafted. I shall deal with it briefly, not to minimise the strength of our objection, but because it is the subject of the first group of amendments with which we hope to deal in the Committee stage. In effect, the Bill creates two levels of car crime. The basic act of stealing a car is defined in section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Clause 1(2) stipulates the ways in which offences can be aggravated, or made more serious, and attract additional penalties.
  I understand—and, within the limited value of the Bill, accept—the advantages of warning a young man who steals a car that if, by his reckless behaviour, a pedestrian is killed or injured or damage is done to property, he will be subject to more severe penalties. Within the limitations of the Bill, I understand the purpose and advantage of that proposal, although it is worth repeating that the young man is probably already liable to penalties of similar severity even before the Bill is passed.
  Surely it cannot be right that the man who commits the basic offence—and is liable to prosecution under the 1968 Act—may become liable under the Bill, even though his actions, or those which he is accused of taking, are not actions which he takes knowingly or wilfully or which are likely to exaggerate the offence in the way the Bill stipulates. That is in defiance of the principle of English law which requires the prosecution to demonstrate the wilful commission of an unlawful act. [Interruption.] As I see some scepticism on the Treasury Bench, I shall give an example of what I mean, which I hope will demonstrate the unacceptable point.
  A young man steals a car and is indictable under the original Act. Let us assume that the young man loses his nerve, or retains his senses, and pulls up in a lay-by with the intention of leaving the car and walking home. If he succeeds in that endeavour and leaves the car and walks home, he can still rightfully be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968. Clearly, no one would object to that. But if he climbs out of the car to walk home and another driver, legally in charge of his vehicle, swerves off the road and hits the stolen stationary car, the man who stole the car is guilty of the aggravated offence and liable to the additional penalties.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Quite right.
  Mr. Hattersley: I hear the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) say that that is right. How can it be right to say that someone is guilty of an offence if he gets out of the car and walks away, but guilty of a worse offence if he gets out of the car and walks away and someone hits the car?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem goes a stage further? Courts will not sentence people for those things which they have not done. Whenever a case comes before a court, there will be a prosecution version and a defence version of the facts. The label given to the offence is often misleading, because if the defence disputes the prosecution's version of the facts—even if there is a guilty plea—there will be what is called a

  635
  Newton hearing to determine exactly what the defendant did. Therefore, if the facts are as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the young man will receive the sentence that he would have had for the lesser offence in any event. So the distinction is wholly artificial.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is my view.
  Sir Anthony Grant rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I think that we are about to hear why the courts will sentence a man for something that he has not done, did not wish to do and, indeed, attempted not to do.
  Sir Anthony Grant: There is a much simpler explanation of the point that the right hon. Gentleman made. The fact is that, if the offence of stealing and taking away the car had not been committed, the other car would not have run into the first one.
  Mr. Hattersley: While that is patently true, the man in my hypothesis has created exactly the same circumstances and committed exactly the same offence whether or not something wholly fortuitous happens to him. I agree with the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The distinction may be clear to Conservative Members, but it will not be obvious to the courts. In consequence, the courts will not share the Home Secretary's judgment.
  The Home Secretary's judgment is that the Bill makes individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions. We are all in favour of that, but it can be seen from examples which anyone can make up that the Bill makes people responsible for actions which are not their own but the actions of others. I do not believe that that will be acceptable to the courts, not least because the issue is much complicated by the defence set out in clause 4, which reverses the burden of proof in a way which extends the innovation which first came into English law in the legislation prohibiting the carrying of knives in public places.
  According to clause 1(3)(b), a conviction is not possible if a driver proves that
  "he was neither in nor on nor in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle"
  when the aggravated offence took place. That vitiates the defence of the Bill by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West, who said that because the person stole the car he was responsible even if he was
  "neither in nor on nor in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle"
  when the aggraved offence took place. The hon. Gentleman's argument is totally invalidated by the Bill. More importantly in terms of that argument, however, the defence of clause 1(3)(b) requires the defendant to prove his innocence, and thus contradicts a basic principle of English law.
  I draw the Home Secretary's attention to another area of legitimate doubt—automatic disqualification from driving as set out in clause 3.
  Mr. John Patten: On that basic point of principle, the right hon. Gentleman surely recalls that, under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, a person convicted of corruption has to prove that moneys in his possession were gained from activities which were other than corrupt activities, or that under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 a convicted pimp has to prove that his moneys were not gained from immoral activity? Also, under the 1971 drug legislation, a person with a cannabis plant in their garden
  636
  has to prove that they did not know what it was. There is no great principle adduced in British law, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot refer to one because it does not exist, as I have just demonstrated.
  Mr. Hattersley: I confess my ignorance of the three laws that the Minister has brought to my attention, but I recall vividly the first Act of this Parliament, which concerned carrying offensive weapons in public places. I read the speech of the then Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—this morning, in which he dealt at great length with what he described as a new principle of English law, in which a man found to be carrying such weapons was required to demonstrate that he was not doing so for an unlawful purpose. He described that as a reversal of our normal rules of evidence. His speech four and a half years ago was explicit in saying that that was unique to that sort of offence. If it was unique, this is the first extension of it that I know of.
  Mr. Anderson: Surely the new principle of law to which my right hon. Friend takes exception is that a penalty can be aggravated as a result of circumstances over which the person has no control. That was the case in the example that my right hon. Friend gave about a lay-by. That penalty would be even more aggravated in the case of a passenger, whose mens rea may extend to riding in a vehicle which he knows to be stolen, but it does not follow that he has any control over the manner of driving.
  Mr. Hattersley: That was my first objection. My second concerns the reversal of the burden of proof, and my third concerns the automatic disqualification from driving, as set out in clause 3. However, that may not be an objection if the Minister of State can give a cogent explanation. There is some doubt about whether a 14 or 15-year-old offender will be influenced by the discovery that he will be denied a licence two or three years later. More important is the effect that automatic disqualification would have on proper rehabilitation, which in some ways would be made impossible by such a requirement.
  When the Minister of State winds up the debate, will he tell us if he can imagine circumstances in which a sentence —perhaps a custodial sentence—has been served and it would be sensible to direct the offender into some activity which requires a driving licence? I can imagine that that might be part of the corrective training, or even part of the punishment. Will he think about that and tell us whether he still believes that mandatory disqualification is the right course to follow?
  I admit that all those considerations are practical, and the Government are far less concerned with practical consequences than with public impact. In our way, we shall persist in examining each Bill brought before us in terms of its real and relevant issues, and that is how we intend to continue to behave when we get in to Government.
  Mr. Baker: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I have listened to his speech carefully—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Has the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) completed his speech?
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes.
  5.4 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There can be few more mindless crimes than that which used to be known as "joyriding", but is now correctly described as death riding, because that is what, sadly, it so often becomes, as far too many families in the land now know.
  Under the present law, the penalty for taking and driving away a car is a derisory six months, yet those thugs —usually young thugs—wreck people's lives, destroy property and terrify innocent pedestrians of all ages.
  I was delighted when I heard the Home Secretary say in October that he proposed to introduce a new offence to tackle the problem. At that time, he proposed to provide for automatic disqualification, a maximum penalty of two years in imprisonment and an unlimited fine—good, but not quite good enough.
  I was glad that, when the Bill was drafted, the proposed penalty was increased from two to five years. However, even that is not a sufficient penalty for those who mindlessly destroy other people's lives—and not only the lives of the people they kill. To lose a much-loved child or partner—often the parent of a young family—can cruelly affect many more lives than the person who was killed. We must bring home to these scatterbrained young hooligans the seriousness of what, to them, is a light-hearted prank or blatant exhibitionism.
  The thought of spending a few dull years in gaol although the Opposition appear to discount it—should help to dampen even the most foolhardy. Under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, there is a power to disqualify youngsters who are under the legal driving age. It is used far too rarely. All too often those youths are legally able to drive when they become 17. It is to be hoped devoutly that, whatever the Opposition may say—they do not seem to like this provision at all—that power will now be more widely used.
  Moreover, since the offences covered by the Bill are usually committed by the young, more youngsters will be caught in the net and will be liable to a term of disqualification, which can be unlimited and applies—as do the other penalties—to passengers as well as to the driver. That is important and fair, since egging-on by passengers is all too often the cause of the disaster, as a recent case has shown only too clearly. It will no longer be necessary to prove who was driving, which is sometimes difficult, since all those involved will now be liable. Thus another loophole is usefully closed by the Bill.
  Apart from the penalties under the Bill, penalties of life imprisonment for murder or manslaughter are still available under other legislation. However, the Bill tackles not merely injury to persons, but the damage to other people's property which criminals can cause.
  As with much criminal law, it is essential for people who have knowledge of the offenders to speak out. It is no kindness to a son or daughter—however much loved—to shield them from the consequences of their criminal behaviour. It must be agonisingly hard to shop someone whom one loves, but we must create a climate of opinion in which that can and will be done.
  Anyone taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, or driving or being a passenger in such a vehicle, will be liable under the Bill for tougher sentences if any of the aggravating circumstances—injury, death or damage—
  638
  takes place between the taking and the recovery of the vehicle. I am bound to say that the shadow Home Secretary's example was ludicrous in the extreme.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Absolutely, and the right hon. Gentleman would not give way to me.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman would not give way to the Home Secretary.
  It will be no excuse to plead that the consequences were not intended or foreseen or directly caused by that person. All too often, especially on motorways, a relatively small initial error can cause an horrendous chain of consequences. In the right hon. Gentleman's example, that was exactly what happened: the man got out of the car and another driver swerved to avoid him. If the young man did not cause that to occur, I should like to know who did, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) asked. Under the Bill, the person taking and driving away the vehicle will be liable for the chaos and mayhem that can follow the initial act of folly.
  All in all, I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. The only matter that puzzles me is why those on the Liberal and Labour Benches do not see the urgent need for the legislation. Those in Oxford, Liverpool, Newcastle and many other cities undoubtedly do.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. David Young: It is not for me to analyse in the House today the reasons for the escalation in car theft. Part of it may be due to boredom caused by unemployment and some of it may well be due to our acquisitive society. Where material gain is everything, the law suffers as a result.
  It is clear that, in many of these cases, there is complete contempt for the law as it stands, not unlike that shown by certain store owners who, when faced with a vacillating and weak Government, use their commercial power to bring the entire law into disrepute. I see little difference between the contempt in which a car thief holds the law and that of those who continue to open their stores because the Government are not prepared to uphold the law. I will not comment on who those store owners support financially, but many are the financial friends of the Tory party.
  Car theft is not simply an offence against property: it is potentially a lethal offence. Between 1 September and 30 October 1991, about 12 youngsters died. Some died as a result of their own actions, but others were innocent people who were mown down by cars being driven at least recklessly or by cars certainly out of control.
  This is a serious problem in Bolton. In the first 10 months of 1991, 4,589 vehicles were taken and there were 4,903 thefts from vehicles and 2,533 charges of criminal damage involving vehicles. In total, about 11,000 innocent Boltonians suffered in one way or another from the crime. When these crimes continue to occur, it is the innocent who pay. It is the nurse who comes late off her shift to find her car stolen. It is the young man trying to hold down a job who finds his means of transport taken from him. Worst of all, it is those who are killed by the stolen cars. If we believe in a law-abiding society, this must be a matter of concern to us all.
  What saddens me most is that we do not have as much will as we should have to get rid of the crime. With a small

  639
  amount of the dedication that the Tory party showed in the way it attacked miners and trade unions, we would live in a law-abiding society. What we have is not a society of law and order, but a society of law and disorder.
  I do not condemn the police for that. The clear-up rate in Bolton increased from 27 per cent. last to 41 per cent. this year. That is a creditable performance, but there remains a tremendous backlog from which criminals benefit.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Young: I will not give way now, because other Members wish to speak.
  There is little point in passing legislation if the police do not have the means to apprehend the criminals.They cannot deal with people they do not catch. The problem in Bolton is that it is often the same people who repeat crimes. The crimes are not simply committed by people on bail. They are also committed by the same people time and again. This morning, the chief superintendent in charge told me of an individual who had stolen 30 vehicles. Clearly, if we wish to rid our streets of this danger, it is not enough to pass legislation. We must also provide the resources to enable the police to carry out the legislation.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Young: I am not giving way.
  Equally important is the requisite facility of communication between police forces in different areas because, obviously, car crimes are not exclusive to one town or county. They spread across the length and breadth of the country.
  What is apparently lacking is a meaningful deterrent. I am not talking simply about custodial sentences, although I do not rule them out. The Government must take in hand by every means in their power any scheme that will stop this crime. As I have emphasised time and again, we are not talking simply about the loss of property, bad as that may be; we are talking about the loss of life.
  The people involved are often between the ages of 13 and 19. Often they have no worry about losing a licence, because a person who applies for a licence in the first place has some respect for the law. For the person with no respect for the law, why should the removal of a licence be any deterrent when that person has never had a licence anyway? Many of those involved are without funds.
  The Bill has been cobbled together as a hopeful public relations exercise, but it will result in only a small reduction in the crime.
  When such crimes are committed, it is the innocent in our society who pay. It is no good passing new legislation unless it reduces the incidence of the crime. We are seeking not simply to introduce punitive measures for use against the criminal, but to stop the crime of car theft and sweep it from our streets.
  A few months ago, our television screens showed entire communities that were terrified. Men and women were afraid to walk on the streets of their own town or city because someone was racing around in a high-powered car that he could not control.
  The preservation of the law is a matter for all parties. It is no good simply to claim in words, without actions,
  640
  that one supports law and order, because, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So far, the taste of the proposed legislation has been nasty.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I declare that I am, as the House knows, parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
  The federation and I support the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be in no doubt that he has the full support of the federated ranks in trying to deal with this difficult problem.
  The increased penalties are necessary. The penalty for the aggravated taking away of a vehicle, causing the death of innocent members of the public, must be introduced because the recent events in Oxford, Elswick and other towns and cities have shown that we cannot sit idly by and watch them repeated.
  Until the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, persons convicted of taking away vehicles without consent could be given a custodial sentence of up to three years. My right hon. Friend told us today that, of those sentenced, only about 3 per cent. each year received custodial sentences of more than six months. It is one thing to say that only 3 per cent. of those convicted receive custodial sentences, but it is interesting to consider the number of offences involved.
  Those figures, which were given in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 15 November, reveal that, in 1988, more than 20,000 persons were convicted, of whom 3,658 received immediate custodial sentences. Of those, 491 received a sentence of more than six months; 103 received a sentence of between a year and 18 months; 36 received a sentence of between 18 months and two years, and six received a sentence of between two years and three years.
  Those figures show that substantial custodial sentences were imposed which cannot be considered light or as encouraging young people to take a risk in the belief that nothing serious will happen to them. The figure of 3 per cent. is a little misleading. The custodial sentences and the number of individuals who receive them are significant.
  Mr. Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just the actual number of those who are sentenced to immediate imprisonment or to terms of imprisonment of six months or more that is significant? What is crucial is the signal given about the importance the Government attach to this offence. In 1988, the Government sent a clear signal that that offence was no longer so high in their scale of priorities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that that scale of priorities provides a deterrent in itself?
  Mr. Shersby: I entirely agree. However, in 1988, the Government, and indeed the House, decided to reduce the penalty for the offence to a maximum of six months. The House agreed to the proposition that we should rely more on cautions and community service punishment. That decision was part of the policy, which had received support from all sections of the House, of reducing the number of people, particularly juveniles, sent to prison. It was also part of the policy of reducing the cost of criminal proceedings. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about that.

  641
  To some extent, the decision in 1988 has resulted—it is difficult to judge to how great an extent—in a massive increase in auto crime—the taking away of cars without the consent of their owners and, in some cases, racing them on the public highway. I cannot believe that there is no connection between the abolition of the custodial sentence of up to three years and the subsequent increase in auto crime.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Shersby: I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend a little later.
  The number of vehicles that have been used to ram-raid shops and other premises to steal goods of every kind from hard-working shopkeepers has also increased. That crime has not been referred to today, but it is a worrying and major part of the auto-crime scene.
  Why do such things happen in our country? Some people will say that such crime is caused by unemployment and the recession, but that is not necessarily so. On the Blackbird Leys estate, it was clear to the police that the damage to cars and shops was done merely for pleasure, not for gain. Many of the youths involved in that crime were in full-time work or full-time education. It is true that some were unemployed, but there did not appear to the police to be any common denominator among them except that they lived on the estate or had relatives living there.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I live on the Blackbird Leys estate, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that by no means all those who were caught up in the events were residents of the estate. It is an unfortunate feature of such confrontations that, once they start, every psychopath for miles around who wants to have a go at the police is pulled in. The people of Blackbird Leys and other parts of Oxford who are plagued with this problem are decent, law-abiding citizens. They are more anxious than anyone in the House to see this business brought to an end.
  Mr. Shersby: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because I know that he has a unique knowledge of precisely what happened.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a number of youths who were in full-time education or in full-time work were responsible for what happened. Many of those in full-time education did not attend school, and some visited Oxford and committed shoplifting offences or car crimes around the city.
  During September, the people of our nation sat watching a unique spectacle on their television sets. They watched as young people drove stolen cars at high speed on several estates, to the great danger of residents. "Hotting" was the term used by many of those youngsters to describe their activity. Stealing cars and driving them to destruction had become a dangerous craze, almost to the point of addiction.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Shersby: I will do so in a moment.
  The House will recall that a computer scientist, Mr. Melvyn Davies, was clubbed and slashed in Oxford while going to the help of his girl friend, who had herself been stabbed in the body and in the face. He gave a succinct judgment about what happened when he said:
  642
  "We have got to stamp out this sort of thing or it will spread like wildfire and become a new craze for the yobs. We cannot let them ruin our lives."
  That is one powerful reason why the House is considering the Bill. I believe that we owe it to Mr. Davies and to many others to pass it quickly.
  We owe it not only to the people of Oxford but to those of Birmingham, Cardiff, Elswick, and even of rural Shropshire who have suffered. We owe it to the people of my own borough of Hillingdon, where only a week or so ago a teenager who had just stolen a car killed himself when he drove it into a tree at nearly 100 mph. There is no joy in those dangerous rides to death.
  It is only as a result of sensitive and skilful policing in towns and cities that the problem will be kept under control. That kind of policing requires good police intelligence and first-class training. Fortunately for us all, those skills are possessed to a considerable degree by police officers of every rank.
  The police have also demonstrated considerable success in building good relationships with the community, but they need the backing of the law and a powerful deterrent to prevent the craze of "honing" from becoming a permanent feature of life in British towns and on estates.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend spoke of "our nation", which includes a place called Scotland. Those new crimes are not occurring in Scotland—but if they were, there would be no difficulty in charging a person with reckless driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988, or, under common law, with assault to the danger of life, which should, if necessary, carry a penalty of life imprisonment.
  Am I being told that the law of England is so deficient that, if one assaults a person by driving a car at them to the danger of that person's life or property—whether or not one damages either—that is not a crime known to the common law of England, and would it not attract the most condign penalties?
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely valuable point. I am glad that he has drawn the attention of the House to the situation in Scotland and to the law of Scotland, which in so many ways is superior to that of England.
  Although the Police Federation welcomes the Bill, it would prefer the basic offence of taking away without consent possibly to incur the same penalty as was available until 1988, of up to three years' custodial sentence. The Bill does not propose that: it proposes only that those who cause injury or damage shall be liable to imprisonment for up to two years—or, if it is proved that an accident caused death, of up to five years.
  Over the past few days, police officers have asked me why a community has to wait until someone is injured or killed before an offender is sent to prison for a lengthy period. For most juveniles who steal cars and engage in "hotting", the maximum penalty will remain a six-month custodial sentence—although, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said this afternoon, the fine will increase next year to £5,000.
  I doubt whether many young people will be deterred by a fine of £1,000 or £5,000, because they do not have that kind of money available. However, it will be interesting to see whether, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, their parents will have some liability, and perhaps exercise more supervision over their youngsters than they have in the past.
  Mr. John Patten: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the parents of convicted children will leave themselves liable to meeting an unlimited fine, as levied by a Crown court, if their children cannot themselves pay? That will act as a considerable encouragment to greater parental responsibility.
  Mr. Shersby: I am aware of that provision, to which I was referring before I gave way to my right hon. Friend —and I hope that it will be widely understood by parents throughout the country. For the first time, to anything like that extent, parents are liable for the criminal activities of juveniles.
  The Bill also imposes an automatic one-year driving ban, but I cannot help wondering how many young people will be deterred by that—particularly as many of them drive without a licence anyway. The police know that "hotting", ram-raiding, and related offences are committed by a comparatively small number of people, many of whom are persistent young criminals. Surely the threat of a custodial sentence would be a stronger deterrent—as it was before 1988—in addition to the longer sentences for which the Bill provides.
  The Government give as reason for not reverting to the 1988 arrangements the small number of convictions previously secured. I believe that the real problem was that, before 1988, magistrates were under pressure from the Home Office not to award custodial sentences. If the will had been there and secure accommodation and prison accommodation had been available, I suggest that magistrates would have applied the law in the way that was intended when that legislation was passed.
  I am told that, even today, most juveniles are cautioned or sentenced to community service, or receive a discharge because magistrates remain reluctant to award custodial sentences. However, in so many cases, the police and the courts are dealing with persistent reoffenders rather than with first-time offenders, for whom a caution or community service would be an appropriate penalty.
  I turn to the taking away of children. Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Bill's provisions will deter the kind of thief who stole Mr. Peter Brown's BMW from a garage forecourt while Mr. Brown's infant daughter was in the back seat? According to Martin Newland's article in The Daily Telegraph today, Mr. Brown turned his back on his car for less than one minute. Mercifully, his car was abandoned three miles away, and two-year-old Natasha Brown was able to tell a passing couple that "a naughty man" had taken the car.
  The prospect of community punishment or even six months' imprisonment did not deter the thief in that case. According to The Daily Telegraph, that was the latest in a series of incidents in which children were inadvertently taken by car thieves.
  In another recent case, two-year-old James Austin. who had been left strapped into his baby seat by his mother, was driven away while she took some refuse to a rubbish dump some 50 yards from her parked car. Luckily, he was reunited with his mother unharmed.
  Were both offences aggravated taking away? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House when he winds up. Neither child was injured, and nor were the cars damaged. I suppose that the thieves concerned could be charged with kidnapping or some other offence under
  644
  common law. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could clarify that point, because that danger is a cause of great concern to many parents.
  It is proper for the Government to act promptly, early in this Session, to deal with the problem. I understand the reservations expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the speed with which the Bill is being enacted. However, the offence is so serious, and parents and car owners are so concerned, that the House should not delay but ought to place the Bill on the statute hook as soon as possible.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: This matter is of the greatest concern to my constituents, many of whom are at their wits' end as to what can be done to halt the murderous menace of the theft and racing of cars in residential city streets.
  I support the Bill, because anything that can add to the action that can be taken against car thieves is welcome. Much more needs to be done. The Bill is much too little and comes much too late. It is, by itself, little more than window dressing on the part of the Government. Anyone who believes that the Bill will really be effective in catching, punishing and deterring the criminals in question is living in cloud cuckoo land.
  The extensive national media coverage in August and September of confrontations with the police left many of the wider public with a distorted picture of the problem. Some of the media were interested only in portraying a violent image of Blackbird Leys. I know the estate well, because I live there. I place it on record that Blackbird Leys, Barton and the other parts of Oxford that are plagued by this menace are good places, with a terrific community spirit. Decent people who are sick and tired of the criminal activities of the few deserve a much better portrayal by the national media and more support from Government.
  On Saturday night, volunteers from Blackbird Leys community centre provided—as they do every year—a free dinner and social evening, drinks and gifts for 250 local pensioners. They held a similar event back in the summer, when Blackbird Leys was in the headlines. On neither occasion were the media at all interested in covering the good news; they were interested only in hyping up the bad news.
  When I add that youngsters have reportedly been paid by film crews to put on displays in stolen cars and that a recent Channel 4 programme tried—ludicrously and dangerously—to suggest that the real problem was police brutality, hon. Members will have some idea of the anger felt by my constituents about the gross irresponsibility shown by some of the media. They have let down the public and also let down colleagues who, in the local media and in some national programmes such as "Newsnight'', have succeeded in giving a more accurate and balanced picture of events.
  Now that the events of the summer are out of the headlines, some hon. Members, and members of the public who are not immediately affected, may imagine that the problem of theft and racing of cars has gone away. Sadly, that is not so. Reported car crimes in Oxford are running at 600 per month; car crime has doubled in the past four years, constituting one third of all crime reported in the city, and this year's figures are one third up on last year's.

  645
  Residents and police are in the front line of a war against hooliganism and car crime, including the displaying of stolen vehicles, which is now running at some 10 to 12 reported incidents per week. They were at it last night, as they are nearly every night.
  Just a week ago on Saturday, the secretary of our Headington Labour club, remonstrating with a thug outside her home, was knocked to the ground and beaten. She, and all the other residents with the courage to stand up and defend decent values on behalf of their families and communities, deserve more support than they are receiving from the Government.
  The police have taken action to combat the wave of car crime. In the past three months, there have been some 150 arrests in Oxford for car theft. I have the highest praise for the professionalism and dedication of the Oxford police and for the bravery that they have shown when confronted by ugly and sickening attacks.
  Let there be no mistake: the Oxford public strongly support the police and they have our confidence. It is evident, however, that the police are overstretched and are having to fight the rising tide of car crime with insufficient officers and with one hand tied behind their backs. The Bill will barely scratch the surface of either problem. If the law is to be effective, the criminals must know that the chance of their being caught is high, as is the chance of their being convicted; and that they are certain to receive a sentence that matches the severity of their crime. Sadly, none of those factors applies today.
  Even when their offences are of the ultimate gravity, some people are getting off far too lightly. An example is the appalling tragedy of lorry driver Leslie Parsons, who was killed last February when he was just doing his job. Let me quote from last Saturday's Oxford Mail:
  "A teenager whose night of joyriding ended in the death of a lorry driver, was sent to a young offenders' institution for two years.
  Alan Dawtrey was driving a Metro at about 80 mph on the wrong side of the road before it smashed into a lorry coming in the opposite direction, Oxford Crown Court heard.
  Lorry driver Mr. Leslie Parsons, 51, lost control of the 28-ton lorry after colliding with the H-reg. car.
  The lorry careered across the A423 Oxford to Henley road, hitting a second Metro before ploughing into the Harcourt Arms pub.
  Mr. Parsons, of Fenny Compton, Warwickshire, a driver with Fine Lady Bakeries in Banbury, died from multiple injuries in the crash early on February 18.
  The court was told that Dawtrey had been racing against the other Metro shortly before the crash in the village of Nuneham Courtenay, where there is a 40mph restriction.
  Dawtrey, 18, of Boundary Brook Road, Oxford. who admitted causing death by reckless driving and five offences of taking vehicles without consent, was also banned from driving for four years.
  The driver of the second Metro. Jamie Hughes … of King's Lane, Harwell, was also convicted of causing death by reckless driving. His sentence was adjourned for social inquiry reports.
  Judge Leo Clark told Dawtrey it was a bad case, with a number of aggravating features which included running away from the scene 'in complete disregard for the lorry and its driver'."
  Surely it is clear to anyone who might imagine that we are discussing an activity that could legitimately be called "joyriding"—from the incident that I have cited and from the horrors of the case in Liverpool, where a car ploughed into some children—just what a murderous evil that activity is.
  646
  I am fully aware of the importance of the independence of the courts and of the constraints that they face when sentencing juveniles. I imagine that, in the case that I cited, the offender was given the maximum sentence that could be conferred for causing death by reckless driving; but, given normal remission and remission for good behaviour, there is every possibility that that young man will be freed after nine months in custody. I cannot believe that many members of the public believe that that is justice, or that it conveys the right message to those who, tonight, will steal a car and race it in the path of some other innocent victim.
  We should remember that causing death by reckless driving carries the same five-year maximum penalty as is included in the Bill. The public will want to know how many people who are convicted will serve five years and how many will serve nine months.
  As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) pointed out, the courts and the public receive very confused and contradictory messages from the Home Office and from Ministers, whose words suggest that the police and the magistrates must be backed up, but whose actions have on occasion deprived them of the support that they need. An example is the injunction on magistrates to do everything possible to keep people under 21 out of custody.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, some supervised car projects may be an effective alternative to custody; but do the Government give the probation service the resources that it needs to run such projects? Why, in Oxford, has it been left so far to the police, the voluntary sector and private sponsorship to try to cobble together a scheme? As my right hon. Friend asked earlier, when will the Home Office commit resources to that scheme?
  Mr. John Patten: As the hon. Gentleman and I both have constituencies in the city of Oxford, I was interested to learn of the comparatively recent endeavours to introduce motor projects there. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office received the first application from Oxfordshire only last week, on 5 December? It is under active consideration, however.
  That application relates to the Oxfordshire motor project—which is aimed at those on probation, following conviction, unlike the diversionary projects to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred.
  Mr. Smith: I hope that that means that support will be forthcoming.
  My point is that, in general, the courts are under an injunction not to give custodial sentences to offenders under 21. If the alternatives are to work, we must take care that they are not seen as a reward for those who become involved in such activities. What about the kids who do not steal cars? Where are the projects that might stop them from doing so in the first place? Where the alternatives are to be provided, however, I believe that the Government are obliged, through the Home Office and the probation service, to fund them adequately.
  Another example that illustrates the need for change is the diminished opportunity to pass deterrent sentences, not just in terms of the threat to society of a particular offender, but the threat to society that is posed by the crime at large in which these people are involved. That

  647
  important point is well argued in an article in "Justice of the Peace" by Mr. T. G. Moore, who is deputy clerk to the justices in Nottingham. He points out:
  "A court faced with a young offender who Juts been involved in the taking of vehicles, even though it may be his third or possibly fourth appearance, cannot simply pass a deterrent sentence on the basis of the prevalence of such offending in the locality … Section 1(4A)(b) of the 1982 Act deals with protecting the public from serious harm from the offender. The importance of the amendment by the 1988 Criminal Justice Act was that it added the words 'from serious harm from him' to the end of the sentence 'only a custodial sentence would he adequate to protect the public'. The case of R.v. Jacobs and Kinsella … makes it clear that the consideration which courts must now take into account is not whether a custodial sentence was necessary to protect the public from offenders generally of the same type, but whether it was necessary to protect the public from a particular offender. This indicates that if the court's desire is to protect the public from persons who take vehicles without the owner's consent, that is by a sense of general deterrence, then this particular criterion of the Criminal Justice Act will not be applicable … The question posed for the courts must be whether taking a vehicle without consent can ever, as an individual offence, be so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be considered. It is on this point, that the ordinary member of the public and, it is suspected, the average police officer finds it difficult to equate his own perception of the offence of taking without consent with the strictures placed upon the courts by legislation."
  We are responsible for legislation. We have to take account of that article and ask what difference the Bill will make in this respect. The answer is that it will make no difference at all.
  Even with such opportunities as the Bill presents to get cases into the Crown court, where the offence involves only damage to vehicles or property—the vast bulk of cases—it is the value of the damage to property, as set out in clause 2, that is the criterion, not the extent of the nuisance and danger, although that is the real problem with which we need to get to grips. To get such cases to the Crown court will therefore involve further cost to victims and trouble to the police in obtaining estimates from garages, builders and so on. An element of bureaucratic waste is built into the Bill.
  I support the measure, but for those reasons I have no confidence that the Bill will make more than a very small difference. It is much too little much too late. Why has it taken the Government so long to take even this inadequate action? Local residents, the Thames Valley police and I were urging, long before the events of the summer, that something should be done. The Government cannot say, as an excuse, that they did not know what was going on and how it could escalate. I shall give some examples.
  I raised what was happening—the racing and the attacks on police—at a meeting with the chief constable on 2 November 1990 at which the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), and the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), were present. The Home Secretary was fully briefed about the position when he visited Cowley in May this year. Again I stressed the seriousness of the matter and the need for more police officers at a meeting of Thames valley Members of Parliament which the Home Secretary was supposed to take, but which Lord Ferrers took instead, on 23 July this year.
  The Home Office took more than six weeks even to respond to the points made, by which time the situation in my constituency had already exploded out of control.
  648
  Home Office Ministers fiddled while tyres and a few petrol bombs burned. If the Government had listened to the police and taken prompt action on any of those warnings —action for which they could have secured all-party support—I have no doubt that some of this summer's tragedies would have been avoided.
  Much more vigorous action than is provided for in the Bill is needed. We need more police officers, urgent changes to sentencing policy and an end to the nonesense whereby attempting to steal a car and attempting to drive while disqualified are no longer arrestable offences. Where the Government propose alternatives to custody, they must provide the resources to make them work.
  As for the motor manufacturers, we need more progress and Home Office action to build on the excellent collaboration that the Rover Group has with Thames Valley police. We also need Government investment to back up the youth services, teachers and parents so that the next generation of youngsters does not include a minority whose self-discipline, self-esteem and respect for their own future are so lacking that they get kicks from racing stolen cars or lobbing bottles at the police.
  The first duty of the Government is to work with the people to ensure security and freedom from fear for the people. This Home Secretary and this Government have failed that test. The Bill should be supported, but unless a much more determined attack on the problem, and its roots, is launched, we shall, I fear, have to address at some point in the future an even more hideous nightmare than that which confronts us now.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We on this side of the House agree with much of what the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said. It is a rare example of ecumenism—on a day other than a Friday—across party lines. However, before I so much as opened my mouth, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had attacked me. He had the impertinence to berate me for knee-jerk reactions on behalf of the Government when he opposes absolutely everything that the Government do, however sensible it obviously is. That is as genuine an example of a knee-jerk reaction as it is possible to get in this place. The right hon. Gentleman does it every time and under any circumstances.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—and, I suspect, many other Opposition Members—are against all deterrent sentences. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that, although potential joyriders may not read Hansard, the word about tough sentences having been imposed has a habit of getting around. Anyway, if the right hon. Gentleman had remained in the Chamber, he would have realised that much of what he said was total nonsense, for reasons to which I shall turn in a moment.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on taking action against death riders—I agree with those who have already said that that is a much better way to describe these offenders who are not joyriders—and others who think that it is good fun to take somebody's car and drive it dangerously, thereby damaging property and sometimes killing people, thus causing appalling misery to those whose lives may be wrecked in the process. The public will be thankful to my right hon. Friend for his

  649
  timely action, following the recent bout of appalling abuse in Oxford and the north of England and the immense misery that this atrocious behaviour has caused.
  It is also important that we should all realise that surveys show that a quarter of all stolen cars are used for death riding, just as a quarter of all car thefts happen to unlocked vehicles—which is our fault. There is no reason why we should not lock our vehicles when we leave them and thus prevent that crime.
  My right hon. Friend's action at large—to spur manufacturers to action to improve security—is also very welcome, as is his acknowledgement of the Government's role. If we can give tax concessions for unleaded petrol to improve the environment, surely we should not be aghast at the prospect of tax concessions to secure that alarms are fitted in our cars and that some protection is provided to stop a lot of this senseless crime.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on identifying the fact that, apart from the commission of the taking and driving away offence, there is an additional factor that arises when injury and damage are caused, but that there is no adequate deterrent penalty for that aspect of the offence. However, deterrence will exist only when young people can be locked up in secure accommodation: if they cannot be locked up, all this will be a waste of time.
  Having said all that, I am afraid that I cannot be as enthusiastic about the Bill as I should like. We support and accept the good sense of increasing sentences for offences that are worse than taking and driving away and of extending the deterrent of disqualification where personal injury and damage occurs, but it is quite another thing for someone to be guilty of additional offences that he does not commit, to which he is not a party and which he might not have foreseen as the likely consequences of his taking and driving away.
  How would that occur? It would arise where a defendant could not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that his story was correct, that someone else was responsible for causing personal injury or damage to the vehicle taken or to other vehicles and articles, and that he was not a party to the offence. It would arise where, for example, the original taker and driver away was arrested, but after he had left the car and was going to have no more to do with it. He may not be able to call upon the driver who took over the car to support his defence and to help him discharge the balance of probabilities in his favour, because that driver would not want to expose himself to the criminal charges of aggravated car theft.
  In the environment in which these cases occur, witnesses are young and can easily be intimidated. The accused also might not be able to call witnesses who saw the damage-causing driver, because that driver may have terrified the witnesses to prevent them from giving evidence. That seems to be the stuff of which miscarriages of justice are made.
  I appreciate that the number of cases in which the taker and driver away is not the driver who goes on to cause personal injury or damage will be comparatively few, but I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is necessary to make such a draconian change in the traditional principles of British law, or to do it by reversing the normal burden of proof. Clause 1(3) says:
  "A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if he proves".
  650
  Will my right hon. Friend reconsider whether this part of the Bill is necessary?
  I support the intention of the Bill and its important deterrent aspects, and I shall support it for the same reason as the hon. Member for Oxford, East, but I must confess that I do so with some reluctance at this stage.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: If the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) had been here for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was here."] If he had been listening, then, he would have heard my right hon. Friend's point about the lay-by.
  Having said that, the hon. and learned Member for Burton makes a good point: it would offend against the views of ordinary persons and would be a crying sense of injustice if people who were not party to the aggravated crime and who had sought to distance themselves from it were found guilty because the balance of probabilities had fallen on them to prove their innocence. Anyone who has practised at the Bar knows well that, in the sort of case that arises on an estate, where a number of people are involved, intimidation is such that it may prove impossible for a young man to find witnesses to say that he had left the scene of the crime and that another person was guilty of aggravated theft.
  Any amendment to the law that provides an aggravated penalty for someone who could not have foreseen that for which he is sentenced must be wrong. The Government must find an answer to that key point, which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. who has long experience at the Bar, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook.
  The Bill is an attempt to respond to widespread public concern. No one doubts that concern or that the offence is prevalent. Almost daily, my local newspaper, the South Wales Evening Post, publishes examples of what used to be called taking and driving away—joyriding. There is a graveyard for cars at Kilvey hill, where young men drive cars that they have taken without authority and then burn them. There is an immense feeling of anger among ordinary members of the public at the extent to which they are inconvenienced, and they are crying out for something to be done.
  Magistrates are under a constraint not to send young people to prison. There is the problem of general deterrence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) set out in his excellent speech on behalf of his constituents. Surely the Lord Chancellor should have issued guidance to justices on the tariff for sentencing in such cases.
  The House may be interested to learn that hon. Members who represent south Wales constituencies hold fairly regular meetings with the south Wales constabulary. The main item on the agenda of our last meeting was joyriding. We saw several videos that the police had taken from helicopters showing the nature of the driving of some young drivers and the constraints on police in pursuing them, particularly in built-up areas. Guidelines have been issued to them on the point at which they must desist from the chase because of danger to the public. They expressed various other concerns, few of which are addressed in the Bill.

  651
  Although we must respond to the offence, we must avoid the "Something must be done" syndrome and ensure that we do not lash out wildly in some public relations exercise. Why must the Bill be completed today? Why do the Government reject the argument that even a Home Office Bill is capable of improvement? A Special Standing Committee could hear the views of practitioners, police officers and others on how the Bill could be improved.
  Is the Home Office alleging or claiming that an emergency has arisen since the Conservative party conference, that the Bill must be completed in one day and that it is inconceivable that it could be improved in Committee? That is an arrogant view to take of the Bill. If there is such an emergency, why is there not a similar Bill for Scotland? Do the Government contend that the emergency is confined to England and Wales and somehow stops at the border?
  The legal situation in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales. Section 178 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies in Scotland, rather than section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Will the Government give an assurance that there will be a similar attempt to alter the law in Scotland if there is an emergency there?
  Penalties in Scotland also differ from those in England and Wales. In Scotland, the penalty for a summary offence is three months' imprisonment or a fine, but not both. On indictment, the maximum sentence under section 178 of the 1988 Act is 12 months. Why is there a difference? If the emergency is so important, why are not the penalties for these aggravated offences equally applicable in Scotland?
  As a Conservative Member asked in an intervention, if there is an adequate remedy under existing law, why is there a void in the current law in England and Wales? Surely the Government must either say that the position in Scotland is essentially different from that in England and Wales or provide a timetable within which they will aim to introduce equivalent legislation in Scotland.
  There are other differences in penalties between England and Wales and Scotland with which we should deal. We must ask ourselves: who are the perpetrators of these offences, and what are their motives? As several hon. Members have asked, are these individuals, who typically are young men in their teens, likely to be deterred by the changes brought about by the Bill?
  The south Wales constabulary interviewed young men who had committed these offences and the factors involved were set out. The plus factors included the kicks that those people got from driving in that way. One of the minus factors was clearly the risk of being caught and the associated penalty. How do we ensure that there is a much greater chance of catching those young men and adequately dealing with them? Is that matter addressed by the Bill?
  The key question was put forcefully and eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook: is the lack of an adequate penalty the root of the problem, or can we tackle the matter in other ways—for example, by extending motor schemes in the way he described? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said that such schemes should be available not only for those who have already committed offences but for young people who might be tempted to do so, perhaps for kicks. Extending schemes, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, would be a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem.
  652
  I am afraid that we are assuming too much from this proposed change and that it is a little too simplistic—a sort of professional defamation from those who believe that applying law and order is the only way of solving what are, in part, deep-seated social problems.
  The issue is much more multi-layered than that. There are other key considerations, one of which is the near-certainty of detection. In this respect, police manpower levels are important. There was great astonishment and anger in south Wales when we heard by letter of 28 November 1991 the news that the Home Secretary was unwilling to agree any additional manpower for the South Wales police authority in 1992–93. The letter boasted:
  "the South Wales Police has received approval for 99 extra police posts since the Government took office, with actual strength increasing by 198—or 7 per cent.—over that period."
  That 7 per cent. must be put in the context of the more than 100 per cent. increase in this type of crime.
  I certainly would not boast about that 7 per cent. Like everyone in the area covered by the South Wales police authority, I must ask why built-up urban areas such as Cardiff and Swansea will pass this Christmas—with all the great temptations offered to young people at that time—and go through 1992–93 with no increase in police manpower.
  A wide range of powers are already available under statute law to combat this crime. Maximum sentences could he increased. As several hon. Members have said, the changes brought about by the 1988 Act—making this crime only a summary offence—should be reconsidered If the Government are concerned about public expenditure and court time, will they make offences under section 12(1) of the 1968 Act indictable, rather than purely summary, offences for people who are making a second or subsequent court appearances?
  The Bill does not deal with other key matters. If the Government wanted to reduce the number of obstacles that prevent prosecution of offenders, thereby making convictions more certain, they would alter the mens rea principle under section 12(1) of the 1988 Act and import the term "knowing or believing" from section 22 of that Act. That would put a lighter burden on the prosecution, and improve the chances of convicting an offender. Had the Government not thought that they could get the Bill passed without the House having a serious attempt to debate or qualify it, those matters could have been discussed with experts.
  Our police forces have another major complaint about the Bill. They say that it does not deal with the problem of people who persistently reoffend while on bail. My local police force has given me remarkable examples of young people in the south Wales constabulary area who have persistently reoffended. In South Glamorgan, over a period of a year, a 15-year-old male took 15 cars and was involved in six house burglaries, one handling offence arid six thefts. The most that that young man received was a supervision order for one year.
  I shall not bore the House with the details of another case, but I shall summarise it. In West Glamorgan, a juvenile male was found guilty between the ages of 13 and 15 of offences involving 45 takings of cars, but it was only towards the end that he received a custodial sentence. One can well understand the anger and frustration of the police force. In another case in Mid Glamorgan, a young man between the age of 11 and 16—I pass over six or seven

  653
  pages of antecedents—was involved in 32 burglaries, 34 thefts, 15 offences of criminal damage and 41 offences involving motor vehicles, but the most severe penalty that he received was a supervision order for 12 months. He gaily continued to offend and reoffend, to the point where the police wondered whether it was worth bothering to pick him up. Those are the problems that face our police force.
  In 1990, 20 per cent. of detected crime in Mid Glamorgan was committed by juveniles. In South Glamorgan, that figure was 17 per cent. of the total, and in my area of West Glamorgan, the figure was more than 22 per cent. However, the police ask how the Government are helping them to deal with those who persistently offend. What happens when the police do detain such individuals? Should not more secure units be available for those juveniles while they are on remand? Some investment is at last being made in south Wales in that respect.
  Other issues with which I shall not detain the House but which have been mentioned by other hon. Members include the design of motor vehicles, the admirable Which? survey, the question of insurance and rewarding those who take adequate precautions to secure their vehicles by having the means to immobilise them in case of theft, safety improvements and cases such as those in Swansea, where, for example, the local authority has now put attendants in several of the key car parks. The authority charges people to park there but the editor of my local papar—The South Wales Evening Post—said on 3 December:
  "Many people will be pleased, and reassured, that Swansea City Council appears to be moving towards a policy of providing attendants for selected car parks."
  The paper went on the say that such a move would at least give the people who came into the city centre greater reassurance, even if they had to pay for the privilege. The Government must deal with the issue of making crime more difficult for the young people who are tempted to perpetrate it, and local authorities can also help.
  Clearly, the Bill is a step forward, by and large. It is an attempt to deal with a prevalent problem, but I fear a distortion—the Government are considering only one aspect of the issue. They are not attempting to modify the existing law in ways which would help the prosecution. I have mentioned some ways in which section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968 might be amended. I have also mentioned the question of indictment after the first court appearance, and other hon. Members have suggested other means to tackle the problem. However, it would be wrong for the Government to hype the Bill too much, and to raise expectations which they certainly cannot meet.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine:The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) delivered what I thought was a curiously muddled speech.
  Mr. John Patten: Characteristically muddled.
  Mr. Irvine: I shall confine myself to "muddled".
  In the fist half of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill was irrelevant, that it did nothing, that it was wholly superfluous and was simply aimed at the headlines. In the second half, he suddenly changed tack.
  654
  Far from arguing that the Bill did nothing, he argued that it was too draconian. He criticised the changing of the evidential requirements and complained that the burden of proof has been reversed in certain important respects. He also attacked the provisions for automatic disqualification.
  Such a muddled approach is symptomatic of a tendency, among all too many people who should know better, to treat the taking and driving away of vehicles as a less serious offence than it is. It is such loose, flaccid and irresponsible thinking which has led to the widespread use of the offensive term "joyriding". Such thinking was behind the absurd argument that the police should be restrained from giving hot pursuit to stolen cars, and it also lay behind much of the nit-picking objection to the Bill that we heard from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  For many people—if not most—their car is, after their home, their most valuable piece of property. When their car is taken, they suffer, at the very least, considerable inconvenience and very often substantial financial loss. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that as many as 40 per cent. of all vehicles taken and driven away unlawfully are damaged when returned to their owner. If a car is unlawfully taken and then returned in a damaged state, it seems absolutely right that the person or persons responsible for taking it should be assumed to be responsible for causing the damage unless they can prove the contrary. After all, they removed it from the custody of its owner and, prima facie, they should bear the responsibility for any damage which occurs between that time and the owner getting it back. Some hon. Members may think that that is unfair, but I believe that car owners whose vehicles have been taken would think differently.
  The unlawful taking and driving away of vehicles goes well beyond damage to property. Car thieves are usually young and unused to driving the particular car that they have taken, and they are usually attracted to high performance cars. That is a lethal combination. "Lethal" is the right word. A few years ago, a Government publication entitled "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" stated:
  "A stolen car is about 200 times more likely to be involved in an accident than the same car driven by its owner."
  The unlawful theft of cars all too often leads to injury and death.
  We know that legislation alone cannot provide a remedy. but it can make convictions easier to obtain. It can increase deterrents. It can single out for special treatment the special aggravating features of a crime. The Bill does exactly that, and I believe that it deserves the support of the House.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: I begin with an apology to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Home Secretary and other hon. Members who spoke before I entered the Chamber. My late arrival was entirely due to an unenjoyable ride on British Rail. I must apologise if I repeat some of the points already made—I do not expect that I shall, except perhaps in my introduction.
  In 1990, nearly 500,000 vehicles were stolen in the United Kingdom—one every minute of the night and day. Some 30,000 vehicles were stolen in Northumbria alone, and more than 770,000 thefts were reported from vehicles.

  655
  Insurers paid out nearly £500 million for car theft claims. Nearly one third of all recorded crimes were due to thefts from or of motor vehicles. About one quarter of missing vehicles were never recovered. A stolen car is 200 times more likely to be involved in an accident than one driven by its owner. At least three car owners out of every 20 have experienced theft from their vehicles, and it takes as little as four seconds for a car thief to break into a car without a key.
  Most joy riders—or death-riders, as they should more accurately be described—are aged between 13 and 16, and the Bill does little to deal with that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) gave one example from his constituency. In a recent case in Northumbria, a youth under 15 years of age was arrested and admitted 100 offences of taking vehicles without their owners' consent. He eventually appeared before the court and was placed in the custody of the local authority. He soon escaped and was rearrested five hours later, when he admitted having taken 10 vehicles within those five hours. That is a serious problem. The perpetrators, who are usually male, come from all social classes and backgrounds, and all districts of the country. It is against that background that we must examine the Bill's likely impact.
  While heavier penalties may be appropriate, they will not affect the level of car crime to any significant degree. I believe that the Bill. when enacted, will make no contribution to relieving the communities on Tyneside and elsewhere of the terrifying levels of car-related crime and its sometimes lethal consequences. The heavier penalties outlined in the Bill will go some way to balance the punishment and the seriousness of the crime to which that punishment relates. I have no doubt that those penalties will be welcomed by many who, day and night, suffer from the madness of high-speed driving through residential districts. However, I fear that the welcome will be short-lived once it becomes clear that, while those who are caught may be dealt with more severely, the level of car crime will not be noticeably reduced.
  The Bill would not have altered the punishment meted out to those responsible for the death of baby Richard Harthill, who was killed by car thieves in my constituency just over a year ago. Even if the penalty had been increased, it would not have brought back Richard Harthill. Those who commit such crimes will not be deterred by the measures outlined in the Bill. Such people often lack the intellect to comprehend or fear legal reprisals and, more often, do not expect to be caught.
  There have been many instances in which car thieves have been killed or badly injured while committing their crimes. The misplaced hero worship of two such thieves was recently blamed for an outbreak of disturbances on north Tyneside later spreading to Newcastle. The knowledge that there is a great risk of death or serious injury has not led to a reduction in the rate of such crimes. One must therefore ask: if people are not deterred by the thought of losing their lives, what deterrent will a longer gaol sentence provide?
  While I welcome the Bill in so far as it at long last recognises that something must be done, I believe that, it avoids the issue of prevention. It is far too easy for cars to be taken: often drivers make it easy by not taking the proper precautions—as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said. I have heard of people with company cars, hire cars or contract vehicles who take a
  656
  relaxed view of car security because they believe that, if the car is stolen, they will be supplied with another one. Such reckless and irresponsible behaviour could lead to the death or serious injury of an innocent victim.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have said that new British standards have been introduced for car security and that the Department of Transport is pressing for such standards to be included in a new European directive. However, I do not accept the argument put to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in a letter of 24 February.
  "It would be a breach of European Community law for the Government to introduce national legislation to strengthen the existing community requirements for vehicle security since this would constitute a technical barrier to trade with other Member States."
  That would be true only if British legislation required all new cars sold to be fitted with anti-theft devices. Surely there is nothing in the European legislation to prevent Her Majesty's Government from introducing measures requiring drivers to ensure that their vehicles are properly secured against theft. That would not necessitate any technical changes in imported vehicles.
  I should like all new cars to be fitted with good quality security devices. I do not know why we should have to wait for European directives, or the 20 years or so that it would take for a new generation of such cars to find their way on to our roads. By placing the onus on the driver in the first instance, our Government could introduce measures quickly and independently. I know that that would not be universally popular, but if it saved one innocent life, who could say that it was not worth it?
  What standards should be set in such legislation? Car alarms are one form of deterrent, but they are often riot detected by a thief until triggered, by which time he is already in the vehicle and often merely continues in his task. A visible and substantial immobilising device should be fitted to the gear stick or steering wheel. That would deter most opportunist thieves, particularly if the device were complemented by an alarm. Some 90 per cent. of car thefts are committed by opportunist thieves. Minimum standards laid down by the Department of Transport would prevent the use of cheap and easily overcome equipment.
  I must add—in some way against my own argument —that I am still awaiting a reply to my letter of 27 September to the Home Office, in which I once again asked what was to be done to stop the general sale of skeleton car keys. The House will no doubt be as shocked as I was to hear of the following recently circulated advertisement. I shall leave out the name of the device and its manufacturer for obvious reasons, but I will quote from the rest of the advertisement:
  "The ߪ Key Set consists of three skeleton keys to suit different types of lock, and will open the majority of British and foreign cars. Previously only available to the Motor Trade these keys are now available to other businesses."
  A note at the bottom of the advertisement states:
  "These keys are intended for use by management and authorised staff only, in connection with their trade and must not be used for any illegitimate reasons."
  I do not think that potential car thieves are likely to take much notice of that qualification. The Government must take action urgently to stop the sale of general equipment which makes stealing cars so much easier.
  If we are to make an impact on the astronomical levels of car crime in the short term, substantial and visible security devices are a must, but they will be useless unless

  657
  they are used by drivers. I have already referred to the irresponsible attitude of some drivers, so alongside the requirement to have such devices fitted must go the legal requirement to use them. It should be an offence for a car to be left unattended without such a device properly engaged. Because they are visible it would be quite easy for a patrolling policeman or traffic warden to spot offenders and issue a ticket. Finally, to ensure that the devices are kept in good working order, they should form part of the inspection required for the issuing of an MOT certificate.
  The motor car can be a joy. It brings freedom and mobility to millions of people, but it can also be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands. It is within our power hugely to reduce the number of thefts, accidents and fatalities which too often result from that. Unfortunately, the Bill does not introduce measures that would be effective. I realise that to legislate effectively will mean as it so often does that there will be some cost, inconvenience and loss of liberty on the part of the innocent and the victims, but that is the price we pay for not tackling seriously and effectively enough the root social causes of such crimes. They are, however, another issue for another day.
  6.41 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: Later, I shall say something about car security which follows on from what the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said.
  Many Back Benchers have highlighted the dangers of joyriding and the urgent need to do something about it. I believe that they reflected public anxiety in so doing, but the nitpicking approach of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was entirely out of keeping with the public mood and will be seen as such. It would take a wizard to find out precisely what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was proposing as an alternative.
  I declare an interest: I have the honour to be president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, a body wholly dedicated to road safety. It has been so for many years. For a long time we have urged tougher measures to stop the curse of joyriding, which should never have been given that name in the first place. I do not know what ass coined the phrase, but it gives the impression that this is just a harmless frolic on the part of light-hearted youngsters. Sometimes the courts have tended to take the same view. Of course, it is nothing of the sort; it is a serious crime which all too often leads to more serious crime—to death or injury for life and to human suffering. I would call it misery-riding.
  I welcome the Bill, therefore. The Theft Act 1968 was hopelessly inadequate to deal with the problem, so I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book without delay—and with enough publicity to show criminals, young and old, that the public are not prepared to tolerate this menace any longer.
  I wish to question some of the Bill's provisions, nevertheless. The Opposition amendments seem half-baked; their only effect would be to water down the Bill. I take a rather different view which might be called draconian, but the issue calls for draconian measures. I do
  658
  not know whether my alterations to the Bill may be considered in another place, but I did not have time to table amendments for this debate.
  My amendments would increase the severity of the penalties. The maximum sentence of five years when death is caused—clause 1(4)—is inadequate. I would be happy to increase that to 10 or 14 years, or even to life if the offence was serious enough. The two-year maximum sentence for other offences may not be enough to deter, either. I hope that that will be considered in another place.
  As for clause 2, I cannot see why the offence should not be triable by magistrates courts or the Crown courts without the rigmarole stipulating the amount of damages. One can imagine wicked cases in which only a small amount of damage was caused. This curse must be stamped out, but it will not be stamped out by probation or wishy-washy telling off from the Bench—or by some of the alternatives mentioned by Opposition Members. We need a much more severe approach and that will usually come only from the Crown courts, to which many of these cases should go.
  The courts have used disqualification far too feebly. I see no reason why there should not be a minimum rather than a maximum period of disqualification. When death or permanent injury result from an offence, I would have no objection to imposing a life ban. It may be said that many offenders are young people who do not even have a licence, but if they were threatened with not being able to get one for some years until they were more sensible or mature, that would constitute a deterrent. I should like the courts to use disqualification more frequently.
  As the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge said, the real deterrent is better security. Not only those who let out company cars but car manufacturers must accept some responsibility. It is ridiculous that security systems should be regarded as no more important than cassette players. They should be as compulsory as seat belts. I sometimes wonder whether car manufacturers would have fitted brakes if there were no sales benefit in them. I hope that the Minister will be robust in the discussions that he is pursuing with the manufacturers, and I hope that they will respond with a sense of responsibility.
  I also hope that the Home Secretary will deal robustly with the European Community, and will resist any nonsense about non-tariff barriers to trade, on which the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge touched. It is possible to get round such nonsense. The Minister should remind Europe that, despite what some people think, car crime is just as prevalent there—it happens in Germany and France, too, as some of our colleagues on the Council of Europe know to their cost. The Minister should receive a sympathetic hearing from the European Community, and the sooner a directive in this area is introduced the better.
  No system is 100 per cent. foolproof, but many new ideas are emerging. Since I published a letter in The Times, I have been sent suggestions from all over the country, some of them rather wild and others which I am not qualified to understand. I have, however, gone in some detail into one sent to me by a constituent. My constituent, Mr. Musker, has patented a practical device involving a simple combination lock, the number of which—as with an executive case—is held only in the mind of the user of the car. I shall not go into more detail now, but I have asked the Home Secretary to put Mr. Musker in touch with the experts in his Department or in the Department

  659
  of Transport and to ask them to study the device in great detail with my constituent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond as soon as possible.
  We regard this Bill as urgently needed, but the study of these new devices is equally urgently needed. I have made a special plea to the Home Secretary in writing that Mr. Musker's case be seriously considered.
  The criticism has been levelled that the Bill is being rushed through. It is not the first Bill to be rushed through in my time in the House, nor will it be the last. It is certainly one of the most necessary Bills to be rushed through the House, and I wish it well.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, welcome the legislation and the mood of the House. It shows that hon. Members are deeply concerned about joyriding and about the need to ensure that proper measures are taken to resolve the terrible wave of crime that is affecting people in this country. Like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), hon. Members are prepared to put forward fresh ideas which we hope will be considered by the Minister of State. I also intend to put forward a couple of new ideas, and I hope that they will be examined.
  I realise the enormous pressure that must now bear on right hon. and hon. Members to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. I, too, am not a great fan of any procedure which would prevent hon. Members from taking a careful and measured look at proposed legislation. One of our most important functions is to study carefully what the Government present, and to make suggestions that would directly benefit the victims of that appalling crime.
  On 22 July 1991, four people needlessly died in Leicestershire. Two of them were a husband and wife who had travelled to Leicestershire the previous afternoon. The other two were teenagers, the driver and passenger of a stolen Austin Metro involved in a two-car crash. In April last year, four people died near Melton Mowbray. Two were 16-year-olds, the others were a husband and wife in their 60s. In May, a 16-year-old died after the car he had stolen careered off the road between Loughborough and Copt Oak. Earlier this year, a 16-year-old passenger died after a crash at Wanlip. The car had been stolen. Hon. Members will have other examples of the horror that such crime perpetrates. The few examples that I give are an appalling record for a county such as Leicestershire. According to the police, every day about 22 cars are stolen in Leicestershire.
  There are, of course, suggestions on which we can all agree. We would like car manufacturers to play a much more important role in installing locks which halt thieves. Far too few ensure that that happens. I accept the need for car manufacturers to meet the Home Secretary early and regularly, and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us when the Home Secretary or he last met car manufacturers.
  Mr. John Patten: I will tell the hon. Gentleman now. We last met car manufacturers within the past two months. My right hon. Friend and I will be seeing all car manufacturers—not only British Car manufacturers, but representatives of European and Japanese car manufacturers—on Wednesday, and we shall speak very forcefully to them.
  Mr. Vaz: I welcome that intervention. I am pleased that the Minister will speak forcefully to car manufacturers. When he says that he will do something, he does it. I hope that he will also take on board the comments of car manufacturers and retailers who have told me that they face a difficult situation in terms of this country's economic conditions. The recession is affecting them. If they are to allocate resources to installing devices to prevent theft, they should be helped in some way by the Government. For example, they refer to car tax as one form of help, but they have other suggestions, including the price of petrol and other issues. I hope that in Wednesday's dialogue the Government will take car manufacturers' concerns on board.
  The next matter relates to the need for the police to be able to allocate more resources to deal with car theft and to be able to provide the necessary personpower and administrative help. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that. The problem is that police forces such as Leicestershire police force find it difficult to allocate more resources when they have not been given sufficient resources over several years. The Minister of State, with his encyclopaedic knowledge, will jump up and tell the House that the police force in Leicestershire has been allocated an extra 27 police officers. We know that, but the Leicestershire police force asked for considerably more officers than that. It asked for additional resources to deal with the high level of crime.
  We are talking about car theft and about what happens when cars are taken away and damaged and injury is caused. That is only one matter that the police have to examine. The Leicestershire police force pleads for additional resources. I hope that the Government will bear that point in mind. It is not sufficient just to pass legislation to ensure that there are new criminal offences. We must have police officers to detect crime and to bring people to justice and to ensure that the administration of justice is properly examined.
  We need to ensure that our courts take a much tougher line. They will welcome the proposed penalties. Some of our magistrates in Leicestershire have other ideas. Councillor Adoline Smith JP was quoted earlier this year as calling for culprits to be birched. She said that Parliament was not acting quickly enough. I see the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) getting very excited. The Minister of State will recall that, last week, he incorrectly said that the hon. Member for Northampton, North had called for castration in respect of certain matters, but he later realised that it was another Conservative Member.
  The hon. Gentleman finds a friend in Councillor Adoline Smith, who says that birching is one way to ensure that young people are aware of what they are doing. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to hon. Members—it will be a relief to the Opposition Front Bench—that I do not support birching, and I do not intend to move amendments in Committee suggesting that we should birch young people.
  Councillor Adoline Smith also said that Parliament had not acted quickly enough. I hope that, on reading Hansard and realising the timetable that has been set, she will know that we are taking this matter very seriously indeed. Another suggestion has been put forward by Mr. Alan Gayton, the head magistrate in Leicestershire.
  Mr. Greg Knight: He is a very good magistrate.
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) will remember him, as the hon. Gentleman practised in the Leicestershire courts. Mr. Gayton's suggestion is a result of his great frustration. He suggested that those who perpetrate such crimes should be taken to the scene of the crime. He feels that young people will be more aware of the damage that they do if they are taken to watch what the emergency services have to do and see the carnage that has been wreaked. He said:
  "Actually watching the emergency services prising the killed and injured out of mangled metal might just bring home to these fools the enormity of the likely consequences of their behaviour."
  The probation service in Leicestershire has welcomed such a suggestion. I do not know how it will work in practice, but Mr. Gayton, who has 27 years' legal experience, says that there is a need to remind young people of what they have done. Of course there are psychological and psychiatric implications of that suggestion. I am neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist, but that suggestion was put by one of our most senior magistrates.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could comment also on the suggestion made by the chief constable of Leicestershire. On 17 April, he suggested that young people should be taught to drive as young as 13. He felt strongly that that would be one way to show young people that driving a car was not exciting or different. It would mean that young people would not have to steal cars if they wanted to drive, and it would enable them to understand that driving a car was something responsible. He said:
  "I would like to see introduced into schools car driving and maintenance for children as young as 13.
  A third of reported crime in the county is juvenile crime."
  That is an interesting suggestion, upon which local people have seized as one way of dealing with the problem. I hope that when the Minister will say whether he agrees with the chief constable and whether he hopes to examine that practical suggestion carefully. Such matters need to be examined carefully.
  I turn finally to a couple of things that should have been in the Bill, but which are not. We need to place greater emphasis on preventing such crimes. The chief constable's suggestion that those as young as 13 should be taught to drive is one way in which such preventive work could operate. However, it is important that the Government make more resources available at local level and ring fence them so that we can deal with the issue and prevent young people from embarking on such careers. That is the only way to deal with the long-term problems of car theft and death riding.
  We must ensure that young people are made aware of what is happening. That means putting much more emphasis on teaching about such things in our schools. We should ensure that police officers spend time in schools on this. Many schools in my constituency invite police officers who are on the beat to explain the law to young people at school. Too few people are made available by police forces —no doubt because of the personpower implications—to ensure that such educative and preventive work is carried out, but that would be one way to ensure that young people are made aware of the serious issues at stake.
  662
  I very much hope that the Minister will respond to the debate in the spirit that has been evident in the speeches of hon. Members from all parties. This is a serious problem and the public demand that we should do something, and do it quickly. We should be aware of the tremendous implications of such legislation, especially because it brings into question the fundamental principles of the way in which we prosecute and the way in which our criminal justice system operates. Bearing all that in mind, we must listen to the real fears and concerns of local people.
  I had intended to conclude on that point, but very finally, I should like to bring another suggestion to the Minister's attention. I had almost forgotten it, but I should never have been forgiven if I had. I refer to the Leicester Mercury's Leicestershire vehicle watch campaign, which was initiated and launched by our local newspaper with the support of all local Members of Parliament. Given that that newspaper's editor and other journalists are coming down here tomorrow, I would be seriously criticised if I did not mention their serious suggestion.
  The campaign involves the owners of vehicles putting a fluorescent sign in their windscreen, proclaiming their membership of the campaign. About 30,000 motorists signed up for the scheme, and fewer cars bearing the mark were stolen than would otherwise have been expected. We all support that new idea and campaign. I very much hope that the Minister will also support what the Leicester Mercury and Leicestershire constabulary are doing, and that he will adopt the scheme and apply it nationally.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. lain Mills: As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is not in his place, perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will inform him of my opening comments. I had asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he disagreed with the Bill, to tell us the Labour party's policy, and the right hon. Gentleman referred me to his speech in our debate on the Loyal Address. Although I have now read the right hon. Gentleman's speech three or four times during this excellent debate. I must advise the House that I cannot see a clear policy.
  When the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman replies to the debate—I do not know whether that will be the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook or one of his right hon. Friends—I hope that the Labour party's policy will be made absolutely clear. I find it bewildering that so many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), have made it clear that they want action and teeth. Although they may want teeth of a different shape from those of the Government, they do want action. I should therefore be grateful if the Opposition could make their policy clear.
  I agree with colleagues of all parties who have talked about "joyriding" being a most inappropriate term. We should use either the phrase "misery riding" or, as has been suggested, "death riding". They would be much better terms and might help to discourage those who indulge in what is a deliberate crime, not a disease.
  Although I do not want to detain the House for too long, I should like first to make a few points about demographics. I am informed that there is no easy demographic feature to this problem, except age. The problem involves the young and men, but they are not social class C2s and DEs only. They also include ABs. I

  663
  have seen reports stating that the perpetrators' designer jeans, jackets and trainers, together with money and credit cards in their wallets, show clearly that those who commit the crime of death riding are not unemployed or doing it through boredom because they do not have a job. Often they have money and are doing it for fun.
  Let us go a little further and look at how it happens. I do not know whether hon. Members realise what happens at the sort of scenes that have occurred in my constituency. It contains the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international station, which have given rise to what is possibly the largest concentration of car parks for high-powered, new and decent cars in the west midlands, if not in the country. Those areas are difficult to police because they are huge. Anybody who passes down the M6 and looks at the national exhibition centre knows how gigantic its car parks are. They have to be to service that most excellent institution. They are a target.
  What happens is often quite well organised. One of the lads will spot a really good car, such as a Ford Sierra Cosworth, a BMW 7 series or the right sort of Jaguar entering the car park at either the station or the NEC. His mates will be alerted and will come down the road from the north of my constituency. It takes them about three minutes at most to get into the car. They do not operate by having only one fellow who sneaks up to drive the car away; a whole group is involved. The more people they can get into the car, the more fun it is. I assure the House that all this is true. They then spray on the back of the car, "Chase me, Charlie" or "This is stolen", and deliberately look for a police car so that they can induce a chase.
  One of the guys who does this has said—this has been published in a national newspaper—that they like cars with big boots because they can then get lads not only in the car, but also I in the boot. That is why nobody, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), can convince me that those who indulge as passengers do not have equal responsibility for what happens. In fact, those involved vie with each other about who will drive. It is a case of peer group pressure. Driving the car becomes a way of proving one's manhood or that one is macho. Sometimes they take it in turns to drive. Indeed, having spotted the cars, they sometimes steal them and store them in garages for use on special occasions.
  This is not a crime committed by young people who are bored and out looking for a bit of fun. It is a deliberate crime. The offenders intend to take the car and use it for dangerous purposes. The aggravated taking of a car is not just for fun. It is serious and the more dangerous young people can make it, the more they enjoy it. That is why I greatly welcome the penalties introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for those who take cars in such circumstances.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ignore any comments made about the speed of the legislation. I assure him that in the west midlands and in my constituency where, as I said, we have a particular problem, it will be welcomed just as soon as it can be put on the statute book. The Bill will be welcomed not just by me but by the many magistrates in Birmingham and Solihull who have come to me wringing their hands. They understand that I, too, am worried about the problem, but they ask what they can do in their courts to make sure that the criminals are given adequate penalties that will act as a deterrent.
  664
  I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House, but perhaps especially Labour Members, that they should not fool themselves that the lads who gather together around the boot of a Sierra Cosworth and say, "Let's get this Cossie and go lads," are unaware of the penalties. They know the penalties very well. They look at the lad who is under 17 and say, "You have a better chance. If they catch us, you will not get the penalties that we would." But in any case, what does it matter to them? They do not have any money, or, if they have, it is their parents' money.
  The introduction of extra responsibilities for parents in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is welcome. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will expand slightly on the penalties that 15 and 16-year-olds who commit this crime would attract. I am aware that driving under a ban is in itself a further offence which carries a six-month penalty, and that the ban on driving can be extended until after the offender is old enough to drive. The magistrates in my area are greatly worried about how the under-17s and particularly the 15 and 16-year-olds will see the sentence.
  Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend gives way with characteristic courtesy. Once the Bill becomes law and the parallel changes made in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are brought into force, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to do in October next year, offenders in the 15-to-17 age group could be sentenced to up to one year in a young offenders institution rather than six months, as was previously the case.
  Mr. Mills: I welcome that, and thank my right hon. Friend for his interjection.
  As one who spent 20 years in the car industry, I know that the market demands goodies and nice things. It has never demanded safety. Therefore, the ability to sell cars on the basis of safety or security is limited. The motives are simply not there. The provision of greater security will need some encouragement. The industry has responded well, but I ask the House to recall a story which I gather is correct. In the Members' Cloakroom, we all have our hooks to hang our coats on and our pink strings to hang our swords on. To prevent his car from being stolen from just up the river, one hon. Member used to take the steering wheel off his car and hang it on the pink string.
  The House will forgive me for saying that, in these days of high technology, there must be some way in which the vehicle industry could provide more foolproof methods of preventing people from breaking into cars. It might be deadlocking or visual identification. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke about vehicle watch schemes. Such schemes have been established in Warwickshire, near my constituency, and in the west midlands in my constituency. They are extremely important, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to encourage them.
  Mr. Clelland: The hon. Gentleman has touched on prosecution, which is the key to the problem, if the hon. Gentleman will pardon the pun. He talked about encouraging manufacturers to fit security devices. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider legislating to make manufacturers fit such devices? We did not talk about encouraging manufacturers to fit safety belts: we legislated on safety belts. We should also legislate on car security.
  Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman puts me in a difficult position. I was one of the prime supporters of the Bill which introduced compulsory wearing of seat belts. I have also worked in the car industry. I am not sure that we need primary legislation. British standards exist now. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attended a meeting of the Association of British Insurers, which provides good incentives for car manufacturers to produce more secure cars by reducing the insurance premiums for the people who buy them.
  My right hon. Friend's speech to the association was excellent. He has also met the car manufacturers and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, is seeing them again on Wednesday. Perhaps we shall have to legislate, but I believe that out of their technological skills car manufacturers could provide the necessary mechanisms. I cannot believe that in these days of high technology there is not a relatively simple and inexpensive way of immobilising a car.
  In the old days in the army we used to take the rotor arm off the vehicles. The lads in the other battalion had the same rotor arms, so they put it on and drove the vehicle off. The House will forgive me for being slightly facetious.
  Mr. Vaz: I was interested to hear about the vehicle watch scheme in the west midlands, which is similar to the scheme in Leicester. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that different parts of the country do different things and that it would be helpful to have a national scheme supported by the Home Secretary which could be supported everywhere? At present we run the risk that, if some vehicles from my area go into the hon. Gentleman's area, people may not understand what the sign means. If we had one scheme supported by the Home Secretary, it could be of great help in solving the problem.
  Mr. Mills: I would have no objection to a national scheme. The Warwickshire and West Midlands police work closely together, especially in policing the M6. I understand that the fluorescent disc is common to both police forces. I would not disagree with some form of national co-ordination.
  I had hoped to raise in more detail one of the matters raised by my eminent constituent, His Honour Frank Blennerhasset. He asked me to say that many of the crimes with which we are dealing are aggravated by drug and alcohol abuse. He is still worried about the difficulty that the courts have when dealing with death riding or other matters. The definition of alcohol abuse by the World Health Organisation as a serious disability creates a disadvantage for the court in giving serious penalties for ignoring and breaking the law where alcohol or drug abuse is involved. Alcohol and drug abuse is certainly a factor in death riding and aggravated taking of cars. If it is not appropriate to deal with it tonight, I have written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I should be grateful if he would respond in writing.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: This is one of the rare occasions when the two sides of the House are at one. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who has just left the Chamber, agree that we have a problem on our hands. Members of Parliament have a common interest in doing something about a serious problem and doing it quickly. The interesting thing is that there is a tendency to
  666
  presume that an action takes place, the culprit is found and we have to decide what sentence to apply in the courts to settle the matter. It is not so easy as that.
  Experience has shown that the idea of getting caught takes into account very little the sentence that might be around the corner. Accessory to murder is a particular example. The notion of not getting caught is much stronger than the deterrent of a sentence. Nevertheless, we need some judicial procedure to deal with the matter. Where does the responsibility really lie? First, as the vehicle is created and manufactured by someone, that person has a responsibility. There is no point in putting on the market a product that will cause death, if that can be avoided.
  The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), among others, pinpointed the fact that in the first place responsibility rests with the manufacturers. Undoubtedly, the technology exists to make stationary cars safer. Therefore, we should not be talking in terms merely of encouragement: we should get the thing done. The Government should require car manufacturers to provide the necessary safety. If motorists have to pay a little more for their cars, so what? It is far better to be a law-abiding motorist—as the majority of us are—and to know that we have made some contribution to our added safety. It is not only the poor woman with her child living on an estate who may be killed—as in the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge—because motorists use the roads while death riders are about.
  Where does the next responsibility lie? It lies with motorists who, as the customers, should encourage motor manufacturers by saying that they want safe cars and are prepared to pay whatever it costs—I believe that the sum would he nominal—to make the car safe when it is stationary and not being used.
  The first two responsibilities lie with the manufacturer and the buyer. Where is the third? It is with the parent. It serves no useful purpose when a parent boasts on television that his son is the best of the bunch and not likely to be caught, as happened in the case of the ram raiders in Tyne Bridge during the riots some weeks ago. The total ignorance of some parents must be attacked and public consensus must provide another responsibility. Where does that lie? It lies with the media, which serve no good if they are prepared to give time to parents who are so blatantly ignorant. Other parents, who are equally ignorant, may think that it is bravado to appear on television and boast about a serious wrong, which is potentially murder.
  Where else does responsibility lie? It lies in schools, colleges of further education and polytechnics, where young people should be given regular reminders—from the police, through video and by other means—of the full horror that their actions can bring about, and the loss and distress that can be caused to families, whether young or old. When grandmothers and grandfathers lose children, they suffer grief. Whenever someone is hurt, their family suffers grievously, and that may take years to overcome.
  I have listed a number of responsibilities on which I call upon the House to take action. The final responsibility lies with the police.
  Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend referred to the fact that manufacturers have some responsibility to provide safe and secure vehicles. He is making the same mistake as the Minister of State and the Home Secretary. Even if

  667
  manufacturers could be encouraged to produce vehicles with security devices, it would take about 20 years for the new generation of cars to find their way on to our roads. The problem is here and now. What is to be done about cars on our roads now, which do not have adequate security devices?
  Mr. Leadbitter: I thought that I had made it clear that manufacturers should be obliged to provide such vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge mentions cars on the road now. If we can modify our cars to use lead-free petrol at reasonable extra cost, it will surely not be too difficult to overcome that little matter. Some time would need to be taken because of the large numbers involved, but I should have thought that a programme lasting between one year and 18 months could mop up the cars on the road now and ensure that they comply with the safety standards to which the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge rightly referred. I note that he has tabled an amendment to deal with that in Committee.
  The police also have a responsibility. Although they do excellent work and face many problems. there is nevertheless a weakness in their deployment of forces and in their operations. Too many police officers seem to be driving around in patrol cars and too few are on their feet in the estates. While the police may have felt that patrol cars were a priority to ensure efficient operations, perhaps there should now be a shift of emphasis, with more police on the beat around the neighbourhoods.
  I have referred only in passing to the victims. There is no doubt that in modern times we seem to be becoming partially immune to regular, daily reports of tragedy. We seem to take it for granted that it will happen. We are sorry, but the next day another incident occurs. This problem has been with us for some time, and we have taken it for granted. Due to recent publicity, we are urging that a Bill be pushed through the House quickly, and quite rightly so.
  The House must remember that we have a responsibility to highlight the real tragedy of this type of offence. Unless we do so, tomorrow will be just another occasion. Next week, after the Bill has passed through another stage, it will be just another occasion. Like cats playing with pieces of different coloured wool, in a few weeks' time we shall have another interest. That is one of the penalties of modern life, which is very racy and interesting, and it is bound to happen. It is not a fault. but we must recognise that it exists.
  I am pleased that the Minister of State said that he would speak firmly to the manufacturers next week. There is no doubt that we have a common interest, but as well as meeting a legislative requirement we must provide a service, using what publicity we can, to make it abundantly clear that there is a disease called death riding in our society, and that it must be brought to a halt. That will happen only if all those responsible act together to end it.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's introduction of the Bill and certainly support the need for urgent action. I only wish that we could perhaps have tougher action, because the level of car crime is absolutely intolerable. The figures for 1989 showed that we had the worst problem in
  668
  Europe, with 400,000 thefts in England and Wales. The latest figure, if I heard my right hon. Friend correctly, is 550,000.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) referred to the figures for Bolton. I do not know whether he saw the editorial in today's Bolton Evening News headed "Car crime puzzle", asking why we should have such high car crime figures. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what he described as 11,000 innocent Boltonians who were affected in the past 10 months, and the editorial asks what the Government are intending to do about it.
  If the national surveys are to be believed, 25 per cent. of people who had their cars stolen did not lock them. With the inadequacy of the locks fitted by some manufacturers, they perhaps felt that locking the car did not make any difference. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister is successful in his efforts to persuade manufacturers to fit better locks, and I hope that people will lock their cars when they have those better locks.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke about the vehicle watch scheme in Leicester. I am pleased to say that I helped to launch such a scheme in Bolton, and I recommend that everybody should use the stickers.
  The Government certainly support the police. What annoys me about the Opposition is that they are ambivalent in their support of the police. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that we had a common approach and that the police face many problems. One of their problems is the sort of statement made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool would dissociate himself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Tottenham, who said that if the killer of PC Blakelock
  "came forward and said he did it, hut didn't want me to tell the police, I would not tell them."
  I hope that Labour Members would completely dissociate themselves from such an attitude. Our first duty is to support the police, if we are to get on top of these crime figures.
  Mr. Leadbitter: That is an easy one. I have no hesitation in saying that I found that comment disgusting. I rebut it and I would have nothing whatever to do with it.
  Mr. Thurnham: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others who have intimated that they would not support the police will do likewise.
  The Government have supported the police with an extra 16,000 men and women in uniform and an extra 12,000 on civilian duties, totalling 28,000 extra posts. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) has already welcomed the extra £20 million for Greater Manchester police, although I am not able to translate that into the equivalent number of police positions that one would expect from that sum. It would appear that only 20 extra police are allocated for Greaster Manchester police in 1992–93.
  I support the extra powers in the Bill making all passengers liable and increasing the maximum sentence to two years, or five years in the case of a death, and the maximum fine to £5,000. There is a problem with 17-year-olds. The proposal that we should ban them from driving after their 17th birthday, even if the offence was committed before that, is long overdue.

  669
  I should like to draw attention to repeated offenders. When I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech to ask about an offender in Bolton who had already stolen 30 vehicles this year, he said that the Bill would not address that problem and that we would have to wait for his proposals in the new year. Why do we have to wait? Of the 400,000 offences that occurred in 1990, only 5,000 offenders went to prison or a youth offenders institution, of whom 4,000 went in for six months or less, so only 1,000 were given sentences of six months or more. No doubt many of those were released before the six months were up. I call on my right hon. Friend to do all he can to introduce measures urgently.
  The study by the Northumbria police shows that 40 per cent. of crimes detected by the police in 1989 were committed by people on bail. Those likely to reoffend on bail must be deterred either by a new offence or by altering the rules governing the granting of bail. The chief superintendent in Bolton wrote to me saying:
  "the current legal system is not capable of dealing with the worst offenders effectively."
  The chief clerk to Bolton magistrates court, Mr. Peter Dawson, sent me a letter from Mr. Moiser of Plymouth magistrates court, which appeared in The Times in September. He wrote:
  "the Bail Act needs immediate amendment ߪ there is no reason why"
  the Government
  "cannot act quickly".
  I would have hoped that we could have included an amendment to the Bail Act 1976 in this Bill to put that matter right immediately. Obviously, measures should be taken to provide more places in bail hostels. Not enough is being done in that area. There are 500 extra places now and 700 extra places to come in the next two years or so, but we should do a great deal more.
  We have a great problem knowing what to do with criminal youths. Some 30 per cent. of crime is committed by youths under 17. We have heard about special schemes in Salford and elsewhere, and they seem to have promise, but social services in Bolton and everywhere else must face up to the challenge. We need more secure units and special schools.
  The other day, when we debated child abuse in Leicestershire, I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the chasm in social services provision for juvenile delinquents. In some local authority homes, 85 per cent. of the staff are unqualified. In other words, only 15 per cent. are properly qualified. When we consider the best provision outside local authority provision, it raises many questions. There is a great challenge which social services must face up to.
  In considering the best practice elsewhere, Mr. Melvyn Rose has spoken of the work done at Peper Harow. I understand that the charge there is £1,000 per week. If that is what it costs to bring offenders back into society as helpful and constructive people, it is well worth while. We need to see what provision is being made. There are profitable organisations as well as the non-profitable, charitable ones, such as Peper Harow.
  I was somewhat surprised the other day to look at the accounts of a private sector company which provides homes for disturbed children. The proprietor of Helsey Hall Ltd. Mr. Stephen Lloyd whom I meet shortly, draws
  670
  substantial sums for his work running these special schools. The accounts for 1990 show that his salary was £507,750 and his total emoluments, including pension contributions, were £782,750. Substantial sums are being made by people in the private sector who are addressing the problem.
  What are the social services doing? There seems to be an enormous chasm between what local authority homes provide and the provision elsewhere. Can my right hon. Friend consider that problem? In Bolton we have a young Houdini aged 14 or perhaps 15 now who, when I last spoke to the police, had committed more than 140 offences at colossal cost to society. It is worth facing up to the costs of institutions such as Peper Harow if we are to put such offenders on to the right track.
  I look forward to my right hon. Friend's proposals for dealing with repeated offenders. I hope that he can bear to listen to all that is said to him by the police and other community workers. What further action will follow from the "Safer Communities" report that came out in the summer? I have certainly written to my right hon. Friend about that and I am awaiting a reply to my recent letters. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to visit Bolton in the near future. He was in Manchester recently. I can assure him that every opinion survey that I have done shows that law and order is the number one issue for my constituents.
  Obviously I could speak for much longer on this subject, but I know that time is pressing. I look forward to my right hon. Friend visiting Bolton and seeing for himself some of the problems that we have.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I apologise to the House for my absence at the beginning of the debate on this important matter. As usual on a Monday, I was held up by British Rail. I was held up for two hours today; last week I was held up for an hour, so things are getting worse.
  I support the Bill. Obviously, it has been put together quickly—I would not use the harsh expression "cobbled together"—and I accept that it may contain one or two quirks. I do not criticise the Government for that, because I believe that we needed such a Bill three months ago. I am more than happy to see it now. If there are any problems, adjustments can be made. I look forward to discussing the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends, which will improve the Bill.
  I am not sure whether the true reasons for young people, particularly those in my constituency, committing this type of crime have been identified. I know of no young person in the socio-economic category A who has stolen a car; most of the young people involved seem to belong to the C and D groups. I hesitate to put people in such categories, but those young people have little income and little or no prospect of getting a job. I know of children as young as 10 in my constituency who are worried about getting a job. Perhaps that concern accurately reflects the attitude of young people there. The possibility of such young people owning a car without a wait of many years is slim. Perhaps that is one more reason why they indulge in such a "hobby".
  In my younger days, a hobby meant playing with a top and whip, playing marbles as well as cricket and football in the right season. Stealing cars and computer hacking are modern versions of such hobbies. I have no ability to do

  671
  either, especially computer hacking. Car crime seems to be the in thing. The other guy is a chicken if he has not stolen a car, and the thief considers himself one better. Perhaps that person is more attractive to the girls, as well. Perhaps they encourage young men to do such things.
  I accept what has been said about the influence of the media. In the limited time available to hon. Members to watch television, I have seen some of the American police programmes. Inevitably, those programmes involve a car chase at high speed, and numerous cars are smashed up and damaged. Surely that must influence young people. That is yet another reason for car crime—there are as many reasons as there are answers to the problem. However, something must be done, and I am delighted that the Bill has been introduced.
  The son of one of my constituents, Mrs. McVitie, was killed as a result of a crash in a stolen car. He was not driving, and there is some doubt whether he got into the car voluntarily or whether it was a case of him being judged a chicken if he had not. He went through the windscreen when the car crashed. Mrs. McVitie, all credit to her, recognised that her son had committed, in essence, an offence, although it is not in the book as such. She has campaigned for months for the introduction of relevant legislation to deal with the problem. I pay tribute to Mrs. McVitie because she tries to discourage other young people from doing the same as her son.
  I believe that prevention is better than cure. I do not want to argue the pros and cons of the sentences and fines advocated; time will tell whether they are appropriate. It will be possible to adjust them if they are not. I would prefer the introduction of the means to prevent car crime. A number of good suggestions have been made.
  Many sophisticated devices have been developed to improve house security. I recently had a new system installed in my house, and I am amazed at how it works. Those developments came about because of the demands of house owners who did not want their houses burgled. The market has responded to that demand by producing new, sophisticated devices. They cannot guarantee the absolute security of a house, but they can make it more secure. Perhaps some of those marvellous devices can be considered for cars.
  A simple device has been used by a number of car showrooms in my constituency. I do not know how efficient it is, but it is worth considering. Many of those companies are unable to put the cars on sale inside when the showrooms are locked up, so they put a wheel clamp on the vehicles, which is a simple device. Its use originated in London as a means of preventing people from parking in the wrong place, but I believe that it is a useful device to prevent the theft of a car.
  I pass a car showroom in my constituency regularly and the cars on display do not seem to have been disturbed —because it uses wheel clamps. At least that device reduces the chance of cars being stolen. I do not know how much such a device costs, but, given the ready market, I am sure that it could be reasonably priced. I have even considered using one myself, but I have a secure garage, I hope.
  Mr. Clelland: The wheel clamp is extremely useful, because it is visible. Potential thieves are put off because they can see that it would be difficult to steal the car. I am not sure whether a wheel clamp would be particularly
  672
  attractive to owners in inclement weather, but does my hon. Friend agree that, if a device is visible, inside or outside a car, it acts as a valuable deterrent?
  Mr. Thompson: Yes. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider all the suggestions that have been made in this sensible debate.
  The debate has been marred only by the snide remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). This issue has generated cross-party support and those remarks were a hit off, given what we are trying to achieve.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I support the aims of the Bill, and I shall vote for it tonight. I want to concentrate on whether it will provide a sufficiently good means of dealing with young people.
  As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the maximum penalty for someone aged 16 or 17 is subject to a ceiling of one year. However, if one takes off time for remission and good behaviour, one is left with a sentence of four months. We are often talking about young people who have been through the entire menu of alternatives to imprisonment before they are sent to a young offenders institution, formerly known as a detention centre. The penalty offers little deterrent to those youngsters.
  In the summer, I visited my local crime prevention panel and the police to discuss this matter. I was told of one particular youngster in Stockton-on-Tees who has been arrested and charged no fewer than 17 times this year. He has been convicted of car crimes 16 times and had one charge pending at the time of our discussions three months ago.
  The last time that that young person went into secure accommodation in Middlesbrough, he went in through the front door at 3.30 pm, and at 5.30 pm he disappeared out the back door and stole a car to make his escape. He was rounded up about a week later, having stolen four more vehicles. That one 14-year-old has been responsible for the loss of cars to the value of £2·5 million in the last year alone.
  The superintendent of police in my area has told me that, were we to round up about 150 people in the county of Cleveland, it would eradicate about 80 per cent. of all car crime, which itself constitutes about 60 per cent. of total crime in the county.
  Two types of car crime offenders concern us. First, there are those juveniles who steal and wreck fast cars. They are the death riders or joyriders—just stupid and irresponsible people. Above that is a thin veneer of hard cases, who continue offending into their twenties. They are the people to whom the Bill will have some relevance.
  There are many other hon. Members present from the north-east, who have struggled down on British Rail to participate in this debate because we have seen in recent months horrifying scenes on our televisions. They include high-speed chases through densely packed suburban areas, filmed from the air by helicopters. At the crime prevention panel, I watched a video of a police chase through the centre of Middlesbrough, in which a 14-year-old drove a Vauxhall Astra at 90 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road, weaving in and out of oncoming traffic.

  673
  That offender damaged no fewer than eight vehicles, and the police gave up the chase on four separate occasions because it was too dangerous to continue pursuing the stolen vehicle at various stages. The situation is getting completely out of hand.
  In the north-east, we also saw on our televisions a gentleman—if one can call him that—being interviewed after the death of his son in a 90-mph crash involving a stolen car on the outskirts of Newcastle. That father said, "No, my son wasn't a joy rider. He was a professional car thief. He was one of the best in the business." Many hon. Members are nodding, because they remember that interview. Our constituents were horrified that the media should have given such a person a platform, and that the father's attitude was so wholly irresponsible.
  What are we to do? The Bill makes a good start, but it is only a start. It does not deal with hard-core, habitual car thieves—most of whom are in their teens, and who will grow out of it by their mid-twenties. I am told by the probation service, social workers, educationists, and those involved in the youth offenders institute in my constituency that the turning point comes in the late teens, when such offenders get a regular girl friend and decide that it is about time that they acted a little more responsibly. However, in that window between the ages of 13 and 17, there are some dangerous young men who will not be taught any lessons until they are contained.
  I would like the Bill to contain a first offence penalty of a six-month custodial sentence—with no remission and no time off for good behaviour—in a properly funded and managed institution. A second offence would merit two six-month sentences; a third, three six-month sentences, and so on.
  If the individual kept on offending, he would simply be given six months' custodial sentence for each offence—not to run concurrently, but consecutively. Then, a youngster who stole three cars would go to a young offenders institution for one and a half years. I am told by those who have responsibility for the care and custody of young people that they can actually do something with them over that period—but little can be achieved with a young man in one or two months. He returns to the same circumstances as before, to associate with the same peer group, and starts behaving the same way as before.
  I have written at great length to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I emphasise that juvenile crime is not the same as adult crime. I once defended a juvenile on a charge of reckless driving, and he was banned from driving for two years after being found guilty of the most horrific driving at night without lights. As I pulled out of the court car park into the road afterwards, I was almost rammed by some genius in a gold Capri. It was none other than the juvenile that I had just been defending. The way such people behave is quite unbelievable.
  We must recognise the essential difference between juvenile crime and adult crime, and start to treat it seriously. The opposition to the Bill that we have heard tonight, to the effect that it will make such offences more difficult to prove, will not go down well in the country. The public want the House to do something serious about the problem. I doubt that the public will think that the Bill goes far enough—but it makes a good start.
  7.54 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey): I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for being unable to attend at the start of the debate, due to the aggravated taking of British Rail, which took three hours to take me from York to the metropolis. I am none the less glad to make a short contribution to the cross-party connection in support of the Bill. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that something must be done, and quickly.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that the Bill is a rapid reaction to the tip of what is obviously a substantial iceberg—and rightly, because the extent of public anger had to be addressed. The iceberg is the result of a rapid rise in vehicle theft by young persons which goes back some time. It is at its most active in urban areas such as my constituency, the metropolitan city of Leeds, and other big cities such as Newcastle, Bradford and Manchester, whose Members of Parliament have contributed to the debate.
  Figures from the police forces of North and West Yorkshire show the astonishing rate at which vehicle theft has risen. In 1990–91, the six-monthly average for vehicle thefts in West Yorkshire was 20,900. Between 1989–90, there was a 53 per cent. increase in recorded vehicle theft offences in the county and the number recorded in the Leeds metropolitan district rose by 85 per cent.
  There is a disturbing trend for younger children to involve themselves in that kind of crime. In 1989, 19 per cent. of all those convicted of vehicle theft were aged under 17. So far this year, the figure has risen to 27 per cent. West Yorkshire police statistics suggest that the peak age for the offence of taking a vehicle without consent is 15. That is the outrageous undercurrent against which the real bravados—the macho bunch—have participated in so-called joyriding or death riding. That is a dangerous cult and it must be dealt with harshly.
  Between July and October this year in Leeds, two children aged under 10 came to the attention of the police for vehicle theft offences. The Bill does not attempt to address that aspect—and understandably so, because the problem must be dealt with in a short and concise way.
  Many devices and initiatives are available, but the view of West Yorkshire's chief constable is this:
  "It is interesting to note that the upsurge in vehicle crime began in earnest in 1989. It may be no coincidence that just prior to this the Criminal Justice Act 1988 reduced the unauthorised taking of motor vehicles to a summary offence, triable only at magistrates courts. Following this reduction to a less serious' offence, sentencing policy seems to be that the offence of taking vehicles without consent is not in isolation deemed to be serious enough to attract a custodial sentence. In consequence, young offenders may take many cars and never face the prospect of a deterrent sentence."
  That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. The chief constable adds:
  "The proposed legislation to deal with aggravated taking of vehicles is most welcomed as recognition that there is a real problem to be addressed. I am left wondering, however, whether it will address the basic problem of the volume of car crime committed, particularly by significant numbers of young offenders who are not dealt with in a way that effectively deters their criminal activities."
  There are only three reasons for the Bill. First, we have seen a rapid growth of horrendous proportions in the incidence of this crime. Secondly, the Home Secretary and his colleagues have found a way in which to deal with the

  675
  problem swiftly and, I believe, to remove the uppermost element. Thirdly, the Bill has received all-party support, which has enabled us to deal with it in the current Session.
  I am bound to say, however, that the Bill does nothing to deter younger vehicle takers—and it will stand or fall according to its deterrent qualities. We do not want to see a massive amount of custodial sentencing, although we are glad that provision is made for it; what we do want is a reduction in the number of people who participate in such a horrendous cult and in the equally horrendous statistics relating to youngsters who take cars, go to court and then take more cars.
  8 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I support the Bill because it seeks to address a serious problem, but I believe that that problem is greater than it appears to be. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I speak from gut reaction rather than a detailed knowledge of the law or the statistics, but I believe that my gut reaction is shared by the vast majority of people in this country.
  Over the past few years, there has been a massive increase in hooligan crime—crime perpetrated by maladjusted, ill-disciplined adolescents: vehicle theft, theft from vehicles, vandalism, mugging and, at a lower level, intimidatory cycling on modern pedestrian estates, which is very disturbing for residents. In short, young hooligans are terrorising and destroying the neighbourhoods in which they live.
  At the weekend, a constituent came to see me. A neighbour's child had been breaking my constituent's windows, hurling abusive language and stealing property at will. The youth in question had been before the courts, but was still at large. The police had been round to have a supportive chat; there was nothing else that they could do in the circumstances. While a police constable was in the living room, the car parked outside was being daubed by the youth.
  How much worse the problem must be in our larger inner-city areas, whose suffering has recently been laid bare by the national press. The fact that it is concentrated in the poorer areas is no justification for such behaviour, for which there can be no justification; it increases the urgency of the need to find a solution. Until the blight is eradicated, no one will wish to employ people from the areas where this menace exists, and the poor will become poorer.
  Of course there are people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds; of course we must do what we can about it. Sadly, however, there will always be people from disadvantaged backgrounds and there will always be a few people—many of them not from disadvantaged backgrounds—with strong and perverted personalities, who, through macho perversity, gain satisfaction from bullying and terrorism. The influence of their degradation is way beyond their puny numbers.
  Where the problem exists in one part of the country, or in one community, it is greatly magnified through the small screens in the sitting room, which multiply that problem by stimulating its imitation. The situation is becoming worse, not better. This is a useful Bill, but it papers over only one crack. To be effective, justice must deter and it must he swift; at present, it is neither.
  676
  Manifestly, we have no effective deterrent for hooligan crime, or we would not be debating the issue. What about fines? Fines—for people with no jobs and no money? My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that their parents could be fined, but some parents have less control over their children than Robert Maxwell's children had over their fraudulent father.
  What about prison? Should we send such people to prison, so that they can learn how to become professional criminals? In the majority of cases, neither society nor the youths in question would be served by that. What about community service? In some cases, yes; but, in general, the people with whom we are concerned would not be deterred. We require a proper deterrent and I am increasingly of the view that we need some threat of pain and humiliation to purge people of the pseudo-macho personalities that cause the problem. The realisation must be forced on the "big man" that, in reality, he is a little man.
  Last week in the House, I suggested that such people should be given a sound thrashing. I believe that my suggestion caused something of a stir. I am not sure why; perhaps it was due to the appreciation that, in the country as a whole, the idea would—not surprisingly—gain considerable support. It is done; it is over; it is finished. It is a deterrent. I wonder how the young Napoleons who terrorise their neighbourhoods would react if they believed that, in the end, they would suffer a sound thrashing.
  Alternatively, what about a kind of hooligan litter squad? Perhaps hooligans should be attired in some drab and identifying dress and required to carry out repairs and clean up the areas in which their depredations have taken place. William the Conqueror was a cruel and harsh ruler, and I do not suggest that we should harry the north; but during his reign, although people were fearful of the monarch, they were not fearful of their fellow citizens. There may be a moral here: perhaps we need a touch of barbarism to secure civilisation.
  We must also have swifter justice. A large proportion of these anti-social crimes are committed by young people who are on bail or yet to be tried—people who laugh at the law while continuing to break it. Notwithstanding the striking lessons of the Birmingham Six and the other cases, I feel that we are in great danger of over-indulging civil libertarians at the expense of civil peace.
  For one reason or another, either it is too long before the courts are available to try the cases, or the lawyers appear to require too much time to prepare the defence. To say the very least, there is a suspicion that the legal system has been devised to suit the lawyers rather than to protect the public. Justice without immediacy is justice perverted, not least when the guilty go free after a case has lapsed because the credibility of identity evidence has been undermined by delay.
  I recently wrote to my right hon. Friend about a specific case. I received an answer, but I am afraid that it was a long catalogue of half-measures and good intentions. We need action—action this day. It is fine for many of us, given the privileged lives that we lead; it is hell for many of our citizens and we owe them a great deal more urgency than is provided by this useful but inadequate measure.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, although it is a little depressing that some hon. Members should despair of finding any real answers to the problem. After all, law and order has collapsed in this country. The crime rate has doubled in the past 12 years, and there has been a whirlwind of crime committed by young people: 50 per cent. of all crime, and 75 per cent. of burglary, is carried out by them. That is very worrying. Surely a Government's job is to address the overall rise in crime that has taken place while they have been in office, and also to deal with this new phenomenon —the amazing increase in youth crime.
  If we consider only the superficial elements of these changes in society, and deal with the problem purely at the level at which the Bill deals with it, we shall not do justice to the House or to the people of this country. Although we support elements of the Bill, we want to modify it; that is why we have tabled amendments, which we hope will improve it. We had considerable reservations last week about the Prison Security Bill: we felt that our debate missed the opportunity to create a real piece of penal reform—legislation that would change our penal system radically, along the lines of the Woolf report. We do not have great enthusiasm for the Bill. We believe that it is a missed opportunity for tackling the deep-seated causes of crime.
  The Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill follows a course that we have come to expect from the Home Secretary and the Government. When a matter of serious public concern arises which leads to a great deal of media interest, someone in central office says, "We must show that something is being done." To the horror of Home Department civil servants, they suddenly receive an order from the Home Secretary, to the effect that a quick fix is needed to make it look as though something is being done. This, therefore, is a quick fix Bill.
  Car theft is a matter of great public concern. More than half of all recorded crimes are car crimes, involving the theft of vehicles or the theft of property from vehicles. These offences are very much in the public eye, due to the appalling scenes that we saw on television. Oxford, Bristol —which I visited last week—and Newcastle are suffering great problems. The appalling scenes that we saw on television were brought home to us there. Some of the reporting was irresponsible. With hindsight, it appears that disturbances in other towns and cities can be attributed to the copycat element.
  Most people do not want such offences to be tolerated. Councils that conduct local polls say that that is the primary concern. Only a couple of months ago, I visited a major industrial city where a poll had taken place. I was told that people in that city were more concerned about being able to live safely in their homes, not having their cars stolen, and not being burgled or mugged than about unemployment or any of the other big economic issues.
  This is not a new offence. It involves predominantly young people who have been involved in taking vehicles without consent for many years. The problem, however, has become very much worse. It is escalating and taking on worryingly new manifestations. It is happening with many other crimes, as crime figures spiral out of control. The tragedy is that the Government have stood idly by and done little to prevent youth crime in general and this aspect of youth crime in particular.
  678
  I draw the Government's attention to the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention, chaired by James Morgan, which reported in August this year. The working party, chaired by James Morgan, studied crime prevention programmes. Of youth crime, it said:
  "Considering the significant contribution that young people make to the crime problem, both as victims and offenders, the working group was surprised by the lack of references to specific strategies for preventing crime by and against young people."
  That is an important point.
  We know that almost half of all recorded crime is carried out by people under the age of 21, yet far from developing a strategy that focuses on youth, as other countries, such as France, have done, the Government have been involved in a war of attrition against young people. I do not draw the simple conclusion that young people have been badly treated—as they have—during the last 12 years. One only has to look at the halving of the value of the youth training allowance and the way in which young people between the ages of 16 and 18 can no longer claim benefit, including housing benefit. Many of them have been forced into having no stake in society. All that is true, but I do not say that young people who have been deprived in that way should go out and steal cars. There is, however, a clear relationship, as the Home Office research and all the other research shows, between deprivation and crime.
  The Home Secretary pointed out in the debate on the Metropolitan police that Sir Peter Imbert had said that the map of deprivation matched almost exactly the map of crime in London. The Home Office's own research shows the same close relationship. I have studied some interesting research which shows that, on previous occasions, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have drawn a comparison with the depression in the 1930s. They state that crime did not rise then, and they ask why it did not rise then. The research now available shows that crime tripled between the two world wars, particularly at the time of the great depression.
  There is therefore a clear relationship between deprivation and crime. The training and employment opportunities available to young people have declined and benefit has been reduced. The result has been a substantial increase in homelessness and deprivation. We can see it on the streets of London.
  Mr. Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: No, not for the moment. I am trying to keep to a very strict timetable.
  All those factors are linked to rising crime rates. No doubt a Conservative Member will cite the 1930s, just as has happened in the past. I refer Conservative Members to the research, and I hope that they will learn a little from it.
  Painfully little has been done specifically to tackle car crime, which is a major aspect of youth crime. This is even more depressing when one realises that in various parts of the country there are projects run by the probation service and the voluntary organisations which provide an alternative to custody. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have said that these schemes are successful.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has some interesting ways of looking at the problem, but he did not look at the fact that there are proven ways of taking young people who have committed offences and giving them a chance to confront their

  679
  criminality. They become involved in schemes which allow them to use up their energy. The schemes involve the use of motor vehicles off the road. There is a high success rate.
  All too often, when I visit successful schemes throughout the country, I find that they are about to announce that they cannot carry on, or that they cannot diversify or increase the take-up because the Government have not provided any money. I visited a scheme in Kirklees, near my constituency, which wants to turn into a car project instead of remaining a motor cycle project, but there is no money available for that purpose, even though it is a proven, cost-effective way of deterring young people from continuing to commit this kind of car crime.
  The Government have done little to encourage such schemes. The Opposition believe that we should consider alternatives and the ability of magistrates to say that something must be done with first offenders and that an alternative can work. Instead of a young person being sentenced to a period in custody, which means that it is all too likely that he or she will continue in a life of crime, become a professional criminal and never get out of the criminal world, the alternative makes both moral and economic sense. Is it morally right to sentence a young person to a period in custody?
  The Home Office has also been remiss about security devices, an important subject that has been debated at length today. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) knows a lot about the car industry, but my patience with it is wearing a little thin. Six years ago, the Prime Minister invited the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to No. 10. They told her that they would respond, but they have not done so. If uniformly high standards were imposed, manufacturers would have to meet them. Competition would he the same and vehicle security would rapidly improve. That is what people want. With the change of cars, higher security would soon be achieved.
  Young people often steal the most attractive and new models rather than old bangers. I have been told that, in some cities, if someone wants to ensure that their car is not tampered with or taken, they should buy the rustiest and least attractive car available.
  Against the background of Government inertia, we have a Bill that will achieve little, because powers already exist to deal with the taking of a car and aggravating factors. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said this afternoon, any passenger who encourages and any driver who recklessly drives causing injury or damage is guilty of reckless driving, which was renamed dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and is liable to two years imprisonment. The offence of causing death by reckless driving carries a maximum of five years, manslaughter carries a maximum of life, and deliberately damaging a vehicle carries a maximum of 10 years. One wonders what contribution the Bill will make.
  I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook about the speed of the passage of the Bill. Hurried legislation is never good legislation; there are many examples of that. There are deep deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill. The Opposition have tabled a cluster of amendments. We hope that the Government will listen reasonably to them, because they have been tabled in a reasonable frame of mind and do not make party political points. If the Government use their majority, the
  680
  only guarantee of consideration is another place. We do not think that that is good enough. The Bill should have been investigated in Committee.
  I say that with some feeling because, in the three years, that I have been doing this job I have not heard so many well-qualified solicitors and barristers, people from the legal community and inquests and from pressure groups say that there are areas of deep concern. That is not an ideological or party-political point; real concern has been expressed by our professional associations and by those who practise in the courts. They worry that the Bill will damage British justice.
  The most worrying feature of the Bill is the issue of fault. A passenger who is screaming to get out of a car, who is trying to stop a driver driving dangerously, will still be guilty of the aggravated offence. If any damage is done or if any injury occurs after the initial taking while the car is being driven, the aggravated offence is committed, even if the car is being driven sensibly or carefully. The car does not have to be driven recklessly. If it was travelling at 20 mph and someone else recklessly drove into it, the aggravated offence would have been committed. The situation is the same if someone walked in front of the car and the driver had no chance of stopping. A defendant would be guilty of the offence if he took the car, abandoned it and someone else damaged it before it was recovered.
  The chairman of the Bar Council, Mr. Tony Scrivener —[Interruption.] I hope that the remarks of Conservative Members from a sedentary position are not an attack on the Bar Council, which I think all of us would regard as an important and esteemed body. Mr. Tony Scrivener referred to the Bill. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary would listen to more experts, he would probably be a better Home Secretary. If he listened to Anthony Scrivener, he would be a darned sight better.
  Anthony Scrivener referred to the Bill as unique in jurisprudence because a defendant can be guilty of the aggravated offence even though he does no other act than commit the basic offence, and the event which makes the crime aggravated is outside his or her control. That is bad law, which will lead to miscarriages of justice, and we shall seek to amend it.
  It was refreshing to hear the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) express his misgivings about this part of the Bill. I say again—this is not based on party acrimony—that we have severe reservations about two clauses, which must be given serious consideration today or in another place. There is the important question of the reversal of the burden of proof. The defendant has to prove that he was not in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a car rather than the prosecution having to prove that he was.
  On the face of it, that seems to be in breach of article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights, which states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Have the Government taken legal advice? The reversal of the burden of proof is wrong in principle and will lead to injustice. Surely we have had enough problems in the British judicial system with miscarriages of justice. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, that reversal could easily lead to miscarriages of justice that we could sort out now. It should not be an issue between us. I hope that the Minister of State will respond positively to my criticisms.

  681
  The use of the term "in the immediate vicinity" will raise enormous problems. What if the passenger gets out because he is terrified by what is going on and the car crashes at the next corner? He is still in the immediate vicinity. What if the passenger gets out half an hour before the crash, but the driver continues driving in the area and crashes near where the passenger is still standing talking to his mates? The reversal of the burden of proof would also affect alibi evidence called on behalf of the accused.
  In many cases, a disqualification will be appropriate. We believe that that is right, but the court should have a discretion, particularly where no fault lies with the defendant.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What?
  Mr. Sheerman: Where perhaps a defendant has been a passenger and is not accused of reckless driving. May I finish my argument?
  Disqualification can have a counter-productive effect. Young people with years of disqualification ahead of them have no opportunity to take part in motor projects, to drive legitimately and to channel enthusiasm into responsible behaviour. The Minister will know from many of the schemes that he visits that one of the carrots that they hold out to young people is the ability to drive vehicles off road and eventually to train for a full licence. That is often the spur which gets them back to a proper relationship with the almighty car.
  There is a national crisis of youth crime, but the Bill does not deal with its roots. If Dickens could come back and watch the debate, he would see that most of us are dwelling on the surface of the problem, while beneath the surface something is wrong in England and Wales.
  Mr. Anderson: But not, apparently, in Scotland.
  Mr. Sheerman: But not, apparently, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland.
  There is something deeply wrong. The Labour party has a crime prevention policy and a youth crime prevention policy which will begin to deal with that problem. We shall support the Bill but we shall also try to amend it sensibly. We do not believe that it is the full answer which could have been brought to the House.
  8.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I shall not follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) down every path of his argument, particularly the last third of his speech. If the House so decides, we may be able to consider some of the detailed points during the debate on the four sets of amendments which will be considered in Committee.
  This has been a good debate. I say that because some lawyers have spoken—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Most of us listened carefully to those hon. Members whose constituencies have been affected by this hooliganism—the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). I was particularly taken by a good phrase used by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, who suggested that we should stop using the word "joyriding"—none of us in the House
  682
  does so any longer, except in unspoken inverted commas. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that we should refer to "car hooliganism", which is another exceptionally good phrase.
  Much closer to home for me, we listened to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who represents and lives in the Blackbird Leys part of Oxford. I represent the other half and represented the area in which he now lives until the boundary commissioners so cruelly took it from me in 1983.
  I begin by revisiting the arguments in the opening speeches about why we need the Bill. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) kindly let me intervene, I said that the Bill, should it pass into law, would provide us with not only a deterrent but a punishment and a way of keeping repetitive car crime offenders off the streets.
  We need to legislate on this offence because of an evidential difficulty, which is compounded in several ways. It is compounded when several people are involved in the aggravated taking of a vehicle—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) said that such people were not content with being in a car but wanted to be in the boot as well—and by the speed and lethal power of the Cosworths and other vehicles which they steal. It is difficult for the forces of law and order to identify who is responsible for what, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East saw in Oxford in the autumn. It is also difficult to establish when the damage occurred.
  There are three problems—of identification, of intent and of witnesses. That is why we need the Bill. The difficulties are demonstrated by a simple statistic—only 6 per cent. of the people who take without consent are charged with criminal damage, yet four out of every 10 vehicles returned to their unfortunate owners suffer substantial damage.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Huddersfield spoke about the unintended consequences of people's actions, and I understand the worries about that matter. That an offender can be held criminally liable for the unintended consequences of his or her actions is a well-established legal principle. A person who attacks someone and who wishes to do grievous bodily harm but unfortunately kills his victim can be convicted of murder after due process.
  Moving closer to home, on the offence of causing death by dangerous or drunken driving, the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to the Road Traffic Act 1991, whereby an offender will be found guilty if he drives dangerously, thereby causing someone's death, whether or not he intended to do so or even knew about it.
  Mr. Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, following the example of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I must try to make progress in the interests of speed. The hon. Member for Swansea, East obviously believes that the matter is important. I always think that my points are important as well. I give way to him.
  Mr. Anderson: Surely it is not difficult to distinguish the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about assaults. That is done by considering a case in which a passenger can be held equally liable even though he sought to avoid being identified with the aggravated crime. He may know

  683
  that the vehicle has been taken, but seek positively to absent himself from the scene and the commission of the aggravated offence.
  Mr. Patten: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he felt that his point was important, but it is covered by section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968. People who get in a car when it is stolen are associated with that act and can be convicted of exactly the same offence.
  I shall take a more up-to-date example than one from 1968. In the recent House of Lords judgment in the aptly named Savage case, the court ruled that a person can be guilty of actual bodily harm regardless of whether she—in that case—intended any harm or was reckless about causing harm, so long as she intended the assault. In that case, Mrs. or Miss Savage emptied a beer glass over a person's head, the glass went with the beer and the person was hurt. There was no intent, but she was found guilty and the conviction was sustained on appeal.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made an important point about the minimum and maximum periods for banning and questioned whether that would help or hinder rehabilitation of an offender. A youngster may have committed the offence only once. However, such people must not be favoured, as the hon. Member for Oxford. East said in his powerful speech. If a court decides on a two-year probation order, during the first year the person is mandatorily banned under the Bill and there is nothing to stop the court ruling that during the second year he or she should attend a motor course. I have been to many throughout the country. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we are funding a great many such courses.
  I have referred to some of the powerful speeches made by Opposition Members with particular constituency interests. Among Conservative Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) asked in her characteristically robust way why the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do not see the urgency of this matter. That urgency is self-evident. Several hon. Members who spoke after the opening speakers—I shall not name them for fear of causing inter-party embarrassment—said that it was an urgent matter, and I applaud them. Clearly, there is a gap between the Opposition Front Bench and those who have experienced these problems in their constituencies.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the police for their warm welcome of the Bill. My hon. Friend raised the important point of what happens under the Bill if a man or woman leaves a child in the car and the car is taken. He gave two examples. I hope that I am not thought too patronising or authoritarian when I say that I do not believe that parents should leave children in unattended cars and they certainly should not leave the keys in the car as well. But should parents do that and should the car be taken away with a child in it, those who took the car could be charged with a much more serious offence under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is a member of the council of Justice—an organisation for which I have great respect and which operates under the presidency of Lord Alexander of Weedon. He raised two particular areas where he felt that there might be some
  684
  danger of miscarriages of justice should the legislation go through in its present form. I listened carefully to what he said, and I have some answers.
  First, on the "liability for others' acts" point, the Bill contains safeguards—as my hon. and learned Friend knows from his study of it—when the accused can show that the aggravating event occurred before he committed his basic offence or that he was not near the vehicle at the time. However, the general principle of liability for the acts of others to which my hon. and learned Friend referred is not at all out of line with the Theft Act 1968. The basic taking without consent offence is that the taker and any passenger may be punished equally.
  That was the point I made when responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Swansea, East, when I mentioned section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968. It is also precedented in section 35(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—[Interruption.] It is important that those who are concerned about the possibility of injustice pay attention.
  That section states that a person convicted of taking without consent is liable to pay compensation for any—and I emphasise that word—damage to the property "occurring while it was out of the owner's possession" and that such damage is to be treated as
  "having resulted from the offence, 'however and by whomsoever' the damage was caused."
  The precedents are clear for the action which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking in the Bill.
  Secondly, on the issue of the precedents for making a defendant prove his defence in the way in which the Bill requires, I argue that every year—certainly since I have been in the House—we have created numerous new offences which have defences attached to them, usually for those who an show that they acted reasonably or that they used due diligence to ensure that they avoided committing an offence. All those defences are for the defendant to establish on the balance of probabilities.
  We have traditional defences on, for example, diminished responsibility which allow murder to be reduced to manslaughter, or defences introduced in Acts that have been passed in the last couple of years. The Food Safety Act 1990 is one which has a large number of such defences built into it, as does the recent Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  Mr. Lawrence: I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that objection is taken to eating more and more into the principle by which the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt and not on the defendant to establish innocence. He is perfectly right that in recent years we have been eating into that principle, but if we continue to do so, the principle will go, and that is the civil liberties issue which the system of justice has always been anxious to maintain.
  Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the civil liberties issue. If the principle ever was firmly established, it has gone, but the principle's underlying weight is protected by the fact that the defences are there in law. That is the way we have evolved the law over the years, but I shall consider carefully what my hon. and learned Friend said, and I shall read it tomorrow in Hansard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) was pretty savage about Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and criticised muddled Opposition speeches. The notable

  685
  fellow East Anglian and friend to both of us—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)—was not satisfied and added "nit-picking" to that criticism. He also wanted us to be more severe in our handling of these offenders. A life term is available for those who are convicted of deliberately causing death, whether the conviction is manslaughter—
  Mr. Sheerman: Under the present law.
  Mr. Patten: I am finishing my sentence. The hon. Gentleman is treating me as though he were talking to someone from Louisiana and wanting to finish the sentence before it has been started. However, I shall complete what I was saying.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West was right about car security and what he said was reflected in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, who urged us to do more about car security. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will meet car manufacturers for a return match this Wednesday and there will be some plain speaking.
  I pay tribute to the Association of British Insurers, to which we began talking a couple of years ago. It said that it was difficult to use insurance mechanisms to cut car crime, but two years on, it is now using insurance premiums formidably well. We look to the British car manufacturing industry and its European counterparts to do the same as quickly as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was concerned about people who reoffend while on bail, and we shall deal as quickly as we can with the reports—and the analysis of them—which deal with that. He and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) were concerned about 15, 16 and 17-year-olds and their involvement with the social services. I understand that the social services want to help people, but sometimes one can help people a bit more by nipping problems in the bud and dealing with them at an earlier stage.
  Sometimes, to be firm with people can be more helpful than leaving problems until it is too late. It is much better to step in and help people firmly rather than having to punish them at a later stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and others were quite right. The strongest support of all for the Bill came from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who had a range of interesting ways in which to stoke up the legislation to higher and higher levels of severity.
  I hope that there will not be a vote on Second Reading. I understand that there will not be one, but I end on this note: that will allow the official Opposition to say that they did not oppose the Bill because there was no vote on Second Reading. However, should we decide to consider the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, the first set of amendments tabled by the Opposition—should the Opposition win the vote or should we accede to them—would torpedo the Bill below the water line and sink it lock, stock and barrel. They are wrecking amendments of the worst type.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Huddersfield are trying to have their political cake and eat it. They are trying to say to the general public
  686
  and to their constituents that they have supported the Bill. but, in a few moments, if we resolve to go into a Committee of the whole House, they will then try to sink the Bill. I have a message for them. We have no intention of allowing the Bill to be sunk, and we shall make it as clear as we possibly can to our constituents and to the hon. Gentleman who tried to have their cake and eat it exactly what they have done. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Clause 1

  NEW OFFENCE OF AGGRAVATED) VEHICLE-TAKING
  Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, after 'place', insert 'by the accused or by another person incited by the accused'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 23, after
  'vehicle', insert
  `by the accused or by another person incited by the accused'.
  No. 5, in page 1, line 26, after 'vehicle', insert
  'by the accused or by another person incited by the accused'.
  No. 7, in page 1, line 29, after 'vehicle', insert
  'by the accused or by another person incited by the accused'.
  Mr. Sheerman: To the cries of "Wrecker Sheerman", I argue that the amendments would not wreck the Bill. Indeed, they would vastly improve it. They would limit the new offence of aggravated taking to cases where the aggravating behaviour was carried out by the accused or by another person incited by the accused. That does not sound unreasonable to me, or, I am sure, to my hon. Friends.
  The Bill makes passengers liable to the new offence because of aggravating behaviour by another person who was driving the vehicle. Those people will be liable, even though they were not ringleaders, did not incite, encourage, intend or foresee the behaviour. For example, a passenger screaming to be let out of the car will be guilty of the aggravated offence, if guilty of the original taking. A passenger who pleaded with the driver to stop would be equally liable, as would a younger passenger, influenced by older ringleaders.
  I cannot understand why the Minister said that this was a wrecking amendment. A passenger will be liable to the aggravated offence, even though he or she was not responsible for the events that made the offence an aggravated one. That cannot be right; it offends all the normal canons of criminal responsibility. It is a bad law that will lead to miscarriages of justice, as Opposition Members said on Second Reading. If a young person is to be convicted of such a serious offence, rendering him or her liable to a lengthy term of imprisonment, there should be some element of fault in the aggravated behaviour.

  687
  We all know the negative effects of custody on young people. In their White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", the Government referred to custody as
  "an expensive way of making had people worse."
  Some two thirds of teenage offenders leaving custody, and 80 per cent. of those under the age of 17, are reconvicted within two years of their release. It is patently daft to imprison for lengthy periods young people who are on the fringe of such activities. It is a recipe for turning delinquents into more serious criminals.
  The amendments seek to ensure that the new offence of aggravated taking is linked much more closely to the individual's degree of personal responsibility for the offence. I cannot believe that that could be construed as wrecking the Bill; it surely improves the Bill, as it focuses it more on the people who took the car and the ringleaders, not those who were on the periphery.
  Under the amendments, in order to be guilty an individual will have to have carried out the aggravated behaviour or incited another person to do so. That will not mean that the main offenders will get off. The amendments will also ensure that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the defendant. They will remove the dangerous proposal to reverse the burden of proof, which would cause grave injustice and is of great concern to many practising lawyers in London.
  The Bill as drafted is seriously flawed. The amendments will ensure that those at fault, not those on the periphery, pay the price.
  Mr. Anderson: I rise only to adopt the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I shall not expand on them, because we have already given examples of how it would offend against common justice if someone were deemed to be guilty of the aggravated offence when he or she had not given assent to that offence, as aggravated.
  I shall argue somewhat against myself by commending to the Government a possible amendment to weaken the defence. It is a purely legal point: a defence is currently provided for the person who can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant aggravating event occurred before he or she committed the basic offence or that he or she was not—this is the relevant part—in or near the vehicle when the aggravating event occurred.
  The phrase "in or near" is relevant, because it makes it seem as though it is a solely geographical matter. That does not cover all relevant circumstances. It is not difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a person participated in the commission of the offence in that he or she encouraged it, without necessarily being geographically in or near the vicinity of the offence. Therefore, the Government may wish to consider strengthening the case for the prosecution by adding to the description of a person being in or near the vehicle when the aggravating event occurred, the following words:
  "or did not otherwise participate in the commission of the offence".
  Mr. John Patten: I thought that I was right. There is no doubt that the amendments are wreckers—what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has just said makes that absolutely clear.
  I listened with particular care to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said about the workings of the group of amendments. I did so because, when they
  688
  appeared on the Notice Paper, I was at a loss to understand how the Opposition spokesmen could reconcile them with their public stance of support for tough new measures against such people. The answer is now clear: they cannot. The amendments are about negating, not creating, a new offence of vehicle taking. The amendments would emasculate the offence. Their net effect would be to leave the law fundamentally unchanged in practice.
  I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is learned in the law, nods in agreement. The amendments would erect around each of the what the Bill describes as aggravated circumstances of the basic Theft Act offence considerable and unnecessary evidential difficulties. Should the amendments have their way, it would never be enough for the prosecution to prove that there was danger, damage or death. To the contrary: it would never be enough to say, as the Bill states, that the events would not have occurred if the vehicle had not been taken in the first place. Instead, the prosecution would have to prove the existing basic taking offence.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East for his ingenious suggestion on how to improve the prosecution's lot. The prosecution would also have to prove exactly who did what damage at what time, what injury occurred, who was driving and why. The clock would be turned back to the pre-existing law.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained, so-called joyriding is habitually accompanied by dangerous driving, damage, injury and sometimes, tragically, death—all of which are already covered by criminal law. The difficulty lies in proving an offence such as criminal damage against one member of a gang, when it is often not clear who has done what or even who was in the driving seat at a certain time. The evidential difficulties are fiendishly complex and trying for the prosecution. There is not only a strong practical case, but a strong moral case, for saying that everyone is equally to blame—exactly as the Theft Act 1968 does in section 12(1).
  I understand that there may be a worry that we are tipping the scales of justice against defendants and that the aggravated offence is an erosion of traditional legal standards—a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on Second Reading. I hope that I satisfied him on that matter then. Such concern is misplaced; the new offence is justified not merely on pragmatic grounds but also on grounds of principle and precedent. I refer the House to the arguments that I deployed on Second Reading.
  Someone who takes and drives away a car and then aggravates that by damaging, injuring or killing is not justified in then saying that he did not mean to do it. The law will say, "You had no business doing it in the first place." So if someone decides to commit the basic offence, he must accept responsibility when things go wrong, and he has no one to blame but himself.
  Defences are provided for people who can show on the balance of probabilities that they had no connection with the aggravating offence. The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred to geographical proximity and to other ways of judging the issue.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Huddersfield that either he does not understand his amendments or he must know

  689
  that, if they were agreed to, the Bill would be completely wrecked and the law would return to where it was. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments.
  9 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: Far from trying to wreck the Bill, we have been trying to improve it by means of these amendments, on which we have consulted the finest legal opinion. I should like a guarantee at this late stage that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will consult the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association before the Bill emerges from another place. We are not trying to torpedo the legislation; we are trying to reflect a view widely held by lawyers. I ask the Minister for such a commitment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 40, Noes 149.

  Division No. 24]

  [9 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ashton, Joe

  McFall, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Boyes, Roland

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cummings, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Darling, Alistair

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dixon, Don

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Prescott, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Eastham, Ken

  Redmond, Martin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wilson, Brian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Illsley, Eric

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Ingram, Adam

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fallon, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Franks, Cecil

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Chris

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chope, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Conway, Derek

  Hayward, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James

  Couchman, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cran, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  690

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shelton, Sir William

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knowles, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Knox, David

  Stern, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Mans, Keith

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Maples, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Viggers, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mills, Iain

  Walden, George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wood, Timothy

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Price, Sir David

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 23, after first 'the', insert 'reckless'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: Nos. 4, in page 1, line 26, after 'the', insert 'reckless'.
  No. 6, in page 1, line 29, after 'was', insert 'intentionally or recklessly'.
  No. 8, in page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  '(a) it is driven in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical harm to another person; and'.
  Mr. Sheerman: This class of amendments makes the intention of recklessness a necessary ingredient for the aggravated offence. The thrust of the amendments is common sense. They make an offence an "aggravated offence" when that was the intention.
  Clarifying the legislation is an important priority for us. As currently drafted, the offence of unauthorised taking would become aggravated if dangerous driving occurred. That is fair enough, and we would agree with the Government on that. However, under sub-section 2(b) and (c), the offence would be aggravated also if, owing to the

  691
  driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred that caused injury to a person or damage to property. The driving would not have to be dangerous or reckless in itself.
  In other words, if a car is taken and the driver is driving carefully but another car is recklessly driven into it, an aggravated offence will have taken place. I know that I am going over some of the ground that we rehearsed on Second Reading, but I shall be brief. If the car is stationary at traffic lights and another car hits it, the aggravated offence will still have occurred. Similarly, if a person runs in front of the car when it is being driven carefully and even if the driver cannot avoid hitting that person, the aggravated offence will have taken place. I asked the Minister about this important point on Second Reading, but he did not mention it in his reply.
  Subsection 2(d) also raises an anomaly. The aggravated offence is committed when damage is caused to the stolen vehicle, but there is no requirement that that damage should have been caused intentionally or recklessly. The defendant will be guilty if someone else damages the car after he has left it but when he is still in the immediate vicinity or if he cannot prove that he had left the vicinity.
  The amendments seek to ensure that the car must have been driven recklessly, that there must have been some fault on the part of the defendant and that the defendant should not be guilty of a serious criminal offence if the events that make that offence aggravated and serious lie outside his or her control. Similarly, damage to the stolen car must have been intentional or reckless. Without those safeguards, the Bill will be unjust and will be seen by many members of the public as unjust.
  The public are worried about young people taking cars and driving them in a reckless fashion down the streets, causing mayhem. We had some graphic descriptions of that on Second Reading. That is altogether different from some of the examples that I have described which will be caught by the clause.
  We believe that it is wrong for young people to be held responsible for a serious criminal offence when they were not at fault beyond the original offence of taking a car, for which they will be punished and will be liable under the ordinary legislation. What is at issue here is whether the offence is aggravated. That is what we seek to clarify in the amendment.
  The amendments arise from the real anxiety in the legal community that the Bill will create great difficulties. I hope that the Government will consider the amendments without prejudice.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. John Patten: One travels hopefully in legislating. I had hoped that, after my crystal-clear exposition of the wrecking element in the first group of amendments, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) would have had a quick look and seen that what he was attempting to do in the second group was again to wreck.
  The amendments ask the Committee to turn the clock back to the legal position on reckless driving, before the thorough review of the subject by the principal of Jesus college and the consequent decision of the House in the Road Traffic Act 1991 during the previous Session of Parliament to substitute a new concept, that of dangerous driving, with a new statutory test to go with it. That report and the subsequent legislation were welcome.
  692
  The amendments also invite the Committee in effect to convert our objectively determined aggravating circumstances all over again into subjectively determined acts committed by a particular person. The amendments are misconceived and wrong-headed. It is as plain as a pikestaff that, if we return to subjectivity, the central core of the Bill will be completely wrecked and the vessel will be sunk.
  I had better go on to explain that it is important to recall why we took the decision in the Road Traffic Act 1991 to change the reckless driving offences—"reckless" is the word that the hon. Member for Huddersfield used. In the words of the principal of Jesus college, the Welsh college in Oxford, the background was the
  "widespread dissatisfaction with the present state of the law on reckless driving".
  That dissatisfaction was rooted in the difficulty in securing convictions in England and Wales under the then reckless driving offences. Professor North's committee had put its collective finger on the problem: that reckless driving as previously defined by the courts referred to the accused's state of mind—whether he was reckless—and therefore required some proof of the state of mind of the offender to bring a successful prosecution.
  Professor North recommended that the offences should be based much more firmly on the observable standard of driving, not the state of mind of the person who committed the offence. We should focus on the nature of the conduct, not the state of mind of the person involved. The nature of the conduct is the dangerousness of the driving, not the recklessness shown by the driver.
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he has understood.
  Mr. Sheerman: I have understood. I should like to bring the Minister down to earth and ask him to consider not states of mind but what happens when such crimes are committed. Will he answer on the point which worries us?
  A person may not have taken part in any reckless behaviour. He may merely have driven a car without doing so recklessly. He may have stolen a car and then stopped or even parked the car and got out of it. If the car is damaged, whether severely or not, after they have left the car, what will be the position? Could such a person be guilty of reckless driving? Under the Bill, he will be considered to be reckless when at no stage did he take part in any reckless behaviour.
  It is not the state of mind but what the person did that will count. The person took a car without the owner's permission. Yes, that is against the law, and the law will have him for that. If he drives the car for three miles and when he stops at the traffic lights someone crashes into the back of the car, will he be guilty of reckless driving? I should appreciate it if the Minister would confirm that.
  Mr. Patten: I should appreciate the chance to do so after that intervention, which was longer than normal from the hon. Gentleman, who is usually succinct.
  It is clearly the intention of the Bill that a man, or more rarely a woman, who takes and drives away a car and as a result causes injury or damage, can be tried for the aggravation of the offence, and that anyone travelling in the car with them should be tried in exactly the same way.

  693
  There are two defences in the Bill that a person can use, and it is up to the courts to decide whether those defences are valid.
  To complete my argument, we should focus on the nature of the conduct—the dangerousness of the driving —not the degree of recklessness shown by the driver. The new offences in the Road Traffic Act 1991 follow that form. They will allow more drivers who drive badly to be convicted of more serious offences with proper punishment, and quite right too.
  Subsection 7 of the new section 12A of the Theft Act, 1968—which would be inserted by clause 1 of the Bill—follows the concept and definition of dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, having heard my exposition of what the amendments would do to the Bill, I believe that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will seek to withdraw it immediately from the consideration of this Committee.
  Mr. Sheerman: We shall withdraw our amendments in the hope that they will emerge somewhere else and be debated more fully.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I hope that the Minister can help with clarification of one matter. Perhaps he will set on record why the words "mechanically propelled vehicle" are used and not the word "conveyance", as in section 12(7) of the 1968 Act. Would he confirm that the definition, as set out, is sufficient to cover speedboats? In many of our coastal resorts, there is a problem because young people, in particular, take boats and drive them to the danger of people who are bathing or who are in those waters. Will the Minister give an assurance that the term as used is sufficiently wide to include speedboats?
  Mr. Patten: I suppose that the advice given by a senior and ancient Home Office or ex-Home Office Minister, or a Department of Transport or ex-Department of Transport Minister to a junior Minister just taking up his or her post would be, never to forget to cover oneself for the old skateboard question—does this piece of road traffic legislation deal with skateboards? I never go into the arena in this place without that information.
  Luckily, thanks to the excellence of those who advise me, I am fully conversant with the speedboat issue, which is a derivation of the skateboard question, but is a serious issue. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right—boat theft has been a problem. People have been using twin-screwed diesel boats, which are very powerful and are used for towing water skiers, in an extremely dangerous fashion.
  This stand part debate is useful to discuss subsection 1(a) of the Bill, which provides that the new aggravated offence arises in relation to "mechanically propelled vehicles", as the hon. Member for Swansea, East pointed out. That term, which is used in road traffic legislation, has a wide meaning and covers tractors, mechanical plant, mobile cranes, bulldozers, as well as motor cars and motor cycles. However, it is narrower in meaning than "conveyance", as defined in section 12(7) of the Theft Act, 1968, which I dare say the hon. Member for Swansea, East
  694
  has in front of him. "Conveyance" includes non-mechanically propelled vehicles, such as rowing boats and horse-drawn carriages.
  Ultimately, the question whether "mechanically propelled" covers speedboats is for the courts to decide. My view is that it does not, for Theft Act purposes. Certainly, the policy with which I have been concerned in drawing up this Bill relates to motor vehicles on roads. That was the policy impetus behind the Bill. Therefore, the legislation as drafted would probably not be of much use for speedboats, but I undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman's point if he is happy with that undertaking.
  Mr. Anderson indicated assent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  OFFENCE TO BE TRIED ONLY SUMMARILY IF VALUE OF DAMAGE IS SMALL
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Anderson: I have a brief point in respect of the summary offence. It is said that clause 2 provides that the aggravated offence is to be tried summarily if the only aggravating circumstance is damage, the total value of which is below a specified amount, which is the same as for the substantive offence of criminal damage. The point that I wish to put to the Minister, again for consideration later by the Home Office, is this. Magistrates courts have a problem with summary jurisdiction in respect of this matter. Although a jury may convict a defendant charged with theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 of taking a vehicle without authority under section 12, a magistrates court cannot do so unless the defendant has been specifically charged in the alternative. It may well be that, in this or related legislation, the Government might deal with that point to give magistrates courts greater jurisdiction in this matter.
  Mr. John Patten: That is an interesting point, which had not occurred to me. The hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge of the criminal law. Certainly, I should like to consider the point and take advice on it at a later stage. I doubt whether we could do anything about it during the passage of the Bill in this or another place. It may well be a sensible piece of tidying up in subsequent legislation and I am grateful to him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  OBLIGATORY DISQUALIFICATION
  Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 21, leave out 'Obligatory' and insert `Discretionary'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 21, leave out first 'Obligatory' and insert—
  '(a) Obligatory where the vehicle was driven or the damage was caused by the offender or by another person incited by the offender.
  (b) Discretionary in any other case.'.
  Mr. Sheerman: The purpose of the amendment is to make disqualification discretionary rather than obligatory. One is even more in danger of repeating the arguments that one made on Second Reading on a short Bill such as this, especially given the time scale, so I shall be brief.
  As it stands, the Bill requires all those convicted of the new offence to be mandatorily disqualified for at least 12 months, even when they were a passenger rather than the driver or where the consequences which aggravated the offence were neither intended nor foreseen by the accused personally. That could lead to a great feeling of injustice, perhaps rightly.
  Most of us involved in criminal justice want offenders to cease offending as soon as possible, to learn the error of their ways as soon as possible and to return to society as fully law-abiding citizens as quickly as possible. Therefore, it is important that we do not introduce barriers to that process. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we encourage young people to become law-abiding, fully operating young citizens as soon as possible. Discretion should be exercised in those circumstances where the aggravated factors are outside the control of the defendant.
  In some cases, a juvenile will be banned from driving two years after the offence was committed. A ban on driving imposed on a 15-year-old obviously will not come into force until that person is eligible to drive at the age of 17. However, two years is a long time. The individual may have paid his debt through some form of treatment or participation in a scheme. He may have become a model citizen. As the Minister acknowledged, young people change a great deal in a short time. They may mature and grow out of such a ghastly fashionable crime. If such a person is barred from driving for a year at the age of 17, that could hamper the process of making that young person a law-abiding member of society. The frustration felt may provide the spur for further offending.
  9.30 pm
  The magistrates courts and other courts are better able to make the relevant decision. They should have the discretion to decide whether a ban should be enforced. In many cases, disqualification will be the right course of action, but the courts should have the ability to exercise that discretion. The amendment aims to provide such flexibility.
  We had similar arguments when considering the Criminal Justice Bill last winter. The amendments have been tabled in a positive spirit, and there are two reasons why they should be supported. The first is one of principle, because justice requires that the courts should have the ability to tailor their penalties to provide the just deserts to the individual offender. That principle underpinned the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Local magistrates and judges should have the option not to disqualify if the offender had no personal responsibility for the aggravating factors.
  This argument will be repeated when we consider those found guilty of an aggravated offence who were not driving. Other offences which carry mandatory disqualification require bad or drunken driving on the part of the offender. It cannot be right to provide for mandatory disqualification for an offence with no such requirement.
  The second argument in favour of the amendments is a practical one. Disqualification will often hinder the work of motor projects, which hon. Members have identified as
  696
  a positive step. They divert offenders and potential offenders away from car crime and they are extremely effective.
  I recently visited a motor project and was told that, to have maximum impact, that programme must consist of five essential elements. First, auto offenders should be confronted with the reality of their behaviour, and their attitudes should be challenged. That is no soft option, because the young people were made to meet victims and also relatives of those who had been killed or seriously injured. Secondly, offenders should receive education and training in the legal use of motor cars. Such training is a carrot to encourage young people. They are taught how to drive a car and to pass a test, which is a positive incentive.
  The third element in any programme should obviously be practical hands-on driving experience with a view to taking a driving test which requires a full driving licence. Much of the preparatory work in many such projects is done off the road, but it is important to have some experience on the road when getting ready for a test.
  Fourthly, a programme should contain a range of activities which are equally, if not more, exciting than driving illegally. Such programmes should provide excitement to young people. I know of programmes which involve climbing and other outdoor pursuits as well as difficult tasks to be completed with cars and motor cycles. They were challenging, got the young people on their mettle, tested their skill, and consumed a lot of their energy.
  The fifth element in most courses is training in basic auto mechanics. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm shown by instructors and young people. All that is very good.
  The sixth, unscripted, element that I would throw in is that many young people find themselves, for the first time in their lives, involved in something that interests them, and able to share their enthusiasm with a group of people who care about them. That is a very positive aspect. I wish motor schemes every success, and I would not want the Bill to harm the chances of those who run them working successfully with young people.
  The opportunity for a young offender to obtain a driving licence is important. Project workers say that one of the most powerful incentives that they can offer young people is the prospect that they will eventually be able to drive legally and safely. As the Bill stands, that incentive could be eliminated in many cases because of disqualification, and because insurance companies require high premiums of recently disqualified drivers, in addition to those that they already require of drivers under the age of 25. If we stop young people who very much want to drive from doing so by that combination of factors, we might edge them into reoffending.
  The courts must have flexibility in such cases, and the amendments provide alternative ways of providing it. Amendment No. 9 would make disqualification discretionary in any case, and amendment No. 10 in cases where the accused was not personally responsible for the aggravating behaviour. They are not wrecking amendments, but positive amendments which will improve the Bill, and they are sensitive to the real situation.
  Mr. Anderson: I am against mandatory penalties in principle, but there are probably some cases in which they would work in justice. We should perhaps concede from the start that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there

  697
  must be disqualification, but the Minister must accept that, in a small number of cases, mandatory disqualification would not work in the interests of justice.
  For example, a young man of good character may enter a vehicle, then learn that it has been taken without the owner's authority—and after travelling just a few hundred yards, it might collide with another vehicle in such a way that the gravity of the incident makes it an aggravated offence.
  The Bill would impose disqualification for at least one year on such a person which would have the insurance repercussions that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned. In a number of cases, that could be viewed by the bench or the judge as working against the prospects of rehabilitation. There must be some scope for discretion in a limited number of cases. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
  Mr. John Patten: The young offender cited by the hon. Member for Swansea, East might not, in the circumstances that he described, fall foul of the law, because he might not be convicted of the basic offence under section 12 of the Theft Act 1968. He could be found not guilty, because an individual could not be found guilty of the aggravating offence unless he was found to have transgressed in respect of the basic offence.
  I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield about the value of motor projects. Any sensible programme aimed at dealing with car crime committed by young men should address prevention and punishment. Those schemes are valuable on the prevention side—as, in my opinion, are the adequate punishment and deterrence measures proposed in the Bill.
  Disqualification will begin to take effect at the moment of conviction: that is, when the hands of the clock will start moving. There will be no delay, even when the offender is only 15 or 16. That may seem peculiar, but I believe that it is in the interests of justice. Between the ages of 15½ and 17, the offender might go straight, in which event it would be entirely wrong for any part of the punishment—the driving ban, for instance —to come into effect on his or, more rarely, her 17th birthday.
  The ban would be recorded at an early stage. When the person concerned obtained a driving licence on, say, his 17th birthday, the endorsement would still be on that licence and it would remain there for up to four years.
  Mr. Sheerman: I was under the impression that the disqualification of a person aged 15½ would not become meaningful until that person became eligible, at 17, to obtain a licence. I would take a rather different view if the Minister meant that the disqualification would be spent by the time the person reached the age of 17.
  Mr. Patten: It could well be spent by that time if the offender was younger than 16 when convicted and if the driving ban was for less than 12 months. That, of course, is merely the mandatory minimum; the bench could impose a ban lasting five or 10 years or longer—although I understand that the Court of Appeal has advised against long bans, because people find it difficult to keep to them and may reoffend. That is a guideline judgment which has been handed down in a leading case.
  What is the point of disqualifying a person who is not yet old enough to drive, the hon. Member for Huddersfield
  698
  asks? I have given one answer: any punishment should happen from the moment of sentence. I believe that it flies in the face of natural justice to delay punishment. Secondly, if a person offends while banned from driving —even if he is still only 15 or 16; at any time before his 17th birthday—he will have committed a serious offence, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East will testify. Driving in defiance of a ban carries a sentence of six months' imprisonment, even if the offender is not yet old enough to hold a licence. The courts are free to impose a period of disqualification that extends beyond the offender's 17th birthday, if they see fit.
  Surely it is right for every offender who commits and is found guilty of the more serious offence to be kept away from the wheel of a vehicle for at least 12 months. Similarly, the Bill is not concerned with who was directly responsible for the specific aggravating event; it is concerned with the illegal taking of a vehicle and its consequences. It is not relevant that a person who was a willing participant in the crime was not driving the vehicle at a particular time, or that he had not incited the driver —if I may revert to the language of an earlier set of amendments. Passengers and drivers will be equally liable, as they are for the basic section 12(1) offence in the Theft Act 1968. It makes no sense to differentiate between them for the purposes of endorsement.
  This is a serious offence. The Government view it seriously and so, I believe, do the public. All who become involved should be equally liable for the penalties incurred by their criminal behaviour. I hope that, following that explanation, the hon. Member for Huddersfield will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Sheerman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, we shall take the following amendments: No. 12, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
  No. 13, in page 4, line 34, at end insert—
  '(I AA) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 12A of the Theft Act 1968 (aggravated vehicle-taking), a special reason for the purposes of subsection (1) above may relate either to the offence or to the offender'.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last group of amendments. Like the previous group, they are designed to provide the courts with greater flexibility over disqualification. They approach the issue in a different way, through the use of special reasons for not disqualifying a person. The effect of the amendments is to permit the courts to regard the fact that the offender was not driving as a special reason for not disqualifying him. However, the court could still disqualify, if it thought that that was appropriate. The amendment would also enable a court to take into account special reasons relating to the offender as well as the offence.
  The last group of amendments builds on the main thrust of trying to make the Bill more reasonable and effective. We strongly believe that if the Bill eventually

  699
  becomes an Act retaining some of its present imperfections, it will not address the very real problems that it should address.
  Mr. John Patten: It is important to be clear about what the special reasons are, for the purposes of the legislation. Special reasons must relate to the offence, not to the offender. Special reasons do not include and have never included ill health and loss of employment. They might —I say "might" with a heavy emphasis on that word—cover an accident victim being carried to hospital in an emergency after a crash has been caused where special reasons could be pleaded, although not necessarily accepted. The courts are loth to find special reasons. The hon. Member for Huddersfield will find that section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is the legislation that governs special offences.
  Amendment No. 11 would allow a court not to impose obligatory disqualification if it felt that there was a special reason—I have tried to explain, I hope to the Committee's satisfaction, what a special reason is—for not doing so: the fact that the offender was not driving the vehicle at the particular time. That runs entirely counter to the point of the Bill, which is that all those involved in the offence of illegally taking a vehicle are guilty and should be treated as such.
  I can see no reason why this offence should be singled out in a way that would allow people to have taken into account the fact that inconvenience would he caused at work, when it is a long-established legal principle that special reasons do not relate to an offender's circumstances. To do so would seriously weaken the effectiveness of obligatory disqualification. I can see no reason for it.
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Sheerman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Anderson: Again I raise the question of Scotland. How can the Government justify this Bill in respect of England and Wales only? The Government say, properly, that the offence is prevalent in England and Wales and argue that there is considerable public concern about it. They say that it merits urgent attention and that the present law is inadequate in terms of its scope and penalties. What, therefore, makes Scotland different?
  Is it said that the offence is less prevalent in Scotland and that degrees of latitude make the offence less frequently committed in Scotland? Is it said that there is less public concern in Scotland and that there is less urgency about the matter? Or is it said that the relevant legislation, as applied to Scotland—the 1988 Act—is such that there are no lacunae in the law as it applies to Scotland? I do not think that the Government can argue that there is a serious difference between England and Wales and Scotland, so will they assure the House that legislation for Scotland will be introduced with the same urgency?
  Mr. John Patten: We are often told that Scotland is different, that it is a nation and that it has its own laws. Home Office Ministers are often lectured by Scottish Members that we should import decent bits of the Scottish law into the English and Welsh legal code. I see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) nodding in agreement.
  In Scotland, aggravated taking is dealt with under section 178 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and under other statutory or common law offences, some of which were described graphically by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) in his brief intervention earlier this afternoon.
  Measures suitable for one area of the United Kingdom may not be equally applicable to another.
  Mr. Anderson: Surely the common law offences that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) related in respect of Scotland are equally applicable in England. The Minister will be aware that the penalties available under section 178 are lower than those in England and Wales—three months imprisonment or a fine, but not both. On indictment, I believe that the maximum penalty is 12 months imprisonment. Surely the Minister is not arguing that the offence is less prevalent, or that there is less public concern, in Scotland, so why is there a difference?
  Mr. Patten: I recognise that the penalties available under section 178 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are different. The maximum penalty north of the border is 12 months imprisonment. I am not arguing that there are no differences between us. On the contrary, I am arguing that there are substantial differences between us, but all that I can say is that these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not for the Home Secretary or myself.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported without amendment; not amended, considered.
  Order for Third reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I support the Bill because I know that this serious offence was drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State by the chief constable of Nottinghamshire two years ago. I rise simply to ask whether it is possible for the Home Office to publish a pamphlet on the change to the law that can be widely distributed to sixth forms and to many others who commit this offence—many of whom have been charged once but have repeatedly offended—so that our young people understand how serious it is to steal a car, to drive it dangerously and in some cases to set it on fire wilfully? We want to ensure that they understand the way in which the law has changed and how it can be reinforced. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to find out whether that can be undertaken as early as possible on completion of the Bill's passage.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) makes a constructive suggestion. I know how long he has been concerned about the aggravated taking of vehicles and the mayhem caused by young men in parts of Nottinghamshire over the past couple of years. His concern has been reflected by the chief constable.
  I have not contemplated production of the type of leaflet to which my hon. Friend referred, but it is a good idea. We shall try to do more about car crime during 1992, and I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's comments to see whether we can accommodate his request.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon)—is on the Front Bench with me. We know how important it is to educate children, sometimes even those in their late primary school years, about the offending temptations with which they may be faced. Last week, I was at a Salford school, having visited one of those motor projects to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred. I was struck by one of the comments of the primary school headmistress. She said that she felt that children aged between seven and 11 were at particular risk of being cloned by their elder brothers or elder friends into people with the same offending habits. We may well want to follow my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  I believe that the Bill, as it goes to another place, has been properly and fully scrutinised on Second Reading and in Committee—as will be shown in Hansard. I hope that this excellent measure will receive not only the assent of the House but the strong support of everyone who has been so concerned about this issue during 1991. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  9.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): I beg to move,
  That the draft Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
  In each of the past two years, Parliament has approved continuation orders extending the life of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. Last year, an order was needed to ensure that the recommendations of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions in 1991–92 could be given effect. The IAC reported for the last time in January this year and, under the terms of the 1990 continuation order, the 1987 Act is due to expire on 31 March 1992.
  During the debate one year ago, my hon. Friend the Minister of State assured the House that new arrangements for deciding teachers' pay would be in place by 31 March 1992, and so they are. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 received Royal Assent on 25 July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appointed the eight members of the schoolteachers' review body under the chairmanship of Sir Graham Day. On 20 September, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science asked the review body to submit its first report in January 1992, making recommendations on teachers' pay and conditions in the year commencing 1 April 1992.
  There is, however, a need for a further continuation order, for entirely technical reasons. Before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State makes the order giving statutory force to the 1992 schoolteachers' pay and conditions document, he is required under the 1991 Act to consult interested parties on the review body's recommendations on the Government's proposals for implementation. He has also agreed, following the practice adopted in previous years and as specifically requested by the employers and the teachers' unions, to consult the same interested parties on the details of the draft pay document giving effect to the Government's recommendations. We will, of course, move as quickly as possible, but it is most unlikely that my right hon. and learned Friend will be in a position to make the first pay and conditions order under the new Act immediately upon the expiry of the 1987 Act on 31 March 1992.
  Until the first new pay and conditions order is made under the new Act, the 1987 Act needs to be kept in being for a very short time for a very specific and limited purpose—to ensure that all teachers continue to be covered by the existing pay and conditions order made under that Act. Section 6(3) of the 1987 Act provides for statutory conditions of service to continue to apply to existing contracts until new provision is made.
  Teachers who enter with new contracts of employment after the Act expires will not, however, be covered. Therefore, we must ensure tonight that there is a smooth transition between the old and new pay and conditions orders and that the provisions of the 1991 pay document will continue to apply in the case of contracts of employment entered into after 31 March 1992, but before the new order giving effect to the 1992 pay and conditions document comes into force.

  703
  That is why we are obliged to take the House's time to seek approval for the final continuation order. I commend the order to the House to afford continued statutory protection to the very small number of teachers taking up new contracts of employment during any hiatus between the current date of expiry of the 1987 Act and the coming into force of the first pay and conditions order under the 1991 Act. The 1987 Act will finally be repealed alongside the making of the first pay and conditions order under the 1991 Act.
  The continuation order has no bearing on arrangements for next year's pay settlement. The new schoolteachers review body is hard at work. It has received evidence from the teachers' associations, the employers and the Department of Education and Science, and has listened to the representations of all those bodies. As I have already explained, it will present its first report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister around the end of January next year. That report will make recommendations on the pay increase to be given to schoolteachers next year, with particular regard to any modifications which might be introduced to the system of selective payments to increase the flexibility of employers in meeting the needs of recruitment and retention. It will also consider how the pay of schoolteachers might be more closely related to their performance, in line with the principles of the citizens charter.
  The review body will recommend precisely as it sees fit. The Government for their part have given a firm commitment to implement the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do otherwise. I am confident that the work of the review body will reinforce teachers' professionalism and raise still further the esteem in which society holds our teachers.
  In the meantime, this order is required simply to ensure a smooth transition between the old and new statutory arrangements and to ensure that there are no gaps in the statutory provision for the pay and conditions of schoolteachers. As such, I commend it to the House.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the debate and set out the technical reasons for the order. We shall certainly not oppose the order because, as the Minister rightly explained, it deals with a particular provision relating to new teachers and their contracts of employment. While we have had our differences with the Government about the interim advisory committee and the way in which it has worked, it might be worthwhile at this stage, in what might be our final debate on the work of the interim advisory committee, to thank its members for the work that they have done in the past few years. They may not always have turned up with what teachers would have wished, but I am sure that there has been a great acceptance of the way in which they have carried out a very difficult task. We wish those who worked on the interim advisory committee well and we look forward to the next phase in the determination of teachers' pay which is the work of the pay review body under the chairmanship of Sir Graham Day.
  As the Minister knows, we had our disagreements on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill and on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill last year. To get to the pay review body involved an interesting and
  704
  long gestation period by Ministers. It would not be appropriate to go through the arguments again today, but I suspect that teachers will judge the effectiveness of the pay review body not by our arguments on the Floor of the House or in Committee last year, but merely by the way in which it delivers. We expressed our reservations about the conditions attached to the pay review body—both the preconditions and the ability of the Minister or the Secretary of State to interfere at a later date. We look forward with interest to what the pay review body will report in January. We note that the Government are asking that organisation to bear in mind an increase in line with inflation, and feel that that may well not be sufficient, but we await the outcome with interest.
  I agree with the Minister that there is a need for a consultation process. It is almost unique to hear a Minister —particularly, perhaps, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—talk about the need for consultation. It has not been a characteristic of the Department of Education and Science in the past few years —[interruption.] The Minister seems not to accept that, but if he talked to teachers about one or two recent arbitrary changes in education provision, he might well hear the view that there could have been more consultation. We welcome the promise of consultation on the report of the pay review body and hope that when that consultation takes place the Government will listen to the views expressed. It is no use having a one-way consultation process: the Government must listen.
  We recognise the need for and the purpose of the order, and we shall not oppose it today.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I begin by echoing what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said about the interim advisory body. I have always felt a little uncomfortable about the interim stage. The Government cannot say that because, by definition, the Government have to be comfortable with everything, but it has not been a profitable period for teachers in terms of their pay.
  It seems that it is impossible—or should be impossible —to discuss any aspect of teachers' pay, however technical, without relating it to the quality of teachers' performance and teaching methods. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not object, I should like to pay tribute to the Government's overall strategy. While the Government are rightly pursuing the pay review body, which I believe and certainly hope will result in a substantial rise in teachers' pay, they are simultaneously engaged—not before time—in asking serious questions about some of the methods used in our schools, most recently in primary schools.
  I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that there is a fundamental connection between teachers' pay—and the mechanics of it—the esteem in which teachers are held and the methods that they use. One of the main reasons why teachers have fallen in public esteem is that the public have lost confidence in teaching methods, which, in turn, seem to have lost contact with common sense as perceived by the man on the Clapham omnibus.
  In supporting the order—one could scarcely do otherwise—I should like to stress that the way forward does not lie merely in improvements in teachers' pay, necessary though they are. The way forward must also lie

  705
  in a two-track policy by which we continue to promote a public debate on some of the catastrophic failed philosophies of the past. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that he was not going to tell teachers how to teach in primary schools or pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry that he had just announced. He then proceeded to make some characteristically common-sense comments which might seem to carping critics to pre-empt that inquiry, but who cares about that, provided his comments made good sense, which they did?
  I commend the Government's handling of the pay review body and their general approach of marrying this policy, which will lead to higher pay for teachers, with a determined critique of the elements of teachers' performance which need to be discussed and openly and rigorously criticised.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Fallon: This has been a brief but interesting debate. I thank those who took part in it, and I echo the gratitude that they expressed to the interim advisory committee as the end of its days draws nigh.
  I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) looking forward to the review body's recommendations. We should not forget that his party voted against a review body. Even though tonight's debate has been reasonably even-tempered, we shall lose no opportunity when the time comes next year to remind teachers who supported a review body and who opposed it.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central suggested that we wanted the increase from the review body to be in line with inflation. That is not quite what we suggested, which was that it should have regard to affordability. The hon. Gentleman has read one too many union submissions to that body.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) must be right to say that pay should increasingly be linked to performance. That idea is in the Secretary of State's remit letter to the review body. I look forward to that beginning to apply to the teaching profession. It is long overdue and it will be warmly welcomed by senior and successful classroom teachers, who can look forward to seeing the additional efforts and successes that they have achieved in the classroom being properly rewarded in their pay structure.
  In general, we look forward to the recommendations of the review body—
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for a local education authority to pay teachers and others to go around and interfere when a ballot has taken place for a school to opt for grant-maintained status? The headmaster of a school in my constituency, Alan Bentley, says that people claiming to represent the LEA are calling on parents and trying to persuade them against voting to give their school grant-maintained status. Is that not wholly wrong?
  Mr. Fallon: That is an extraordinary allegation and it sounds a disgraceful state of affairs. If my hon. Friend will send me the details, I will have the matter investigated.
  706
  We are confident that the review body will do much to enhance the status and professionalism of the teaching profession. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the next seven motions on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  DOUBLE TAXATION
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Morocco) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Papua New Guinea) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Czechoslovkia) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Iceland) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th November.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th November.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1991 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th November. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  VAT (BUILDINGS AND LAND)
  That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1991 (S.1., 1991, No. 2569), dated 13th November 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  CUSTOMS DUTIES
  That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2583), dated 15th November 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  CRIMINAL LAW
  That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put. forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).

  INDIRECT TAXATION
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6762/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H. M. Customs and Excise on 15th July 1991, relating to completion of the Internal Market and approximation of indirect taxes, 6641/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by H. M. Customs and Excise on 12th November 1990, 17th May 1991, 15th October 1991 and 25th November 1991, relating to the common system of Value Added Tax, 6642/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H. M. Customs and Excise on 12th November 1991, relating to administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, and 9670/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H. M. Customs and Excise on 12th November 1991, relating to the general arrangements for the holding, movement and control of products subject to excise duty; and congratulates the Government on negotiating an agreement on indirect tax rates, which in particular safeguards the Government's right to continue its existing zero rates for VAT and an agreement on the VAT technical system which provides for the effective operation of the intra-Community VAT system after 1992, and includes provision for the continuation of intra-Community tax-free shopping for a transitional period, together with an agreement on enhanced administrative co-operation arrangements which will help to combat fraud; supports the proposals on the movement and control of excise goods, which in particular include provision for the continuation of intra-Community duty-free shopping for a transitional period, and for minimum indicative limits to distinguish between commercial and private cross-border transactions in alcohol and tobacco; and welcomes the significant progress which these agreements and proposals represent toward the abolition of fiscal frontiers and the creation of the single market.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.

  Ex-Service Men
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I am delighted to have the opportunity briefly to raise the subject of Government policies affecting ex-service men. It is particularly apposite that I should do so, because I believe that my constituency of Gosport contains more service men and probably more retired service personnel than any other, and a very fine contribution to the constituency they make too, although, of course, the subject is one of general application throughout the United Kingdom.
  The Royal British Legion, which deals with more cases of ex-service men's welfare than any other organisation, draws on its experience to say that it would be extremely helpful if, in dealing with issues, it could deal with one Government Department. The Royal British Legion finds that, as it deals with 15 or 16 Government Departments, there can be problems of complication in dealing with different Departments, there can be duplication of information provided to the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, and there can be delays arising from that duplication.
  In the case, for instance, of an invalided service man, there can be a special problem with the individual's health, there can be a problem with his housing if he is living in service accommodation, there can be a problem with the Department of Employment if he is seeking a job, and there can be a problem with the Department of Social Security.
  The suggestion of the Royal British Legion is that there should be a Department for ex-service men's and ex-service women's affairs—a Department which would be comparable with departments of veterans' affairs in other countries. In other countries, such departments are found to be extremely helpful. For example, in the United States, Canada and Australia, the structure operates to provide one department in which one Minister can answer for all matters relating to all veterans' and ex-service men's affairs and can co-ordinate the work that is required in dealing with their special problems.
  Why do we need a special Department? Why should ex-service personnel be treated differently from any other group of people? There are 18 million service men and women and their dependants, and their experience and service exposes them to special strains and pressures. Much is demanded of service personnel, as we all know. Service life provides its own framework, which is of great assistance to individuals when they are in their service occupation, but some people find that, on withdrawing from service life, the loss of that framework provides them with special problems. Most, of course, adapt very well. They are capable, adaptable people and in most cases there are no problems. However, I know from my constituency experience that when there are problems, they tend to be multiple ones. There would be great benefit in having one Department.
  It is not a new suggestion, nor is it a party political suggestion, that there should be a Department for ex-service men's affairs. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), with all-party support, presented a ten-minute Bill on 26 February 1991. My hon. Friend the

  709
  Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), in a written question to the Prime Minister which was answered on 13 June, again asked whether there could be a separate Department for ex-service men's affairs. The Prime Minister answered that he did not consider that such a Department would be appropriate. I respect the fact that the request was rejected on that occasion, but I hope that the idea will be borne in mind by Ministers.
  If Ministers consider the matter further, it is suggested—this view would be shared by the Royal British Legion and by the Officers Pension Society—that it is the self-evident responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to defend this country and that it is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security to deal with pensions and social affairs generally. The general view, therefore, would be that it would be better to include a separate Department and a separate Minister within the Department of Social Security if that idea should find attraction.
  In dealing with service pensions, it would be wrong and churlish of me not to pay respect to what the Government have already done in respect of service pensions. The Government's pay and pensions record is quite outstanding. One of the very first actions of the Government when they were elected in 1979 was to rectify the problem which had been created by the previous Labour Government, who held back service pay as part of their pay restraint policy, in an attempt to contol inflation.
  One of our first acts in government was to increase service pay by a massive 32·1 per cent. That in itself was of great assistance in rectifying the problems of service pensions, because pensions are calibrated against pay. As a Government, we have consistently held service pay and pensions at a reasonable level for those currently serving and now retiring.
  On a separate issue, I am proud to have been personally associated with a five-year campaign to win pensions for the first time for a completely different group of women, the pre-1950 widows who, until 1979, had no service pension at all. That anomaly has also been rectified by the Government. I am proud that more than 20,000 pre-1950 widows are or have been enjoying service pensions because of the Government's actions in introducing such pensions in November 1979.
  It was also this Government who recognised the special problems of the war widows whose husbands had served before 1973. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence introduced a new extra ex-gratia war widow's pension of a further £40 per week, making that payment tax-free so that it would not count against income-related benefits. The Government's record is therefore a proud one.
  Nevertheless, there are anomalies, and the Officers' Pensions Society has been assiduous, as always, in pointing them out to the Government. I could recite a long catalogue of them, but the first major one relates to the disparities in retired pay, which depends on the level of remuneration of the individual officer or man at the date of his retirement. There are serious pension troughs. Those who retired under the 1956 code of pensions, for instance, are worse off than those who retired under the 1950 or 1945 pension codes. Similarly, those who retired in 1976 or 1977 are in a serious pension trough. The amounts can be substantial.
  710
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give serious consideration at the earliest opportunity to introducing a floor—a minimum level of pension—for each rank. It is wrong that an individual of one rank can be paid a lower pension than an individual in a lower rank simply because the individual in the higher rank happened to retire in the wrong month or year and is thereby disadvantaged.
  My second major point relates to a subject that I have been pursuing for many years. I raise it this evening because I fear that there is a grave risk that the Government are going seriously wrong on one point which, although it affects only a tiny number of people, is extremely important. The war pensions scrutiny report was due to be discussed by the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions on 5 December. It is interesting that that report is being considered by a committee which is chaired by our noble Friend, Lord Henley, who is a Minister at the Department of Social Security, not the Ministry of Defence. That is a good example of the problem of the multiplicity of Departments to which I drew attention earlier.
  The war pensions scrutiny report highlights the surprising point that whereas the Ministry of Defence is responsible for defence pensions, the Department of Social Security is responsible for war widows' pensions. At the moment, an officer's war widow has the right to have her pension restored if she remarries and is then bereaved a second time. However, the opposite is true for a widow of an other rank. If that widow remarries, she receives a gratuity but does not have the right to have her pension restored. This is a serious issue: I know from my constituency experience that as, fortunately, people are living longer, it is becoming increasingly likely that elderly ladies will wish to remarry, but they are faced with an agonising choice, knowing that, if they remarry, they will forfeit the service pension. That is an extremely serious point.
  It worries me that the scrutiny committee may be moving towards taking the view that the pension arrangements that apply to other ranks should apply in the case of officers' widows as well. That would be wrong. To deprive war widows of the right to have their pensions restored at the time of second bereavement would be socially wrong. All widows in receipt of pensions should be in a position where it is advantageous and attractive for them to remarry, recognising that they will forfeit their pension during the period of remarriage, but that they have an automatic right to have the pension restored should they be bereaved a second time. That will encourage second marriages, which is socially desirable. It is proper and fair for us to encourage remarriage in that way.
  I could mention a catalogue of other anomalies in the treatment of service pensioners and their widows, but I hope that I have given enough examples to persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister that problems exist which could be diminished by creating a single Department to deal with the affairs of ex-service men and women.
  10.25 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate. I am sure that the issues that he has raised are of interest to many

  711
  hon. Members. I am aware that, for several years, he has taken a particular interest in the provision made for service personnel and their dependants after retirement,
  My hon. Friend suggested that a separate Department of ex-service men's affairs should be established within Government. I understand that such departments exist in several countries. However, there is a tendency for the interest to centre on medical programmes for veterans. Such programmes are unnecessary in the United Kingdom, because ex-service personnel, like other citizens, have access to the national health service. In the particular case of those who have disabilities which are attributed to their service in the armed forces, or of the dependants of those who die as a result of their service, special provision is made in the Department of Social Security through the war pensions scheme. Associated with that scheme is the war pensions welfare service, which is available to assist war pensioners and their families.
  As my hon. Friend said, in the United Kingdom several Government Departments are involved in matters which have an impact on ex-service personnel Major social and welfare provision for them is rightly integrated with that for the population as a whole, as is the case with the national health service.
  My hon. Friend referred to service pensions. As the House will be aware, we have in place a pension scheme for the armed forces which is specially designed to recognise and provide for the type of careers that are available to service personnel. For those who are able to serve for a full career, which will normally end at the age of 55, the scheme provides benefits at a level which in most types of employment are not available until the age of 60 and possibly 65.
  The armed forces scheme provides for those who retire at 55 a pension at approximately half the rate of the military salary that they received at the date of retirement and a lump sum of three times the rate of pension. However, the career of many service personnel must end much earlier than the age of 55, so the pension scheme must be flexible. For those who have to retire earlier, a pension is awarded for immediate payment after as little as 16 years' service for officers, counting service from the age of 21. For other ranks the minimum requirement is 22 years' service, counted from the age of 18.
  Not only are those pensions brought into payment immediately, but, in addition to taking account of the length of reckonable service given, they include a further element to allow for the early termination of the service career. Those pensions are also accompanied by a lump sum of three times the annual rate of pension awarded.
  On the relationship between the rate of pay earned on the last day of service and the amount of pension which will be awarded, I confirm that the appropriate annual rates of military salary in force at the date of retirement, not those enforced earlier or later, are used as the basis for calculating pension scales. That is one aspect of what is known as the "code system" under which service pensions are awarded.
  Another aspect of the code is that pensions are based on what is known as a "representative" rate of pay for each rank, rather than on the rate received by each member. Thus, although service men of the same rank may receive different rates of pay, perhaps because they need specialist skills, they will be awarded exactly the same rate of pension provided that they retire on the same date and have given the same length of reckonable service.
  712
  The representative rate of pay for each rank is taken from the military salary payable to those who have a combatant role, and I am sure that the House would accept the logic of that.
  I recognise that, although the arrangements achieve uniformity of awards within each "code" period, they also have the effect that those who retire on either side of the date on which pay increases come into effect will receive different awards of pension. Those differences may be appreciable if the pay award is large. That is not an ideal situation, but it is only one aspect of a pension system, which is recognised as having many advantageous features for service men.
  The impact of increased living costs on those who rely on a service pension as their primary source of income in retirement is not overlooked. Service pensions are protected against inflation by index linking. In common with other public service schemes, that takes the form of annual increases, which reflect in full previous movement in the retail prices index.
  While the purchasing power of pensions is maintained in that way, the increases awarded are likely to differ from those which occur in the rates of pay over a corresponding period. The difference can be in either direction. Under conditions of high price inflation, pensions in payment may move ahead at a faster rate than is the case for levels of pay. At other times, pay rates may increase at a faster rate than the level of price inflation then being experienced.
  The two different mechanisms—the award of pensions according to the current rates of pay and the subsequent protection of those pensions against inflation by index-linking—do not achieve a perfect balance. Each is generally accepted as appropriate to its purpose, but, when viewed over an extended period, variations in the pensions received by individuals who retire at different times are likely to occur.
  Only one other factor can have that effect. Pension schemes are not static, and the armed forces pension scheme is no exception. Particularly in the period since the end of world war two, there has been an increasing emphasis in this country on financial provision for retirement. That has been reflected in the increasing development of occupational pension schemes. Consequently, the nature and structure of the scheme for members of the armed forces has been subject to review and significant improvement on a number of occasions. Improvements have also been introduced at other times, as the scheme keeps pace with general developments. especially those adopted by other public service schemes, in line with the main thrust of Government policy on provision for retirement.
  In making such improvements, a particular and important principle has to be taken into account—that of non-retrospection. Improvements are available to those who are serving at the time that a change is implemented and who retire subsequently. Eligibility is not extended to include those who had already retired. The reason for that is well understood. Any improvement increases the future costs of the scheme, but those will normally arise progressively, as people who are eligible for the improved terms retire, or otherwise qualify over an extended period. If all existing pensioners were also made eligible, there would be an immediate and, by comparison, disproportionate escalation in cost. In those circumstances, worthwhile improvements would be difficult to achieve.

  713
  I have gone into these matters at some length because it is important to make three points. There are a variety of reasons why the pensions of individuals who have similar rank and length of service, but who retire at different times, may differ. The general considerations and principles which give rise to that for retired members of the armed forces are potentially applicable to the generality of occupational schemes, both within the public service and outside.
  Action which was specifically designed to modify existing pensions in payment, so as to diminish differences which may exist today, would be contrary to long-established principles and practices.
  My hon. Friend mentioned minimum rates of pension. I note the suggestion that minimum rates of pension should be established and that all service personnel whose pension is below such a minimum should have it increased accordingly. To decide what those minima should be would, in itself, be an arbitrary exercise. More important, it would be contrary to normal principles to proceed in that way. All existing pensions were correctly calculated in accordance with the provisions in force at the time of retirement. They have subsequently been increased through index linking. I acknowledge the attraction for those at the lower end of any comparison to levelling-up process, but I cannot agree that we should undertake it. The implications are widespread and extremely costly.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the case of war widows who marry again and subsequently lose their pensions on being widowed for a second time. He pointed out that other ranks are treated differently from officers' widows. As he said, the whole question is being considered by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who is well aware of the problem and is addressing it. It is basically the responsibility of the Department of Social Security, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on how its work is progressing.
  I shall now spell out the main provisions of the armed forces pension scheme as it applies to service widows. The widows of service men who retired before 30 March 1973 generally receive a pension which is one third of that received by their husband. Service given from 31 March 1973 onwards generates widow's pension at one half of that received by the husband. On subsequent remarriage, entitlement to a widow's pension ceases, except to the extent that there is an entitlement to a widow's guaranteed minimum pension.
  Except for some small variations in the effective date of the change from one third to one half rate, these provisions correspond with those of other public service schemes. As with other improvements, the increased proportion of a husband's pension payable to his widow was not extended to include those who had already retired.
  The point has been made that the relatively lower rates of pension received by those men who retired at various times in the past also result in lower pensions for their widows. I acknowledge that that is so and that there is a direct proportional relationship between the two. However, I cannot accept that that is in some way wrong.
  714
  In each case, the pensions that result are a reflection of the entitlements of the scheme at the time when the service was given. Of course, they have the significant benefit of being fully index-linked. I recognise that it would be attractive for those concerned if their pensions could be made greater, but, as I said earlier, it is a basic principle in the management of occupational pension schemes that improvements are not made retrospectively. Without it, we would not have been able to achieve the benefits that are available nowadays.
  Mention has been made of the position of widows who lose their pension on remarriage and who are unfortunately widowed again. The position under the armed forces scheme is that an entitlement to a widow's pension ceases, or is restricted to the guaranteed minimum pension, in the event of remarriage. That applies also in other public service schemes, although I am aware that it is not always the case in the private sector. In public service schemes, however, the view is taken that the effect of remarriage is to terminate the condition of widowhood.
  I am aware of the concern that, under these arrangements, the former widow may find herself in difficult financial circumstances if she is widowed for a second time. I believe that it is widely known that my Department has discretionary powers to restore the original service widow's pension to payment, if circumstances are felt to be appropriate. Indeed, it has been made clear that restoration will normally be agreed if a widow is worse off on second widowhood than when she was receiving her widow's pension.
  It has been suggested that restoration should be automatic, thus enabling widows to remarry with absolute confidence that, whatever may happen, they will have a service pension to fall back on if they are again left on their own. My hon. Friend referred to such circumstances. However, to operate in such a way would be to make assumptions about future events. The result of remarriage may enhance a former widow's pension as her second husband may provide for her in the event of his death. Other events may also affect her financial circumstances. There are factors that could be sensibly allowed for if and when the need for a decision on restoration arises.
  Under our current arrangements, I accept that there is no guarantee that a widow's pension will be restored once entitlement has ceased. However, there can be a reasonable degree of assurance that it will be restored if there is a need. There is no real prospect that a widow will be left worse off than she had been originally. I believe that that is fair to both sides.
  We are talking about public money. It would be wrong to restore a war widow's pension if she was widowed the second time and her second husband was a man of financial probity who was able to leave her in comfortable circumstances. In that event, restoration would mean that that widow was being paid out of public funds when she did not have an obvious need for that money.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for the opportunity to explain my Ministry's position on it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Government Legal Services
  Government Legal Services
  Solicitors (Disclosure of Information)
  Solicitors (Disclosure of Information)
  Charities
  Charities
  Prosecutions
  Prosecutions
  Immigration Appeals
  Immigration Appeals
  Bailiffs
  Bailiffs
  Maxwell Communication Corporation
  Maxwell Communication Corporation
  Paintball Guns
  Paintball Guns
PRIME MINISTER
  Zionism
  Zionism
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Non-proliferation Policies
  Non-proliferation Policies
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Maastricht
  Maastricht
  Sterling
  Sterling
  "Faith in the Countryside"
  "Faith in the Countryside"
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
  Finance Ministers
  Finance Ministers
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
  EC Aid
  EC Aid
  EC Development Council
  EC Development Council
  Contract Legal Personnel
  Contract Legal Personnel
  British Virgin Islands
  British Virgin Islands
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Aid Review
  Aid Review
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  Director General of Telecommunications
  Director General of Telecommunications
  Operation Scotcheck
  Operation Scotcheck
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Dumping at Sea
  Dumping at Sea
  Wind Energy
  Wind Energy
  Set-aside Scheme
  Set-aside Scheme
WALES
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Minor Works Grant
  Minor Works Grant
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
  Health "Customers"
  Health "Customers"
  Service Contracts
  Service Contracts
  Welsh World Trade Centre (Grant)
  Welsh World Trade Centre (Grant)
  Standard Spending Assessments
  Standard Spending Assessments
  Rural Initiative
  Rural Initiative
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Poll Tax
  Poll Tax
  Terrorist Suspects
  Terrorist Suspects
  Private Security Industry
  Private Security Industry
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Hepatitis B (Prisons)
  Hepatitis B (Prisons)
  Mr. Ian Borovikov
  Mr. Ian Borovikov
  Police Statistics
  Police Statistics
  Alleged Police Assaults
  Alleged Police Assaults
  Data Protection Registrar
  Data Protection Registrar
  Police Batons
  Police Batons
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Prison Escapes
  Prison Escapes
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupil Exclusions
  Pupil Exclusions
  Science Research Fellowships
  Science Research Fellowships
  School Meals
  School Meals
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Elmbridge Road School, Gloucester
  Elmbridge Road School, Gloucester
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Costs and Allowances
  Costs and Allowances
  Budget, Wolverhampton
  Budget, Wolverhampton
  Reading Standards
  Reading Standards
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  Pupil Testing
  Pupil Testing
  Exclusion from School
  Exclusion from School
  School Governors
  School Governors
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
NATIONAL FINANCE
  BT (Share Sale)
  BT (Share Sale)
  VAT
  VAT
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Third World Debt
  Third World Debt
  Operation Scotcheck
  Operation Scotcheck
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  Multi-airline Business
  Multi-airline Business
  Marine Accident Investigation Branch
  Marine Accident Investigation Branch
  Ocean Hound
  Ocean Hound
  Motorway Lighting
  Motorway Lighting
  Marine Pollution
  Marine Pollution
  A1 (Upgrading)
  A1 (Upgrading)
  Rail Crossings
  Rail Crossings
  Road Contracts
  Road Contracts
  A13 (Lane Closure)
  A13 (Lane Closure)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Driving Licence Fees
  Driving Licence Fees
  Provisional Car Licences
  Provisional Car Licences
  Road Advertisements
  Road Advertisements
ENVIRONMENT
  Priority Homeless Statistics
  Priority Homeless Statistics
  Inland Waterways Amenities Advisory Council
  Inland Waterways Amenities Advisory Council
  Noise Abatement
  Noise Abatement
  Housing
  Housing
  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Environmental Conferences
  Environmental Conferences
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Rents into Mortgages
  Rents into Mortgages
  Household Waste (Burning)
  Household Waste (Burning)
  Corine Programme
  Corine Programme
  New Town Housing, Warrington
  New Town Housing, Warrington
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Subsidiarity
  Subsidiarity
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
  Zionism
  Zionism
  Japan (Plutonium)
  Japan (Plutonium)
  Ukraine
  Ukraine
  Romanian Children (Adoptions)
  Romanian Children (Adoptions)
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Iraq (Nuclear Scientists)
  Iraq (Nuclear Scientists)
  Pearl Harbour
  Pearl Harbour
  Lockerbie
  Lockerbie
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Government-funded Projects
  Government-funded Projects
  Contract Law
  Contract Law
  Catholic Maintained Schools
  Catholic Maintained Schools
  Women-only Employment Courses
  Women-only Employment Courses
  RUC Holding Centres
  RUC Holding Centres
  Non-traditional Skills
  Non-traditional Skills
  Ms. Pauline Quinn
  Ms. Pauline Quinn
  Information Service
  Information Service
  Right of Silence
  Right of Silence
  Schoolchildren (Statistics)
  Schoolchildren (Statistics)
  Northern Ireland Block
  Northern Ireland Block
  SERPS
  SERPS
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  English Teaching
  English Teaching
  Children at Risk
  Children at Risk
  Travellers
  Travellers
  Housing (Security Improvements)
  Housing (Security Improvements)
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
HEALTH
  NHS Charges (Exemptions)
  NHS Charges (Exemptions)
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Cot Death
  Cot Death
  Quest Cancer Test
  Quest Cancer Test
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  GPs (Computers)
  GPs (Computers)
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Meat and Bonemeal
  Meat and Bonemeal
ENERGY
  Oil Industry
  Oil Industry
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Wood
  Wood
  Waste Incineration
  Waste Incineration
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Coal Mining (Productivity)
  Coal Mining (Productivity)
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Pylon Lines
  Pylon Lines
  Domestic Heating and Insulation
  Domestic Heating and Insulation
  Energy Prices
  Energy Prices
  Redundant Pipelines
  Redundant Pipelines
  Wind-generated Electricity
  Wind-generated Electricity
  Energy Policy
  Energy Policy
  Nuclear Facility Attachments
  Nuclear Facility Attachments
  Euratom Safeguards
  Euratom Safeguards
  Energy from Waste
  Energy from Waste
  Euratom
  Euratom
  Nuclear Energy
  Nuclear Energy
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Monktonhall Colliery
  Monktonhall Colliery
  Sizewell
  Sizewell
  Nuclear Waste (Accidents)
  Nuclear Waste (Accidents)
EMPLOYMENT
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Training (North-West)
  Training (North-West)
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Public Holidays
  Public Holidays
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Iraqi Nuclear Scientists
  Iraqi Nuclear Scientists
  Special Needs Training
  Special Needs Training
  Accident, Isles of Scilly
  Accident, Isles of Scilly
  Mr. A. A. Binns (Accident)
  Mr. A. A. Binns (Accident)
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Schools
  Schools
SCOTLAND
  Haddington Bypass
  Haddington Bypass
  Schoolchildren (Statistics)
  Schoolchildren (Statistics)
  CAP
  CAP
  Crime Rates, Strathclyde
  Crime Rates, Strathclyde
  Stobhill Hospital
  Stobhill Hospital
  Catholic Schools
  Catholic Schools
  Disability
  Disability
  Knitwear and Textiles
  Knitwear and Textiles
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
DEFENCE
  Verification Demands
  Verification Demands
  Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons
  Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Testing
  Nuclear Testing
  Environmental Exhibition
  Environmental Exhibition
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  Royal Naval Reserve
  Royal Naval Reserve
  Household Division
  Household Division
  Armed Forces (Injuries Compensation)
  Armed Forces (Injuries Compensation)
  Pearl Harbour
  Pearl Harbour
  HMS Revenge
  HMS Revenge
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Cold Weather Payments
  Cold Weather Payments
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Carer's Premium
  Carer's Premium
  Disability Benefits
  Disability Benefits
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Algebra Group
  Algebra Group
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Young People (Benefits)
  Young People (Benefits)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Social Fund Manual
  Social Fund Manual

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

Hans James David Lord HolmPatrick—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Iraq: Policy
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy towards Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are determined that Iraq should never again be able to threaten its neighbours and that the regime should cease to repress its civilian population. We shall maintain sanctions against Iraq until it has complied in full with its obligations under successive UN Security Council resolutions, in particular Nos. 687 and 688.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Government will certainly enjoy the support of the whole House in their firmness of resolve on Iraq. However, do the Government agree that there are great numbers of innocent people, Kurds in the north and Shias in the south, who are suffering acutely, not least from the breakdown of the social infrastructure? Do the Government agree that it is totally beyond the capacity of the United Nations system and voluntary agencies to do more than provide limited humanitarian relief? If there were a genuine and demonstrable change of heart on the part of the Iraqi Government, would there be some way in which the Government could illustrate what might then become available? In other words, could there be some carrot as well as stick?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the whole House knows, our quarrel is with the regime, not with the long-suffering Iraqi people. There is plenty of opportunity for the Iraqi authorities to take action now. As the noble Lord will know, they have only to comply with Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 to allow Iraq to export 1.6 billion dollars' worth of oil. That will help enormously on the humanitarian front.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether Iraq's capacity to produce nuclear weapons has been eliminated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, not completely would be the correct answer. However, we are working on the matter and making progress.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, what further supplies are being sent to the Kurds in the light of the oncoming winter? What assurance can we have that those supplies are reaching them? How much of the moneys raised by the Simple Truth have now been spent? How many of the supplies so bought have been sent to Kurdistan?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees believes that the winter programme will have the food and funds necessary to complete the projected programme, despite the problems that face it.
With regard to the money raised by the Simple Truth Appeal, the British Red Cross has confirmed that all the £57 million-plus has been accounted for.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that this question was asked last week. Once again, the problem of Saddam Hussein arises. I ask the Minister a straight question. What do we intend to do with him? He owes untold millions of pounds towards Kuwait, a country we are supposed to have released. When shall we receive those moneys?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have answered this question once or twice before. We are abiding strictly by the Security Council resolutions. We shall not change our minds on that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we and the Americans have always said that we have no hatred or enmity for the people of Iraq? They have suffered as much as anyone else. I was recently in Kuwait. What causes great perturbation is this. The Iraqis took back 2,000 Kurdish people, many of them families. A thousand women, young as well as older, are pregnant from rapes. Are the Government aware that the attack on the Kurds continues with equal ferocity? While we may be anxious about the people of Iraq, cannot we show that we consider it highly offensive that Saddam Hussein carries on with his actions? Is it not time that the Security Council stepped in and tried to stop such actions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Security Council has been acting very effectively in those areas. The noble Lord is right to point out that the continuing retention of Kuwaiti detainees is one of the examples of blatant Iraqi non-compliance with Security Council resolutions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the view from all quarters of the House is that the suffering of Iraq will continue while their present leader remains in power. What view do the Government take of the stability of the Government in Baghdad? Is there any indication that there might be a change, now or in the foreseeable future? If there is no change, and the United Nations takes no further steps in the matter, then the awful suffering of the people of Iraq and the Kurds will continue.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are most anxious about the people of Iraq. The Security Council reviews the situation on a regular basis. It was

455
reviewed only a few days ago, when the Security Council agreed that there was no case for relaxing sanctions at present.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister say what progress has been made, first, in renewing the mandate for the UN agencies working throughout Iraq and, secondly, in extending the allied agreement with Turkey which permits overflying of the Kurdish areas in the north?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I must write to the noble Lord about that matter.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is widespread support for toughness in dealing with the regime? Will he accept that in the meantime many thousands of Shi'ites as well as Kurds are suffering desperately? If we are not to intervene externally in order to deal with the regime, change must come about internally. Therefore, would it not help if an indication were given about the international co-operation that would be available if there were a substantial political change within Iraq?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have regularly made it clear to the authorities in Iraq that there must be considerable change before that country can be accepted back into the community of nations. The United Kingdom has made a contribution second to none of any other country; more than £44 million has gone to the international relief effort since April. We are aware of the suffering of the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. However, the real problem lies with the authorities in Iraq.

UN Secretary General
2.45 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
For whom their representative voted in the election of the Secretary General of the United Nations, and what criteria were used in deciding who to vote for.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have a long-standing practice of never disclosing our vote. We welcome the election of Dr. Boutros Ghali.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish the new Secretary General well in performing his heavy responsibilities. Do the Government agree that at a time paradoxically of great potential, with the end of the cold war but also with disturbing political and strategic unpredictability in the East, acute humanitarian need in the South and an environmental crisis across the globe as a whole, there is an urgent need to review the resources— administrative, operational and financial—available to the Secretary General? Will the Government give a lead within the European Community in undertaking such a review?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's initial comments. I am sure that the whole House will join in wishing the new Secretary
456
General well in performing the difficult tasks ahead of him. But the noble Lord then asked questions which are not related to the Question on the Order Paper, important though they were.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that throughout the world Britain's endeavours on the Security Council and in the United Nations are held in the highest respect? Indeed, we have shown a good lead in every respect on the Iraq problem. Does the Minister agree that while we are prepared to help all that we can we must avoid the grave danger of the horse starving while the grass is growing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has made some interesting points but they too are not related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the enhanced role of the United Nations and the increased number of international problems that are submitted to it—for instance, sending a peacekeeping force to Yugoslavia and intervening in Cambodia—and of the number of international problems still waiting to be resolved by the United Nations, does the Minister agree that the burden on a single person, the Secretary General, is becoming almost intolerable? Does he also agree that there is a case for enlarging the role of the deputy Secretary General in order to even the burden on the shoulders of those two people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that too is an interesting point but is not related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his interesting answer. But is it right that in deciding how to vote the Government did not have greatly in mind the need for support for the new Secretary General? Would it not be the ultimate in cynicism to put someone in such an extremely exposed and demanding situation without being certain that at a time of acute need and challenge in the world he has all that he needs to discharge his responsibilities effectively? Will not the Government lead a review of what the Secretary General needs and how he can best tackle his tasks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question was relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. We wanted the best candidate to win regardless of regional origin. We understand the difficult work that the Secretary General has ahead of him and that is why he deserves the support of the whole House.

Speed Limits: Enforcement
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to enforce speed limits on the roads.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed limits, is an operational matter for

457
chief officers of police. The Road Traffic Act 1991 contains provisions to facilitate the use of unmanned automatic devices to detect breaches of speed limits.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these days speed limits are simply a farce? Is he further aware that the law is broken thousands of times each day? In those circumstances, will he give the average monthly number of prosecutions for speeding and say whether the Home Office or any other authority keeps records of accidents caused by speeding?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that the limits are a farce. Whether people abide by the limits is another matter. I cannot tell the noble Lord the number of people who have been prosecuted, but I can tell him that the latest available figures for road casualties are for 1990. They show that 5,217 people were killed; 60,441 were seriously injured; and 275,483 people were slightly injured. The aim of the Government is to reduce casualties on the roads by one third by the year 2000.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree, bearing in mind police resources are stretched because there is such an enormous amount of paper work and also because of the inexorable rise in criminal activity, that it is becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary policemen to do traffic enforcement work? In those circumstances, does he not agree that it would be wise to consider at least the formation of a separate traffic police force?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, at the moment that is not part of our thinking. The present arrangements under which some officers specialise in but are not restricted entirely to traffic duties provide the flexibility which is crucial to the effective and efficient use of police resources as a whole. Resources are stretched; they always will be. I remind the noble Lord that an extra 15,793 police officers have been put in post since 1979. It is up to each chief constable to decide how best to use his police officers.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there is a 30 mile an hour speed limit in London?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is a 30 mile an hour speed limit wherever that limit operates. My experience is that the limit is supposed to operate in London.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be fairer to admit that the 30 mile an hour speed limit in London and in most other built up areas is not being policed at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is being policed, as some of your Lordships have doubtless discovered. However, it is impossible to police every single vehicle which travels, in the same way that it is impossible to police every single potential criminal. The police do their best.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it would be regarded as an achievement to reach the speed of 15 miles an hour in London?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington; but other noble Lords may be surprised and may have different experience.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is no greater deterrent than seeing a police car—for example, at the side of a motorway? Does he further agree that there seem to be fewer police cars in evidence at the side of motorways in a stationary position? Is there any reason for that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they are moving after other cars.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, thinking back to the war, would it not be a deterrent to have police cars with dummy policemen inside them? That may act as a deterrent.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a novel idea. I did not know that that was done during the war, and I fancy that that idea may not meet with your Lordships' approval.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope that the Government are not going to be reduced to using dummy policemen in dummy police cars in order to try to enforce a law on the statute book. Is the noble Earl aware that on this side of the House we take the view that if there is a law, it should be enforced? Is he further aware that in view of recent Sunday trading, the same zeal for law enforcement is not always apparent on the other side of the House? The noble Earl refers to certain measures which may be introduced in the course of next year, one of which is fixed cameras. Will he tell the House how much money is to be allocated for the introduction of fixed cameras; how many there are to be; and where they will be placed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was not born yesterday, was he? If I were to tell him where all the cameras are to be, he will make sure that he operates within the speed limit wherever there are cameras. The noble Lord must wait and see how many cameras there will be. A certain amount of testing must take place before the cameras are installed. I assure the noble Lord that they will be extremely effective, and I suggest that he takes great care to abide by the law.
It was encouraging to hear the noble Lord say that noble Lords on his side of the House are so keen to abide by the law. He mentioned Sunday trading—and I do not know what that has to do with speeding. However, I remind the noble Lord that some of his supporters did not abide by the law as they should have done with regard to the community charge.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the increased number of policemen to which he referred is extremely welcome?

459
That is the crucial factor if anything is to be done about speeding. I was going to make the point, which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. has made, that nothing slows traffic down more than the sight of a police car at the side of a motorway or, indeed, on any road. Should not the Government look at that matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is right. Nothing slows people down more than the sight of a police car. I believe that it slows them down whether or not the police car is moving. However, it is not a matter for the Government to consider. The chief constable must decide how to deploy his forces. About 8 per cent. of the policemen in each force are deployed regularly on traffic duties. Other police officers are also involved in traffic duties.

Baltic States: Western Assistance
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action, diplomatic and other, they and their allies are taking to ensure that the three Baltic States become free from possible military and economic domination by the Soviet Union and the Russian Republic.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have pressed the Soviet and Russian Governments to establish as soon as possible a timetable for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the Baltic states. On economic co-operation, we are backing projects in the Baltic states through the Know How Fund, and have offered technical assistance to the Baltic central banks as the Baltic states prepare to introduce their own currencies.
Lord Hylton: My Lords. I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Will he give the House any information on the current size of the Russian garrisons? Will he tell us how many have been withdrawn since August? Is he able to say anything about an independent currency unit for the Baltic states?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the figures of the number of Soviet troops in the Baltic States. However, it is pleasing to be able to report to the House that the withdrawal of interior ministry troops—that is, the Black Berets—has started, and it is hoped that that will be completed by the end of the year. We continue to press the Soviet and Russian authorities to have a firm timetable for the withdrawal of other troops. With regard to the currency, we have offered technical assistance to the Baltic states but that is a matter for them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in the light of this morning's newspapers, which seem to cast doubt on the existence of the Soviet Union, will my noble friend say how much of his original Answer needs amendment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure my noble and learned friend that it was amended this morning to take account of the recent events in the Soviet
460
Union. I am sure that I have the support of my noble and learned friend when I say that we need to approach every responsible authority in the Soviet Union, Russia and other republics in trying to solve problems such as this. That is what we are doing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lotus, in view of the highly critical and potentially dangerous developing scene in what used to be called the Soviet Union, does the noble Earl not agree that the future of those three countries, as well as the other republics in the former Soviet Union, depends upon a settlement being reached between Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin and the republics which are not party to the Slavonic union which is now apparently being agreed upon? Can the noble Earl say what action Her Majesty's Government are taking either through the Community or the United Nations to seek to stabilise the position and conduct talks with Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Gorbachev?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises an important point. I am sure that he will agree that it would be wrong for me to make any further comment when the situation is unclear and our Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries are already meeting not only to discuss the future of Europe but doubtless also to discuss this matter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the international conference to be held in London on 23rd and 24th January with the presence of leading figures, including President Landsbergis, from the Baltic states? Is the Foreign Office able to give assistance to ensure the success of that conference which is examining the whole future of the Baltic states, both economically and politically?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure from that question whether the noble Lord wants taxpayers' money to be spent on the subject.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the light of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, to which reference has already been made, and in the light of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, is it not a matter of urgency that a security organisation be created covering eastern and central Europe and the Baltic states to stabilise the position so far as that is possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we want to stabilise the position and that is why we offered help in the way that we did. It is not for us to impose solutions on others.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when considering these matters with his colleagues in the European Economic Community, will the noble Earl bear in mind that the peoples of those three countries may not wish to come under the economic domination of Brussels?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed they may not.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Ukraine, Russia and Byelorussia are

461
now independent states, representing around 70 per cent. of the old Soviet Union population and with their economic and military power, is it not foolish for Her Majesty's Government to warn or threaten those states regarding their views on the Baltic states? Further, is there not enough turbulence in the old Soviet Union without the Government becoming involved in their inter-state differences?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is right that we should express our views. We do not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. However, where matters are important on which we hold views, it is right that we should express them. We offered technical help and Know How Fund money to both sides to make the situation better, not worse.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of the countries in central Europe and the Baltic states made it clear that their main objective is to join the European Community? That contradicts what was said by the noble Lord earlier.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that may be the case but it is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Baltic states are entitled to feel a degree of relief at the apparently irretrievable collapse of the centre in the former Soviet Union? Is he aware also that his Answer is slightly out of date? He said that he approached the Russian Government regarding the withdrawal of troops; and he should have said the Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian Governments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I said the Soviet and Russian Governments, and that is correct at the moment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government working closely with the Scandinavian countries in everything concerning the three Baltic states?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we certainly keep in touch with all our friends, including the Scandinavians, on the matter.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Third Reading of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill will be taken.
London Docklands Railway Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Paymaster-General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Further Education Funding Councils]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 12 and insert:
("(a) an advisory body to be known as the Further Education Advisory Council").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 16, 19, 21, 27, 33, 34, 37, 42, 49, 50, 56, 60, 76, 78. 102, 106, 109, 114, 121, 131, 167, 225 and 223.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to make the funding councils into advisory councils with responsibility for providing advice on further education but leaving the responsibility for running further education with local education authorities. The advisory councils would also be concerned with the provision of corporate status to further education institutions. That will provide the FE colleges with greater freedom while maintaining their links with local education authorities, which is so important.
There have been considerable changes in education for 16 to 19 year-olds in recent years. Most obviously, the Education Reform Act introduced requirements for the governance of colleges and the delegation of the management of further education colleges and schools. That affected the education of the whole of the post-16 sector, whether they were in schools, sixth form colleges, tertiary colleges or FE colleges.
In a relatively recent report produced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the impact of the Education Reform Act on further education, published in May 1990, the first of the conclusions reached was:
"LEAs have responded well to the requirements of the Education Reform Act to implement new arrangements for college governance and FE planning and delegation. In the main, colleges have good working relationships with their LEA".
In other words, good progress is being made in achieving local financial management.
The Education Reform Act became law in 1988 and the requirement to delegate budgets to schools and further education colleges was only gradually introduced after that time. It is therefore unwise to make substantial changes in the funding and

463
organisation of further education, especially before it has been given adequate time fully to introduce the proposals for local financial management. I have no doubt that with a little more time those changes will be completed and will be perceived as being a considerable success.
In the Second Reading debate I commented on the hostility and even anger and despair with which the proposals for funding councils to replace the role of local education authorities in the provision of further education were greeted by Conservative local authorities. Since then a survey of the responses to the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century was carried out among AMA member authorities and colleges. Almost 90 per cent. of the authorities and 50 per cent. of the colleges that responded felt that the White Paper which preceded the Bill underestimated the role that LEAs play in further education.
Perhaps I may give just two examples of the type of comment the authorities made. The London Borough of Barnet, a Conservative LEA, stated in its response:
"It is to be greatly regretted that a quite false impression is given in the White Paper of the contribution of LEAs in building up and supporting the further education system since 1944, often despite an apparent lack of interest from central government of all persuasions".
The false impression given in the White Paper is now reflected in this Bill.
Perhaps I may give a second illustration of the comments made in replying to the survey. In its response, Southwark College, London, said:
"If the new institutions are to continue to be effective purveyors of the service to local people, they will need to recognise the role which the local authorities have in also serving local people and will need to work closely with the local authorities even after incorporation".
Giving FE colleges corporate status, but with the LEAs continuing to have the duty to ensure the adequate provision of further education, advised nationally by an advisory council, would be a far better solution than setting up a new funding council. While the new Bill gives overall responsibility for ensuring the provision of education for the 16 to 19 year-olds to the funding councils, LEAs will still provide education for 16 to 19 year-olds in the sixth forms of schools. As many speakers pointed out at Second Reading, there is a danger that this split in provision will mean that education for 16 to 19 year-olds is not effectively provided, especially in the early life of the funding councils, when there is a serious danger that the provision for that age group will be disjointed and therefore inadequate.
As presently drafted, the Bill puts at risk the future of sixth form colleges, which will have difficulty in competing with FE colleges in the new funding sector. They are currently treated as schools and both their ethos and the kind of courses they provide make them much more like schools than FE colleges. Their unit costs are considerably higher than those of the colleges, which of course must put them at risk once they are in the new funding sector. Currently, LEAs can ensure that sixth form colleges are available to parents who want their children to benefit from the rather special environment that they offer. This
464
amendment would help to secure their future, since LEAs would continue to be responsible for the whole of the provision for the 16 to 19 year-olds.
Education for adults is also at risk if the Bill is implemented in its present form. Under the Bill the funding council will take over responsibility for most of adult education, but LEAs will be left responsible for what are termed leisure courses. On a number of occasions we have said that that is an absurd split. It is likely to have a seriously damaging effect on adult education and especially on the so-called leisure courses, which often provide the elderly and women in particular with opportunities to participate in education that they would not otherwise have. As regards women, that would give them the confidence to move on to further and perhaps higher education.
The likelihood is that the choice in relation to these courses will be reduced and the cost to the student will be raised. This amendment would ensure that adult education remained the responsibility of local authorities with the new council simply providing advice at national level. It would not produce the situation which is created by the Bill whereby adult education institutes consisting mainly of part-time students will need to apply to a college with corporate status in order to receive funds from the funding councils for vocational and other courses which are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill as the responsibility of the funding council.
Another important area that is at risk as a result of the proposals in the Bill is the youth service, the statutory basis of which would be considerably weakened by those proposals. Her Majesty's Inspectorate estimates that at any one time over 5 million young people are involved in youth service activities. Clearly that is a very important service, especially in our inner cities, and needs to be safeguarded by leaving that responsibility with the local authorities.
The future of the country's economy depends on the effective provision of education and training beyond the age of 16. As we have said on many occasions on this side of the Chamber, in comparison with other advanced developed countries, the UK has a low staying-on rate beyond the age of 16. While the UK has only just over 50 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds in full-time education, the USA, Japan and some European countries have over 80 per cent. of their 16 and 17 year-olds still participating.
Building on the current system of further education provision, in which the local authorities—which are democratically accountable bodies—take overall responsibility for further education, would seem to us to be far more sensible than setting up a new and totally untried system. Setting up a national advisory body would allow the opportunity to consider further education at a national level while leaving the actual provision of the service to locally elected and democratically accountable local authorities who know what is happening on the ground.
This amendment, together with the other consequential changes to the Bill that it implies, is aimed to allow the plan to give corporate status to major FE institutions to go forward and also at the same time to

465
establish national councils as advisory bodies for the sector, but not to create a direct funding relationship between the national council and the new bodies corporate.
There would be a number of advantages in making a change of this nature. Allowing FE institutions to gain corporate status would give them the "freedom" that Ministers have promised and that the further education principals and governing bodies are reported to be keen to achieve. By leaving institutions funded according to existing formulae the necessary changes to corporate status—taking over premises, responsibility for the payment of staff and so on — could be carried out within a sensible and stable financial framework that is reasonably well understood by both colleges and the maintaining authority. New national advisory councils could provide valuable assistance in that process but they need not be precluded from beginning to develop national guidelines on appropriate funding levels much as the national advisory body for public sector higher education did in the 1980s.
The new national advisory bodies could also make a strong, positive contribution to raising the status and the quality of further education (both need this very badly) on a national basis while leaving the LEAs, in consultation with the TECs, to secure the detailed needs of their own localities in the light of their own detailed knowledge of local circumstances. The risks of lost provision and institutional failure threatened by the massive lurch in policy over a short period of time which the Bill, as drafted, implies would by this weans be avoided. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I very strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I shall not repeat many of the arguments which she has so ably put forward. In particular I wish to stress the great importance of keeping local authorities with a real control over what goes on in the local education authorities. We on these Benches very strongly supported the freedom of the polytechnics from the local education authorities. However, that is a different matter altogether. The polytechnics have a national coverage; they obtain their students from all over the country and also from other countries. The local further education colleges are altogether different. Some of the colleges do a very good job with overseas students, but by and large they deal with the local catchment area.
There are two points that need to be made very strongly. The local authorities have a much closer awareness of the needs of a particular area. Those needs vary very considerably. If one is concerned with education in an inner London borough, obviously the needs would be quite different from those of a rural area. It is only a local authority with that kind of knowledge which can tailor-make the courses and the provision and therefore get the best value for money—since that is the favourite phrase—and also give the best service to the community that it represents.
The other side of that is that the local authority is subject to continuous pressure from various groups
466
expressing their needs in a particular area. It is only an authority with a relatively small catchment area such as a local authority that can be open to democratic pressures in this way. That is highly desirable when dealing with the provision of education forces.
I very strongly follow what the noble Baroness said in connection with the provision for adult education. We have talked about that before in this Chamber and no doubt we shall do so again. But, as your Lordships will be aware, there was great anxiety when it was suggested that leisure activities should be exclusively financed by fee paying and that such activities could not be funded by local authorities. The Government have now said—and it is welcome—that local authorities may make provision for what are called leisure activities. We dispute the distinction that is made here, but that is another argument. However, there is no requirement that they should and I repeat that those so-called leisure activities are very often the point from which people who have had no experience of further education take off. Having started with what looks to many people like an irrelevant subject they then discover what they can learn, what they are capable of learning, and then go on to study many other subjects. But it had never occurred to them before they took further education courses that they were capable of doing so, or indeed would wish to study. In many cases they never even knew that such courses existed.
Finally, I should like to mention the youth service. In these days when we are so profoundly anxious about the rate of offences committed by young people, when criminal statistics among young persons are rising all the time and when far too many young people are finding their way into the courts and prisons, organised youth service can make all the difference—even if it only has the effect of giving young people something to do. It may open new avenues of interest for some youngsters who might otherwise get into serious trouble simply by having nothing to do. A great deal of trouble arises because too many youngsters who are unemployed and who have inadequate education do not have anywhere to go after leaving school. They have not developed any interests so they take to the kind of life that leads to the difficulties of which we are all so aware. An organised, well-supported youth service can make a tremendous difference in individual lives and also in cutting down the rate of offences from which we are at present all suffering. I very much hope that the Government will accept these amendments.
Baroness Young: I hope very much that the Committee will not accept these amendments. I have listened very carefully to what the two noble Baronesses have said. However, it seems to me that this first amendment, and the consequential amendments which follow upon it, cut right at the heart of the Bill.
The proposal, as I understand it, is that in place of a funding council a further education advisory council would be established. The further education colleges and sixth form colleges would therefore remain within the control of local education authorities. The whole purpose of Part I of the Bill is that the further

467
education and sixth form colleges should come out of local authority control and should be established and financed by a funding council. Therefore, to take that away is a wrecking amendment to this part of the Bill. The Committee should recognise that.
I shall now comment on one or two other points that were made. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, repeat—and I entirely agree with her—that the track record in education is probably weakest for those aged 16 to 19. We should have done a lot better. I do not think that anybody can be at all satisfied with the number of 17 year-olds who leave school and have very little in the way of further education or training. That has been very largely the responsibility of local education authorities. We have to face the fact that the Government are quite properly trying to meet what is a recognised weakness of the system. There is no doubt whatever that having come out of local authority control the polytechnics have been strengthened and have attracted more pupils. My noble friend Lady Perry made that point very clearly in her speech at Second Reading. They are expanding and will make an enormous contribution in higher education. There is no reason whatever to suppose that the further education colleges, once they too have the freedom which they will have under the funding councils, will not do the same. That also applies to the sixth form colleges which are included in this legislation.
I hope very much that the Committee will reject the amendment. The most serious criticism—and I believe that it would be wrong for the Committee to agree to the amendment—is that the amendment would wreck Part I of the Bill. There are other arguments, but that is the most serious.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I, too, hope very much that the Committee will reject this amendment and the consequential amendments. Indeed, I find the suggestion of an advisory body at national level for further education—which is so much a local service —a strange and rather puzzling suggestion. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the national body for local authority higher education which was set up in the early 1980s. That was an experiment which failed abysmally for very good reason; that is, that the advice that was given at national level by a small representative body of the local authorities could not possibly control the behaviour of around 100 local authorities and several individual institutions.
I believe very strongly in the power of local colleges to respond to local needs. I believe the right kinds of decisions about meeting the needs of a local area are best made by the college or institution which is at that local level. That college or institution is there when the students come pouring in during registration week asking for particular kinds of courses. It is there talking to local businesses and local industry about training needs and is able to devise courses which respond directly to them. Therefore, I hope very much that the Committee will accept the Bill as drafted, which gives the right of decision-making very properly
468
to the local institutions themselves which relate directly to their own local communities. I find the proposal for a national advisory body rather bizarre.
In case anyone is left in any doubt, may I remind the Committee that at the time when the national advisory body for local authority higher education was dissolved it was funding many thousands of places which simply did not exist. It had continued to churn out its advice, followed by huge sums of public money for training which was impossible to provide because at the local level there was no demand. I am sure that no one would wish for a repeat of that story, magnified many times over by the many hundreds of further education colleges.
I also hope that the Committee will reject this amendment because of the tremendously warm welcome given to the legislation by the colleges themselves. My institution works with over 20 local further education colleges which provide access courses and foundation courses for our own degrees. I can tell the Committee that without exception all of them are looking forward with great anticipation to the day when they will be in control of their own affairs and will be able to respond quickly and easily to the demands which are made upon them without any central and external planning at local authority level. They are hoping very much that the Bill will go through and that they will be able to proceed from the planning which they have in place into the implementation stage.
Sadly, I find it rather depressing that we have amendments which suggest that the only way in which good relationships between a college and a local authority can be maintained is by giving the local authority some kind of funding control. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, actually used the word "control". Why do we have this urge to control the dynamic organisation which is a further education college responding dynamically to its own relationships? I believe that the relationship between a local authority and its college is important. It is one which any local college will wish to maintain and build upon. It is not dependent on a local education authority continuing to have funding control over the college.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was tempted not to intervene in the debate because my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Perry have said most of what I wanted to say. However, I wish to bring one point to the Committee's attention. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Seear, said that they strongly supported the removal of the polytechnics from local authority control. Indeed, I read the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Perry with much admiration. No one speaks on this subject with better authority than she.
My mind always goes back to the day I spent at the North East London Polytechnic, which was attended by many of my constituents when I represented Wanstead and Woodford. The principal, Gerry Fowler, used to be a colleague in another place. He was on the Labour side of the House. He was passionately looking forward to the change that

469
would take his college out of the control of the local authority. He was in no doubt that this would set free all kinds of dynamic forces and would enable the college to respond so much better to the needs of the community in east and north-east London. I was able to say that the change was coming. Only a few weeks later I was a guest of the principal of Waltham Forest College, one of the colleges covered by Part I of the Bill. I was astonished by the principal's sense of dismay that the same was not happening to his college. He asked the question: "If it is right for polytechnics, why is ii not equally right for us?"
There is a division between the two sides of the Committee. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, Members of the Committee opposite see it in terms of control. They say that the Bill will shift control from local authorities to the Government. On this side of the Committee we see it essentially as the devolution of autonomy to powerful institutions which, well managed, well led and well motivated, are perfectly capable of running themselves. Of course further education is free at the point of use to the vast majority of its users, and of course it is paid for out of taxation. Around £2 billion a year is spent on further education. Therefore, the money has to come from the centre and it is perfectly reasonable that the further education funding councils should be appointed by the centre. What is really important, however, is that the governing bodies, whether incorporated or established by the other route, should be essentially autonomous. That is what the Bill is about. We are interested in the devolution of power. The unanimity of view that I recognised between the principal of the polytechnic and the principal of Waltham Forest College made an enormous impression upon me. They both wanted the same powers.
I was delighted when the Government decided to take this further step, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, and transfer the funding to a new body and give the colleges the autonomy which so many of them seek. I was struck by the difference in the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, between the number of local authorities which are apparently against Part I and the much lower number of colleges that she was able to quote as having misgivings. My information is that a large number of colleges warmly welcome this part of the Bill and look forward to the freedom, the autonomy and the opportunities that Part I will provide. I sincerely hope that the Committee will feel it right not to accept the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I support the amendment largely because gives the Minister an opportunity to explain why the Government want the Bill. I heard the Minister at Second Reading and I have read the Government's White Papers but the explanation is coming from the Back Benches. This is the first explanation we have had of why the Government want this part of the Bill, which deals with further education colleges. The justification and the answers we have had so far are not convincing.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there is no straight comparison with 500 or so further education institutions and a very small group of polytechnics.
470
The polytechnics are reasonably arguing for university status and are reasonably arguing that they wish to dissolve the binary line. No one is suggesting that colleges of further education will become universities. They are special organisations. They are diverse organisations. It may well be that many of the larger organisations—not the majority as was suggested by the noble Baroness—would like to be on their own. Of course they would like to be on their own. We would all like to be on our own. Most of them think that when they are on their own they will receive a good deal more money. Most of them have found that over the past 10 years they have had far less money than they thought they were entitled to. They naturally believe that if they were on their own and had access to an independent autonomous quango they would get more money and more freedom to do the things that they think they should do. But that is not necessarily what is required in all circumstances for the advancement of further education.
I was most surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talking about the disadvantages of local authorities running further education institutions. I thought that she would agree with me. In her period of office on Oxford council, local authority involvement in the college of further education was path-making. I thought she would have considered that to be a model of what a further education authority should do and what a college should be. Therefore, there is no automatic and simple analogy between this and the rest of the polytechnics.
Secondly, there is no argument from the Government—at least the argument has not come today; and if it comes I hope it will come from the Minister—as there was when the Government introduced their legislation on primary schools and secondary schools that Left-wing progressivism has ruined education in the CFEs. One could not find an area of local government in which there is less ideological division than the running of colleges of further education. Conservative and Labour councillors sit side by side on governing bodies and committees. There is virtually no ideological division. No one has said that they have failed in their job. If the Minister says it today, it will be the first time he has done so. We have not had a catalogue of scandals about lowering standards. We have had nothing but this strange unsubstantiated analogy with polytechnics. Will the Minister address his mind to the following point? The real effect of what the Government are going to do to CFEs will be further to erode the representative base of British institutions. No one can say that anything like the same number of people who have an interest in further education will be involved in the planning and delivery of further education under the proposed system. It may be said that they will all be businessmen; but I do not believe that there will be even more businessmen. We shall have a tiny quango. All the members of that quango, most of whom will be businessmen, will be appointed by the Minister. Underneath that, we shall have consultative bodies and, so far as we can see from the schedule, all of them (the majority of whom will probably he businessmen) will be appointed by the

471
Minister. But underneath that we shall have nothing, except many councils and governing bodies of institutions most of which in effect will either be self-perpetuating or will he appointed by the Minister. If he does not like them, he will sack them.
That is not a representative system. It is one more part of the British social fabric where democracy and representation are being destroyed. That is the case that the Government have to answer. Why do we have to destroy what remains of a representative system in this area as we have done in so many others?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on two points. First, he seems to believe that there will be an erosion of the representative base. On any objective appreciation, surely that is nonsense. Under the proposed schemes, the further education colleges will play a central part in providing better and higher quality services and opportunities for young people. Indeed, the Government intend to ensure that colleges are free to respond to the demand by releasing them from local authority control.
The latter brings me to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He seemed to be criticising the Government's concept which removes that extent of local authority control. But the attitude of the Government could not have been more clearly supported by an article which appeared in the Independent on 5th November—not a newspaper which is ordinarily supportive of any particular party. I believe that it fairly answers the second point made by the noble Lord which is related to the first point. It reads:
"There is a tendency for local education authorities to reduce funds to the further education sector and put them into schools. But the provision of funds directly to a further education funding council will mean funds being ring-fenced".
That appears to be supportive of the principle to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Seear, seem to be opposed.
I have listened to the debate. Education is not my long and strong suit. Indeed, it is over 50 years since I went down from Cambridge. My main interest in the Bill is with extending the provision for children with special educational needs. However, I came to listen to the debate. I found the speech of my noble friend Lady Perry to be totally convincing on the issue. It appears that the Government are trying to meet a weakness in the system. In those circumstances, it does not seem to me to be at all appropriate to produce a series of amendments which cut at the heart of the Bill. I hope therefore the Committee will reject these amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: There are just a few technical points that I believe I should raise. I am rather appalled by one or two of the interventions from the other side of the Committee, especially that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is news to me that the whole purpose of the Bill, to use the words of the noble Baroness, is to set up the funding council. I ask the Minister to confirm whether that is right. I thought that the
472
purpose of this part of the Bill was to improve education for 16 to 19 year-olds. In that case, it is a question of means; in other words, whether setting up the funding council is the best way to achieve that aim. In my judgment, that cannot possibly be the whole purpose of the Bill. Therefore, if our amendment were to be carried, I cannot see how it could possibly be regarded as a wrecking amendment. I should like the Minister at least to give us his judgment as to what this Bill is about. There is a genuine difference of view as to how education for 16 to 19 year-olds can be improved.
Further, perhaps I may point out as a matter of fact to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that it is not the case that all the FE colleges support the Bill; at the very best half of them do and half of them do not. Even though it is possible that the principals of these colleges expect a change of government, I cannot believe that all the letters I received expressing the fact that they were not happy with the Bill were sent in an underhand fashion. I agree that there are some college principals who are in favour of the Bill. However, a considerable number of them are not. Again, there is a genuine difference of view. Members of the Committee should recognise that fact.
As regards the analogy with the polytechnics, that is preposterous on two grounds. The first, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, is that the polytechnics are and were national institutions. I was a governor of the polytechnic to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. The idea of that polytechnic as a local institution is, again, rather far fetched. It does not cater for local needs; indeed, its strength is its enormous international student body and it caters to national if not international needs. That is quite different from an FE college. That fact should also be recognised.
Lord Renton: Surely polytechnics vary a great deal. I agree that the ambit of those in London and in other large cities exceeds their immediate surroundings. But there are other places—for example smaller towns in this country—with their own polytechnics which are essentially localised.
Lord Peston: I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There has been a great deal of research on the subject. It has been shown in respect of every polytechnic that its student body is not local but that it is in fact national. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this is not a subject that one needs to discuss ad hoc; it is a subject that has been looked into, and the answer is known. Indeed, the Minister can obtain briefing on that aspect from his officials if he wishes to deal with it.
However, what concerns me is something which lies at the heart of the Bill. It was raised by my noble friend. I refer to the Government's attitude to local authorities. I return to the subject of polytechnics. It is all very well to say that we favoured them leaving the local authorities. I certainly did. I was a strong campaigner for that change. But, if I ask who got the polytechnics going and who was part of the polytechnics and provided the funding, the answer is not the CNAA or people like me who sat on the

473
committees, much as we tried to reinforce it; it was the local authorities. Setting up the polytechnics was one of their greatest achievements.
Is it the Government's view that in some sense the local authorities have failed the further education colleges? That is a different matter from management with which we shall deal in due course in relation to other amendments. However, there is a notion being put forward that somehow the process has gone wrong because of local authorities. Again, I do not think that that argument stands up to the facts. As I said, I am rather surprised at some of the speeches which have been made by noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. Indeed, I was especially surprised by one matter which concerns this quango. I thought that the Government had been saying for 10 years that they did not like quangos, that it was the one thing to which they were totally opposed and that they proposed to get rid of them. However, it turns out that the only quangos they do not like are those set up by other people. Whatever the case against them, it would apply to this quango as much as to any other. I should like to see a certain amount of consistency occasionally from noble Lords on the opposite side of the Committee in their attitude to such matters.
Lord Beloff: I should not like it to be thought that when my noble friend Lord Jenkin said that there is a difference between the two sides of the Committee that this applies to all his Conservative colleagues, either on this side of the Chamber or in the country at large. There are many Conservatives, many of them in our impeccably Conservative East Sussex, who regard the transfer of the responsibility for further education as at best a case unproven. I am afraid that, for once, I must agree with my former colleague the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I have read the literature, I have heard the briefings but I have yet to find the arguments. Of course there may be arguments, and indeed powerful arguments; but they are certainly unknown to the members of my own county council. They are unknown to me and they appear to be rather generally unknown.
I did not put my name to the amendment because of a possible constitutional impropriety, but Ministers should seriously consider why, among their supporters in the country, especially their supporters in local government, there is scepticism about creating a new set of quangos to replace local authorities. I found the speech of my noble friend Lady Perry incomprehensible. It seemed to me that she was dealing with a Bill that was not before us.
The Bill does not give local colleges free rein to do their best for the communities in which they exist; it gives powers to central funding bodies, removed from them, ignorant of their needs, and remote geographically and as regards personnel. The parallel with polytechnics, as other Members of the Committee have pointed out, does not exist. One has to recognise two different branches of education. Higher education is one thing; further education and school education another.
In education debates Ministers frequently confuse further and higher education. But those of us who have the good fortune or, nowadays, the misfortune to
474
be engaged in the educational process, know that they are two different things and should be looked at from a different point of view. I shall not urge the Committee to support the amendment, but I hope that Ministers will take on board the fact that they do not have the unanimous support of Conservatives in the country. Far from it!
Lord Desai: I support the amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. We are talking about the best means of encouraging 16 to 19 year-olds to stay on in education. Sixteen to 19 year-old education is the black hole of British education. If we get it wrong, we will further put back the progress made in the past four or five years by local authorities who have responded to needs.
About 15 years ago my local borough of Islington saw that there was a problem caused by declining rolls in secondary schools. The local community responded through various channels and put together a sixth form centre which was designed to increase the staying-on rates of 16 to 19 year-olds. Money was found from local resources, and that sixth form centre has been a great success.
Other Members of the Committee who have direct experience of further education can no doubt repeat that example. To say that local authorities cannot or do not respond to local needs is nonsense. If the Government do not like local authorities and are prejudiced against local democracy, they should say so. If we want local authorities to have more money, they should be given more money, but we should not pretend that introducing remote central control, run by a quango, will give local authorities more freedom or more money. I find those propositions astounding. My experience is that given the resources, local authorities can and do respond to local needs. If they are not allowed to do so, we may put further back the progress in 16 to 19 year-old education.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I intervene briefly to oppose the amendments as strongly as I can. I remind the Committee of what happened in 1982 when it was first suggested that the polytechnics should be taken out of local authority control. We were told—I am afraid that the Government were convinced—that that would be disastrous; that the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education would go on indefinite strike; and that the streets would be running with blood, and so on. In fact it has been an enormous success. Many polytechnic directors who admit to association with the Labour Party now agree that it was a good thing for the system and are extremely happy with it.
That leaves the amendment's proposers with a difficulty. One of the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, seems to be that further education and sixth form colleges should not be removed from local authority control because the service they provide is local, whereas polytechnic provision tends to be spread more nationally. Therefore, so the argument appears to run, it is not the same thing at all.

475
The amendment's supporters seem to have forgotten an important analogy, which is of the new opted-out schools and schools under the local management of schools. They give more local provision, even to further education sixth form colleges. All the evidence shows that those schools are happy with their new status. There would be many more of them if there were not the open threat from the Labour Party to remove their status were—I believe this to be extremely unlikely—the Labour Party to win the next election. All the evidence shows that the more schools and colleges that we can remove from local authority control, the better. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may make a correction. I may have misled the Committee. The quotation I gave from the Independent I find is not a free-standing quote. It is a quote from the Minister. I gave the Committee the wrong impression, and I apologise.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I had not expected to take part in this discussion. I do not feel that I can support the amendment, but I am provoked to intervene, largely by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, when he portrayed the difference between the two sides of the Chamber as between those who were talking in terms of control and those who were talking in terms of devolution. Although as a bishop I sit on the Government side of the Chamber, I sometimes wish that these Benches were a little angled. I wish to comment, as it were, a little to one side of the debate, because the real issue does not seem to me to be control, on the one hand, or devolution, on the other.
If it were devolution, I should like to hear why so much power is being put into the hands of the Secretary of State. The issue surely is who has responsibility for seeing that there is an overall pattern and system of education which ensures adequate availability of provision for all. Where does that responsibility lie? Until we recognise and face that issue, we may be misled.
The second point I want to make is in support of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I come from that part of the South East where the local authorities are unmistakably Conservative. I have no responsibility or mandate to speak for them, but I am in touch with them. I have to say that they are fully responsible and accept admirably the responsibility for institutions in their areas. It cannot be claimed that this issue is a party political issue simpliciter.
Lord Belstead: As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, Amendment No. 1 has many other amendments attached to it. I am grateful to her for agreeing to take this large group of amendments to start with. All the amendments with Amendment No. 1 have the same basic intention—to transform the further education funding councils for England and Wales, which the Government propose in Clause 1, into advisory bodies, leaving them with an exclusively advisory role.
476
If I may say so—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will expect me to—I stand by my noble friend Lady Young in feeling that the amendment strikes at the heart of the Bill. I shall take the opportunity to remind the Committee of the purpose of the reforms embodied in the Bill. The Government announced in the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century that they intended to seek the approval of Parliament for the establishment of funding councils with responsibility for funding colleges. Our intention is to give colleges as much managerial freedom as possible and, through the new funding regime, to give the colleges a powerful financial incentive to expand participation. So, with respect to the noble Lord, apart from the fact that I do not think that it would be possible to proceed with the first dozen clauses of the Bill because they are all to do with the functions of the funding councils in Clause 1 if this amendment were to be accepted, on more general grounds there was a great deal in what my noble friend said.
It was interesting, however, that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made the fair and good point that he had never heard anyone say—and if I said it I would be the first and I shall not do so—that the colleges had in some way let young people down and had not been doing a good job. I shall certainly not say that. However, I will aver that on this side of the House we know a little about trying to encourage the colleges always to continue to set their sights higher.
On Second Reading I quoted the statistics—which are quite telling—that for 1979 the participation rate of the relevant age group was 41 per cent. Today the participation rate is 60 per cent. of young people in full-time education in the colleges. I speak from memory but I believe that is right.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that the policy aim of this legislation, of which I shall try not to lose sight, is more and better quality further education for young people aged 16 to 18 and adults. In simple terms, I believe that means perceiving what students and their employers seek in further education colleges and then making absolutely certain that the right courses are provided.
The freedom to be responsible for tackling that challenge, which is enormously important for the future of our country, has been widely welcomed. We may disagree about the exact percentages, but my noble friend Lady Perry was absolutely right to say—and I stick by this affirmation—that there has been a wide welcome from principals of colleges, including sixth form colleges, for the fundamental aim and objective of the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the noble Lord for saying that the colleges have not let young people down. The point I was making was slightly wider. The Government have never said that the local education authorities let young people down or that they mishandled and misgoverned the colleges of further education. Is he saying that now?
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has put precisely the point to which I am coming. It

477
has been suggested in the House that, despite the Government's affirmations and beliefs and the splendid Bill before us, we have been short on arguments in favour of the Bill—not the arguments put by my noble friends today, which have been excellent or those from the other side. But in general terms the arguments for the Bill have not been put forward.
I believe that on Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the Opposition would support the incorporation of colleges. The difficulty is that incorporation of colleges would not bring about substantial change so long as the colleges have to look to local education authorities for their funding.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that I say this about local authorities with no ill will. The opposite is the case. So long as authorities retain control of colleges' funding, there will be at least 105 different funding methodologies around the country. In practice there will be many more, since some authorities have different funding methodologies. The opportunity to establish a common funding regime, with incentives to colleges to recruit extra students on a common basis, will be lost if we are not able to go forward with that aim and objective in the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: I wish to get it right. The single, sole, narrow argument of the Government is that they do not believe in a plurality of methodology and want a single methodology. That is the whole case.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord does me less than justice. In the time available to me, I simply say that one limb of my argument is the funding methodology. I shall not run over that ground again. The other is a point that I mentioned a moment ago. Looking at other examples, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said cogently that we should not make a direct read across to the polytechnics. Nonetheless, I cannot forget the illustration given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that there is a deep desire among the colleges to be able to show that, without having to refer back to another body, they can face the challenges which their colleges undoubtedly will face in the future.
Perhaps I may deal with one final point. As is normal when we take the first amendment of the Committees stage of a Bill, it is fair game for Members of the Fro at Benches on the other side of the House to seek to cast doubt upon the bona fides of the Bill. References were made to youth service and, from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to the representational nature of the Bill. Also, I attach considerable importance to the attack which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, levelled at us on adult education. As she saw it, she felt the Bill would fall short on adult education.
It is true and can be shown to be true that the Bill should improve opportunities in further education, including those for adults. First, the funding council is given a statutory duty to secure adequate provision for a range of courses with basic skills right from entry to higher education. This will ensure that adults
478
everywhere have opportunities for access to the courses they need to improve their skills and qualifications.
Secondly, local education authorities have a statutory duty in the Bill to secure adequate provision of all other kinds of further education. That includes courses to meet adult leisure interests and also courses that will stimulate their appetite for learning and encourage people to take up formal opportunities provided through the councils. That point was precisely made by the noble Baroness. I repeat that there is a duty on the local education authorities to provide leisure courses. They will continue to provide these: they have that duty under Clause 11(1) of the Bill.
Thirdly, alongside these statutory duties we are putting money where our mouth is. There will be funding to match. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has clearly and consistently stated that central government support will continue to be available for all types of further education for adults. On 24th September he made it absolutely clear that for local education authorities there will be funding in the standard spending assessments. He also made it clear that the Government have carried out a survey to establish the pattern of local education authority spending. They will discuss local authorities' future needs further with the local authority associations.
Perhaps I may finish, after which the noble Baroness can attack me. It means that there can be no question of our further education reforms causing fees to rise. Anyone who says that fees will rise as a result of the Bill has not caught up with the statements that have been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that anyone who says that adult education specifically under this Bill will receive short shrift has not yet read it.
Baroness Seear: I was very interested indeed in what the Minister said. I am fully aware that during most of the time when great anxiety throughout the country was being voiced the noble Lord was courageously occupied elsewhere. But the fact is that in the White Paper it was made quite clear that leisure activities in adult colleges were to be funded exclusively from fees. It was only because there was a nationwide campaign that the Government were persuaded to make the change they then made.
The Minister has referred to Clause 11. I must say there has never been any argument about whether money would be available for courses leading to specific qualifications. However, that is not what the whole argument has been about. It has been about the funding of courses, including the so-called leisure courses. Clause 11 states that a local authority may fund this provision. It does not say that a local authority must do so. This has always been a difficulty with adult education. There has never been a statutory basis for the funding of adult education by local authorities. It has always had to be dealt with in this way. The Bill, having moved from the position of stating that local authorities will not make this provision, now states that they may do so. The proposed new subsection (2) of Clause 11 states that a

479
local authority may make certain provisions. The Bill does not state that a local authority must do so. There is no statutory obligation here.
Lord Belstead: I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying that we must not insist upon this matter. The noble Baroness is never tedious and I acknowledge that she is discussing an important point, but if I continued for much longer I fear I would become tedious. However, I shall reply to the point made by her. The proposed new subsection (1) of Clause 11 refers to the duty of a local education authority and uses the word "shall". The proposed new subsection (2) refers to a power of a local education authority. The proposed new subsection (1) states:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education".
The proposed new subsection (3) of Clause 11 refers to further education. Paragraph (b) of that proposed new subsection states that further education means,
"organised leisure-time occupation provided in connection with the provision of such education".
I hope the noble Baroness will agree to defer further discussion on this matter until we reach the relevant part of the Bill. I affirm that I am not misleading her.
Baroness Seear: I am quite prepared to defer discussion until we reach that part of the Bill but, if I may say so, the Minister himself brought the matter up. This point lies at the heart of the whole nationwide campaign on adult education. If the Minister is saying there is now a statutory obligation to provide adult education, including leisure activities, I feel I can almost—I stress the word "almost"—pass through the Lobby on the government side.
Lord Belstead: Before we leave this matter, I must emphasise that we are talking about adult education which does not fall within Schedule 2 of the Bill—the noble Baroness is aware of that—because that is the area that local education authorities are not responsible for. However, if we are talking about that part of adult education where a local education authority has a locus, that constitutes a duty.
I finish by returning to where I began. The effect of this amendment would be to turn the funding council that is proposed in Clause 1 of the Bill into an advisory body. My noble friend Lady Young asserted that this matter struck at the heart of the Bill. I believe that is the case. I do not believe it would be possible to deal with the other clauses in the Bill which concern functions of the funding council—certainly not with the first 10 or 11 clauses of the Bill—if this amendment were to be accepted.
However, there is a far broader reason why I oppose the amendment. We on this side of the Committee believe in having colleges which are free to meet the challenges of the future funded by their own funding council. It is that principle that this amendment would attack.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am extremely disappointed in the Minister's reply. We do not regard this as a wrecking amendment but as an amendment that seeks to adjust the role of the proposed councils and turn them into advisory councils rather than funding councils. The Minister has just made the point that it would not be possible to deal with the early clauses in the Bill if our amendment were to be accepted. I agree that that is the case.
However, I was glad that the Minister did not repeat what some of his noble friends have been claiming, which is that the analogy with the polytechnics is appropriate. That analogy is altogether spurious and it is time it is dropped.
I wish to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, when he attacked something I had said. The noble Lord made another analogy with schools that had opted out. He plays right into our hands in using that analogy. It is precisely because the opportunity for schools to opt out so destroys any sensible planning of secondary education by local authorities that we are completely opposed to it. Consequently we do not like this Bill as it will make strategic planning of the education of 16 to 19 year-olds particularly difficult, split as it will be between local education authorities and the funding councils. I am not surprised that some opted out schools like that system. They have of course been bribed to opt out by the extremely generous capital provisions that have been provided by the Government for opted out schools compared with the provision available for local authority schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The point which the noble Baroness made forcefully on Second Reading was that it was not appropriate to make this analogy because the local quality of education offered by further education and sixth form colleges was far better than that offered by polytechnics. However, now we have local management of schools in our opted out schools. All of the opted out schools are delighted with their new system as they can offer far more local provision. I wanted to get rid of that argument against the opted out schools which has been advanced to further these amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe the noble Lord has misunderstood what I am saying. Opted out schools are of course local but they are no more local than maintained schools. The point I am making is that the possibility of opting out makes it difficult for local education authorities to adopt a sensible and coherent planning system for secondary education.
Let us return to the main points of the amendments. I fear we have still not heard from the Minister the educational reasons for removing local education authorities from their longstanding role of overseeing the work of colleges. We have not been given those reasons. We have been told it is the intention of the Government to give the colleges as much managerial freedom as possible. Here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said earlier. If the colleges, or any other body, think they will

481
suddenly be set free and will be allowed to have complete control over how much money they spend and how they spend it under a centrally run quango, a funding council, they have another think coming to them. It will not work like that.
The Minister suggested that many colleges would like the proposed change. We on this side of the Committee have always accepted there are some colleges that want the change. Colleges are split about 50:50 on the issue. Does not the Minister agree that it is better to rely on properly conducted surveys than on hearsay when making claims of this kind?
The Minister also said that there are 105 different funding methodologies and that it is better to have a single method run by a funding council. I believe there are 116 different funding methodologies, but that is the direct result of the Government's own policy on the local management of colleges. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say they want to have greater responsiveness to local needs and to allow colleges to develop in conjunction with LEAs' funding methodologies that meet the particular requirements of a particular area and at the same time say they will take all that away and have a single funding methodology run by a funding council. Those different funding methodologies are the result of the Education Reform Act. They have all been agreed by the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office and they reflect local needs.
Because no coherent educational reason has been given for those disruptive and unnecessary changes to the framework within which young people aged 16 to 19, and many adults, are educated, I am afraid that I must divide the Committee.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Galpern, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hamwee, B.

Blease, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bottomley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Cobbold, L.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ennals, L.

Judd, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rennet, L.

Ezra, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Falkender, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Falkland, V.

Leatherland, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Listowel, E.

Fitt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Foot, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

482

McCarthy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Serota, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Shepherd, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stallard, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stedman, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Peston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Redesdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Willis, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Granville, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gridley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Annan, L.

Astor, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

Bauer, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

HolmPatrick L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Birdwood, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blyth, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Boardman, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Borthwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Killearn, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brigstocke, B.

Knollys, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Manton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Cockfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

De Freyne, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elibank, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pym, L.

Flather, B.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Grantchester, L.

Renton, L.

483

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Slim, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vivian, L.

Stockton, E.

Waddington, L.

Strange, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Westbury, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wise, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Swansea, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

Terrington, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, after ("corporate") insert ("with the regional structure specified in Schedule 1 below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 231,232, 234, 236, 237, 238 and 240. Amendment No. 2 aims to create a regional structure for the funding council based on groups of local education authorities. It is interesting that there is no mention of a regional structure in Clause 1. Amendments Nos. 231, 232 and 234 are intended to provide that the council rather than the Secretary of State should have the power to determine who will be members of its committees. Otherwise the council will never be properly in control of its own activities.
Amendment No. 236 ensures that the LEAs have an input to planning the further education provision for their areas and seeks to draw upon their long experience of carrying out that regional function through the regional advisory councils. As some Members of the Committee may not be familiar with the present regional advisory councils and their history, I should like to say a word about them and how easily they could be made to fit in with the new structure.
The 10 regional advisory councils for England and Wales were established by ministerial circular as long ago as 1947. The circular stated the following reasons for the establishment of RACs:
"It has now become an accepted principle that the organisation of further education must be on a regional basis if all the needs of industrial and commercial personnel are to be covered adequately. It is generally recognised that, on grounds of economy alone, it would be improper for each Authority to attempt to provide for all the needs of students living in their area … But economy is only one factor in regional organisation, there are many other positive functions which a regional body can usefully perform. These include such matters as the maintenance of contact with industry; the planning of new developments and expansion, as necessary, of existing facilities; the review of courses and curricula; advice on relevant financial arrangements; arranging for the most effective use of staff and other matters, all of which are essential to the full development of further education".
Much of that is still relevant today. RACs can demonstrate considerable success in fulfilling their original remit, despite inevitable difficulties along the way, and in building upon that remit to provide a much wider range of services.
However, a great deal of the work of RACs is not widely known because, unlike schools and colleges,
484
they do not provide a service directly to the public. Furthermore, because their primary remit has been with further education, those involved in other branches of the education service are not always familiar with their role. That role has diversified significantly over the years and now includes staff development for school teachers, further education college lecturers, youth workers and so on; curriculum development; vocational assessment and accreditation; information and resource banks and acting as disseminators of good practice within their regions; and liaison with central government and a wide range of other national bodies involved in or linked with the education service. The regional advisory councils are not statutory bodies and are partially funded by a subvention from their member authorities. Sources of income other than LEA subvention are examination fees and the direct, full-cost provision of staff and curriculum development services. Additional funding for specific grant projects or support services comes from a variety of agencies.
I propose this series of amendments to establish a firmer basis for regional committees of the funding councils than is achieved by the Bill. The regional committees should reflect standard regions that follow local authority boundaries, and those authorities should have representation on the committees. The committees themselves should be appointed by the councils rather than by the Secretary of State. If a national council exists, it should have real powers over its own affairs which should include being in control of its substructure.
The Bill includes a worrying extension of the Secretary of State's powers. The appointment of such a large number of individual members by a single Minister is an unwarranted extension of patronage. Local authorities should be given automatic representation on the regional committees because of their experience and expertise developed over many years in delivering the further education service in the areas to which the various regional committees will relate.
I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee. It does not appear to go against anything in the Bill. It merely strengthens the position of the regional committees. The example of the regional advisory councils is very helpful. It is extremely important that local expertise should not be wasted. I hope that the Minister will at least pay tribute to what the local education authorities have done. It is important that they should be represented on the regional committees. I should have thought that the proposal would have the Committee's support. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify one point. She lives in East Anglia, as I do, but her regions do not include East Anglia or an Anglian region. There is London, the South East and the East Midlands. I do not believe that there is any kind of government organisation, quasi-government organisation or local authority organisation which fails to recognise East Anglia as a region on its own.
Lord Addington: I have put my name to this series of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, may

485
have picked up a small defect, but the main thrust of the amendments is correct. Ultimately, further education must be responsive to local needs as it is often vocational education. Thus, as the LEAs have done a good job for a long time, they should surely have an input. Furthermore, any regional body should to a large extent be independent so that it can meet those needs by acting on its own judgment. I support the series of amendments. If the Government look upon them with favour, as I hope they will, I should not object to a small drafting correction to include East Anglia, the region from which I too come.
Lord Belstead: There are two dimensions to the amendments that we are considering. The first is the removal of the provision in the Bill that the Secretary of State should determine the regions on which the regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council for England would be based. There is also the issue of the naming of seven specific regions covered in Amendment No. 237.
The amendments contain inflexibility of a kind that we are seeking to avoid. The distribution of students across England and the variety of factors that determine how regional boundaries are drawn up are bound to change as the years go by. It was interesting to hear the noble Baroness, Lady David, remind us that then; are 10 regional advisory councils: yet Amendment No. 237 proposes seven regional areas. My noble friend Lord Renton reminded the Committee that the East Anglian region—the home of the noble Baroness, my noble friend and myself—is not mentioned in the amendments. There is a problem, certainly with Amendment No. 237 which determines the regions ahead of what may happen to movements in the student population. The Government wish to leave open the option to alter the size and number of regions to suit the future needs of the sector. I realise that, in proposing the amendments, the noble Baroness is attempting to ensure that each region of the country is adequately represented, but there is a problem as regards the amendment stipulating the regions.
It would also be a mistake to set in concrete, by agreeing to the amendments, how the regional committees are composed when what is needed is a process of careful consideration, taking account of all the relevant factors and in particular the views of the funding council itself. By providing for the Secretary of State to determine the regions, we shall ensure that the council's wishes are respected and that the wider interests of the government of the day are taken into account.
There is a second dimension to the amendments; namely, the membership of the regional committees. The intention is that the committees should include members with an educational background and that there should be a strong industrial, commercial and professional involvement. The intention is also that members should be appointed in a personal capacity rather than on a representative basis.
I know that in previous years members of local authorities have worked very hard on the regional structure. However, we believe that the Secretary of State should be responsible for ensuring that the
486
intentions to which I have referred are carried out and that he should therefore be responsible for appointments both to the council and to the regional committees. In carrying out that responsibility he will ensure that the wishes of the funding council are respected.
I admit that there is not a huge difference between the noble Baroness and the Government on this amendment. However, that difference is significant. First, the amendments pre-empt future decisions which might need to be taken with regard to movement of the student population. Secondly—a point that will be raised frequently on the Bill—on this side of the Chamber we believe that the committees about which we speak should not be appointed on a representative basis even though (as I repeat again) I recognise the good work that has been done in the past by representatives of local authorities with regard to the structure.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall not respond to everything that the Minister said. I leave that to my noble friend Lady David. However, I refer to an omission. Amendment No. 240, which stands in my name, suggests that every regional committee should prepare a scheme and submit it for the approval of the further education funding council. In other words, it seeks to put on the face of the Bill some provision about how the regional councils should work. A number of us were anxious about the vagueness of the operation of those councils.
That amendment also suggests that regional committees should set out the principles and procedures to be applied. Those regional committees should also consult the governing body of every institution in the area included in the plan and every local education authority in the region. I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in agreeing that we ought at least to be consulting the governing bodies of colleges about any such plan. In his response to the earlier group of amendments he made it clear that he wished to free the colleges in order to give them greater control over their operations. In those circumstances I am sure that he would wish the regional committees to consult those governing bodies. However, he said nothing about Amendment No. 240. Perhaps he will give the Committee his views on it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may, out of interest, put this question. The regions to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred are listed in Amendment No. 237. They consist of London, South East, South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, North West and North East. Were there ever to be a Labour Government, would those be the areas for the regional assemblies that would be set up throughout England?
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his response. He understands what we seek to achieve. I am still not happy about the strength of the regional committees.

487
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about East Anglia. I must admit that I am not entirely happy about the list of regions. The list containing the 10 regions that the regional advisory councils represent may be a better list. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. Those areas are nothing to do with Labour Party policy on the regions.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but I may well divide the Committee on Amendment No. 234, which states that the Secretary of State will appoint those members but,
"in consultation with local education authorities".
It does not ask for representatives, as the Minister said. At the very least, the Secretary of State should be willing to have consultations. However, I shall consider again the series of amendments and probably return to the matter at Report stage. I reserve my right to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 234. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Belstead: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I believe that I owe the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, a reply on Amendment No. 240. The noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that I am not desperately attracted to that amendment. It provides for a planning mechanism which takes away from the colleges the incentive to improve the quality and relevance of their services. The planning regime that the noble Baroness puts forward in the amendment would be little different from the present system in which local authorities have strategic plans which cover colleges in their area. Sometimes those strategic plans may be very good indeed. However, they have this one drawback which I have tried to bring out previously. It is less easy for the colleges to change step, if need be, in order to respond to what students and employers want. The noble Baroness asked for my view. For what it is worth, that is my view of Amendment No. 240.
Baroness Blackstone: In putting forward the amendment there is no intention to prevent a college from responding in a flexible way to changing local needs and, indeed, to changes in the population of its area, or any other such change. It will be necessary to have some sensible strategic plan if only to avoid duplication between colleges. There are many expensive resources tied up in further education colleges. It would be madness to have them duplicating each other, in particular in such areas as engineering which is a very expensive subject to teach.
The amendment seeks to ensure that we have a sensibly constructed and well-spread distribution of courses in any one region.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, after ("exercise") insert ("in consultation with and with advice from local education authorities").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 35, 46 and 57.
In commenting on the previous amendment, the Minister stated that several points will arise
488
continuously on every amendment that is before us. I shall try hard not to eat this meal several times during the course of the evening, but it is difficult not to reiterate some of the points in order to make sense of the amendments. I shall seek to be as brief as I can.
At Second Reading I raised a matter that puzzled me. I received no explanation then and I still seek it. The Bill accepts the need for a funding council to acquire local knowledge in one way or another. It needs to know what is going on at the local level. One of the arguments put forward on the first amendment we debated was that the Government's policy would lead to FE colleges in particular having more freedom locally.
I asked a question at Second Reading which I ask again today. The one body whose business it is to have local knowledge is the local authority. Is it not paradoxical that we should take powers away from local authorities and then insist—as we insist in the Bill—that the funding councils have to set up regional committees? The whole provision makes no sense unless it is predicated on the notion that one wishes to get rid of local authorities per se, which the Government repeatedly deny. My first query is to ask why we are moving away from local authorities in this area. Why have they been given no explicit role with respect to the regional committees? That is the problem I address.
When speaking to Amendment No. 1 I heard the Minister say that some of us were doubting the bona fides of the Government on this matter. Not for one moment do I doubt the bona fides of the Government; I believe that they would like to get it right. My point is that I believe that they have got it wrong. I am not querying their bona fides; I am saying that their methods are wrong. It had never occurred to me that the Government would suddenly decide that they did not wish to improve education for 16 to 19 year-olds. No issue of bona fides arises for me and my noble friend Lady Blackstone and I doubt that it arises for the Liberal Front Bench. We are discussing more substantive disagreements. I do not seek to denigrate the Government; I simply believe that they are wrong.
The Minister referred to the intention. I do not have to remind him of the rules because he has been a Member of this Chamber longer than I have. Until I came here I did not know that intention does not count. Nor does what is said in this Chamber. What counts is what is written on the face of a Bill. I do not deny that the present Secretary of State has some intentions. However, he cannot argue that we should not press our amendments simply because he has certain intentions. That is not a rule of the game. The rules are that if he has certain intentions he should put them on the face of the Bill and not ask us to do so. I am the first Member of the Committee to say so during our debate but I am sure that during the next four days others will make similar points about other amendments.
I am not an uncritical admirer of local authorities. The argument does not reflect a doctrinaire view that everything that local authorities do is good and that they should never be subject to criticism or change. I argue particularly in respect of this Bill that even when

489
I am criticising local authorities I am aware that they consist of locally-elected people. Speaking in this Chamber and putting the matter at its lowest I am chary about taking powers away from elected people in order to give them to people nominated by the Secretary of State; that is to quangos. Given the proliferation of regional committees we shall have many quangos.
That is the background to this series of amendments. In my judgment the local authorities have done quite a good job. I do not say that they are perfect and that they could not have done better. They have helped to move further education forward and have tried to take account of local needs. They were given a heightened strategic role by the Education Reform Act 1988. I believe also that 25 per cent. of work-related further education is funded through the local authorities by the Department of Employment. That is net a matter that we should ignore.
I am leaving aside the question of whether people should be representatives. If there is to be any kind of local coherence, which I am convinced is important, and if there is to be a modicum or a sprinkling of democracy in the way in which the system will work from now on, the minimum requirement—I should do more—is I hat there should be written into the Bill a requirement for widespread consultation and specifically a requirement for local education authorities to be consulted.
I have been as brief as possible. Many detailed points could be made. Some have been made already and others will be made later in the debate. The main point is that we have bodies which are local by definition and which have an important role to play. It should be written on to the face of the Bill that they should be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: The Government should pay serious attention to these amendments. They ask merely that the local authority should be consulted. It is almost absurd to think that they will not be consulted. But, as the noble Lord said, the requirement should be written on to the face of the Bill. The local authorities have done a reasonably good job in most cases. They will remain responsible for certain sixth forms. There should be consultation if not direct co-operation between sixth form colleges and colleges of further and higher education offering A-levels. It is virtually impossible to see how the system can be run otherwise. There must be a spread of subjects because no institution can offer the full range. Therefore, there must be consultation. I suggest that the Government should consider the amendments long and hard. If they are not prepared to accept them I hope that they will be prepared to produce provisions covering the points that have been raised.
Lord Belstead: The scope of the amendments is wide. They would oblige the funding councils at every turn to enter into consultations with local education authorities. In drafting the Bill we did not set up a new college sector with independence from local authority control and with direct funding from the new funding councils only then to tie the hands of the funding councils by requiring them to consult local education
490
authorities before exercising any of their functions. That is the proposal contained in the amendment. Our intention is to give the colleges managerial freedom and the funding councils as much freedom as possible within the framework of guidance which the Secretaries of State will give them.
That is not to say that local education authorities will lack any opportunity to make their views known. In practice I envisage that the regional committees will liaise closely both with local education authorities and with the training and enterprise councils about educational provision and the needs of students and employers in their regions. In terms of the number of local authorities and their multiplicity of funding methodologies, the reason why we do not favour direct consultation with the local education authorities, which would be the effect of this amendment, is self evident.
The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Addington, asked why we are moving away from local authorities and not giving them a role on the face of the Bill. The short answer is that under the Bill they do not have a role for providing further education of the kind that will be funded by the new funding councils. They will continue to have an important role but not in Schedule 2 course funding. Hence they will not have a place as of right on the regional committees. There may well be individuals with a great deal of local knowledge who work in local authorities as elected members and whom the Secretary of State will wish to appoint to the regional committees in a personal capacity. However, there will also be other people with relevant experience and knowledge.
I resist the amendment because its scope is wide. I hope that I have not given the impression that there will be any lack of opportunity for sensible co-operation between local education authorities, regional committees -and the training and enterprise councils. I hope that there will be co-operation but accepting the amendment would be a quantum leap beyond that.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he has noticed that there is a real difficulty with this group of amendments which he has not mentioned. Amendment No. 35 purports to amend Clause 2(3) (a). Amendment No. 35 goes far beyond consultation and advice and, indeed, it would fetter the discretion and decision-making power of the funding councils.
If amended that subsection would read:
"A council shall discharge that duty so as to secure that the facilities are provided at such places, are of such character and are so equipped as to be in the opinion of local education authorities sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty extends".
The funding council would not be free to exercise its judgment on this matter. It would be bound by the opinion of the local authorities. I should have thought that that is inconsistent with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Indeed, in practice it would make it virtually impossible for the funding council to get through its work.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend because he has put his finger on an extremely important point; namely, that the effect of the amendment would be to split the responsibility for the fundamental job of securing that the facilities for further education are provided in the way set out in the subsection. In the preparation of the Bill we have tried to ensure that where a funding council is responsible, that responsibility is not split with a local education authority. Conversely, where the local education authorities remain responsible—the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I had an exchange in that respect, but there is that responsibility on the part of the local education authorities—the responsibility also should not be split.
Lord Peston: The Minister's reply has left me slightly mystified and perhaps I can persuade him to enlighten me further. I did not understand these amendments to be extremely wide but, rather, to be extremely narrow. They offer the minimal constraint of which I could conceive. Essentially, there is a constraint that there should be consultation with the one body which knows something about what goes on locally. That body should be allowed to offer its opinion as regards the Tightness of what is being done.
This is an extremely important matter. Does not the Minister like the amendments as tabled, or is he trying to say—and I think he is—that no amendment could be drafted to guarantee consultation which will still leave appropriate managerial responsibility where it should be? How strong is the Minister's rejection not only of this group of amendments but any class of amendments which one could imagine?
Lord Belstead: The answer to that lies in the intervention made by my noble friend Lord Renton. One runs the risk of splitting the responsibility, and that would be undesirable.
Lord Renton: In order to help the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I remind him that my noble friend Lord Belstead said that local authorities should be free to make their own submissions. Indeed, nobody could prevent them doing so.
Lord Peston: So is the noble Lord and so am I. That does not mean that anybody will take any notice of us although I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would be taken notice of.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not believe that the noble Lord can get away with that comment. The noble Lord and his colleagues have suggested, as regards other legislation, that even the Secretary of State, in the consultation exercise, can take no notice.
Lord Peston: Nevertheless, I believe that the Secretary of State should have an obligation at least to call in the representations. I am rather dismayed about this. It seems to me that the Government's position, as evinced by the Minister, is that we cannot and should not have an amendment to the Bill which makes consultation obligatory and, therefore, brings some democratic pressure to bear. We cannot do that and I find that difficult to believe.
492
I believe that this amendment is satisfactory standing on its own. I am slightly surprised by the Minister's response because I believe the amendment sends out the right signal to local authorities about the Government's view of their role. It seems to me that the Minister is trying to send out the wrong signal but that is a matter for him. Given the Minister's reply, I am obliged to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Desai, L.

Nathan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Annan, L.

Brookes, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Caithness, E.

Bauer, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blatch, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blyth, L.

Chalfont, L.

Boardman, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Borthwick, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

493

Craigmyle, L.

Morris, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Newall, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pym, L.

Gray, L.

Quinton, L.

Gridley, L.

Radnor, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harrowby, E.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hood, V.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Sharples, B.

Howe, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stockton, E.

Knollys, V.

Strange, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waddington, L.

Manton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

White of of Hull, L.

Mersey, V.

Wise, L.

Milverton, L.

Wynford, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("to undertake the funding of further education in England and Wales as specified in this Part, and nothing in this Part shall relate to the provision of full-time education in a school which is a sixth-form college.").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 5 on behalf of myself, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear. In doing so I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 44, 47, 64, 145, 146, 149, 151, 152, 154 to 157 and 159.
The object of the amendments is to remove the sixth form colleges from Part I of the Bill and to leave them in their present status. I tabled the amendment after some consideration. In the various briefings, both written and oral, no argument was advanced for dealing with sixth form colleges. We heard some arguments—one can accept them or not—dealing with further education
494
colleges, but not sixth form colleges. As a result of discussions, my belief, imbibed after 10 years in your Lordships' Chamber discussing education, was confirmed. It is that a confusion of terminology exists to such a degree in the minds of civil servants, Ministers and noble Lords—everyone is involved to some extent because the terminology is different—that it makes people do things which, if they understood what they were doing, they would hesitate to do.
A confusion exists between further and higher education. As already illustrated this afternoon—I do not wish to prolong the debate because we shall return to it—a confusion exists between further and adult education. There is also confusion relating to the word "college". When one thinks of a college, one thinks of young people, largely in charge of their own education, attending institutions of varying kinds but institutions which, in their conduct, programmes or ethos, are certainly not schools. Colleges are one thing; schools are another. Due to the fact that somehow or other sixth form colleges were given that curious and rather misleading title, they are lumped with other colleges.
Perhaps I can illustrate the point from the great benefaction of King Henry VI. It will be remembered that there was set up in his memory Eton College and King's College, Cambridge. When one visits Eton one does not expect to meet undergraduates; when one visits King's College, one would be surprised to find schoolboys. They are different kinds of animal.
The point about sixth form colleges is that those who attend them are school children, as we used to call them. Everybody is now called a "school student", which of course adds to the confusion. Basically, they are people who, if they lived in a different part of the same local authority area, would stay at a school with a sixth form. My bias would always be, where possible, to have sixth forms because in general they are good for secondary education. However, for a variety of reasons, it was decided that in some cases one can give sixth form pupils a wider range of subjects and more specialised teaching if, at the age of 16, they are brought from a number of local secondary schools to attend a sixth form college for two years. But they are no different from those pupils in the sixth forms. The parents may or may not be given a choice. The choice may be dictated by whether or not their area has a sixth form or whether it is the only way in which the pupils can obtain their A-levels and other qualifications which they seek.
Sixth form colleges are schools. They are run as schools. They are attended for the whole of the working day. They are quite different from colleges of further education which people attend to follow specific courses in specific disciplines, making up perhaps for something that they missed or pursuing a new interest and where, whatever their age, they are treated as adults. That has important financial implications. As anyone who has had anything to do with a school will know, sixth forms are exceptionally expensive. One needs more intensive teaching for people—boys and girls for that matter—doing A-Levels or studying for other qualifications than for those lower down the school. For that reason sixth

495
forms are also more expensive than further education colleges, which can teach larger groups and therefore can teach more economically. Apart from the illogicality of moving sixth form colleges out of their contact with the local education authority and so with the local schools, the danger is that their finances will be squeezed down to the level appropriate for institutions of further education, and that would be a major loss.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, started us off this afternoon by stating the purpose of these reforms. The purpose must be to improve the performance of the 16 to 19 year-old age group, which is the one age group where all statistical and other observation concurs; namely, that we are exceptionally weak compared with our competitors. On the whole we have done well in terms of quality. Anyone who has had any kind of acquaintance with, for example, the education system of the United States will know that someone who has been through a sixth form in a school or a sixth form college in this country, whether independent, maintained, opted-out or whatever, is infinitely more qualified to proceed to higher education than his compeer in the United States. Estimates vary as to whether they are two years ahead or, as I sometimes think, three years ahead. But nobody doubts that sixth form education is something that we are very good at.
If we have been very good at it surely the right thing is to leave it alone. I cannot see why a Bill that deals with further education should somehow or other, through a mere peculiarity of nomenclature, intend to go into disrupting schools and disrupting the responsibility which local authorities have to see that that age group in school is provided for.
I hope that for once we shall not hear from this side of the Committee, "We on this side of the Committee", and so on. It is a perfectly sensible point, which has very wide support in all quarters, that schooling should be regarded as separate. I was surprised when I first saw this in the White Paper. I thought it had got in by mistake. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell me that I am right. It is like a hopeful French parent going to Paris and saying, "I have a boy who I would like educated. He will be sent to the Collège de France". I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I support this amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for what he has said. The first point I wish to make is that I hope that this is not seen as a party political issue. I do not see it as anything of the kind. It is essentially an education issue and I hope that it will be looked at as such. Our common and agreed aim is surely to improve the provision and standard of education for 16 to 19 year-olds. That is our common ground and that is what we are working to achieve.
If we are to achieve that it is important that in the strategic planning and responsibility for that provision we have a unified authority. It should be democratically accountable and accessible. We have had some discussion already this afternoon about the FE colleges. I believe that there is a limited, if fragile, parallel between them and the polytechnics in the
496
sense that has been argued—that is to say, that they could be pulled out of the local authority responsibility and funded separately. But I cannot see that in the case of sixth form colleges. To have two different funding arrangements and to divide those strategic planning responsibilities between two bodies when we are dealing with the same group of people, the 16 to 19 year-olds, is moving in exactly the wrong direction. We must retain unified responsibility and give it to people who are locally accountable and accessible.
If I am a parent of a 16 year-old child and I am not satisfied with the local provision because it is inadequate, too far away or whatever it may be, it is important that I should be able to go to the providers and the people responsible for supervising the system. But if the responsibility is divided between a regional committee appointed by central government on the one hand and the local authority on the other, it is not clear where I as a parent should go in order to express my anxieties.
It is important that we should give this responsibility to those who are locally and democratically accountable. I have said before that unless we have an adequate and workable local democracy we put at risk national democracy. If we remove access to authority, we engender social frustration. Surely part of what we are seeing at the moment in the arguments about the EC is at what level should what decisions be made. We can see the frustration building up when a community feels that decisions which affect it are being made too far away and too high up. There is a great deal to be said for making provision and responsibility for 16 to 19 year-olds essentially local.
I have a further anxiety. We may be dividing responsibility for sixth forms in schools from sixth forms in colleges. In doing so we may risk reintroducing the divide between academic education and vocational training. The Government quite rightly want parity of esteem and interaction between them. However, once one begins to divide responsibility for the provision one runs the risk of one authority tilting in one direction and one in another. Therefore, we are exposing ourselves to considerable risks.
I have yet a further anxiety. What is to happen in practice if there is a need for further sixth form provision? Inevitably it will be the local authority that recognises the need. It will either have to provide it itself in the sixth forms of schools or it will have to go to the FEFC and ask for provision to be made through the funding council. There is every likelihood that the funding council will favour sixth form colleges because they are its direct responsibility.
That may be right. It may be that the system should change to having sixth form colleges rather than sixth forms in schools, though I would argue against that. But what I plead is that, if we really want to introduce sixth form colleges and to reduce sixth forms in schools, that should be done as a deliberate policy of education and not inadvertently brought in through funding arrangements.
Time and again we seem to be making what ought to he educational decisions on administrative and funding grounds. That is bad educational policy. I

497
hope therefore that this amendment will be accepted and we shall leave all of the educational provision—or nearly all of the educational provision for 16 to 19 year-olds—where it is at the moment as the major responsibility of local education authorities, which should be the providers and which are accessible and which are locally and democratically accountable.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David: The two previous speakers have made very important points. However, I should like to add my support to this amendment. I spoke at Second Reading against what the Government are trying to do about the sixth form colleges. It is so totally illogical to have the provision for this age group divided between sixth forms in schools and sixth form colleges.
The sixth form colleges have been a tremendous success story. They are working really well. Young people are choosing to go there. I am a governor of one in Cambridge, and numbers have gone up from about 400 when it first became a sixth form college, to 850 students now. The same is true of the other sixth form college in Cambridge; the numbers have risen. Young people are really choosing.
Parents also are very pleased with this provision. The Government are making a great thing about parental choice. That choice is going to be very much less if this provision is taken away. These colleges are under school regulations and some parents and some young people prefer this greater discipline in a sixth form college to what they get in a further education regime where there is much more freedom; young people can come and go, they do not have to stay there throughout the school day. That does not suit all of them, although it suits a great many. It seems very hard to take that away.
The whole thing is totally illogical. Why are the Government doing this? I hope the Minister will have an answer. One can only think that it is saving money. We know that the sixth form college provision is more expensive than that of the further education colleges. So I hope we shall have a really good educational argument, if the Minister can find one, when he replies to this amendment.
Baroness Seear: I do not see any point in all those who put their names to the amendment repeating the same arguments. We on these Benches support this amendment very strongly. However, I should like to underline what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has just asked and not from a partisan debating point. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are doing this? There does not seem to be any sense or educational argument in it. Can we have the case spelt out to us—why sixth form colleges should be plucked out in this way in contrast to the sixth forms in the schools? Perhaps I am being stupid this afternoon, but I simply do not understand why the Government want to do it. Will you tell us?
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend replies to this debate, I should like to say that I was particularly interested in the introduction to the debate by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He referred to
498
the confusion in the minds of some of the Members of the Committee about the levels of education. May I very respectfully suggest to him—and I do respect him enormously—that perhaps in this particular instance there is an element of confusion in his mind.
This morning I took my 17 year-old daughter to an educational establishment which the supporters of this amendment would—and indeed do—call a school, to continue her A-level course. Let me assure the Committee that neither she nor any member whether staff or pupil at the Richard Huish Sixth Form College regard it as a school.
My daughter left school for a plethora of academic and social reasons, but the most important were those of lack of discipline—and the fact that without the very reluctant reordering of the timetable by the headmistress she would have been unable to pursue the A-level subjects that she wanted to. I should say that that particular sixth form college provides a transition between compulsory schooling and higher education, as indeed I believe they all do. Whether this higher education is of a vocational or an academic nature does not particularly matter, attracting as it does a far larger number of pupils than any sixth form in a secondary school could possibly do. It is therefore the case that much more equipment, better facilities and a wider range of courses can and are provided. Following the thought behind the famous advertisement, the sixth form colleges reach the parts that sixth forms in schools cannot reach. They teach in a way much more akin to methods in higher education than in secondary schools.
The result of this is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has just explained to us, that sixth form colleges have become increasingly popular among both pupils and their parents. I would say in relation to another debate which will come up later—and indeed has already come up—that although the colleges input in terms of students is local their output most certainly is not. The pupils will go anywhere in the country and abroad to pursue their careers and the further education that is so often needed for a successful career.
I hope my noble friend Lord Belstead will not say that sixth form colleges got into this Bill by mistake and that the phrase "further education" means any education given beyond the statutory school age. I accept the points made by the right reverend Prelate. This leaves us in a bit of a dilemma, because we do have two methods, or two types of institution with different funding arrangements providing sixth form education. I hope for the reasons I have given that more and more success will be attracted to the sixth form colleges, and that for very good educational reasons sixth forms in secondary schools will fade out over the years.
Lord Kilmarnock: Most of the speeches so far in this debate have been against the proposals. Perhaps I can add a small voice in favour of them. I hate to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who usually speaks so extremely sensibly and convincingly on educational matters. But to some extent this bears on what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has just

499
been saying. In my experience, it is not the case that in sixth forms in sixth form colleges are no different from the individual sixth forms in schools.
When I was a governor of a sixth form college, one of the main aims was to break down the barrier between the schools and the FE system. The college in question managed to introduce a certain number of BTEC courses in addition to a full range of A-level courses which proved extremely attractive to the youth of that particular inner city area. Attendances at 16-plus and 17-plus rose as a result. I also fail to see that it is illogical to divide the provision for sixth formers. I would have thought that this was a situation in which more than one flower could flourish. As I pointed out in my speech at Second Reading, there are just over 100 sixth form colleges with some 75,000 students. The vast majority of sixth-formers—238,000—are still in schools, most of which are controlled by local education authorities.
Those schools can still build their ethos around successful sixth forms in a more academic mode. That is perfectly acceptable and it encourages a healthy pluralism which we should support and introduce into the system. Therefore, on this occasion I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and his friends. I coincide to a considerable extent with what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has been saying in favour of the proposals in the Bill. I very much hope that the Government will not abandon them.
Baroness Seear: We are not opposed to sixth form colleges. Many of us think the sixth form colleges are excellent, and we have said that repeatedly. We are saying that we cannot see why they should come under the funding council and not under the local authority. Let us not get into an argument about their merits. We are convinced of them. We are also convinced of the value of tertiary colleges. Do let us keep the argument where it should be as to who should be controlling them. That is what it is about.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I shall be brief. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will stick to his guns and not accept the amendment. With great respect, my noble friend Lord Beloff more muddled himself with his point about nomenclature than he added lucidity to the discussion. Quite obviously, a secondary school which can produce a sufficient population of persons of sufficient ability to take a sixth form course gains by having a sixth form. The trouble is that it has to have a sixth form of a sufficient size to be a sixth form. That is the point and it is a point of which sight has been entirely lost by the supporters of the amendment.
I totally agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is nothing here of a party political nature. He said that it is an educational point. I should have thought that it is a point about educational organisation, and organisation only. It is quite obvious, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Beloff, that when one passes one's A-levels—or what was the equivalent of A-levels in my time—the course that one embarks upon in the sixth form is of a nature totally different from that which one embarked on in
500
the earlier years of schooling. It is a preparatory course for entry into higher education, and I hope that it will always be so regarded.
These new sixth form colleges are much bigger than the sixth forms in schools and therefore they are a different kind of animal in one sense from the sixth form in schools. That is why my noble friend is right to put them under the new further education funding council. It is not an educational point; it is a point about educational organisation. That is not at all the same thing.
That is the only contribution I have to make to this discussion as all those who have spoken hitherto have much greater qualifications than Ito speak. I shall say one more thing—I was in a sixth form much longer than most other people.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I accept that it is a point beyond the perimeters of politics. I have indicated that I shall oppose the Question that certain clauses shall stand part of the Bill, but I do not take a political stance. It is essentially a question of organisation and how one sees it. As two systems of funding happen to be involved in the Government's proposals, with respect to the right reverend Prelate, it is going a little far to suggest that the proposals are in any sense motivated by funding or that they should be brought into some new form of educational statute. They stand for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in his magnificent contribution.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I have only just noticed that two amendments in this grouping, Amendments Nos. 44 and 64, stand in my name. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, both amendments are about resources. Therefore this debate, like it or not, has to be about resources. I shall set out my anxiety. It seems to me that the plurality of sixth forms and sixth form colleges and further education colleges is a good state of affairs for education in this country because the needs of the age group are not uniform. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, pointed that out by example, and I could give other examples from my personal experience. Some young people—for example, one's own children—are happier in sixth forms; others need to leave school and go to an FE college. Therefore one wants to see the preservation of at least all three forms of institution.
I have tabled these amendments because I fear what will happen about costs in the future. I was one of the first to argue within the public sector that we should engage in cost benefit analysis. When I was a young man in the Treasury, a much wiser head told me, "Do not pursue that line because you believe they will compare the costs with the benefits. But, my boy, in the end they will look only at costs. They will always go for the cheapest option rather than the one which involves the best use of resources". My worry, which I think echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and

501
others have said, is that some parts of post-16 education are dearer than some other parts. What I was hoping to write into the Bill with Amendments Nos. 44 and 64 is that the council ought not to go for the least-cost solution but should be obliged specifically on the face of the Bill to take account of the benefits. That is why the words "having regard to the type of institution" appear in the amendment.
It is a genuine worry. Anyone who has had experience of government will know that resources will always be scarce and that someone will get up and say, "I know what you are saying. It is desirable to preserve the sixth form colleges or sixth forms, but they are dearer". That is my fear. No political point is involved. We all agree that we should like this rather pluralistic system to remain. However, I have intervened at this stage to emphasise that there is a resource side to the matter that needs to be taken seriously
Lord Addington: I am in something of an unusual position as I have attended a sixth form and a further education college within the past decade. The main difference between the two is the structure of teaching. Teaching in a sixth form college tends to be in smaller groups. Teaching in further education colleges is more lecture based and tends to be in larger groups. When it comes to being prepared for higher education—this is probably the jumping point between the two—the sixth form tutorial system is probably the slightly better one. There is a distinct difference in the way the students themselves relate to their institution. The sixth form and the sixth form colleges offer a stronger and more centralised identity. They are effectively schools for students taking A-levels. That must not be forgotten If that is remembered, the noble Lord's amendment becomes very much clearer. A college is a different animal. It should be remembered that it is merely a school for a different age group. Once that is borne in mind the logic of the noble Lord's amendment becomes crystal clear.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham hit the nail very much on the head when he said that this is a question of size. Many of the original sixth form colleges started because the individual secondary schools did not have enough pupils staying on to make a viable sixth form offering a suitable range of courses. They turned out to be extraordinary good ways of persuading young people to stay on after 16. They have attracted more people. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made that point. I was at school a good deal longer ago than the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I believe that youngsters have stayed on in sixth form colleges because they feel more adult there. They have moved on to another kind of school. There is no muddle about names. We all have these labels. I do not think they confuse people—not those who follow the argument. My noble friend and those who advise him are totally aware of the position. But if young people are attracted to sixth form colleges because they feel the colleges are more like further education institutions and therefore they feel they have moved out of what they recognise as the school atmosphere, that at least provides some
502
argument for saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, argued very cogently, that the funding should come from the same source. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will stand fast.
I agree that this is not a party matter. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate and to my noble friend Lord Beloff for talking about "these Benches". Perhaps I ought to have used different nomenclature when I referred to my noble friends and myself.
However, there is one question with which I hope my noble friend the Minister can deal. I wish to know the answer to the question put to me by the London Boroughs Association. If a local authority asks whether it should expand the sixth form of a school or achieve that purpose through the expansion of what may be a neighbouring sixth form college, what will the machinery be for determining that process? It seems to me that, if there is a division, it is essential to have some way of drawing a line somewhere. I believe that the Bill draws the line in the right place. We need to have some form of mechanism for determining which path should be adopted to expand the sixth form provision in that area. If my noble friend can help me on that issue, I believe that it will help clarify the argument.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I do not believe that the amendment is really concerned with the merits of sixth forms in schools and sixth form colleges. I happen to think that both have merits. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that in a sixth form college youngsters tend to have a more adult view. I accept that. But the noble Lord will probably remember from his school days the status which sixth formers had in an all-age school. I believe that that was very important. I see that the noble Lord agrees. Certainly, that was my experience.
In this Chamber we tend to draw on our own experience. When I was an education officer about 25 years ago I had to reorganise the secondary education in my area. I chose to recommend the education believing that we had all-through schools. It was a very educationally conscious committee. It agreed without demur. I am really on my feet to ask the Minister to deal specifically with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I do not believe that it would be possible to have a more comprehensive definition of a sixth form pupil, boy or girl, than that which he put forward. That is the point that I wish to underline.
Perhaps I may put it this way. What I have to say deals partly with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that some sixth forms are uneconomic. That is absolutely right. It was one of the main reasons—in some cases, the only reason— why sixth form colleges were instituted. They were set up so that a small number of sixth formers from a number of schools could be put into one institution. There is nothing wrong with that; indeed, it is good economics. There happened to be specialised teaching. In some cases, better qualified and more able teachers were attracted. That is good. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, it does not alter the fact that because some of those youngsters—if I can so describe them—happened to live in one area they would either be

503
pupils in the sixth form of a school or pupils in a sixth form college. With respect, we cannot get over that point. It certainly will have happened that, where families have moved on two or three occasions, a boy or a girl will have been in a sixth form in a school, at a later stage in a sixth form college and then, if it was the kind of family that had to move for parental jobs and so on, he or she would be moved back to the sixth form of a school. That is the way it is. Unless that point is dealt with specifically by the Minister, I fear that he will not convince many Members of the Committee tonight.
Baroness Blackstone: I had not intended to intervene but as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is not rising to defend himself I shall do so on his behalf. His contribution in moving the amendment was both lucid and accurate. I must say to his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that, while his contribution was of course as lucid as always, it was not entirely accurate and valid in terms of its description of sixth forms as against sixth form colleges. While it is absolutely true that sixth form colleges are likely to be bigger than sixth forms because they gather together the young people of a particular area at 16 from a number of schools, it is simply not true to say that all sixth forms do is prepare young people for higher education. That could not possibly be true when it is the case that nearly 40 per cent. of young people only complete one year in the sixth form and then, regrettably, leave. They are doing a whole variety of different things, including retaking GCSEs. Nor is it true that sixth form colleges are entirely different in terms of what they do because they are running a much wider range of courses. They are running a virtually identical range of courses but with larger numbers of pupils.
Our first concern with what is proposed—I must reiterate and reinforce what has been said because the contributions of some noble Lords on the other side of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicate that they do not quite understand this—is that splitting sixth-form provision between two quite different and separate bodies, according to whether the provision is organised in schools or in colleges, does not make much sense.
Our second concern is that sixth form colleges, which all sides of the Committee agree make a splendid contribution to the education of this age group, may not survive in the new funding sector. If the Minister can say categorically that they will survive and that they will be supported even though the funding required for them is higher than for FE colleges, we may feel differently about the matter.
Lord Belstead: The amendment raises a key issue. If agreed to, it would give the further education funding councils responsibility for funding further education colleges, but not full-time education in sixth form colleges. In other words, sixth form colleges would remain the responsibility of local education authorities rather than joining the new further education sector.
504
Several Members of the Committee have put forward their views—in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a first hand view and of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, the view of a parent—of the nature of a sixth form college. My understanding is that they cater for young people of varying abilities. They are by no means necessarily selective institutions. The earlier sixth form colleges were, I remember, selective in one or two cases, but rarely so. It was practically always an all-ability intake. Their wide range of entrants—my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale gave an interesting example in this respect from his family—and the wide range of courses that they offer (not just academic but also vocational) bear, I believe, a similarity to further education colleges. That is the basic answer to the question of why we feel that the colleges belong in the FE sector. We feel that naturally they belong there. They too deserve to have more choice over how to use their resources and greater responsibility for the services that they provide.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that, nonetheless, there are important distinctions between sixth form colleges and further education colleges. But, as I have indicated, there are also important similarities. Like FE colleges, sixth form colleges are a free-standing part of the post-16 education sector. Both provide courses leading to academic qualifications. We envisage that, increasingly, both will want to provide courses leading to national vocational qualifications. Although I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that time has moved on and sixth forms provide a greater mix of courses for young people, nonetheless I think that there is a distinction here between the mainly academic work done in school sixth forms and the considerable flavour of vocational work carried out in sixth form colleges.
Under the new arrangements, the colleges themselves will be free to choose the direction that they take. Sixth form colleges will be able to focus on the courses which they have traditionally provided if there is sufficient demand for them. By that I am saying that I realise that there is a very considerable academic content in what is done in sixth form colleges, not least by the young people who are working for A-levels. At the same time, sixth form colleges will be able to use the opportunity of joining the new sector to extend the range of their courses if that seems appropriate to them. Once again, we do not feel that it is right to deny them that opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made the point that it is all very well to say such things, but that money comes into it. He rightly said that there is, on more or less any assessment, greater expense involved in running a sixth form college than other provision. The Government have already said in the further education White Paper that it will be open to the funding councils to apply weightings to student numbers to take account of differential costs of classroom or workshop-based studies and of higher level studies, and additional costs arising from factors such as special educational needs. Similarly, it will be open to the funding councils to take into account

505
special aspects of the provision offered by sixth form colleges and denominational colleges, and to consider how they should be reflected in the funding methodology.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene. I am aware of what the Minister said. Again, we are back to what is on the face of the Bill. My deep worry is that a number of young people are not ready to go to an FE college. I happen to believe that they are excellent, and for many young people they are the best place. My anxiety is that the funding councils can take account of that, but it is not clear to me that they are obliged to take account of the fact—this is not to do with special needs in the sense that that term is used—that there are young people who should not be changing school at 16, and that there are others who should go to a more non-school-like institution. My only point is that that could be expensive. I want on the face of the Bill an explicit requirement that the councils should look at what such people require even if it is more expensive. I am aware that they can do so, but my question is whether they will do it in times of financial stringency which I believe will always be with us.
Lord Belstead: That is a fair point. At this stage I can say only that it would be wrong further to constrain the councils in the legislation, despite the assurances that I was endeavouring to give. It will be for the further education councils to judge how to make the most effective use of their resources and how to avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure. We should not forget that in the Bill that is tied, following the example of the 1944 Act, to meeting the reasonable needs of the young people of the age group of the area. There is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow institutions to make the most of their differences and not to obliterate them. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance. I know that that is the intention of someone such as myself, speaking on behalf of the Government, although it is not on the face of the Bill. Nonetheless, at this stage I do not wish to go further.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and other Members of the Committee spoke with some feeling about the importance of sixth forms. The right reverend Prelate was asking whether the Government wished to support sixth forms in the future or whether there might be—this is my expression, but not the right reverend Prelate's—some hidden agenda. I should like to take the opportunity to assure the Committee that there is no such intention with regard to sixth forms. Indeed, in the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century the Government said that they were fully committed to retaining sixth forms of quality. That was the point that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Jenkin were making. When we are talking about sixth forms, we are talking about
506
where there is a good sixth form, but in other cases it may be right from the point of view of education administration to establish sixth form colleges.
The Government believe that sixth forms in schools will continue to be an integral part of secondary school provision, funded by LEAs under the arrangements for local management. Young people will and should continue to have the choice between schools and colleges in many areas.
Perhaps I may go one step further and say to the right reverend Prelate that the further education funding councils will be under a duty, in securing provision for 16 to 18 year-olds, to have regard to such education as is provided by schools maintained by LEAs. In other words, the funding councils will jolly well have to look around the area to see what sixth forms are doing and how big they are before deciding possibly to put more money into provision in that area.
Any proposal to change the character of schools with sixth forms will continue to be subject to the normal statutory procedures. That brings me to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. It was a simple one. He asked what will happen in the future. That is tied up with what the right reverend Prelate was asking. My noble friend asked whether we can be sure that there will not possibly be some rivalry and some attempt—my noble friend did not put it this way—by the further education funding councils to ensure that they have more students than the sixth forms in schools. The answer with regard to the Bill is simple. Where a funding council makes a proposal to establish a new further education college under the Bill it must comply, under Clause 49, with certain arrangements for publishing proposals and considering representations, including any from the LEA.
Conversely, where an LEA proposes to make any changes in its school—for instance, by expanding significantly its sixth forms—it will be required under Clause 56 to consult the further education councils. There will be careful cross-referencing if the further education funding councils want to change the size of their provision and if LEAs want to change the size of their provision in an area in relation to sixth forms.
I hope that the Committee will not feel that the Government are hidebound in this matter. Several times during the debate the question has been put as to why the Government want to move sixth form colleges into the new further education funded sector. The answer is a simple one. It is because we believe that what is done in the sixth form colleges is more like what is done in further education colleges than what is done in the schools. It will be up to the sixth form colleges to decide whether they want to go even further in that direction or to remain more traditional. In the meantime, we believe that it is right that they should move into the new sector.
Lord Beloff: We have now heard the Minister's reply and explanation of the proposal. I regret to say that neither on that, nor on the financial implications of the change, have we been reassured to the extent that I should have liked. I believe that a certain amount of additional confusion has been introduced

507
into the consideration of this matter by some Members of the Committee, notably my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
I am sure that my noble friend's daughter is having a splendid time in a sixth form college and finds it a great relief after the fifth form of a girls' school—if she was at a girls' school—or any fifth form for that matter, but I do not know when, whether or if my noble friend was ever a member of a school sixth form. If it was a good school, he would have had the same kind of preparation for independent work which his daughter is receiving at her sixth form college. There is no difference. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made that point clear.
The change comes after GCSE and before A-levels. At that point, whether it is a school or a sixth form college, the degree of intellectual freedom—there may or may not be more or less personal discipline—and the kind of teaching are identical. So I am unconvinced, I regret to say, by the Minister's argument that sixth form colleges are more like colleges of further education. That is not the case. They are teaching, on the whole, for A-levels or for the BTEC, or for some other preparatory certificate which will enable the young people to go on to professional training, higher education, or whatever it may be. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, must be very out of touch with the young if he believes that it is only people who go to sixth form colleges who then proceed to roam the world. It is equally true of people who have been in sixth forms at schools. He must live a sheltered life.
The teaching is not the same. The further education colleges are teaching a much wider range of subjects, some of them A-levels and BTECs, sometimes the same but also other subjects. Fundamentally they are doing it in a different way, as other noble Lords have explained, through larger classes. That affects the costing. They are not doing it on the basis of full-time attendance, which affects attitudes.
It is not good enough for the noble Lord to say, "The reason we are doing this is that we think that sixth form colleges —that is to say, places in full-time education for A-levels and BTECs for the 16 to 18 year-old age group—are more like further education colleges than sixth forms of schools". I am not convinced. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who has far more experience than I have of these matters, is convinced. I doubt whether anyone in the Committee who is acquainted with sixth form colleges, schools or further education colleges is convinced. For that reason, much though I regret it, I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Birk, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Blackstone, B.

508

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ennals, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Russell, E.

Guildford, Bp.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Willis, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Annan, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor, V.

Gray, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Belstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Hanson, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boardman, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harrowby, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Holderness, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hood, V.

Brookes, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ingrow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cawley, L.

Killearn, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elles, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Manton, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Milverton, L.

Flather, B.

Mountevans, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson, E.

509

Norfolk, D.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Orkney, E.

Stockton, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strange, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pender, L.

Sudeley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Swansea, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Swinfen, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Teviot, L.

Radnor, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Waddington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

White of Hull, L.

Shannon, E.

Wynford, L.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) The bodies corporate established under subsection (1) above shall be established from a date to be specified by the Secretary of State, which shall be a date not before 31 March 1994").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 301. The legislation that we shall pass in the Bill will not be in place much before Easter 1992 because it has to go through another place, yet the changes that are being proposed in the Bill in relation to further education are great. They involve the development of complicated new funding mechanisms which have yet to be worked out. They involve the establishment of a large new bureaucracy which will need to be set up and working before progress can be made. They involve the appointment and setting up of the new funding councils in both England and Wales. There will be the need to recruit and appoint quite extensive regional staff to support the regional committees whose members have to be selected and appointed.
The FE colleges, too, will have to go through a number of changes. Their structure will be changed as will the way they are run. They will have to go through those changes to become corporate bodies. No one has said that the current situation in the colleges is in any way disastrous. On the contrary, many people have math positive remarks about the job that the FE colleges are carrying out. There is no immediate crisis and there is no immediate urgency to rush through the changes. I do not believe that anyone has even suggested that some or all of our local education authorities are seriously incompetent in the role they are playing in further education.
In the light of all that, surely it would be sensible to have a reasonable planning period rather than try to rush through a complex set of changes in too short a time. I must remind the Committee that there are more than 500 institutions in England and Wales that will need to be reorganised. The new funding mechanisms must be applied to those institutions. The date proposed in our amendment is March 1994. It is suggested that the bodies corporate should not be
510
established before that date to allow the planning to be undertaken properly. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible way of proceeding with these complex changes. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: At Question Time on 28th November I had the pleasure of listening to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replying to a Question about proposals to expedite the work of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The noble Earl said it was important to get that matter right. He said it was such a technical and complex matter and the implications of not getting it right were so serious that it was much more important to take the time to get it right. That was much more important than trying to hasten it forward. I entirely agreed with everything the noble Earl said and I rose to say so. I believe the noble Earl was rather surprised that I did so. The noble Earl acted correctly on that occasion. I believe the same arguments apply on this occasion.
We are discussing a highly complex piece of legislation. It has not been under consideration for long. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recall making an announcement on this matter last March. That is not a long time to allow people to make the necessary adjustments. When the legislation comes into force, we shall be putting together and trying to weld into a team a large number of disparate institutions. Those institutions have different funding methods, different units of resource, different purposes, different subject combinations and different age mixes. It will be quite a complex business to weld them together. That process will take place in an education world which, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said last year, is now suffering from innovation fatigue.
That is a rather more serious condition than some of us are perhaps aware of. It is a little like being punch drunk. One's movements are slowed down quite considerably and one's reactions are not as acute or as wide ranging as one would like. That condition makes adjustment to new situations a good deal slower. Under those circumstances, there is a case for getting the matter right rather than having some desperately urgent reason—there may be such a reason although it has not yet been made clear to us—for putting the measure on the statute book at the earliest possible moment.
While the poll tax legislation was passing through this Chamber, I recall checking my footnotes in the Library and resolving that whenever the time came to reverse that legislation it would be absolutely vital not to do so in a hurry. I had not foreseen it being reversed under this Government. There is a great deal to be said against haste. The repentance can be painful.
Lord Renton: If this amendment were accepted, the funding councils for England and Wales could not be established until, at the earliest, All Fools Day 1994. That is two and a quarter years hence. We must bear in mind that their establishment is merely the beginning of their work. Their first report could not be expected for a year and they would, presumably, have made some funding arrangements during that year. Surely this constitutes an unacceptable delay. This is

511
manifestly a dilatory motion. On the question of whether we are giving enough time to the Department of Education—and others who are concerned with this matter—to make the necessary arrangements for the changes in this Bill to be brought about, I invite attention to Amendment No. 301. That amendment brings us to the final clause of the Bill, Clause 90. Clause 90(3) states:
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and different days may be appointed for different provisions".
Therefore there is flexibility. There is no question of the Government being rushed over this matter or of there being confusion through lack of preparation. However, to ask that nothing should happen for two and a quarter years is, I suggest, unreasonable and unacceptable. I hope the Committee will dismiss this dilatory motion.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I, too, urge the Committee to reject this amendment. In so asking I know I reflect the views of all the staff and speak in the interests of the students in further education colleges. There may well be some principals who wish that the Bill will not be passed. There may be many others who would rather not say at this moment in time where their sympathies lie. I am sure the latter people constitute a large number of college principals. I know that every college principal is anxious to have this period of uncertainty settled as quickly as possible.
With the best will in the world local education authorities now feel an understandable reluctance to devote large sums of money to maintenance, repairs and property matters in colleges. They feel understandably reluctant to allow large new developments to take place, in terms of courses, within colleges that may pass out of their control within the next year or two. That is an unfortunate form of planning blight that has fallen upon the colleges. I urge that the funding councils for England and Wales should be allowed to move into place as quickly as possible to begin their planning and to begin to even out the differences that exist between individual colleges. I urge that this period of uncertainty should be brought quickly to an end.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his, as always, agreeable speech, was good enough to remind us of an exchange which took place one Question Time about the report of the Runciman Commission. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us that my noble friend Lord Ferrers had remarked that it was better to get the matter right than to rush it through. The analogy of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is a false analogy. When one is considering a complete review of the state of the law by a Royal Commission it is important not to rush things. However, when one is setting up a new apparatus, as we are now, my experience—for what it is worth—has invariably been that nothing at all happens so long as there is uncertainty. Therefore, one needs to get things done. Although I supported my noble friend Lord Ferrers in the earlier exchange, on this occasion I cannot extend my support to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the amendment.
512
Turning to the equally agreeable speech of the mover of the Motion, I was irresistibly reminded of the prayer of St. Augustine of Hippo:
"da 'mihi castitatem …, sed noli modo"—
"Lord, make me chaste, but not just yet please". I do not know how long it took the Lord to achieve that object, but I think it would have been better if it had happened at once.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I acknowledge that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, the changes which are embodied in the Bill are substantial and that there is a great deal of work to do. The Government have set aside £28 million for England and Wales for the next financial year to enable that work to go ahead. Part of it is for the preparatory costs of the new funding councils and part of it will be made available to colleges for the costs of preparations. In addition to funds, we envisage that support for colleges can also be provided through practical guidance on the necessary steps to prepare, for example, workshops and seminars on specific issues wherever those are the most effective means of meeting common needs.
The effect of the amendment would be to sweep all of that aside and to say that the delay which is explicit in the amendment is necessary. As my noble friends have said, that delay is considerable. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to this as a dilatory amendment. I leave that to the Committee to decide, but it would certainly cause a delay of a year and a half at the very least in the setting up of the funding councils. That would mean that colleges would be deprived of the advantages of corporate status for at least another three years from now, and possibly longer. It is on that particular ground that I must resist the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I am glad that the Minister has recognised and accepted that there is a great deal of work to be done before the Bill, when it becomes law, can he implemented. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the amendment is not intended to be a dilatory amendment. There is no intention to delay for the sake of delaying. That is the last thing that we on this side of the Chamber want to do. There is a perfectly genuine concern that everything should be properly in place before we make the changes and we owe it to our students to ensure that that happens.
I should like to consider what the Minister said before deciding whether to bring the amendment back at Report stage.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment perhaps I may say that I gladly accept her expression of sincerity with regard to the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Thank you very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the Further Education

513
Funding Councils established under this section shall discharge and perform the functions conferred upon them by this or any other enactment so as to provide for persons over compulsory school age appropriate and sufficient opportunity to benefit from a balanced and broadly based curriculum in furtherance of the education provided to those same persons whilst of compulsory school age under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988.").
The noble Baroness said: The Bill is something of a disappointment to most people with an interest in the creation and development of a more coherent curriculum for young people in the 16 to 19 age group. As we all recognise, the Bill concentrates on structure and finance. It makes no attempt to consider content, even in broad terms. There is little or no coherence between pre- and post-16 experience for many young people. Structural changes in the Bill seem to count for everything so that it is somewhat lacking in any educational rationale. That has already been demonstrated in some of our earlier debates this afternoon.
Therefore, one must have grave doubts about what the Bill will do to aid the creation of a highly qualified, flexible and creative population for the 21st century. One must also have doubts as to whether it will do what is needed to raise the participation of young people in post-school education to the participation levels of our main competitors, which speakers on many sides of the Chamber have recognised we are a long way from achieving at present.
The Bill also does nothing to break down the divided and divisive system which rigidly separates academic courses from vocational courses. I regret to say that young people will continue to study courses which are too narrow and which fail to bring together the theoretical and practical. Young people will continue to face a plethora of vocational qualifications—a jungle through which they cannot cut a route for themselves. Alternatively, they may face an over-specialised, knowledge-based set of A-level courses which test them insufficiently in many important areas of attainment. It does nothing to create a single flexible post-16 assessment scheme, for which so many groups with knowledge of the system are now calling.
Moreover, the Government's proposals for parity of esteem between A-levels and vocational courses can only give rise to a hollow laugh. The Government must know that that is an unattainable goal in a culture which attaches so much more worth to academic success.
The purpose of the amendment is to place on the statute book a general requirement on the further education funding councils to ensure that a balanced and broadly based curriculum is provided for all young people in post-school education. I hope that in his reply the Minister will not say that that is too general for legislation of this kind. Perhaps I may remind him that Section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act included a somewhat similar provision in relation to schools. It asks that they establish,
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum which … promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and … prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: It is with some sadness that I rise to oppose the amendment because to vote against a broad and balanced education for any age group is rather like voting against motherhood. Nevertheless, I oppose the amendment because during many years of experience as one of Her Majesty's inspectors in further education I have sat through classes which in those days were called "liberal studies". They resulted from a requirement introduced by the Department of Education and Science during the 1950s, which survived through the 1960s and 1970s, that all vocational courses in further education should include an element of liberal study. If Members of the Committee had sat, as I did, watching classes of very bored young men who were anxious to return to the studies which motivated them—whether on motor vehicle engineering, physical sciences, or whatever it might be—while they were obliged for the good of their souls to sit through lectures on Plato, religion or sex education, they would share some of my cynicism about the virtues of a broad and balanced curriculum.
The motivation of young people at the ages of 16, 17 and 18 is unique and special to them. There are some who wish to study very narrow academic subjects; some are motivated entirely by vocational study. I do not believe that it is in their interests to impose upon them from outside a curriculum which is defined as broad by those of us who are adult. They will find breadth within their own studies if they are are well taught.
Lord Belstead: The Government's aim is to try to make the new further education sector as responsive as possible to the needs of students and employers and to the local area. We want to maximise choice from a range of courses leading to high-quality qualifications. Put broadly, that aim is not the same as the aim of the amendment. The balance of duties and powers proposed in the Bill has been designed to try to give the institutions within the further education sector the necessary discretion to respond to the needs of individual students. The powers and duties of the funding councils in particular are designed with that aim in mind.
The new duty that the noble Baroness proposes in her amendment would be a recipe for confusion as regards the further education sector. Perhaps I may go a step further. The noble Baroness was critical of, as she saw it, the lack of planning in further education leading to—I believe that I quote her words—the divided and divisive system which rigidly separates academic and vocational courses. I wonder whether that is fair. After all, the proposals in the Bill were set out in a White Paper proposing a large number of important reforms in post-16 education and training, but many of those reforms which directly address issues relating to qualifications and levels of attainment do not require legislation and are being carried out. It is desirable to seek to promote certain kinds of breadth and balance in certain circumstances. A number of policies set out in the White Paper to which I referred are intended to achieve just that, notably the proposals for general national vocational qualifications and for over-arching diplomas that will

515
seek to recognise achievement in academic and vocational qualifications. However, that is quite a long way from the kind of planning that the noble Baroness sets forth in her amendment.
The situation with regard to the period of compulsory schooling is different. There the system provides for all children, to ensure that all have a basic grounding across the range of desirable subjects. That was exactly the objective that we set ourselves in the Education Reform Act of three years ago. However, from the age of 16 the further education system provides for volunteers—people who choose to continue their education. They have a great variety of previous experience and educational achievements and they cover a great variety of ages, ranging sometimes from age 16 to people who are pensioners. Defining breadth and balance in a way that is suited to all would be quite impossible. That is why I ventured to say a little earlier that this amendment might to some extent be a recipe for confusion.
Like my noble friend Lady Perry, I am not happy to oppose this amendment because I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, means it quite seriously and believes in it. However, it would not be in tune with the objectives that we set ourselves in this piece of legislation, and the closer one looks at the wording of the amendment, the more difficult will become the objectives that are set out in it.
Baroness Blackstone: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I may state quite categorically that I in no way claim that the amendment is perfect. I am sure that it could be improved upon. It is rather difficult to draft an amendment of this kind that will satisfy everyone, particularly with regard to a Bill that so lacks any commitment to try to do something about the curriculum and assessment for young people.
I also accept that not every reform regarding the curriculum requires legislation. However, I felt that it was necessary to put down a marker about the importance that we on this side of the Committee attach to improving the content of what is provided for young people in that age group, as well as the structure, framework and funding of further education for 16 to 19 year-olds. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord said about the establishment of an over-arching diploma. Our fear on this side of the Committee is that it does not go far enough in providing the coherence that is needed. However, I should like to take the amendment away and think further about it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 19, after ("State") insert ("in consultation with local education authorities").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9. Other noble Lords whose amendments are grouped with mine will no doubt wish to pick up some of the points that I make.
The purpose of the first two amendments reflects the reality of the situation; namely, that local education authorities are currently the main source of knowledge and expertise in the provision of further education. The first amendment therefore seeks to ensure that local education authorities are consulted by the Secretary of State about the membership of the funding council. As we all well know, local education authorities have a long history in the provision of further education. The considerable development over the past two decades particularly in the areas of vocational education—first with the Manpower Services Commission and latterly with the TECs—means that local education authorities have both the experience and the relevant expertise. It would be foolish not to tap into that and take full advantage of it when we are looking at the membership of the funding councils which will need to know both about further education and the needs of industry and commerce—an area in which the local education authorities have also developed a considerable amount of experience and expertise.
Equally, as my second amendment makes clear, there should be places as of right for local education authorities on the funding council so that their expertise may be continually available to the council. The amendment therefore suggests that there should be two representatives from local education authorities on the council.
We must bear in mind that local education authorities will continue to have considerable responsibilities for further education outside the areas mentioned in the Bill where particular qualifications will be required. I do not want to go into the merits of that at the moment, but we must bear in mind that local authorities will continue to have that responsibility. It is therefore essential that there should be the closest liaison between local education authorities and the funding council. Having two representatives on that body will help to ensure that.
The Minister will no doubt argue that members of local education authorities are not excluded from membership by the terms of the Bill. They may be appointed on merit, but that begs the point. Local education authorities have that experience and expertise that the funding councils themselves will have to begin to build up. It would therefore be nonsense not to ensure that we have representatives of LEAs on the councils. That close liaison is also important in the interests of continuity. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I speak to Amendment No. 10 which stands in my name. Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 stand in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, I shall not speak to them. I shall leave that to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, unless he gets the argument wrong in which case I shall feel compelled to speak. However I think that most unlikely.
When TECs were first announced, I was extremely doubtful about them. I was rather suspicious of them, and, not least, of their composition. However, they are extremely important in regard to what they have been

517
set up to do. I do not believe that I exaggerate when I say that the future of the country depends on exactly such activity. We have TECs; in my view they must succeed, whatever my original suspicions were.
There is clearly a connection between the role of the TECs and events in post-16 and further education. If the Government were to make explicit the connection between TECs and the provisions in the Bill by including such an amendment, it would give TECs a tremendous boost. It would indicate how important the Government consider them.
I am anxious on two matters. First, the Government have been consistently against representation for the LEAs. We have argued on that and I have had my say. It would be unfortunate were the Government to say, simply on the grounds of consistency, "We should like to have the TECs represented, but having ruled out the LEAs we must rule out everyone else". That would be a rather absurd position to take. The matter should be judged on merit.
Secondly, I refer to the way in which the Bill is drafted. Clause 1(4) (a) and (b) makes provision that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including certain persons. I have asked myself several times why the Government have put those subsections in the Bill. Why do they not accept their own argument that there is never any need to have such a provision: that we can rely on the Secretary of State to have regard to everything that matters in respect of anything that comes up? Why did the Government put those categories in the Bill? I then considered who is ruled out by those categories. If there are categories, they must rule people in and rule them out I have been unable to solve the problem. The Bill appears to make provision for the Secretary of State to appoint anyone whom he thinks he can appoint.
I do not make those points in jest or to make a debating point against the Government before supper. I wish to state that the Minister will not convince me by saying; that Clause 1(4) (b) includes everybody with,
"industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession",
and that those are the persons who are on the TECs; therefore the TECs are implicitly covered. My point is that everyone is implicitly covered in some sense. The Government can do themselves some good and the TECs some good—I consider that important—by referring to them on the face of the Bill. That is the reason why I put forward the amendment. I cannot be accused of being in the pay or under the thrall of TECs, because I was extremely critical of them in the beginning. However, once we have TECs, the Bill presents an excellent possibility to give them support.
The Earl of Stockton: As chairman of CENTEC—the Training and Enterprise Council for central London—and the representative of the nine London TECs on G10, the consultative body to my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Employment, I am aware of the considerable
518
role that is being played and the greater role that can be played by the Training Enterprise Councils on the interface between further education and training.
All TECs have on their boards representation from local education authorities. All TECs are deeply involved with such initiatives as the Education Business Partnerships, TVEI, local employer networks, teacher placements, work experience and, increasingly, in the provision of business governors to the governing bodies in schools, sixth form colleges, FE colleges and even polytechnics. It seems illogical therefore not to include TECs in the funding councils. I am sure that the Minister will say that TEC representation can be included. However, I feel strongly that the admirable TEC initiative is the best and possibly the last chance we have to create a genuine working network between education and business on a nationwide and coherent basis. Therefore to fail to insist that this successful bridge between where young people are educated and where they work is inconsistent.
Has my noble friend Lord Belstead consulted with his colleagues in the Department of Employment? I am sure that it is its objective to have an integrated seamless post-16 academic and vocational education training system. TECs are in the business of broking. They are the clearing house through which local education and training can be rationalised and co-ordinated.
I trust that my noble friend will not exclude their vital input into the funding councils especially as the only access that the Government have to training provision in the private business sector is through the TECs. Without TEC input, the councils will have an incomplete picture of both need and the method of meeting that need.
I am happy therefore to support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his Amendment No. 10.
Earl Russell: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 which stand in my name.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are modest little amendments. I know perfectly well that some of the Government's best friends are local authorities. The amendment merely suggests that they might be recognised on occasions. The Government have done little in that field. A gesture might be appreciated in particular in a post where experience of the previous situation may be vital. Bad mistakes can be made simply by ignorance of what one is dealing with.
Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 cover appointments to both the further and the higher education funding council. They ask that those appointments should last for six years. That is one year longer than a parliament. Perhaps I may say in passing that in five years' time the Government may be glad of those amendments.
However, there is a wider implication. The desire is that such appointments should not only be depoliticised—I am sure that they are at present—but that they should manifestly be seen to be depoliticised. Without touching on anything in this century, there is a longstanding tendency for political situations to throw up academics and other educationists who

519
agree with the Government of the day no matter who they may be, do a great deal of work for them, and possibly find their own reputation diminishing in the process. One of the classic cases is the famous Dr. Fell. There is one thing that we know full well about him.
That is the situation that we do not wish to occur. We have had exchanges in the past about possible politicisation of such appointments. I recall many exchanges about school governors. I recall an exchange during the Education Reform Act on appointments to new education authorities to replace the ILEA. That is not what we want. We want a degree of continuity. In education as well as in industry, a lack of continuity between different governments has been one of the handicaps to steady development. There is a great deal to be said for the amendments. I hope that the Government will consider them.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I shall not follow the noble Earl because I wish to deal with the arguments advanced in relation to Amendment No. 10. In terms of changing the Government's policies we have made no progress today. However, we have gained something from the debate because we are now hearing the reasons for the Bill. We have been told that it is to avoid pluralistic methodology; that it is to safeguard the sovereignty of the principals of the colleges; and that the natural resting place of sixth form colleges is alongside the CFEs. We now know the Government's reasons for Clause 1 and we shall pass to Clause 2. If the Government do not support the amendments perhaps the Minister will give a justification, a rationale, for the appointments.
Earlier, my noble friend said that he thought a possible argument in favour of this part of the Bill was that it was as broad and as wide as a barn door and therefore anyone could be included. Is that the Government's intention? There could be somebody from the TECs because, after all, anyone could be included. An Admiral of the Fleet might have some experience in education if not in financial matters.
It is possible to look at the issue more narrowly. Clause 1 provides that those with experience of providing education —not of training—or who have a responsibility for providing education may be members of the funding councils. That does not mean anyone who has just received education or training. There are no students; no one from local authorities; nor, dare I say, from trade unions. In other words, the members will be people who are creatures of the Minister. Is that the justification, the rationale, because no one is a member in a representative capacity? One cannot say that the two broad categories are in any sense representative. I suggest that they exist because they give the Minister room to appoint his creatures. If that is wrong I hope that the Minister will say so. I hope that the Minister will also explain why we do not have wider representation and choice and why there are no representatives from the TECs.
An argument has already been made for representatives from the TECs. However, I can think
520
of some other reasons. First, the TECs are the day-to-day spenders and contractors of a great deal of government money. Much of the work for the TECs is done in the CFEs. Secondly, if one decides to take away local education authorities, a TEC becomes the only body in the area which is preparing a strategy plan for the training needs of that area. I have personal experience of the TEC in my area. It will be the only body because the local authority is being taken out. The TECs are trying to plan long-term training requirements and needs in close consultation with businessmen and employers in their areas. Surely the TECs are the best kind of bodies to be involved in the process.
Thirdly, the Government have stated that the TECs are doing a good job. They are a little doubtful about their view of local education authorities, although the Minister has not told us today that they have let the CFEs down. The Government are endlessly stating what a wonderful job the TECs are doing, yet the TECs have never had a statutory basis. The amendment provides the Government with a chance to give them a small statutory basis. The fourth reason is that the Government more or less stated in their White Paper that they would do so but now they have omitted that provision.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may change the batting order and speak before my noble friend Lady Carnegy in order to indicate the Government's view. My noble friend has considerable experience of training matters. There is no desire on the part of the Government to try to say that what is being suggested is self-evidently wrong. On behalf of the Government I say that there is a real difficulty in putting direct representatives on funding councils of this kind. The reason, first, is numbers. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has put forward an argument for two representatives of local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has tabled an amendment relating specifically to further education representatives. She has also tabled an amendment providing for two representatives of Schedule 2-type education. There are eight different types of Schedule 2-type education. Later we shall debate an amendment for the representation of those who are interested and expert in the education of people with learning difficulties. There has been an impassioned plea for the TECs to be represented. There will be nothing to stop members of local education authorities being appointed to the funding councils on a personal basis.
My noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, emphasised the importance of TECs. The Government are well aware of the important role that the councils perform in their local communities. We have taken steps to ensure that they will have close links with the new college sector. The White Paper announced that the Secretary of State would invite two representatives of local TEC interests to serve on each regional committee of the further education funding council for England. Schedule 4 to the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to nominate a body which will be able to nominate a person for membership of college governing bodies. The Government intend to nominate the training and

521
enterprise councils to such a body. In addition it is expected that the TECs will establish their own less formal links to the English council and the colleges.
I am sure that in making appointments to the councils the Secretary of State will wish to maintain a sensible balance in the experience, skills and expertise that members can bring to bear. After all, the funding councils will be responsible for a broad swathe of educational provision. I am certain that the experience brought by members of the funding councils for England will reflect that breadth. That is the reason for the drafting of this part of the Bill. There is no desire to have it as wide as a barn door. We wish to give sensible guidance about what the Secretary of State will be looking for so that the experience of members will be reflected in the breadth. I must make a point that I have not yet made; that the personal qualities of those who are appointed will be the highest.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I do not believe that consultation with local authorities is particularly appropriate in this case. I do not wish to be confrontational but we are talking about colleges which are to go into an independent sector and not into a sector which is funded or controlled by the local education authorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about two amendments which would set a minimum appointment period of six years. That would reduce the field of available candidates which could in turn have implications for the calibre of people who are able to be appointed. For instance, it is unlikely that leading businessmen will accept a six-year commitment: it is more probable that they can accommodate a shorter term of office. Unless the noble Earl feels most strongly about the matter I am not in favour of the provision.
I looked at the Marshalled List with apprehension in order to see how many amendments had been tabled on the subject of representation. I know that as soon as a body of this kind is set up there is a natural desire for representation. However, I beg Members of the Committee to note that already on the Marshalled List there are sufficient requests to provide for more than a dozen funding council representatives before anyone begins to think about members whose personal qualities require that they should serve. As regards representation, one immediately runs into the problem of a large and unwieldy council. Because of that, I resist the amendments.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord says that the problem is one of numbers. The Bill states:
"persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial",
and so on. Would it not be possible to add, "one of whom" or "two of whom should represent TECs"? That would not increase the numbers. It would mean that one or two of the members would be TEC representatives. That would not create a problem as regards numbers.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: What my noble friend Lord Stockton said about the importance of the
522
training and enterprise councils is crucial, as is the input that will come from local authorities. However, both are extremely important and one should not believe that their interests can be channelled through two representatives of the council. Those bodies will not be like that. We used to think along those lines and it did not work very well. It is a limited idea to believe that one can only ensure communication for TECs through membership of the council. The councils will be in constant communication with TECs and local authorities. This is not the right way to go about this matter. We always have these debates each time a body is set up and we follow the same line of argument. However, in this case I believe passionately that a polarised discussion between representatives on this kind of body is old fashioned and would be extremely damaging to the TECs. I hope my noble friend will accept that. Of course TECs are keen to have maximum input, and they will have that. That is how the colleges will work, as they do at present.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for that. I am particularly grateful because I endeavoured to make the point that I believe it has been said—I know it is not on the face of the Bill—by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it is intended for the TECs to have representation on the regional advisory committees. That is a structured way in which they can have an important input into the funding councils. In addition, as my noble friend said, we should not run away with the idea that there will not be informal input by the TECs into the funding councils. There will be, and that will probably take place on a day-to-day basis.
Lord McCarthy: Does the noble Lord not agree that if one is on a council one receives all the papers and has knowledge of all the business? That is totally different from being consulted. If one is consulted, that consultation is carried out on the terms of the person on the other side. If one is on a committee, one has rights. I am glad that TECs are to be represented on the regional committees. TECs are very well organised. They have a chairman who goes to see the Secretary of State for Employment once a week. It would be easy for someone representing the TECs to sit on the national council and put their point of view.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I have great sympathy both for the amendment and for what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. The Minister argued principally as regards the size if each one of those bodies is to be represented on the council.
I was rather struck by the word used by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—"creature". He said that if the amendments are not accepted, all those who were members of the council would be creatures of the Government. If the word "representative" is used, as it is in some of the amendments, that will introduce creatures of the TECs or local authorities. On those grounds, I object to the use of the word "representative". Perhaps the movers of the amendments will consider coming back on Report with

523
amendments which leave out the word "representative". Quite apart from anything else, it would conform with the drafting, which is more general. That says that:
"The Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of',
or knowledge of and so on.
My name is attached to Amendment No. 15 which uses that form of words. We do not include the word "representative". I should prefer that the amendments be recast in a different form at a later stage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It looks as though the Minister is getting the best of both worlds. One was impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Of course TECs should be taken into account because of their vast experience. However, as I read this clause, it states that in addition to organisations that are entitled to have an input, people with individual qualities who are not necessarily part of an organisation should also be considered. That is good. There is the benefit of TECs at various stages. They are also given the freedom to use an individual who may be available. If a body is named—as Amendment No. 10 names the TECs—that would weaken the freedom to take into account individual rather than organisational qualifications.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 standing in my name have been forgotten in this debate. Those amendments do not refer to representation. They simply suggest that members of the funding councils should have expertise in further education.
The numbers argument would be extremely unconvincing if applied to those two amendments because on those councils we must have some people whose personal qualities and expertise are related to a background and knowledge of further education. Nor do I accept that it would be sufficient to put such people on the regional committees. They need to be on the main funding councils.
Further education is a specialised sector of education. It will probably be agreed there is rather less general knowledge about it than there is about schools and higher education. I have been delighted to see how many Members of the Committee are taking part in the first day's discussions on this Bill. I am pleasantly surprised; I did not expect it.
The majority of people who have achieved eminence in the sphere of education and who may be regarded as the pool from which appointments of this kind can be made do not usually have direct experience of further education colleges either as clients or providers. There are not many Members of this Committee who can claim to be either of those.
Further education is a complex sector embracing a tremendous range of different kinds of courses, different modes of attendance—part time, full time or day release—many different accrediting bodies and a large number of different administrative, legal and financial issues which can seem rather confusing to the uninitiated.
524
I take up the point made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. For example, there should not be room on the funding councils for an admiral of the fleet. There are two main reasons for suggesting that the funding councils should include people with knowledge of further education rather than education in general. Unless the councils contain that expertise, there will be an inevitable shift in the balance of power away from the members of the councils towards their officials.
It is also the case that the councils will be more effective if they have credibility in the eyes of the colleges which make up the new sector. For that some evident knowledge of further education is essential. Unless the councils possess the expertise which gives them that credibility, strong voices within the new sector will make their representations direct to the Government. The result will be undesirable in that it will increase the level of involvement of the Secretary of State and make it greater than anticipated.
For those reasons it will be helpful for there to appear on the face of the Bill a provision indicating that at least some members of the council will possess expertise in education including specific knowledge of further education.
Baroness Lockwood: Perhaps I can first make clear that I was not in any way suggesting—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peston was not suggesting either—that in including representatives from local education authorities and TECs we would simply be putting people on the conveyor belt at the whim of those local education authorities or TECs. As the Minister made clear in his response, the personal qualities of the person involved would be appropriate and that would apply whether they were representatives from LEAs or from TECs. Therefore, there is no question of people being mandated on that body.
I was somewhat disappointed with the Minister's response. I acknowledge that a problem could arise if we were dealing with several groups of organisations. However, local education authorities and TECs are two distinct and separate organisations, both with responsibilities that will continue once the funding councils are set up. As I said when moving the amendment, local education authorities will still hold some responsibility in the whole area of further education. Perhaps the Government will consider the matter. Should they see fit to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, when we reach a further stage these specific provisions could perhaps be rephrased.
I shall not press the amendment. I am sure that my noble friends and colleagues will consider carefully what was said by the Minister.
Lord Belstead: If the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, intends to withdraw the amendment, it may be useful for me to deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, regarding the two amendments which would write further education into this part of the Bill. It would be unreasonable for me not to say on behalf of the Government that it is inconceivable that further education experience should not be included on the funding council. The difficulty arises that when one includes that on the face

525
of the Bill, one may limit the selection of people with other educational experience and knowledge who also have a contribution to make.
If my noble friend Lord Renton were present I would turn to him for help. I believe there is a legislative principle that what is put in can exclude what is left out. One needs to be extremely careful in including further education on the face of the Bill; it may appear that no one representing primary or secondary education should be included on the funding council.
The noble Baroness may wish to read my comments. It is not entirely off-the-cuff. It is the result of receiving a note of advice. I thought it wise for me to say that it would be inconceivable for further education not to be represented on the funding councils.
Baroness Lockwood: Before asking leave to withdraw my amendment I intended to make the point in regard to the amendments of my noble friend that even if we included in paragraph (a) that,
"persons who appear to him to have experience of … the provision of further education",
it would not exclude people with experience in education generally. That would come in under paragraph (b), which states,
"persons who appear to him to have experience of … industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
That covers the education profession and is wide enough.
I hope that the Minister will think again about that specific amendment. I hope also that he will give further thought to the spirit behind the other amendments that were spoken to. That said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 8.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on the Bill be resumed not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Functions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("the words from "and shall" to the end shall be omitted") and insert ("for the words from "have" to the end there shall be substituted "take account of any difference in the considerations applying to the different professions."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of this Bill an amendment was tabled which sought to restore to Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act the words which Clause 5 had removed. That
526
amendment was withdrawn upon my undertaking that a Government amendment would be brought forward at a later stage.
At the time I explained that we remained of the view that Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act was not, as it stood, consistent with the new constitution and role of the national boards, given that the new boards will not have a representative function. I did, however, agree that there should be some provision in Section 6 of the 1979 Act, requiring the boards, in discharging their functions, to take into account special considerations which apply to particular groups within the professions, including midwives.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment before us discharges that undertaking. The boards will no longer be required to have regard to the "interests" of special groups, which is an inappropriate formulation, given their new constitution and role. The existing duty imposed on the UKCC, as the representative body, to have regard to the interests of all groups within the professions, including those with minority representation, will remain, in Section 2(6) of the Act.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe the Minister is referring to Section 6(2).
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I stand corrected. As a result of this amendment the boards will be required to have regard to the different considerations applying to the different professions, which can cover such matters as their respective size, history, tradition, culture, training, knowledge base, style of practice and organisations. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister. An undertaking was given at Committee stage that the Government would return with new wording. The Government amendment is a better expression of the rather convoluted amendments I moved at that time to give effect to the real anxieties expressed by the different professions that different requirements were not properly catered for by the original wording. As the Minister said, it is particularly important for midwives and health visitors.
The Minister answered a point that I was about to make. I was intending to ask whether the wording to "take account of in the amendment has the same weight as,
"shall have proper regard for"
which is in the 1979 Act. It seems to me that they have rather less weight than the words in the Act. She seemed to say that that was the intention of the amendment. If that is the case, she will have to continue to give reassurance to the minority professions that they are going to be properly looked after. She said herself that to "take account of has rather less importance or less weight than the previous wording,
"shall have proper regard for".
I shall not detain the House now but she may find that the professions including the midwives and health visitors are still asking for reassurance on that point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if that is the case then I am happy to give that reassurance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 8 [Proceedings about the register: constitution of committees]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 8 and insert the following new clause:
Proceedings about the register: procedure
("8.—(1) Section 12 of the 1979 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (committees of the Council to be constituted to hear and determine proceedings about the register) for "hear and determine" there shall be substituted "deal with".
(3) In subsection (3) (constitution of committees dealing with proceedings about the register)—

(a) for "The committees shall be constituted from members of the Council; and" there shall be substituted "The committees need not be constituted exclusively from members of the Council, but the rules shall provide, in relation to committees constituted by them, that there shall only be a quorum if a majority of those present are members of the Council."; and

(b) the remainder of the subsection shall become subsection (3A).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the desirability of this amendment emerged in our consideration of the question of cautions, which is the subject of the next amendment. In that context, we needed to look in some detail at the way in which the UKCC's new preliminary proceedings or investigating committees will operate. I am now advised that Section 12 of the 1979 Act shows signs of having been drafted specifically with reference to the existing arrangements whereby disciplinary proceedings are dealt with by the UKCC only after referral by the national boards. In particular, it appears that the reference in subsection (2) to the constitution of committees
"to hear and determine proceedings"
may not be entirely apt to describe the functions of a preliminary proceedings' committee. We have therefore concluded that Section 12(2) could with advantage be modified. As the requirement required is outside the scope of Clause 8 as it stands, a new clause is required to replace it, which is the effect of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, again, we welcome this amendment. It goes to the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Desai at Committee stage. As regards subsection (2) of the new clause and the words "hear and determine" which are substituted by the words "deal with", that is presumably a drafting point to give expression to the point that the Minister made. It is not entirely clear that the amendment meets the points raised at Committee as regards consultation between the UKCC and the midwifery committee, for example, and that their cares and anxieties will be taken into account in the constitution of the committees.
I should like the Minister's assurance that this point will be looked after by Section 12(3) of the 1979 Act which states:
528
"The committees shall be constituted … are selected with due regard to the professional field in which that person works".
Presumably that is enough to satisfy all the professions that their professional interests will be looked after in the constitution of the committees. We welcome the amendment with that slight caveat. As I have said, it gives effect to what we were seeking in the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Desai.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
Cautions
(" . After section 12 of the 1979 Act there shall be inserted—
Cautions.
12A.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 12, rules under that section may make provision with respect to the giving, in the course of disciplinary proceedings, of cautions as to future conduct.
(2) Rules under section 12 may also make provision with respect to the keeping by the Council of a record of any caution as to future conduct given in the course of disciplinary proceedings.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "disciplinary proceedings" means proceedings for removal from the register or a part of it for misconduct."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again at Committee stage there was a cross-party amendment which had the intention of enabling the appropriate committee of the council to administer a formal caution in cases where professional misconduct had been established but where the issues were not deemed to be sufficiently serious to warrant removal from the register. The sponsors of that amendment agreed to withdraw it on my undertaking to bring forward a Government amendment meeting the intention of their amendment.
I should say for the record that it remains our view that there is already power to include provision about cautions in the rules under Section 12 of the 1979 Act. As I indicated at Committee stage, we have come to the conclusion that since your Lordships have been so persuasive on this point that it would be perhaps helpful to make this point explicit on the face of the Bill. Therefore, the amendment as drafted reflects the further consideration that we have given and the further consultation which we have had with the officers of the UKCC. I hope therefore that the amendment will commend itself to the House.
Perhaps I should explain that subsection (2) is designed to overcome any possible objection that the recording of a caution is not a procedural matter in relation to the proceedings in which it is given; arguably, it is something which would arise after those proceedings. The potential significance of it relates to later proceedings. I hope that that makes the position clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for moving this amendment. As many noble Lords may know, this Bill has afforded me my first experience of amending a Bill and although I would not claim the result of the successful amendment will

529
have earth-shattering consequences for the good of the entire human race, I am convinced that it is in the public interest; that it will make a contribution to ensuring the highest standards in the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions; and that it will further enhance the efficiency, fairness and the reputation of the United Kingdom Central Council.
I am extremely grateful for the support of a number of noble Lords from all sides of the House; for the precision and quality of advice from the registrar, Mr. Colin Ralph, and Mr. Reg Pyne, the assistant registrar, and the officers of the United Kingdom Central Council. But of course my most heartfelt thanks are due to my noble friend the Minister who from the outset was sympathetic, courteous and encouraging and whose judgment in this matter I believe to be spot on.
I am mindful though of the words of wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who himself privately cautioned me by saying "Because you have had this amendment accepted, don't think you will necessarily win successive ones". I am sure that is sound advice. Throughout my childhood I was cautioned by many—not least by my headmistress, who when I left school warned me to keep off the gin until I was 40 as I would need something to fall back on. And I have to say that she was right, and I wish I had! So, as one not unaccustomed to being cautioned, I very much welcome this amendment and say more seriously how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for the drafting of this amendment and for the positive effect that this Bill will have in its entirety on maintaining the highest possible professional standards in nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is dying to know what the noble Baroness got up to at school to produce the warning to keep off the gin until she was 40. This new clause is wholly welcome. At first sight it seems to meet all the requirements that we were seeking at Committee stage. However, I cannot help pointing out that at that stage the amendment was in two lines whereas now we have 14 lines. I suppose that is what happens when you ask a parliamentary draftsman to express the point.
There is one query concerning the wording which I mentioned to the Minister just before we started these proceedings. Subsection (3) of the amendment states:
"For the purposes of this section, 'disciplinary proceedings' means proceedings for removal from the register or a part of it for misconduct".
That seems draconian. It means that removal from the register is the only reason for instituting disciplinary proceedings that presumably relate to serious offences. That would be governed by the wording in Section 12 of the 19 79 Act which deals with removal from the register. Perhaps we cannot deal with the matter in this place, but the other place might look at it. Would it not have been more useful if the Bill had allowed for offences less serious than those meriting removal from the register but still requiring a reprimand or a caution?
The Bill as drafted and amended, and the 1979 Act, seem to cover those offences which are serious enough
530
to warrant removal from the register. There must be offences which in themselves only require a reprimand or caution; they are not serious enough to merit removal from the register. There seems to be no way in which the machinery that will now be set up as a consequence of the Bill and the 1979 Act will be able to deal with what one might call the less serious offences. This occurred to me on reading it just before we came into the Chamber. However, it is a point which the Minister might like to think about and write to me.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I too would like—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness wishes to speak on the Bill do now pass part of our proceedings so perhaps we could deal with this point first. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that his anxieties over subsection (3) are met by the words at the beginning of subsection (1),
"Without prejudice to the generality of section 12".
It is always confusing in Bills where one is dealing with two sets of documents. However, my understanding is that that puts the matter in the wider context, which I think is what the noble Lord is anxious about.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Section 12 of the 1979 Act is all about removal from and restoration to the register. It states:
"shall by rules determine circumstances in which, and the means by which … a person may, for misconduct or otherwise, be removed from the register".
In other words, it implies that an offence is serious enough in the first place to at least merit consideration for removal from the register. That is the only point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Short title etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("section 2") and insert ("sections 2 and 14").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the transitional provisions dealt with in Clause 14 take into account the fact that the prescribed terms of office of the present council and boards may expire before a new council and four national boards are established and enables those members to continue in office until the appointment of members of the reconstituted council and boards, thus avoiding the need for further elections or appointments to the existing council and boards.
In the interests of continuity, therefore, it is obviously necessary that those transitional provisions come into effect immediately Royal Assent to the Bill is given. That is the intention of this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert ("Section 6(1) (e).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 1. Perhaps in that context I can correct the record

531
because the noble Lord, Lord Carter, queried a reference I made to Section 2(6), which is in fact correct because it refers to the relevant duty on the UKCC as opposed to Section 6(2) which confers it on the boards. The effect of our amendment to Clause 5 is to "unrepeal", so to speak, the repeal of Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act which is to be amended rather than to be repealed. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister is entirely correct. It is just a fluke that Section 2(6) and Section 6(2) have the same wording.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. We have had considerable debate during the passage of the Bill on the role and functions of the reconstituted UKCC and national boards, in particular on the expectations of the professions in relation to these bodies. In the course of that debate anxieties have been expressed about the representations of the professions on the national boards and, happily, I believe I have been able to give assurances about that. We have also had drawn to our attention the anxieties felt by the midwifery profession in relation to the board's role with respect to that profession and the deep concern that the special position of midwifery should continue to be recognised.
As I said a little earlier, I believe that our amendment to Clause 5 will ensure that the boards do take fully into account the special concerns of all three professions. It is to be hoped that we have been able to allay those concerns.
Another issue on which some anxieties were expressed during the course of the Bill was that of the Government's policy on the funding of nursing and midwifery education and training. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to say again, in the clearest possible terms, that we are committed to ensuring that adequate resources are made available for nursing and midwifery education and training. We are also fully seized of the need to protect the nursing and midwifery education budget and we believe that the strategies that we have adopted in this respect by insisting on regional identification of a clearly defined budget, combined with firm, central monitoring, do provide that protection.
We have also discussed the question of the council's ability to administer a formal caution in cases of professional misconduct. I hope the amendment that has been agreed this evening will satisfy everyone—no mean achievement on a legal issue.
Before I sit down I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Desai, on the Opposition Benches who have contributed to the consideration of this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and others who are not able to be present here this evening but who I know wish this Bill well. The effect of our discussions
532
has resulted in a Bill which has been improved, as is proper, after its passage through your Lordships' House from the Bill which was first introduced on the 5th November. The improvements to the Bill are certainly in no small measure due to the contributions that have been made and which have concentrated our minds.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity, in supporting the passage of this Bill, to thank the noble Baroness for her kindness and patience in listening to the points brought by Members from all sides of the House. We have been able to modify this Bill in some ways which I believe will be very much in the interests of the professions named in the Bill.
I had wanted to intervene earlier to thank the noble Baroness particularly for the third amendment and the power of caution. That is particularly useful. It will expedite the disciplinary work of the United Kingdom Central Council and be of great value.
However, at this stage I want to thank the Minister particularly for her reassurances on funding. I believe there have been many anxieties about that. I thank her for sending me a copy of the letter she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in which she made these reassurances explicit. She talked about the need to safeguard and to put arrangements into place to protect the nursing and midwifery education budget against erosion. That is very necessary. She referred in the letter to the twofold strategy which she outlined to us this evening. The letter states:
"Our strategy for securing this is two-fold. First of all, we are insisting that Regions identify a clearly defined budget for both pre- and post-registration nursing and midwifery education, and make it clear to all concerned what that budget is".
The letter goes on to state that when the Bill comes into effect the resources currently allocated to the English national board for nursing and midwifery tutorial costs will be distributed to regions so that they can be added to their budgets. It is good to have that made explicit. The letter continues:
"it will be open to Regions to vary them in the light of the sort of changing workforce demands which Baroness Cumberlege identified. However, any such variation will be explicit and transparent—there should be no question of the nursing and midwifery education budget being invisibly eroded in response to service pressures".
That is a great reassurance to those who have experience of that very thing happening in nursing education.
The Minister then deals with the power to "vire" between budgets in-year to meet unexpected circumstances of one sort or another. The letter states:
"Any such 'virement', and the reasons for it, would need to be made explicit and justified to all those concerned … The second element in our strategy is central monitoring by the Department. If regions want substantially to vary—in either direction—the share of their overall resources which they devote to nursing and midwifery education, we shall want to know why. As I said to the House, the exact mechanism for monitoring is still under consideration".

533
That is an important element which we have yet to develop. I wonder how some of these suggestions may fit in when nursing education is more firmly identified with the higher education sector.
I thank the Minister for all her work. With her reassurances, I have no problem in supporting the passage of the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Throughout the passage of the Bill she has been as courteous and helpful as she always is. She has largely met the concerns which were expressed in Committee. We said at Second Reading that the Bill was non-contentious and that we would certainly assist its passage, even to the extent, as the noble Baroness knows, of not having a Report stage. I thank the Minister for the helpful letter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, which she sent to me and others after the Committee stage. I should like to repeat a few words, as the noble Baroness would expect me to, on the ring-fencing of funding. I congratulate the Minister on the progress made during the passage of the Bill. At Second Reading, referring to ring-fencing, she said:
"the length of time that the ring-fencing will be in place will be as long as it proves necessary".—[Official Report, 12/11/91; col. 509.]
In Committee she said:
"the current arrangements will continue as long as is necessary".—[Official Report, 26/11/91; col. 1294.]
She said that for the first few years it would be reviewed on an annual basis. Then, God bless my soul, she states in her letter—and this should be on the record:
"But what I can say, in addition to the undertakings I have already given, is that we have no plans for changing the arrangements I have outlined in this area in the foreseeable future".
We said at Second Reading that we intended to stiffen the Government's resolution in this matter. It seems that we have certainly been successful. The words "in the foreseeable future" will, I am sure, be quoted to the Minister several times in the future. I should also mention the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who cannot be present this evening, was particularly anxious that those points about ring-fencing should be expressed. I conclude by thanking the Minister again. We wish the Bill well as it goes to another place.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 to 8.25 p.m.]

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 1, line 26, after ("education") insert ("of the types listed in Schedule 2 to this Act").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee,
534
speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 128 and 230. I am afraid that again the amendments are about membership of the funding councils, the regional councils and the quality assessment committees. The aim is to include those who have direct experience of the issues facing adult learners. We move to a slightly different field.
Amendments Nos. 11A and 13 would ensure that members of the funding councils have relevant educational experience, including experience of certain types of adult education. The Bill transfers responsibility for funding and planning of quality assurance in large sectors of adult education from LEAs to the funding councils, regional advisory committees and quality assessment committees. It is essential that their composition reflects the full range of their new duties. Only if adult education interests are fully represented throughout the new structures will the transfer of responsibilities for Schedule 2 work be successful, and the current quality and variety protected and, it is to be hoped, enforced.
Amendment No. 128 refers to the quality assessment committee and Amendment No. 230 to the regional advisory committees. I think that what I have said is sufficient, in view of earlier discussions. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There is a problem here, to which I made brief reference earlier, about the intention behind the amendments. They would reduce the breadth of educational experience on the funding councils by excluding any type of education which is not listed; that is to say, any type of education for which the council is not responsible falling outside Schedule 2. Such a restriction would make the council less effective in carrying out its responsibilities. While those responsibilities will concern only those types of education listed in Schedule 2, the council will not be operating in a vacuum. In other words, by including in the amendment that there must be Schedule 2 representatives, the implication can be taken—I understand that it is taken—legislatively that the types of education that are not so mentioned would not therefore be favoured. It would be tedious of me at this hour to give examples of the other kinds of education which should probably be included on the funding council, and so I leave it at that. That is the problem.
In the other amendments there is the issue of appointments to committees. The amendments would ensure that all the councils' committees included at least one member who has expertise of or experience in all types of provision for which the funding council is responsible. I imagine that the council would want to keep to that in spirit, wherever possible, when it is setting up its committees.
There are two problems here. First, as far as possible, the Government intend to leave the council free to establish its own methods of working, and the amendment would go against that principle. Secondly, in practice, it could be difficult for the council to comply with such a requirement, or in some cases it might be inappropriate. I can imagine that the number of individuals who have expertise in or experience of all types of educational provision listed in Schedule 2

535
are few and far between. That could mean that the council would have to appoint two, three, four or even more members merely to meet such a requirement and regardless of the size of the committee that it wanted to set up.
The noble Baroness might like to think about what I have said. I am not opposing the amendment merely for the sake of it. There are problems with the two limbs of the matter to which I have been replying.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I listened to what the Minister has just said and what he said in reply to the earlier debates which covered some of the same ground. I should like to make one comment about adult education. The Minister responded to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone about including further education, and "further" of course embraces adult. I should like to consult the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education which is responsible for me tabling the amendments. I shall discuss the matter with it when it has read what the Minister has said and possibly come back with something at the next stage of the Bill, or I may rely on the amendment about further education tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 28. after ("education") insert ("and such persons shall constitute a majority of the Council").
The noble Earl said: The effect of the amendment is to provide that a majority of the further education funding councils should be persons having experience in the provision of education. The immediate point to make in favour of the amendment is to ask simply: why not? That question was asked in 1988 during the debates on the Education Reform Bill. I never entirely understood what the answer was. I should be grateful if it could be made a little clearer tonight, because I cannot say that it has become entirely clear since 1988 what the arguments for that were.
There is an obvious advantage in having people managing any business of any type who know what they are doing and who understand what it is that they are managing. I become rather more suspicious as time passes of the notion that there is a separate art called "management", independent of knowledge of the thing that one is managing. One has to know the strengths and limitations of what one is handling before one knows what to do about it.
It may be of course that what we are dealing with here is the anti-professionalism which one occasionally finds at present. I recall, for example, one Member opposite—I shall not quote him because he is not here, and I have not given him notice of it—quoting Dr. Johnson to the effect that professions are conspiracies against the public. It is all very well saying that there should be limits to the power of the professions; up to a point that contains obvious sense and justice. But in whichever profession we are discussing they are the only professionals that we have. Their standards may
536
not always be acceptable to those in high office, but again they are the only professional standards that we have.
I am not convinced—this is a point that comes up in a wide variety of contexts—that it is possible to change professional standards or a culture by legislation. People working in any profession have learnt standards over a long time. If they are forced to abandon them they do not thereby immediately take on new ones which might be more pleasing to the authorities of the day. They are left without any, and are about as dangerous as a ship at sea without a compass is to navigation.
Perhaps I can best make my point by referring to the management of Parliament, which is something upon which members of my profession from time to time express themselves freely and with great confidence. I used to wonder whether it was quite that simple. Now I know perfectly well that it is not. This Chamber would view with misgiving having its procedure and its business managed by a committee with a majority drawn from without its walls. In that we are not alone. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Earl is always attractive in his arguments, but my reaction to what he said is not that there is a hostility to professionalism—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not feel moved to accept the amendment—on the contrary, I regard the professions and professional standards as important in the whole scheme of things, and not least in education. My suspicion centres around a different word—the "providers". Over the years we have tended to accept what I regard as a fallacy: that what the providers believe is good for them must be equally good for those for whom provision is made.
I shall not take the Committee down too many byways, but one has only to listen to the doctors sometimes. They believe that what is good for the doctors must be good for the patients and for the health service. That is not necessarily so. I speak as a former Secretary of State for Social Services. People have a tendency to convince themselves, completely honestly—there is no element of wilful self-deception in this—that if they are looked after properly, their clients—the students or whoever it may be—will be equally properly looked after.
One of the threads that has tended to run through some of the reforms which the Government have instituted in health, education, the social services, community care and local government is the attempt to break that belief and to make the providers more answerable to the people for whom provision is made. That is wholly to the good. It is what lies behind much of the Citizen's Charter.
If the committee turned out to be just another committee with a majority of educationists on it, people would say that it was a bit rum against the background of everything else that is going on. Of course there must be people on the committee who are knowledgeable about education. I welcome what my noble friend said about people who are knowledgeable about and have experience of further education. That must be right. I should be unhappy, and I believe that others would be, if I thought that they were to be a

537
majority on the committee. There are other interests which should be taken into account, not least the interests of the people for whom the whole exercise exists.
Lord Belstead: I expected that the amendment would come up and the noble Earl has moved it with his usual felicity. First, I wish to repeat the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that the mind is very much on the providers when setting up a committee of this kind. There is the obvious thought in the mind of the layman that a funding council on which the providers are in the majority may be looking after itself in too cosy a fashion. I do not say that from the Front Bench for this reason. The Government have not gone out of their way to say that there will not be a majority of people from the world of education on the funding council. We are simply silent on it so far as the Bill is concerned.
However, I chime in with what my noble friend said. Yes, we usually think of providers when such a committee is being set up, but what about the users? It may well be, particularly with those mentioned in subsection (5) (b), that my right honourable friend will be considering representatives of the users of further education on the funding council.
Secondly, let us not forget a point which has been made endlessly but is worth making again on the amendment that a sensible balance needs to be kept. The Government have undertaken again and again that we shall endeavour to do so in this case.
One of the successes which I claim for the Government over the past 10 years or so is to have made some advances in bringing the worlds of education, industry and commerce closer together. That is why we find mention of those interests in paragraph (b) of subsection (5).
"persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
People from industry will need to be represented on the committee.
Thirdly, I reiterate a point that I made on an earlier amendment. We have debated this afternoon amendments which would bring in, by way of representation on the committee, no fewer than 15 or 16 additional people. This creates problems of sheer numbers.
One sector of interest which no one has mentioned is the diversity of colleges which will be funded. I believe that we will have to keep in mind that diversity and consider how the colleges ought to have some feeling that their interests are being looked after at first hand when the committee is set up.
Finally, there is the artificiality of quotas. I come back to where I started, I do not attach much importance to a majority on such a committee. I know that my right honourable friend hopes and intends that it will be a committee of people mainly and primarily chosen for personal qualities, but keeping in mind the interests mentioned in subsection (5) paragraphs (a) and (b). Basically for those reasons, we do not believe that the Bill is silent as concerns the majority.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. I was not going down the road of representatives, but simply arguing that the majority of the council should consist of people who know what they are doing. I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I was grateful to the Minister for saying that he would not repeat that argument from the Front Bench. However, since the argument has been put forward, I must join with it.
I have always felt a profound suspicion of anyone who announces that they are using a model. It is a phrase that I used to associate with the Left. Now I more commonly associate it with the Right. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was using a model drawn from industry. Suppose I take part in a debate on industry and I thought that the arrangements of industry ought to be altered because it was necessary to diminish the power of the tutors at the expense of the pupils. Peers with experience of industry would feel a certain bewilderment. That is the bewilderment which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made me feel.
There is a big difference between this and the ordinary business of servicing a customer. With the latter the question normally is: what does the customer want? One has to attempt to provide that and the customer, necessarily and rightly, acquires a certain authority from it. Since the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, introduced the example of medicine, it is peculiarly clear that what is the best medical treatment does not depend on what the patient thinks. Patients have thought some remarkable things in that field. They used to think, for example, that a live sheep on the bed was the appropriate cure for measles. Similarly, in education, whether it is right does not depend on whether the alleged consumer believes it is right. There are certain objective questions involved.
We are getting the imposition here of an alien code of values from people who do not understand what they are doing. The effect is becoming a little like that of telling one's garage mechanic that one thinks he is spending too long mending the car and he had better not tighten the wheel nuts because it is a waste of time. The level of ignorance with which this is done is occasionally going beyond that level. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I have no alternative but to commend the amendment to the Committee and press it to a Division.
8.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 73.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hamwee, B.

David, B.

Hylton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Longford, E.

539

McCarthy, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Mulley, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Seear, B.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Aldington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Annaly, L.

Lawrence, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bethell, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norfolk, D.

Caithness, E.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cox, B.

Radnor, E.

Craigavon, V.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stockton, E.

Flather, B.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Waddington, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("(c) persons who have experience of, or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 15 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 98, 129, 223 and 269. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that at least one member of the funding councils and the quality assessment committees will have some experience or knowledge of students with learning difficulties. Amendment No. 98 to Clause 6 would ensure that funding decisions would also be made in consultation with someone who had such experience.
We have already had quite a debate on representation so I shall try not to go over the same ground again. As my noble friend Lord Henderson pointed out, these amendments are concerned with people with experience of students with learning difficulties, not representatives. They could also encompass users of education. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to that matter. Why do we need people with experience of learning difficulties? We need them, for example, to judge the value of courses
540
on social skills for people with a mental handicap. Such courses are vital if those people are to play an active part in society. However, those courses require a higher level of funding than other courses for possibly a limited number of people.
In the case of deaf students, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf states that the differing needs of people with different types of deafness will require different kinds of support. The RNID states that without some expertise in this area planning can be little better than guesswork. The Royal National Institute for the Blind states that within the past 10 years the number of blind and partially sighted students attending higher education institutions has increased by 200 per cent. In further education the increase has been even more dramatic.
Although opportunities and support for blind and partially sighted students are still not totally satisfactory, there has been some improvement brought about by an increase in understanding on the part of those responsible for further and higher education. The RNIB has commented that it would be extremely unfortunate if this impetus were to be lost. These amendments would prevent that impetus being lost.
In 1970, 21 years ago, various sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act introduced representation on committees in the form of people with knowledge of disabilities. I remember that Act well as it was the first occasion I moved an amendment. I added my name to the amendment and I happened to be the only person to do so who had returned from dinner when the amendment was called. I did not have a clue what to do, but the Minister on the Front Bench—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—sent me a note with the words "I beg to move" written on it. The amendment was accepted. These amendments are sensible and they have the support of disability organisations. They also have all-party support. I remain an optimist as we have not long returned from dinner. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to add to what the noble Baroness has said. We are discussing difficulties that are experienced by a wide group of people. Therefore we need people with experience of these problems to tackle the difficulties. Such people will at least know where to start. The range of learning difficulties is wide. Therefore we need someone to tackle those difficulties who at least knows his way around the system. We have already heard about people with different types of deafness and about people who have impaired eyesight. I am most familiar with the problem of dyslexia. I know there are different kinds of dyslexia that require different kinds of help. We should also consider those people who have difficulties with movement. At the very least we need people who can get round these problems and who know the relevant people to contact. I suggest that the Government look favourably at this amendment. It is important that we should not accidentally exclude from the provisions of the Bill a considerable percentage of our population.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment that was so briefly but persuasively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). It will not surprise the Committee to learn that I wish to refer mainly to the mentally handicapped. I remind the Committee that there are roughly 400,000 mentally handicapped people in this country at any one time. There are probably more, but there are at least 400,000. Many of those people die much younger than three-score years and ten. I would say there are probably as many as 100,000 such people who are of school age or of an age where they can receive further education. It so happens—it has worked out like this by chance—that teachers of normal children do not gain experience of the provision of special education, as it is termed, for those of school age.
Clause 1(4) states that the Secretary of State,
"shall have regard to the desirability of including—
(a) persons who appear to him to have experience … in, the provision of education".
That measure stated in that bald and general way, will not cover the experience that other people have gained in the provision of special education for mentally handicapped people. It would be regrettable if we did not invite the Government to consider very carefully the need for an amendment on these lines.
There are many causes and types of mental handicap and varying degrees of learning difficulty among mentally handicapped people. With that in mind, it is very interesting to note that within the field of special education a tremendous amount has been done for mentally handicapped people, including discovering unexpected skills in particular people. Therefore, in making this new provision for further and higher education—and particularly further education in this context—if we are to do the job thoroughly we must make sure that the needs of the mentally handicapped and the people who have knowledge of those needs are properly dealt with.
9 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said in her charming and persuasive speech. There is very little that needs to be added.
I thought that the battle had been won long ago. The noble Baroness said that she won the argument as long ago as when Lord Beswick was a Minister. It must be an oversight that the provisions set out in the block of amendments which we have moved tonight have not been included in the Bill. I believe that the principle has been conceded by governments, and I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will concede tie principle underlying the amendment.
Unless the councils and the assessment committees include people with the specialised knowledge which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said is required in order to be able to understand the needs of the mentally handicapped and many physically handicapped people, those people will be neglected. Therefore, I ask the Government to honour the undertakings which they have given for many years. I hope that if our amendments are not in precisely the form which the
542
Government would like, they will return to the matter at a later stage, perhaps themselves initiating amendments in a form of which they approve.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has added his name to the amendments but cannot be here this evening. One has the happy feeling that the amendments express a view held unanimously in all parts of the Chamber.
Baroness Young: We have all been very impressed by the speech and the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and those of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Belstead will say in reply, but I can imagine that he will feel that the amendment falls into the category of those we have already discussed in relation to representatives of those involved in further education.
Lord Renton: No.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may continue with my argument and then I shall give way. What is being asked for is to include people who would represent those with handicaps.
Lord Renton: With great respect to my noble friend, speaking for myself, and I am sure for others who support the amendment, I do not suggest that there should be, for example, a representative from MIND or from MENCAP or from any particular body which looks after the mentally handicapped. I say merely, as with the earlier paragraph at the bottom of page 1 to which I referred, that the funding councils should include people who have knowledge and experience of the requirements of the mentally handicapped. That is quite different.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I hope that the noble Baroness will permit one more intervention. The amendment has been drafted specifically so that it does not import the meaning of representatives. It is not intended that there should be representatives who are in the pocket of the organisations which lobby us with such persistence.
Baroness David: I rise only to make it quite clear that we on these Benches support the amendment which has been moved so attractively and which has all round support.
Baroness Young: I accept what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I am not responding to the debate; that will be for my noble friend the Minister. I am not a lawyer, but I can see that the amendment could be read either in the way that has been suggested or as meaning somebody who would be a representative.
What I was going to say, because I hoped that it would be of some encouragement, was that Clause 4(3)—which makes the matter plain by placing a new duty on the further education funding councils to have regard to the needs of people with learning difficulties—includes the same definition as that contained in current legislation. I hope that that may be of some help because it is an important point.

543
I also hope that my noble friend may be able to say what happens to those over the age of 16 who have handicaps of one sort or another. That is a matter of anxiety because there have been some well-known cases in which young men or women have been unable to continue their education for one reason or another because of their handicaps. It is very important that we should be assured that the very best arrangements are made for them. It would be helpful if my noble friend, in responding, could say something about that point because it is an important one.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask her a question. We welcome Clause 4. We were conscious of it when the amendment was moved. But does she not think that a funding council would be in a much better position to exercise its functions under Clause 4 if there were someone on the council who, in the words of the amendment, had:
"experience of, or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties"?
The Earl of Radnor: I too should like to support the amendment. I shall start with Clause 4. Clause 4 is all very well, but we have not debated it yet and it would be a great deal better if it were altered and strengthened on the lines of the amendments that have been tabled for discussion when we come to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, recently initiated a debate on this subject. It was apparent from that debate that a number of people who left school at 16 were illiterate. There is a problem here whether it is caused by mental troubles, dyslexia, deafness or anything else. One might have hoped that the problem would have been rectified for most of those children by now, but it has not been. Indeed, we are becoming more illiterate. We must remember that literacy is the very beginning of education. If you cannot read or write, you are in serious trouble. You will go out into the world and will not be a great deal of good to society, you are more likely to absorb taxes than pay them and you will be a perfect nuisance to everyone and a great sadness to your relations and probably yourself as well.
It is almost inconceivable that there should not be a proper proportion of people with the appropriate knowledge on those councils so that they can advise. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that that is important, as is a strengthened Clause 4. It is the last chance for those people. They have rumbled through school and something has gone wrong. Further education is needed, not to make them bright but to make them capable of living a reasonably pleasant life. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: I too should like to support the principle behind the amendments. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I am not sure that the amendment that we are discussing is in the right place in the Bill, but I say that for a rather different reason; namely, that my experience has led me to believe that disabled people in the widest sense do not like to be singled out. They like to live, as we all do, to the limits of their particular capacity, or perhaps in this context I should more rightly say incapacity. I should
544
therefore like reference to provision for those with learning difficulties to appear in subsection (4) (a) rather than on page 2.
Lord Renton: With great respect to my noble friend, I must apologise to him. I cannot have made myself clear. I had hoped to suggest that we needed the amendment to Clause 1. I am not wedded to the drafting, but I am sure that it comes pretty close to what we require.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must have misinterpreted my noble friend, but nonetheless I stand by my view, with or without his support, that it would be far better to amend Clause 1(4) rather than to add a new paragraph (c) towards the beginning of page 2.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We have this evening on the Marshalled List a series of amendments relating to education for students with disabilities and learning difficulties. This is the first and I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I offer one or two general comments at this stage. I shall try not to be too long and come quickly to the amendments that we are debating.
As the Committee knows, the Government's intention in the Bill is to make changes in the structures by which further education is delivered. We are not here setting out to change the nature of the further education activity that happens through those structures. That general principle holds true for students with learning difficulties as much as for any other student.
The amendments that have been tabled relating to students with learning difficulties can be separated into two kinds. Some seek to ensure that in the transition to the new structures the arrangements for students with learning difficulties are not accidentally weakened or harmed in some way. That is also the Government's aim. It is the Committee's job to check that the Government have thought of all the potential difficulties and I look forward to that kind of constructive probing. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate that we have not overlooked anything.
The second type of amendment relating to students with learning difficulties has a different purpose—to secure improvements on the present arrangements. I have great sympathy with that motivation. Who does not? The Committee will not hear me arguing that it is undesirable to attempt to improve the educational opportunities available to students with learning difficulties. However, I may need to argue in some cases that the amendment would not produce an improvement, and in other cases that the aspiration is unrealistic.
We do not believe that our record on education for people with disabilities is discreditable. On the contrary, we brought forward and have now implemented the 1981 Education Act which transformed the system for children with special educational needs. For students in higher education the major extension of the disabled students' allowance at the start of the last academic year has opened up a new range of possibilities.

545
We are as keen as anyone to secure real improvements. However, as a responsible Government we are also prepared to say that there are limits to what can be done. We shall not try to court popularity by promising more than the nation can afford. [shall be unashamed in arguing where necessary that an amendment that seeks to create a new duty in relation to students with disabilities would give that group undue priority in the many and various calls on the taxpayers' resources.
On these amendments, first, we do not underestimate the needs of people with special educational needs. The amendment requires the Secretary of State in making appointments to a further education funding council to have regard to the desirability of including persons who have experience or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government consider that there is no necessity to put that specific requirement on the face of the Bill. As has been said, the further education funding councils are not intended to be representative bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and others have suggested that the amendment does not involve representation of bodies. However, I believe that it amounts to very much the same thing.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with backgrounds in education, industry, commerce and the professions. But members will be chosen primarily for their personal qualities. That must be the right approach, given the enormous responsibilities that would be laid on the councils.
For a council of 12 to 15 people, it is important that the Government should have maximum flexibility in the choice of people to serve. The Secretary of State is required under the Bill to have regard to the desirability of including people with experience of, or who have shown capacity in, the provision of education The word "education" must include education for those with special educational needs. Any special provision for the appointment of persons who have experience of, or knowledge of, the requirements for students with learning difficulties is therefore unnecessary.
The Committee can be sure that the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the councils, will wish to maintain a sensible balance in the experience, skills and expertise that council members can bring to bear. The funding councils will have a range of specific duties, one of which relates to students with learning difficulties. That is the subject of Clause 4. When the Secretary of State makes appointments, I give the Committee: an assurance that he will choose people in the light of the specific duties that will be required to be discharged.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about people over 16. The Bill is intended to ensure that the possibility of continuing their education is available. The present requirement to ensure that that provision is available is continued by the Bill. Clause 4 may be the best place to debate that matter.
As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, he stated that the principle was
546
conceded of having people with such experience available for those councils. We cannot yield on the principle of representation, about which I have spoken. He suggested that we bring forward a government amendment. I have been impressed by the force of arguments. Yielding nothing on the principle of representation, I shall naturally reflect on everything that Members of the Committee have said today. In the meantime, in the light of my arguments, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness decides whether to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say how splendid it is that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider the matter further. In order to embody the arguments that he has already used, and to meet the purpose of the amendment, will it help him if, after the words, at line 26 on page 1, "the provision of education", there were added, "including special education" or such words as, "the education of students with learning difficulties?" That would appear to be a good way of reconciling the argument with the needs of the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My noble friend is trying to be helpful. Such a solution occurred to me but without the benefit of expert advice I cannot consider it. I shall study the matter carefully and I thank my noble friend for his suggestion.
Baroness Seear: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. However, we are constantly being told that these people will be appointed on the basis of their personal qualities. Will the Minister tell us what the personal qualities are and how they will be assessed? It is a serious matter of selection and one that has defeated many expert people. How will the Secretary of State decide?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I cannot prejudge what is in the mind of my right honourable friend. I imagine that people such as the noble Baroness will be selected for their personal qualities.
Baroness Seear: That is absolutely no answer to the question.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Will the Minister kindly agree to consult those of us who have an interest—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as well as the noble Baroness and others—before making up his mind for the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I value the noble Lord's suggestion. Perhaps on this occasion the best way forward would be to consult.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank all Members of the Committee who have joined in the debate and given their support. Many have experience of people with special needs. I believe that the amendment is in the right place. The funding councils must make major decisions for which they will need background knowledge. The assessment committees need the knowledge to judge what provision is appropriate.
At first I was disappointed with the Minister's reply and was becoming gloomy. Suddenly there was a ray of light and after being pressed by my noble friend

547
Lord Henderson we appeared to be getting somewhere. I am grateful for that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her initial kind comments. The amendment does not relate to people who are representative of organisations but to someone with a basic background knowledge of special needs. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, one cannot have people who have experience of being blind, deaf or mentally handicapped but people with a little knowledge in those fields. It is a complicated area and at least someone with a little knowledge will know where to start. That is the important point. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that in his experience disabled people do not wish to be singled out. However, special education is different and one needs someone with knowledge of it.
I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have joined in the debate. I thank the Minister for the latter part of his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 19, after ("provision") insert ("as determined by local education authorities").
The noble Lord said: We return to the question of why the Government are excluding all influence of local education authorities from further education. We are doing so on the basis of Clause 2. In Clause 1 we tried several times to make them advisory, to put them in the regional structure, to make them consultative and so forth. The Minister who spoke previously, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave the Committee three reasons for not doing so—plurality of methodology, which the Government are against; the sovereignty of college principals, of which they are in favour; and the principle of the generality of ministerial creatures who cannot be specified except that they must be acceptable to Ministers. Those are the three principles which we have had so far. I hope that if this amendment is not accepted by the Government, at least they will give another reason for not accepting it.
We are now dealing with functions rather than individuals. That is what Clause 2 is about. This amendment proposes that we should keep the councils with their present proposed personnel and retain the sovereignty of college principals, and the money and the accountability should be retained. However, when deciding how to use the money one should take into account, on the demand side, the views of the local education authorities. That is the effect of the amendment.
By this time one is able to anticipate the answers which the Government may give. I suppose the best answer for them to advance is that there is nothing to be learned from local authorities and that in effect they have no knowledge, experience or good will. There is nothing to be discovered from them and, therefore,
548
there is no way whatever in which they need to be involved at any stage in the further use of facilities for further education because they have nothing to tell us.
We have not been told that. That has not been said today. The nearest to that was an example given by a Member on the opposite side of the Committee that frequently college principals wish to innovate, to produce new courses and to take new departures and the old local education authorities will not allow them to do that. If we had time I am sure that we could give as many examples of principals of colleges not wishing to innovate, to advance or to produce new courses in new skills; for example, word processing. We know what academics always say when they are asked to do something new. They say that they will have to change their lectures, that there are not enough people available or that it will take a great deal of effort and there are no facilities. We know that local education authorities, governors and people who are not academics are sometimes required to persuade professional people to move.
Any balanced account of the past or present will show that those who come forward from local education authorities sometimes make the most innovative, progressive and advanced suggestions. Therefore, they should not be excluded totally from the process. This amendment suggests a way of involving them. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, it sounds as though there would be a gentle form of consultation in which the local education authorities could have their input and then there would be some sort of decision. It is not made entirely clear who would take the decision.
This amendment is about local education authorities making a decision as to what should be the provision for education in a particular area and sector of education over which they no longer have control. On those grounds, I resist it.
Lord McCarthy: There is only one answer to that. Will the Minister favour an amendment on Report which provides for gentle consultation?
Lord Belstead: The answer to that is no.
Lord McCarthy: I am not surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 20, after ("facilities") insert ("free of charge to the student").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this amendment by telling me that I do not understand the Bill and that the worries which I am about to express cannot possibly arise.
Education for 16 to 19 year-olds in this country is currently free. It is free in sixth form colleges, sixth forms and tertiary and further education colleges. Everybody believes in all sections of education and on all sides of the Committee that we should do a great deal more to encourage young people in that age

549
group to stay on in education and we must improve the education which they receive. There is no argument whatever about that.
To put it at its mildest, it would be slightly odd if charging were possible in any form for that age group. To introduce any disincentive for that age group to be in education would be crazy. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say—and this is the reason for my opening remarks —that there is nothing in the Bill which could allow charging to be introduced for education for that age group. It may be noted that I use the word "could", not "would." I do not wish to be told that it could but the Minister will not do it. I am asking a straight question and wish to be told that it cannot happen.
My problem concerns Clause 12(9) (a) where a section of the 1988 Act, which states categorically that no charges can be made for admission to maintained schools, seems to be repealed. It is said that that section will not apply to,
"part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons of any age over compulsory school age".
Any age over compulsory school age includes 16 to 19 year-olds.
I wish to be told that I simply do not know how to read the Bill. But that paragraph seems to state categorically that charging can be introduced. I wish to be told that I do not understand the Bill and that there is not the slightest possibility that charging can be introduced. That is my point. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: If the section to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, refers has been repealed, I would hope to find it included in Schedule 9, the repeals schedule. I cannot find it.
Earl Russell: I am extremely relieved to hear that. However, as the question has been raised, it requires a ministerial answer. The principle of free education is one of great importance. When one increases the price of anything one is liable to reduce the demand for it. I do not see how a free market government can easily deny that. The effect is particularly intense in the 16 to 19 age group with which we are at present dealing. When those in education and still being maintained by their parents see contemporaries going out into the world and earning what appear to them big wages, intense financial pressure is created. I have watched my children subjected to that pressure in recent years and so have some awareness of its intensity. It seems to me that. the introduction of charging in that age group would have a double disincentive effect. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, therefore, I hope to be told that it cannot happen here.
Lord Belstead: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is an important one. At the moment of delivery further education should be free of charge. The noble Lord said that he wished to hear that in this Bill that was something that could not possibly be other than the case. However, I must say to the noble Lord that as a matter of practice now, as the law stands, further education is free and tuition costs for young people aged 16 to 18 in full-time
550
education are met. As I am advised, there is nothing in the law to say that, but it has always been a matter of practice that there are no charges for tuition at the point of delivery; that further education shall have no further charges made.
They are not made; they are never made. If I may go a stage further, there is no intention that the establishment of further education funding councils should lead to any change in existing practice. Tuition for full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds will continue to be free both in colleges of further education and in former sixth form colleges. A requirement that all full-time education should be free of charge to the student would, however, have implications for the colleges. That is where the situation that exists now becomes more difficult. Under present legislation further education colleges are not prevented from making charges to students, as I have said. For example, students on catering courses meet some charges for materials. The amendment would prohibit that. It must be for the further education colleges to judge, as they are able to do under existing legislation, the priorities for the funds available to them. I am sure that Members of the Committee seeking this amendment would not wish to remove that flexibility which is already available to further education authorities.
There is very little that I can add to that. The subsection which the noble Lord read out is to allow maintained schools to charge fees for the provision of,
"part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons of any age over compulsory school age; or full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of nineteen years".
That does not change the situation which I have been trying to put across to the noble Lord. When he says to me that he wants an undertaking that there could be no charges made in further education, that simply is not the law at the present time. It is a matter of practice. I give an unequivocal undertaking that there is no intention that the establishment of further education funding councils would lead to any change in that existing practice.
Lord Peston: This is now a very serious matter and the noble Lord has made me more upset. There is no shadow of doubt that the subsection in the Bill that I have quoted uses the words "no charges for admission". It does not refer to charging for the use of materials in a catering course. I am absolutely certain that there have been no fees for admission to schools, colleges or any of these other bodies for the 16 to 19 year-olds since the 1944 Act was passed. What the noble Lord has said will certainly come as news to almost everybody in education that charging was in some sense a serious possibility.
The noble Lord has not answered my question. Why has this subsection been put in? No charges for admission are included in the 1988 Act. But that is now amended to allow charges for admission to maintained schools. That is a matter of the utmost seriousness. The matter cannot be allowed to stand on the basis of an assurance that the Secretary of State is not thinking of doing that because it is a fundamental matter of principle. To go back to our earlier debate,

551
it is one of the unfortunate consequences of what the Government are doing about schools in endeavouring to unify in a peculiar way the FE sector. I cannot let the matter go just like that. As far as I am concerned this is about as fundamental a principle as we could possibly debate in this Bill.
Lord Belstead: I do not believe that there is anything sinister in this at all. As the noble Lord knows, in the Bill there is provision for schools to be able to have part-time further education. There are restrictions that those who come in to further education schools shall not receive further education in the same places as the pupils who are in the schools. I shall certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord if I am wrong in this matter, but as I understand it as regards the schools taking in further education students, that would put the law in exactly the same position as it is for further education colleges. I do not believe that I can explain the matter better than that this evening. If I am wrong I shall most certainly write to the noble Lord and see to it that a copy of the letter goes into the Library.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. I am in great difficulties. There is no doubt what the Bill says. As the noble Lord rightly says, it refers to charging for part-time education in schools but for the 16 to 19 year-old group. I do not believe that is sinister. I assume that the Government are doing it on purpose, but I regard it as an outrage that they should be introducing the possibility of charging in schools for that group whether it is part time or full time. It may be that the noble Lord is still telling me that I do not understand what is being said. As I regard this matter as so important I just cannot let it go. Before I make my final decision can the noble Lord tell me that I do not understand and that there is no possibility of charging in schools for 16 to 19 year-olds? Can he tell me that that possibility does not exist?
Lord Belstead: I do not think that I can yet again repeat what I have said. I went over the ground that under the Bill it is possible for further education to be delivered in main line schools. The noble Lord is no doubt familiar with that point. Restrictions are put in the Bill on the way in which that can be done. I am saying that my understanding of that particular subsection which is troubling the noble Lord—and, indeed, is troubling me—is that it puts the law as regards further education in schools on a par with the way in which the law stands at present. However, it does not alter the fact, which I should emphasise, that the position for further education is that there will not be charges under existing legislation (even though there could be charges). I give an unequivocal undertaking that it is not intended to charge for tuition in further education.
I reiterate the point, which I think we have lost, that this is a more complicated area than it may seem. I gave one example of why it is a complicated area in regard to catering colleges.
Lord Peston: I appreciate that this is a complicated area. I understand fully the logic that essentially these
552
schools are going to admit further education pupils along the same line as the FE colleges. Since I did not know that, I accept the noble Lord's remarks that the FE colleges can in theory charge part-time pupils in that age group.
The Government—for reasons completely beyond me—think that, for logical purposes, in theory the schools ought to be able to charge even though they are not going to. I have to say that I still regard moving into charging in schools as so appalling that I cannot emphasise too much to the noble Lord what an important departure from principle that is. To use his earlier words, it is nothing to do with his bona fides or the bona fides of the current Secretary of State. It is a matter that is almost of more importance than any other matter connected with education that I have debated in your Lordships' House in all the years I have been here. On that basis I have to go on record—at least for me—of insisting on my amendment to ascertain the view of the Committee.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 59.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Annaly, L.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bethell, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Norfolk, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Norrie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Caithness, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Radnor, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Reay, L.

Coleraine, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cumberlege, B.

Seccombe, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grey, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Waddington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
9.50 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("and all such persons up to the age of 25 who have a learning difficulty.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30. It is a very important amendment. Its purpose is to allow students with learning difficulties to receive education beyond the age of 18 on the same basis, especially as regards costs, as those under 19 years of age. Many people with learning difficulties are leaving school and college at the age of 18 or 19 very much under-qualified. There are a variety of difficulties which they face and needs which they have. By the age of 19, many of these students have not had the time to catch up with their more normal contemporaries. They desperately need the opportunity to continue to learn after the age of 19 so that their chances of going on to higher education and into the job market are in line with those of their peers.
Of course not all students with learning difficulties would need extra time. Indeed, some at the age of 19 will have grades sufficient for them to go on into higher education or into work where their needs may be catered for by the disabled student's allowance in higher education or the Disablement Advisory Service. Others, in the hope of qualifying for higher education or gaining a better job, may try to continue in further education beyond the age of 19. A small number of them are successful in applying for discretionary grants from their local education authorities. These may cover the costs of fees but they seldom cover the full costs of a student's support needs.
Sadly, with current funding pressures, fewer authorities are able to afford discretionary awards. Few students can pay their own way at this stage for they will be looking not only for course fees and the costs of maintenance but also for the costs of whatever support they use as a result of their disabilities. For deaf students that might include an interpreter, a note-taker or extra tutorial support. There are other needs for the blind, and so on. The costs become prohibitive for all but the very richest families.
I should like to give the Committee one example of a deaf student called Adam. He was doing a two-year City and Guilds course. His 19th birthday fell in his second year. His LEA refused to fund beyond 18. He left college in the middle of the course without any qualifications. His story is not unique; indeed, we have heard about many other students who have had their grant withdrawn on their 19th birthday. The situation is monstrous.
An extension in the age limits for students with learning difficulties is not intended to give privileges to the group but to redress the imbalance which arises during compulsory education because of problems with language, communication or other needs. I believe that this is an important matter. It is something
554
about which many people have been worried for some time. I hope that the Government will be a little more sympathetic this time. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to express my support for the noble Baroness, Lady David, and echo two things that she said. First, what this really amounts to is the catch-up factor. If someone is disabled he can get left behind his mental peers. He will not reach the attainments of his peers at the same age because of his disabilities. I do not need to be specific because the noble Baroness gave us a very good example. Clearly, if someone has such disabilities he will not reach the same entrance standards as his non-disabled peers. Therefore, an extension of time is needed. That is what the amendment would provide. That is the first way in which I should like to support the noble Baroness.
Secondly, I should like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, said in reply to Amendment No. 15. I think that the answer came from his brief and not from his heart, because he said that the amendments were designed to give some kind of privilege to disabled people at the expense of the general taxpayer. That is not the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that it is not so. It is not a privilege we are seeking; it is equality of treatment. The Minister will find that mentioned in the Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper. The amendment is doing no more than implement what he said: there is to be equality of opportunity. Unless there is an extension of time there will not be equality of opportunity for disabled people with learning difficulties and special needs. I need say no more. It is an important amendment which I support wholeheartedly.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I add my support to the amendment. The case was made strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and by my noble friend Lord Henderson. I shall go a little further than my noble friend in talking about equality of opportunity. It is a false economy not to extend provision beyond the age of 19 when, by doing so, we could enable students to improve their job opportunities. They could then make their way in the world and pay taxes or merely survive in the community when they have acquired the life skills necessary to enable them to live independently.
Lord Addington: People with learning difficulties will be at a disadvantage until they have acquired the skills necessary to overcome those difficulties. That almost certainly means that they will have a period of catching up. All the amendment does is to prolong the period during which they will be given the opportunity to acquire life skills, as the noble Baroness said. As she also said, if we do not give them the extra period of time, we shall be condemning them—that is the best way to put it—for the rest of their lives to being unable to compete in the job market. Surely to allow them a little extra time to train and acquire the skills necessary will benefit society as a whole and not just those with special needs.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The two amendments would add a new duty in relation to students with learning difficulties. In our debate on Amendment No. 15, which has been referred to, I explained that prudence would not allow us to accept every amendment that added to the present substantial duties relating to students with learning difficulties, however desirable that principle may be. That applies to these two amendments against which I must argue.
It may be helpful if I first explain what the existing duties are and how the Bill carries them over into the new structures. Existing legislation distinguishes between students in the 16 to 18 age group on the one hand, and those aged 19 plus, or adults, on the other. For 16 to 18 year-olds, the 1944 Act requires that there must be sufficient further education. For adults, that Act requires that there should be adequate further education. Those two requirements are replicated in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.
The requirements apply to all students, including those with disabilities. There is however an additional requirement in relation to students with disabilities. The 1944 Act requires the local education authorities, in securing the provision of further education, specifically to have regard to the needs of persons having learning difficulties. That requirement is replicated in Clause 4 of the Bill where it is applied to the further education funding councils. Clause 11 also maintains the existing requirement on the LEAs where they retain the responsibility for securing the educational provision.
Those are real and substantial duties with regard to students with disabilities. The Bill maintains them, and applies them in addition to the FEFCs. The amendments would extend those duties by extending the age up to which sufficient provision must be available from 18 to 25. At present, for students aged 19 or over, there is a discretion to be exercised as to the provision to make. These amendments would remove the funding council's ability to balance priorities. We do not believe that constraint to be helpful. Where adults are concerned, it is essential that councils are
556
able to judge how their resources are best employed to meet the needs of all students including those with learning difficulties.
I understand the argument that some adults with learning difficulties may take longer to reach a given standard of achievement than other adults, but the Bill does not put an age limit on the entitlement to further education. The statutory duties apply to adults of all ages. It is important that they should do so without any artificial cut-off at 25, as the amendments propose. It is important and worth repeating that the duty in the Bill in relation to students with learning difficulties contains no upper age limit.
I have heard it argued that there is a risk that students will be excluded from courses when they reach their 19th birthday. The existing legislation will certainly not permit a systematic policy of age-based exclusions. It will not permit that when carried over to the FEFCs.
The duty towards students with learning difficulties in Clause 4 will ensure that students are able to remain in full-time further education beyond 18, if that is what they want and if the further education funding council judges it to be appropriate. But I repeat that it is essential that judgment can be made. We cannot tie the funding councils to an open-ended commitment to provide for adults on demand. In the light of that, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I do not find that at all a satisfactory reply. In the end, "having regard to" means nothing. It can be disregarded. From what the Minister said, there is nothing which will help the people I mentioned who have their funding quickly cut off at their 19th birthday.
It is late and I shall not divide the Committee but I am not satisfied with the answer. I shall certainly come back at the next stage. I have noted what the Minister said about the age and will have discussions with my fellow Peers who put their names to the amendment. However, I can promise the Minister that we shall return to the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) If it appears to either of the Councils that the funds placed at their disposal are not sufficient to permit them to discharge their duties under this section, they shall inform Parliament accordingly.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to give the further education funding council power to inform Parliament that the Secretary of State has not provided it with enough money to carry out the duties he has imposed upon it. This is not the same as simply saying that it is entitled to ask for more money. It is to say that there is a mismatch between the duties which are imposed upon it and the money given it to discharge those duties.
Parliament and the Secretary of State, were they to believe the funding council on this point, would be able either to increase the funding or to reduce the duties. The amendment does not usurp any constitutional prerogative of deciding how much money shall be spent. But it happens from day to day that people believe that the Secretary of State has not provided enough money for his purposes. The Secretary of State will of course say that that is an ex parte view. So it is. But so equally is the view of the Secretary of State that that is not the case.
When two completely contradictory ex parte views are held, both of them with growing passion, and in some casts with increasing desperation, it is important that the conflict between them should in some way be justiciable. Where we are arguing about whether the Secretary of State has discharged his duties in a satisfactory manner, surely under present arrangements the. competent body to do that is Parliament. That is why the amendment provides that it should be the duty of the funding council to notify Parliament that the funds that the Secretary of State has provided are insufficient.
The Secretary of State is not infallible. He is capable of making mistakes. So are we all. There has to be some means to control the exercise of his power when he does. The provision of insufficient funds year after year has a cumulative effect which may become serious.
I hope the Secretary of State is not above the law, but I do not know whether his powers in this respect are subject to judicial review under the Wednesbury principle. I should imagine that the answer to that is no. However, I should be interested to hear the answer. This provision is the best way of dealing with the matter because at present one may say that the Secretary of State has not provided sufficient funds but there is no appropriate action to take other than abandoning one's profession. That is a somewhat desperate remedy. It appears that the number of people who would need to do that before the Secretary of State would listen would constitute a great many more people than the profession could spare and retain a power of survival.
Parliament also has a legitimate interest in this matter. Parliament occasionally considers such arguments as the one I am putting forward now. Parliament may wonder whether those arguments are
558
soundly based. It knows the argument on both sides is ex parte. It could be to the advantage of Parliament to have a rather more judicial—if one may call it that—assessment from a body selected because it commanded the confidence of the Secretary of State. That would perhaps enable this Chamber to bring its mind to bear on this question in a rather more practical way. If we do not tackle this question this way, I should like to know how it can be brought home to the Secretary of State very strongly, by someone who believes the argument, that his funds are not sufficient. If one cannot do it that way, how can one bring it to a point of issue? I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the noble Earl, Lord Russell, envisage a single occasion when the funding council would consider it had adequate funds?
Earl Russell: That depends how one defines the purposes for which those funds are provided. I do not envisage a continuing rising standard of provision. I envisage the standard of provision which the Secretary of State himself envisages. In this Bill it is proposed to set up quality assessment committees to enforce a standard of provision. It is that standard, which the quality assessment committees would enforce, that I should imagine would be the standard the funding council would use. However, that is a question best left to that body's expert judgment which it is presumed to have. Otherwise the Secretary of State would not have appointed the members of that body.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that a dispute as regards the adequacy of funds for the performance of duties might in some way be justiciable. However, I believe he also recognised that it is exceedingly unlikely that such a dispute could be justiciable before the courts. As the noble Earl said, the dispute would have to be tested on the Wednesbury principle that the decision that had been made was so unreasonable that no reasonable Minister could have made it. That is a difficult burden of proof.
The rest of the noble Earl's speech indicated the outcome of such a dispute; namely, that it must be a matter for Parliament. The amendment of the noble Earl suggests that this matter should be referred in some way to Parliament. I have held a succession of ministerial offices in which I have had access to substantial spending powers and it has been my experience that the arrangements are not lacking to enable people to inform Ministers that they have not received enough money. Quite apart from the fact that we live in an open society with a free press and that Ministers are subject to questions in Parliament at frequent intervals, Parliament provides a machinery for bringing these matters home to roost to the Ministers concerned.
The work which is now done by the Select Committees in another place, where Ministers now appear not just in private committee but before the television cameras and can be questioned for two or three hours on end by Members of Parliament who are

559
very thoroughly and carefully briefed, puts Ministers under the spotlight in a way which does not happen in many other democratic countries in the world.
Ultimately it is for Parliament to decide how public money should be spent. The procedures are elaborate, and they are pursued. The result of the annual public expenditure round is published in the public expenditure survey report and is debated. It is open to anyone to move that the House should reject it and there are opportunities to review individual parts of that report. The Opposition has its Opposition days. We do not debate expenditure to such an extent in this Chamber because we are not responsible for raising taxation. However, it is an astonishing proposition to suggest that our democratic procedures are not already adequate to allow people who feel that provision is not sufficient for the duties which have been placed upon them to bring that to the attention of Parliament and the public through the press and all the media which are available.
I do not know what else would happen. There is nothing to prevent the secretary of the funding council being instructed by his council to write a letter to the chairman of the Select Committee on education saying that the council considers that a good subject for study would be the adequacy of the report. I do not see why he should not do that.
Earl Russell: There is a provision in the Bill that advice to the Minister shall be given in private. That is the subject of a later amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Advice can be given to the Minister in private. I am suggesting that if the secretary of the funding council wanted to write a letter to the clerk to the Select Committee on education asking him to bring the matter to the attention of the chairman of the Select Committee there is nothing unconstitutional or improper about his doing so. However, some people might raise their eyebrows and suggest that he might have followed other avenues first. One certainly does not need an amendment such as this one to enable him to do that. In the end it must be for the other place to decide, and there is ample machinery for that. I do not see that anything new is needed.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to reply to the noble Lord again, but he should study the report of the Public Accounts Committee of last January. The Committee drew the attention of the chief executive of the Universities Funding Council to the deficits of the University of London. It asked him why he had not brought that to the attention of Parliament. The chief executive replied, in my opinion perfectly correctly, that the Education Reform Act did not legally allow him to do so.
The forms of words in that Act are repeated in the Bill now before us. I have an amendment down to deal with it later. I very much look forward to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, when I move it.
Lord Belstead: Despite what the noble Earl said, I think that my noble friend Lord Jenkin is right. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury it is not entirely surprising that he is right.
Under existing legislation, no duty is placed on local education authorities to inform Parliament if it appears to them that the funds at their disposal are insufficient to permit them to discharge their duties. I see no reason why the new funding councils should be subject to a duty which is not applied to local education authorities.
I cannot possibly better the intervention of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who ended his quick tour d'horizon of the powers of another place in these matters and particularly the scope of the work of the Select Committees, which has increased enormously over the past 10 years or so, by saying that in the end it is for the House of Commons to decide. With respect to the noble Earl, I believe that is right.
I understand that it is time-honoured practice that there is no judicial review in these matters because it is for Parliament to vote the money. That shows that at the end of the day it is for Parliament, in the shape of the House of Commons, to decide such matters which concern the raising and spending of money.
Under Clause 8 the funding councils will be under a duty to provide such information or advice relating to the provision of further education as the Secretary of State may from time to time require. Again under Clause 8 the funding councils will also have the power to provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice relating to such provision as they think fit. It is perfectly true that that is not done publicly, but it means that the councils have ample scope to convey their advice or information about funding or other matters as they think fit.
With respect to the noble Earl, I do not think that the amendment gets us very far for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding in the sense that the House of Commons has the available information and is able, if it feels that it needs to do so, to conduct inquiries and investigations. At the same time the new councils will be able to tell the Secretary of State what their views are about the level of funding.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I had not intended to say anything that would in any way diminish Parliament's authority in the matter. If I gave that impression, I withdraw it absolutely and unreservedly.
It seems to me that the argument between us has boiled down to one thing. I should be completely happy if the Minister would give me an undertaking that if there is anything in the present legislation—either the Bill or the Education Reform Act—that inhibits a funding council from making its views known to Parliament, an amendment will be brought forward on Report to remove that restriction. Perhaps I may ask for that undertaking.
Lord Belstead: I am sorry. I cannot give the undertaking in exactly the way that the noble Earl seeks, but I shall reiterate what I said; namely, that the

561
funding councils will have the power to provide my right honourable friend with such information or advice relating to the provision that he makes as they think fit. The councils will therefore have ample scope to convey advice or information about funding or other matters as they think fit. It seems to me that they have plenty of power at their fingertips.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to ask for more clarification. Is the noble Lord saying that the funding councils may convey advice direct to Parliament or that it must go through the Secretary of State?
Lord Belstead: I am sorry. This is becoming slightly tedious. I did not say that at all. In my original remarks I referred specifically to Clause 8. If he cares to glance at it, the noble Earl will find what I have been talking about. I merely said that if the Bill goes on the statute book it will be open to the funding councils in future to be able to convey advice or information to the Secretary of State.
Earl Russell: The point has arrived at which I must withdraw my amendment, have a look at my papers and consider what happens further. I should like to thank the; Minister for his care and courtesy in responding to the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 25, after ("education") insert ("and are capable of benefiting from it").
The noble Earl said: This is a much smaller amendment. It simply seeks to insert the words,
"capable of benefiting from it".
I hope to be told that this is an unnecessary amendment and I should be glad to be told so.
The amendment arises from recalling the experience of an American colleague who was teaching in the 'sixties in a university with a peculiarly liberal view of an open access programme. He found that he was teaching his pupils to read. That is an extreme case. I should like to think that there will be some test of quality. Presumably that is understood and, if the Minister tells me so, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that I can satisfy the noble Earl, but I am surprised that he wants to be satisfied on this matter. It is a rather surprising amendment in that it appears to wish to restrict opportunities for further education for 16 to 18 year-olds.
As Clause 2(1) is drafted, the funding council's duty extends to all young people aged between 16 and 18 years who want full-time education suitable to their requirements. That is a less restrictive test than that put forward in the noble Earl's amendment. The subsection in the Bill provides for young people of all abilities to benefit from education and training provided within colleges in the new sector. I hope that the noble Earl, who has much more experience than I have in these matters, will say, "And as a matter of fact surely there is no young person who is not capable of benefiting from further education". However, to put the need to benefit into the legislation would
562
restrict the opportunities of 16 to 18 year-olds. I can only say that that is the case; and it is not what we aim to do.
Earl Russell: I did not mean to make a big issue of this. I wished only to bring the point to the Committee's attention. Having done so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("but does not include those covered by section 116 of the Education Act 1944 as amended.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because the Bill makes no mention of the national duty to provide some education in prisons. We are hoping that the Minister will satisfy us that the new arrangements under the Bill will not interfere with the present scheme under which the local education authorities co-operate with the prison department in providing education to prisoners.
It is not a big item. However, about 46,000 men and women are involved. Of those, about 7,500 are on remand and unconvicted. Many have to wait long months and sometimes years before they come to trial. The provision of education in prison service establishments is a Home Office responsibility. That will be no surprise to the Committee. Traditionally the Home Secretary has discharged that responsibility by inviting local education authorities to provide teaching staff and the related professional administrative advice, support and supervision that those staff need. In fact, that responsibility encompasses more or less the whole task.
Section 116 of the Education Act 1944, to which my amendment refers, as amended by the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, empowers LEAs to accept that invitation. LEAs have discretion as to the arrangements for managing staff engaged in prison education. In recent years most of them have decided that the best arrangement is to devolve the responsibility for providing education in prison to a college of further education. But the LEA continues to be actively involved and to provide support and advice. We are anxious that the arrangement should remain. We therefore seek to encourage the Minister to tell us that it will.
In a recent report, the Home Office stated,
"The partnership between the Prison Service and LEAs has generally worked well both at national and at local level".
For once we agree. The scheme has worked well and is in no way responsible for the serious shortcomings of prison education which result from the disorganised state of many prisons due largely to overcrowding. Most Members of the Committee have heard of events that give rise to trouble. I wish to speak about education and not about prison disturbances. However, roughly speaking, classes are frequently postponed for lack of supervisory staff, who have to act as escorts to different towns and courts. Allotted rooms are suddenly not available for a number of

563
organisational reasons. We hope with confidence that Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations will lead to a rapid improvement in those management problems. We also hope to see a real expansion and steady advance in the quality and quantity of prison education. While we hope for improvement in the aspects which are wrong we are nervous that the Bill may interfere with some of the aspects that work well.
I shall not waste the time of the Committee by explaining the vital importance of education in prisons as an antidote to boredom and the feeling of absolute uselessness which loss of liberty involves. It is almost the only way in which an active-minded man or woman can face a long sentence without despair. I could give many instances but I shall spare the Committee because it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
The Bill deals with further and higher education. Schedule 2 makes clear that many of the subjects listed are such as are required in almost any prison. Prison education is concerned with all kinds of education for all kinds of people. However, it is certain that vocational courses, courses of basic literacy or even the principles of mathematics would be welcome. All appear in Schedule 2 and are just what are needed. At present the local education authorities supply about 130 education officers. The prison department spends more than £20 million per year on education. That is about 3.5 per cent. of its total expenditure—not a great deal. To improve it will cost more but the money will have to come from the prison department and not from the newly-founded funding body. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Home Secretary whom we must still chase rather than the Secretary of State for Education? In other words, the duty to supply education officers remains with the LEAs on request with reimbursement from the prison department and the new funding councils will not undertake that responsibility.
I am sure that we shall be told that it makes no difference. Our view is that it makes a considerable difference. The system has worked well for 44 years. It is one of the few aspects concerned with finance that ever has worked well for 44 years and is not easily to be cast aside. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: This is complicated issue. Perhaps before looking at my brief it would be helpful if I said that the noble Lord certainly has a point. Responsibility for prison education rests firmly with the Home Office under existing legislation. It is the Government's intention that the responsibility should be unaffected by the Bill currently before the Committee. Decisions about what education should be made available for prisoners and the responsibility for funding such education should continue to be a matter for the prison service.
Section 116 of the 1944 Act gives local education authorities a power to make arrangements for prisoners to receive the benefit of educational facilities provided by them. The scope of that power is unaffected by the Bill. Local authorities will continue to be able to provide education for prisoners, although I confirm that they will still need to be invited to do so
564
by the Home Office. It will also be open to the Home Office to invite colleges in the new sector to provide any such education.
As a result of the noble Lord's amendment, we are looking again at the wording of Clauses 2 and 3. They place duties on the further education funding councils to secure the provision of sufficient facilities for certain types of education for the population of their areas.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I thank the Minister for that hopeful reply. At present the Home Office makes requests to the local education authorities but not to the further education colleges. The noble Lord said that the Home Office could make a request to the further education colleges. As I understand it, that is not the present system. It is done through the LEAs.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I take that on board when considering that there may be some possible misdrafting in Clauses 2 and 3. I return to my starting position. The noble Lord has a point which we should like to meet. That point is that the existing statutory position in relation to the education of prisoners should be preserved and we are not sure that we have preserved it by the use of the existing wording.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am most grateful and extremely pleased with that reply. It is the first answer for a long time which has given satisfaction in the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 35A:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert:
("(c) to have regard to the desirability of maintaining a significant number of institutions which arc of a denominational character and to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained in the support given by them as between institutions which are of a denominational character and other institutions.").
The right reverend Prelate said: I recognise that the place of the denominational institutions is referred to in Clause 6(3) which states that in exercising their functions the funding councils shall have regard to those denominations. In view of that, it seems appropriate that the duties of the council set out in this clause should include having regard to the desirability of maintaining a significant number of denominational institutions.
The amendment proposes that what is already in the Bill at Clause 6(3) should be strengthened and added into the duties imposed on the council. The institutions in mind here are not only those which exist at present but any which come into existence through reorganisation as indicated in Clause 56. This is not primarily of Church of England interest. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has more voluntary colleges in the category with which we are concerned. Therefore, it is in their interest as much as that of the Church of England that the council should have that duty laid clearly upon it in Clause 2. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: Speaking on behalf of these Benches, I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing the amendment. Originally, I did not believe this to be a matter of great importance but various denominational bodies - not only Church of England but also Roman Catholic - have contacted me. Clause 6(3), to which the right reverend Prelate has drawn our attention, states:
"so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations".
Various people have asked me what that means. I took a rather cynical view and said that it meant nothing but I would ask the Minister whether it has a meaning which anyone should worry about. Broadly, we support the amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: I support the amendment. One of the principal effects of the Bill is to transfer a certain number of institutions from the schools sector to the further education sector. They will cease to be governed by the legislation which previously applied to them; they will be governed by the new legislation. The institutions involved are the sixth form colleges. The majority are legally county schools but a certain number are voluntary schools; they are mostly Church schools and largely Catholic.
Legislation relating to schools has been developed over many years and makes careful provision for the position of voluntary schools. They may not be changed or closed without public notice and the approval of the Secretary of State. They are entitled to financial support. In recent years that has been in accordance with the local authorities' published and approved scheme for financial delegation to schools and largely on the basis of pupil numbers.
Further education institutions under the Bill will not have such specific guarantees and assurances. The new funding councils for further education will no doubt be technically able but will be bodies of a technocratic character which may not always be the ideal judges of the support to be given to a religious institution.
It is important that the legislation should state the importance of provision for religious institutions, and I realise that Clause 6(3) refers to that. It is better that reference should be included in Clause 2 under the heading of "Duties" along with the definitions and other miscellaneous matters. However, it should take the fuller and more straightforward wording of the amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Belstead: The amendment requires each further education funding council, in exercising its duty to secure the provision of sufficient facilities for full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds, to have regard to the desirability of maintaining a significant number of denominational institutions and an appropriate balance in the support made available as between denominational and other institutions. I am sure that it is the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford in moving the amendment to safeguard the future of denominational sixth form colleges in the new sector. Indeed, he was good enough to mention the matter generally and approve it with
566
regard to the right balance at Second Reading. The Government have made their views clear on that point and I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
I say that because we have exactly the same wording in the Bill as was contained in the Education Reform Act 1988 in relation to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector. It means, for example, having regard to overall provision in an area. Thus if there were overcapacity, that would need to be taken into account, and vice versa. As I understand it, the voluntary colleges have not felt themselves to be adversely affected in the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector.
The Government recognise that denominational sixth form colleges have a distinctive ethos and atmosphere and we value their contribution highly. The Committee will see evidence of this in the subsection mentioned, Clause 6(3), which places a duty on the funding councils similar in scope and effect to the amendment now proposed. As I said, that subsection is totally modelled on the Education Reform Act 1988.
I should like to examine the point again between now and Report stage without any commitment. Perhaps I may put it this way. Having gone out of our way to include Clause 6(3) in the Bill, if we feel that it is not doing the job correctly and the provision needs to be included in another clause—Clause 2 as suggested by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk—then we would seriously want to consider taking action on the matter. However, if the right reverend Prelate is prepared to accept from me that I shall seek advice on the matter, perhaps have a word with him before the next stage of the Bill and seriously consider whether we feel that there is a lacuna here, then that is the way I should like to leave the matter. I hope that will satisfy him this evening.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that he will look at the matter again. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I beg leave to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 61, 63, 75, 113, 115 to 117 and 122 to 125. That is a raft of amendments that we shall not have to discuss on other occasions. These amendments relate to a purely linguistic point that I raised at Second Reading. With so many substantial matters to be discussed, obviously I do not want to take up the time of the Committee with what some Members may consider to be trivia. But there is no reason why we should not get the trivia right, too. Indeed, it is our duty to do so.
I contend that we should not leave in the Bill at page 2, such phrases as the following in Clause 2(5),
"A council shall discharge their functions under this section",
when we have a perfectly good singular possessive adjective to do the job, which is "its" (functions). I can

567
see no good reason why a single body corporate should take a plural possessive adjective, or in other places which are addressed by other amendments in this group, a plural verb or a plural possessive pronoun. I am aware that we have all become accustomed to treating "Government" in the plural with the Government taking a plural verb. The Government is a hydra-headed or many-faceted organisation which may seem to justify that, although I do not like it. It still does not appear on the face of legislation because the Government as such does not appear on the face of a statute. The Government's standard bearer is always the Secretary of State, who naturally appears in the singular.
The councils referred to in the Bill are small bodies limited to 12 to 15 members, which is the limit of the main council. The fact that they are corporate bodies does not mean that they acquire some mysterious pluralism thereby. If one looks at the prospectus of any large corporate body (I have one here from British Telecommunications—BT) one finds that it refers to itself quite correctly in the singular in phrases such as "BT is determined" or "BT has also recently announced" or "BT attaches much importance to" or phrases of that nature. That is a huge corporate body with many divisions and ramifications. Incidentally, it also refers to the Government correctly because on the front page it says,
"The Government is planning to offer for sale to the public this November part of its remaining shareholding".
If BT can use the language correctly, I do not see why legislation should be absolved from so doing, particularly in an education Bill. I am aware that I have omitted quite a number of instances in which this abuse of the language occurs in the Bill. In fact, the virus creeps in in Clause 1 which I have overlooked. It is also present in Schedule 1 and at the beginning of Part II of the Bill when referring to higher education. If we can accept the principle that the Bill should be properly written in relation to these small details, then I do not believe that there will be any great difficulty at a later stage between myself and the Government in producing a series of amendments which would clean up the Bill in that respect and remove the virus from it.
I hope I have support from all sides of the Committee. I see that I have a distinguished Fellow of Nuffield College who is anxious to get to his feet. Unfortunately, the distinguished professor of economics on the Opposition Front Bench is no longer in his places. On the other hand, I also have a distinguished publisher looking at me from the other side of the Committee. Therefore, I hope very much that we can get a general feeling of agreement on the matter and that the Government will accept the amendment. We can then get to work and do what is necessary to clean up the Bill. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: It gives me pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in this amendment. It seems to me that if the policy cannot be got right, and the arguments cannot be got right, that is no reason
568
why the grammar should be wrong. Singular is not plural and there is no reason why they should be mixed up. The only problem is that if we accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, how far back do we go? I asked him earlier if he knew whether Gladstone did it like this, and he did not know. But certainly there is no reason why we should continue to do so just because Gladstone did. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Belstead: These amendments would change the number of the verbs and pronouns in the Bill, of which the subject is a noun of multitude, from the plural to the singular.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he does not know how far back we are going in these matters. I should like to read out a short passage from the second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage. It states:
"[Nouns of multitude] arc treated as singular or plural at discretion—and sometimes, naturally, without discretion. `The Cabinet is divided' is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and 'The Cabinet are agreed' is better, because it takes two or more to agree. In general it may be said that while there are always a better and a worse in the matter, there are seldom a right and a wrong, and any attempt to elaborate rules would be waste labour."
That, of course, is inconclusive. But I am bound to say that contrary to the way in which I was brought up—which was to believe that a collective noun is a singular word with a plural meaning, which would agree exactly with the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock, and Lord McCarthy—I am advised that it has long been the practice in the drafting of statutes that collective nouns should be followed by a verb in the plural. In the absence of certainty from the grammarians, I suggest that we exercise our discretion and follow the established precedents.
Lord Kilmarnock: It is difficult when the Government take refuge behind Fowler. We ought to have a very great respect for Fowler, but he was writing a very long time ago and, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, his conclusion on the matter is inconclusive.
I must say I rather regret that this tendency should creep right through the legislation in our country when in fact we are lucky to have these useful neutral singular pronouns and possessive adjectives which we could use. I find that a matter of regret. I am also conscious of the absence of the vice-chancellor's lobby here this evening. I think, therefore, that I should like to read the debate and perhaps bring it to the attention of one or two other people who might feel as strongly as I do on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("but only after appropriate expenditure has been made for students with learning difficulties").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, too, might benefit from the wisdom of Fowler, because it is about the use of the word "disproportionate" which appears

569
in Clause 2 (page 2, line 37) and in Clause 3 (page 3, line 16)—the subject of Amendments Nos. 43 and 65. As the Bill is drafted a council has to avoid a provision which gives rise to the words "disproportionate expenditure". But nowhere in the Bill is "disproportionate" defined. One wants to know what it is disproportionate to.
It looks to me, and to those of my noble friends who support the amendment, that the Bill as drafted means that councils are bound by these words. If the words are binding then councils may not be able to support disabled people, whose expenses are much greater than those of ordinary non-disabled students. That would be a regressive step. It would be going right against the trend of educational provision for those with special needs. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
Perhaps I do not need to labour the point that a great number of disabled people need to spend a great deal more than ordinary people. I suggest that the special expenditure, involving a few thousand pounds for a blind, a partially sighted or deaf person, or for those in a number of less obvious categories of disablement, may well he an investment in the future and not a drain on the taxpayer. Enabling a passive and dependent disabled person to become an active wage earner benefits the taxpayer in two ways; first, in the tax that he will pay on the income which he is enabled to earn and, secondly, in terms of benefits not claimed.
I particularly underline that argument in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, said in reply to an earlier amendment. He said that we were appealing, through our amendments, for some kind of advantageous position for disabled people. In view of that remark I have to reiterate that we are not seeking advantages. We are seeking to gain equality for physically, mentally handicapped or disadvantaged people. I hope that I can put to rest once and for all the argument that the Minister was briefed to advance. I trust that it will not appear again.
If the words "disproportionate expenditure" remain in the Bill without the saving I propose, the people I have in mind will not be considered for the extra expenditure which they need to enable them to compete on equal terms with their mental peers. I am not arguing, and never would argue, that people who are not able to benefit from higher education, and possibly also from further education, should be entitled to that education. I am arguing that those who have been handicapped and have not reached the starting point, so to speak, should be enabled, when they get there, to enjoy the same privileges as those of their peers who are not so disabled. They should be enabled to gain equality, not an advantage.
That, in a nutshell, is what I have to say. Without this amendment disabled people will not have the funding that they need. I should like to quote from the Warnock Report, which states:
"It is in society's own interest to invest more in opportunities for education, training and other forms of support for these young people in order to minimise their disadvantages".
I shall just reiterate what I started with. It is not merely in the interests of those young people; in the words of the Warnock Report,
570
"It is in society's own interest".
I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support this amendment. It is very much along the lines of Amendments Nos. 25 and 30 with which we dealt earlier where help was requested for those with learning difficulties after the age of 19. Indeed, this is very much the same line of country. As the noble Lord said, it is in society's interest that this expenditure should be available at that stage. I say that because it may save a great deal of expenditure later on for society as a whole and would make the individual very much happier and more able to cope with life thereafter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My name is attached to this amendment and I warmly support it. It is indeed all about enabling students to achieve their full potential. The RNIB says that it has a long waiting list of students who require equipment to enable them to study effectively. The institute is aware of many colleges which have no equipment and which actually deter blind students. It sees these amendments as encouraging the councils and colleges to reconsider their priorities in allocating present funding.
Lord Addington: Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that someone who has special difficulties or who is disabled does not constitute "disproportionate expenditure"? That is effectively what is being asked by way of these amendments. In other words, are the educational needs of a person with special needs somehow to be considered to constitute something which is disproportionate?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The effect of these amendments would be that the further education funding councils would be under no obligation to make the most effective use of their resources in discharging their responsibilities in relation to the provision of further education for students with learning difficulties. The councils would, however, be under such an obligation in discharging their functions in relation to other students. The Government do not believe that such an attitude is acceptable. Perhaps that hinges on what we would define as "disproportionate expenditure". That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I can say that the meaning is expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided for. I refer the noble Lord to Clause 2(3) (a) where provision is made for "reasonable needs".
I appreciate that the amendments may be based on a concern that the particular requirement on the councils to avoid provision which might give rise to "disproportionate expenditure" may restrict them in making provision for students with disabilities. However, that is not a new requirement. Under Section 76 of the Education Act 1944, local education authorities are required to discharge their functions in a way which is compatible with the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. Provision for students with learning difficulties is not excluded from that requirement. The Bill carries forward that

571
existing principle to councils and of course leaves the existing requirement in place for local education authorities.
I acknowledge that provision for students with disabilities can be expensive. But the Bill does not require the further education funding council to avoid expensive provision. I hope that that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is disproportionate expense that is mentioned. If expensive provision were ruled out, that would also eliminate subjects like engineering which require expensive equipment and laboratories. I believe that that very subject was mentioned previously as a comparison. That would be nonsense. It would be similar nonsense to rule out expensive provision where it is needed for students with learning difficulties, and the Bill does not seek to do so. What the Bill requires is that a council should not build an expensive engineering laboratory for a handful of students when there is another laboratory just down the road. But if the provision is proportionate to the need, even if it be expensive, this clause would not rule it out. There is no threat here to students with disabilities.
The Bill ensures that resources will be allocated for provision for students with learning difficulties. It provides for the councils to be under a specific duty to have regard to the requirements of those students in discharging their functions in relation to the provision of further education. That means that they will need to allocate resources for those students. However, the resources available to the councils will not be limitless. They will need to use them efficiently in making provision for all students, including those with learning difficulties. It is only prudent to retain that qualification. The amendment, however, seems to be an invitation to profligacy.
I hope I have given some comfort by providing those definitions and interpretations. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I do not invite the department to be profligate. That is the last thing I wish to do. I realise from what the Minister has said that the amendment will not do, although he appreciates why we tabled it. I am grateful to him for that. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied with his answer. If the word "disproportionate" is to be included, would it not be a good idea to define it in the Bill?
I merely offer the Minister his own words and commend them to the Committee: that in the definition clause "disproportionate" should be defined as expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided. Those were the Minister's words. It would give comfort to all of us interested in the extra expenses incurred by disabled people if those words were in the Bill. That would secure their future. We were given to understand in no uncertain terms by the Minister what the Bill's purport is. That would spell it out, and we should be grateful if the point could be considered.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand that noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment are not trying to introduce, as I suggested, the mischief of profligacy. I can see no objection to the definition being included, but the noble Lord will appreciate that I need to consult. One naturally wants the Bill to be as clear as possible.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: With that kind assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Part-time education, and full-time education for those over 18]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 53 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 53A:
Page 3, line 3, after ("course") insert ("or programme of study").
The right reverend Prelate said: The amendment is small but it may be significant. I have in mind the needs of some ethnic minority students who wish to learn English, or some adults with low literacy skills who want to improve their basic attainments. It might be difficult to think of those programmes of study as courses as defined in Schedule 2. For example, language support is often more appropriately given during a course of other study than as a separate subject before embarking on the course aimed at. Similarly, those with reading difficulties may be helped by specialist support while studying another subject. The amendment merely loosens up the wording to make provision for that kind of student with special difficulties. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The right reverend Prelate is on to a good point, but I believe that it is covered in the Bill. The amendments extend the description of the activity which goes on under Schedule 2 by adding "programme of study" to the term "course".
The right reverend Prelate considers that the term "course" is too restrictive and would not include a range of activities which would achieve the Government's purposes under Schedule 2. I am advised that the term "course" can be regarded as subsuming "programme of study" and therefore includes the kind of activities which the right reverend Prelate has explained he had in mind.
However, may I also make clear that the funding councils have powers under Clause 5(1) to:
"give financial support to the governing body of any institution within the further education sector",
not only for,
"the provision of facilities for further education"
but also for,
"the carrying on of any activities, which the governing body … consider necessary or desirable to be provided or carried on for the purpose of or in connection with the provision of facilities for further education".
This means that the funding council has powers to fund ancillary activities related to the provision of courses. I suggest that that would cover the worry of the right reverend Prelate. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment would be needed. I ask the right reverend Prelate to consider what I have said and

573
once again if either he or I feel that there is a lacuna, we could come back to it, but I think that that is not the case on this occasion.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and reply. Although I would like the opportunity of looking again at what he said, on the basis of the assurance he gave, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments nos. 54 to 57 not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("and
( ) to ensure that the contribution of the Long Term Residential Colleges and similar specialised institutions is maintained;").
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 58 I should also like to take Amendment No. 165. These two amendments refer to a small but important section of our educational system which is somewhat suspended between further and higher education. But it is a section whose important contribution to education practice belies the small numbers involved. I refer to the long-term residential colleges and in doing so I must declare an interest first as President of Hillcroft College and secondly as a former student of Ruskin College. Hillcroft College is the only women's college in the group and it plays an important role in the provision of long and short-term residential courses, in innovation and in access courses for women seeking to return either to education or employment.
Ruskin College has special skills in turning, for example, a not very articulate blue-collar worker into an advanced university undergraduate in two years' time. The undergraduate could enter a course at the second year. The work experience of this type of student brings its own contribution to education and is worth preserving.
All seven of these colleges provide a high quality of full and part-time residential education for adults who have had little opportunity to pursue study or training since leaving school at the minimum school-leaving age and for whom a residential learning environment is necessary in order for them to realise their personal and intellectual potential.
Furthermore, the colleges are involved in research work, and through this research they contribute in both an academic and in a practical way to the process of teaching and learning in the education system. There is a danger that the role of the colleges will be lost in the Bill. The long-term residential colleges have a national and an international role as part of the system of adult learning in the United Kingdom. It would be sad if we were to allow their contribution to disappear through the financial and institutional reforms of this Bill which does not have their demise as its intention. Britain would also cease to contribute internationally when other countries are maintaining and developing residential adult education.
It would seem that although the contribution of these colleges is small in relation to the total area of responsibility of the further education funding councils' remit, nevertheless it is significant in terms of the work they do. Therefore it is necessary to entrench
574
the colleges in legislation. These two amendments seek to do that. Amendment No. 58 seeks to put a measure on the face of the Bill to ensure the future of the long-term residential colleges. Amendment No. 165 seeks to protect the colleges from the calculations set out on page 67 of the Bill which are not appropriate to the long-term residential colleges. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I strongly support the amendment. Unlike my noble friend, I have no direct interest to declare in this matter. However, as a former education officer, one of the great satisfactions I obtained was in directing older students to long-term residential colleges. The persons concerned derived immense satisfaction from that process and I derived satisfaction from that in turn. Recently I had the pleasure of advising a 52 year-old miner friend of mine to attend an adult college. He is lapping it up, to coin a phrase from the North East. Without doubt he will achieve a considerable level not only of self-fulfilment but also of academic standing.
The fact that the colleges are long term and residential is of great importance. In providing studies of a high academic standard, they perform at least two functions. First, they stretch the ability of students who usually obtain a qualification of university standard. I am thinking in terms of a diploma in economics, public administration or related subjects. As the courses usually last two years, they call for sustained effort of a high order. A successful conclusion gives immense personal satisfaction to the student concerned.
Secondly, the qualification is usually accepted by universities as an indication that the student can proceed to a degree course. I hope I am not placing undue importance on the matter of linkage to university courses. I am simply saying that the courses are of a high academic standard and they call for great concentration, diligence and effort on the part of the individual concerned. Those qualities have great relevance to the educational process.
What is fundamentally important about the long-term residential colleges is that they do not ask applicants for formal educational qualifications. Many people who thirst for an educational opportunity—they may have lost their first chance for such an opportunity at school for whatever reason—regard entrance qualifications as an insurmountable obstacle. Therefore, colleges such as Ruskin, Fircroft, Coleg Harlech and the others present a golden opportunity for them.
That is reflected in the huge demand for entrance to those colleges. There are many more applicants than there are places available, despite the problems that long-term residential education brings for many of the people concerned, not least the fact of being separated from their families.
Instead of adopting such a negative stance on the matter, the Government ought to be proposing additional long-term residential colleges. After all, we are not just considering self-fulfilment, important though that is. We are dealing with a great source of untapped talent from which society as whole would benefit.

575
Anyone who knows anything about the adult education colleges realises that their students have one outstanding feature—motivation. This Government frequently remind us of the need to obtain value for money. I say that they get value plus from those colleges. Tory Governments have failed to recognise that. I do not want to be too political at this late hour, but the reason is partly that that sector of education is so far removed from their avenue of public school and older universities. However, it is a factor in modern society which they ought to recognise energetically.
The Secretary of State said in another place on 20th May this year, at cols. 644 to 645 of Commons Hansard:
My right hon. Friends and I are committed to open access to higher education for everyone who has the ability and willingness to take advantage of it. We shall not put financial obstacles in their way".
That view probably applies more to the long-term residential colleges than to any other part of education, but the Bill before us does not reflect that promise. That is why the amendment is not only welcome but essential if the Government mean what they say.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment very strongly. I was for some years president of Hillcroft College. During that time there was very grave anxiety in the college about pressure in respect of funding. There is no doubt that, per head, residential colleges are expensive. That has always been challenged on the grounds that the work could he done part time, through evening courses, and so on. A full-time residential college provides a quite different experience. Speaking from the Hillcroft experience, I know that only women with great determination to make up for their absence of previous education are prepared to undergo a full year of intensive study. The failure and drop out rate is very low. If one considers the jobs of former Hillcroft students, there is no question that they make a great contribution after they leave. By definition they are exceptional women. It costs more, but the return is infinitely worthwhile.
Lord McCarthy: Like the previous speaker, I must begin by declaring an interest, and it is the first time I have done so. I speak as a former student of Ruskin College, a present lecturer at Nuffield College, an economic adviser to, and a governor of, Ruskin College and someone who, as everyone in my family knows, were it not for Ruskin College, would still be packing books because I had no academic qualifications. In those days the only way one could get on to the academic ladder if one had no academic qualifications was to go to Ruskin College. That is the case with all long-term residential colleges.
I should like to explain the position of the long-term residential colleges. They feel threatened because over the years—in some cases over 90 years and in some cases less —they have built up an extraordinarily good relationship with the Department of Education and Science. It is a tough
576
relationship, and frequently a rumbustious relationship, but it is a good relationship. They know where they are with the Department of Education and Science. It gives them advice; it gives them essential core funding; it gives them an inspectorate, and they have come to welcome the visits of the inspectors. They know where they stand in their relationship with the Department of Education and Science. Now it is suddenly being taken away and they believe that they are being thrown not into an existing body which they can learn about and study but into an as yet unborn body - the funding council for further education. That body does not as yet exist and if an when it comes into existence it will deal with them.
It would be reasonable for many of the colleges to say that they would be more compatible with the funding council for higher education. They are somewhere in the middle. That is their problem. They have also been told that many of their existing practices and courses—some of the features that they regard as the jewels in their crown, including, in the case of Ruskin College, the two-year diploma course —will be kaput. Such courses are expensive and the most that the college can expect in future is a one-year programme despite the fact that it has an almost non-existent fall-out rate, as the noble Baroness said, and the fact that many Ruskin students are capable of doing a two-year degree course rather than a three-year degree course. Nevertheless, it has been told that there is no future for its two-year diploma course. In addition, the future of many other courses that it runs is in doubt.
I am not trying to suggest that all long-term residential courses and colleges are the same. They are all special and different, but they all have that one, central mission. If I were to ask the Minister one thing today, even if he does not accept the amendment, I would ask him to make a reassuring statement about long-term residential colleges. The most important thing that he could say is that the Government accept their historical mission; namely, to discover adults who are involved in the community and who have an intellectual potential to benefit from higher education, especially if that higher education is of a residential character, knowing that those adults will, as the noble Baroness said, return to the community. That is what the great majority of them do in one way or another.
That is the job of the staff of the college. That is why it is expensive to find new adult students each year who have the intellectual potential to benefit from higher education, who are involved in the community and who will return to the community but who have no academic qualifications. It is a complicated business and it takes weeks and weeks of reading their work and talking to them to discover the right people.
Above all, I should like the Government to say that they accept the continued relevance of that historical mission. If they do, the colleges would like to know how they are to fit in. They would like the Government to accept their willingness to adapt and to change the balance of their work within the acceptance of their historical condition. Finally, they would like a special replacement of the excellent institutional arrangements that they have developed

577
with the Department of Education and Science. That may take the form of a sub-committee of the FE council. It may be the specification of the criteria that they are expected to meet. It must give them some idea of how they are to fit into the appropriate policies of the Government; in other words, some uncertainty in an uncertain world.
Earl Russell: The point that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, makes about people with no academic qualifications is of considerable importance. I cannot help finding it persuasive as in no post where I have ever taught have I ever been qualified to be one of my own pupils.
Baroness David: I too put my name to the amendment. My noble friend who moved the amendment and many other noble Lords who have spoken have made the case extremely well, so I shall not follow up the general case. However, I want to ask particularly whether student numbers will be able to increase. I raised this matter on Second Reading. The Minister kindly wrote to me and said:
"I can reassure you that the colleges will be able to apply to the Further Education Funding Councils for funding for increased student numbers in just the same way as other colleges".
I sent his letter to the warden of Coleg Harlech. He is not convinced that that will be the case. He says:
"We have been told firmly by the Welsh Office that our student numbers will he held at 140 full-time equivalent students. This will be achieved by the device of limiting to 140 the number of adult bursaries available to our students. It will be on the basis of these numbers that we will be funded by the further Education Funding Council for Wales".
I wish to know from the Minister whether the number of adult bursaries available to the colleges is being capped. What is the implication? Will they be able to increase t heir part-time student numbers? We ought to be able to have the matter cleared up today.
Amendment No. 165 states:
"The above table"—
—in Schedule 3(2)—
"shall not apply to courses of residential education for mature adults".
I have had a letter from someone at Ruskin College who says:
"If the formula of 0.1 for part-time (evening only) study were to be applied to the Residential Colleges, then this would mean that we would need to have 10 part time students in this category for every 1 full time student. Similarly we would need to have 5 part time day students for every 1 full time student. But in reality the colleges typically spend proportionately more not less time on part time adult students who have been educationally disadvantaged. For example, to run an effective part time course for workers who have been made redundant requires considerable staff time to do the necessary outreach work to recruit the students"—
as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said—
"then to plan a course which is really appropriate to their learning needs.
The type of formula which is proposed…would not reflect that staff time adequately. It would therefore be disadvantageous if such a formula were used for funding purposes".
I hope that the Minister will be agreeable that this table will not apply to students at residential colleges.
Lord Belstead: I have been impressed by what has been said by noble Lords opposite about the merits of the six long-term residential colleges in England which were reviewed earlier this year by the Department of
578
Education and Science. In the light of that review, the Government recognised the unique place that those colleges hold in providing residential education for adults who have missed out during their school years. The Government also decided that it would be appropriate for the colleges to enter the new further education sector. This would enable their needs for capital funding, for example, to be considered alongside those other colleges. Similar decisions were reached in respect of Coleg Harlech in Wales, which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, referred to.
The mechanism for that is that Clause 28(2) (c) gives the Secretary of State power to designate as being within the scope of the new funding councils,
"an institution which is grant-aided or eligible to receive aid by way of grant".
That refers to the residential colleges.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that nonetheless this debate would not be complete if I did not give some indication as to where the long-term colleges fit in so far as concerns the future. They were unsure and wished for reassurance. At the same time that the decisions were reached as a result of that review, Ministers in the Department of Education and Science believed that there was scope for sharpening the focus of the colleges' work, and since these colleges first became established many more routes into education for adults have come about. There are over 600 dedicated access courses, mostly in further education colleges. There are many opportunities to undertake study in vocational or academic areas and if necessary in basic skills and study skills before that. Entry to higher education for adults has become easier.
We therefore believe that the long-term residential colleges should make the best use of their specialist strengths. That is why the colleges have been asked to concentrate on assisting the access to higher education of disadvantaged students who are most in need of residential education. The colleges have also been asked to provide courses in which the residential element generally lasts no more than one year and a greater number of short courses in order to increase the number of students who benefit from their facilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, cross-questioned me about that. It is open to funding councils to consider any requests from long-term residential colleges to increase their student numbers. We are looking into the question of student bursaries and how they will apply under the new arrangements.
All this should be seen for what it is; a vote of confidence in the long-term residential colleges. The Government firmly believe that the colleges have an important role to play in the new sector. As I said on Second Reading, we shall be making clear in guidance to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of these institutions must be taken fully into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will forgive me if I say that it will not be appropriate to make the amendment which has been put forward. It will single out these institutions which, important though they are, form only a small part of the further education

579
sector. The Government most certainly expect that the funding councils will deal fairly with all the institutions in this sector and will ensure that they do so. I hope that Members of the Committee will consider that my comments amount to a ringing vote of confidence from the Government.
As regards the second amendment, there would appear to be a misunderstanding. It is intended to secure that Schedule 3 shall not apply to courses of residential education for mature students. The first misunderstanding is that Schedule 3 has no application to the long-term residential colleges. It concerns the institutions which will be incorporated under Clause 15 of the Bill. The long-term residential colleges will be designated under Clause 28. Secondly, Schedule 3 has nothing to do with the funding of further education; it is about the tests of being able to get into incorporation under Clauses 15 and 16. It will be for the funding councils to decide how to fund the institutions in their sector. They will not have to use the weightings in that schedule which the Department of Education are using only for its statistical purposes. In funding the LTRCs and other special institutions the funding councils will take full account of their specialist characteristics and their costs. I hope that those last words are yet another encouragement, which they are meant to be as regards these important colleges.
11.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his comments, but I wonder whether he has understood my point. He said that the colleges should in future focus on their specialist strength which is to take in disadvantaged students. So far the Government have not yet defined their meaning of disadvantaged students. Even if they did (and I hope that they will, although perhaps not tonight) it would not appear to be the same as the historical mission of the colleges. I am in danger of repeating myself but I must say that the historical mission of the colleges is expressed in terms of a special concern for academic potential, plus a special regard for absence of academic qualifications, plus a particular preference for those involved in community work. Those are the historical advantages and specialisms of the colleges. That is not the same as disadvantaged.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord is taking the plural and putting it into the singular. I said that the colleges had been asked to make the best use of their specialist strengths, in the plural. I went on to say that is why the colleges have been asked to concentrate on assisting the access to higher education of disadvantaged students. That is a single example. Perhaps I should have said, "For example", because that is what I meant. It is important that the noble Lord has put his view on the record and I shall undertake to draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Lockwood: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful also to the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he dealt with the amendments. Those of
580
us who are concerned about the future of full-time residential colleges still have a little doubt in our minds about their ability to continue with some of the work they are doing at present.
The final reassurance from the Minister was helpful. We shall look carefully at what he said to see whether we need to take the matter further. I am grateful too for his helpful remarks on the second amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Where a maintained institution is already satisfactorily providing courses as described in subsection (1) above, as part of a comprehensive adult education service, a council shall discharge its responsibilities for the population of that area through that institution.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86. Amendment No. 66 is designed to enable institutions which have shown themselves to be efficient to carry on providing courses leading to qualifications such as in Schedule 2 as well as the so-called leisure courses in Clause 11.
Clause 3(5) states:
"In discharging those functions a council shall have regard to any education to which subsection (1) above applies provided by institutions outside the further education sector or higher education sector".
That is fine in principle but "having regard to" is not sufficiently firm or specific. We ask that where an adult college or institute is already doing a sound job of providing its particular public with the Schedule 2 courses, then that institution is the proper place for the FE funding council to discharge its functions for that part of the population.
The amendment does not say that the institution is thereby taken into the new further education sector. It stays under the aegis of the LEA and continues to draw its leisure course funding from that body as well as receiving funds from TECs, the EC, government agencies, business and so on, for courses commissioned by them. Nor is the FE funding council constrained to discharge all its functions through that institution. It remains free to provide full-time courses and so on through a full-time FE college in the area. The amendment aims to give greater flexibility. I know that many of the adult education colleges are extremely anxious about the matter. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon the amendment.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whose name is attached to the amendment and who knows Richmond College, which is greatly exercised about the Bill as it stands, will be able to make out a more potent case than I have. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to support the amendment. Last week during our debates about provisions for local government we talked a lot about service. I can think of no more important service to the community than education.
It seems to me—and, I believe, to my noble friends on these Benches—that to work properly the service must be provided coherently, from cradle to grave. In my local authority the education service is highly

581
regarded. I am a governor of both primary and secondary schools. I know that the service, through further, higher and adult education, is a coherent process.
Why should we change a system which works well? Why should we impose what is feared to be a cumbersome new structure? The adult and community college in my community fears that it will need to use the neighbouring college, which provides for 16 to 19 year-olds, as a post office for the dispatch of funding bids for Schedule 2 just because the education of adults is apparently given a low priority. The arrangements seem fraught with difficulty and, above all, unnecessary.
If the service can be provided as it is now, then, apart from the educational advantages, the council, as provided by subsection (4), would be able to discharge its functions in the most cost-effective manner and, indeed, to avoid disproportionate expenditure. Like Members of the Committee who have spoken this evening, I find some difficulty with that term.
The distinction between vocational Schedule 2 courses and level two courses is false. The courses which are not vocational still enhance an individual's value to society and to potential employers. They equip the student for a richer life both within the world of work and, indeed, beyond it. The Bill does not seem to recognise that any student on almost any course may make vocational use of whatever he or she learns.
Who will be the casualties? I fear that one group will be women students. Employers rely on recruiting well-trained, mature women workers and put a high premium on their skills. Those are just the students who benefit from the good courses that are presently run.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the amendment is consistent with Clause 10 of the Bill and that the planning of the service and the organisation of the provision will not be made so much more difficult. This is not a minor issue to the colleges concerned. The college which I know best—the Richmond Adult and Community College—is open for six days a week for 48 weeks a year. Its programme involves more than 2,000 courses targeted for adults. It allows full community use of its building. It provides educational advice and guidance, creche support and—what I regard as particularly important—a very valuable open learning service.
The most important words in the amendment are, "satisfactorily" and "comprehensive". I am not suggesting that institutions which do not satisfy those criteria should somehow be given the green light to continue, but there are many colleges which provide the services we all want to see. We all know that the system should adapt to local circumstances and that we should not require the local situation to force itself into the mould of a system. I support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: Although both noble Baronesses who spoke did so with considerable feeling, I am worried about the amendment. It would constrain the funding councils to discharge their duties to secure adequate facilities for Schedule 2 education in further
582
education colleges and local education authority maintained institutions which are currently providing that provision.
I have two specific reasons for feeling unhappy. First, the amendment sets conditions which place awkward constraints upon the councils in discharging their functions. Before their duty bites they must be assured that a maintained institution is already satisfactorily providing Schedule 2 courses. The provision must also be part of a comprehensive adult education service. Such conditions would present considerable difficulties of interpretation and judgment and could introduce unnecessary complications into the councils' functions.
My principal anxiety is the amendment's implications for the range and quality of local provision. The amendment suggests that institutions which are already providing satisfactorily should continue to do so in perpetuity. Towards the end of her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke of recognising that we do not want provision to congeal in an area. However, the amendment does not allow for local developments in provision, or for sensible reorganisation of the locations of further education in the interests of the adult students.
I ask both noble Baronesses how they think the amendment would work in a developing area where LEA and FE colleges between them might want to propose a reorganisation of provision for adults to reflect the needs of a growing population. The amendment would mean that provision would continue to have to be provided in existing institutions, irrespective of the needs of the area, and I know that that is not intended. That would not do. We would then have a fossilised system incapable of development.
The noble Baronesses have sought to ensure that provision falling within Schedule 2 which is currently provided in adult colleges and centres will continue to be funded. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made it quite clear that she did not approve of this, Clause 6(5) of the Bill is drafted in such a way that it does not in any way prevent sensible local developments in provision. Under Clause 6(5) adult colleges and centres maintained by LEAs can ask the FE colleges to forward to the funding councils an application for funding for Schedule 2 provision. The FE colleges must forward that application where the provision in question would otherwise be inadequate in the locality.
That is a strong provision. Incidentally, it would be backed up by the Secretary of State's powers under the Education Act 1944 if the forwarding college did not do its stuff and forward the application provided that it ought to do so. Having gone through those problems, I must ask the noble Baronesses whether they will consider withdrawing the amendment. The Government are being accused by both noble Baronesses of putting in Clause 6(5) a rather unwieldy provision for the ability to make an application for funding. But my goodness me, I believe that the amendment would be unwieldy in the conditions that it sets. It would have the unwelcome effect of causing

583
local provision to stagnate, although I realise that that is entirely unintended. For those reasons I regret that I must resist the amendment.
Earl Russell: I listened with very great interest to the Minister. He said that the amendment might be inconvenient because it might constrain the funding councils to discharge their duty. That sounded remarkably like an admission that this amendment is necessary. I take his point about congealing and about the need to freeze existing institutions and possibly getting into problems with Henry VIII clauses or primary legislation to change the list. If the Minister was satisfied on that point, would he accept the other point that there can be a case for constraining funding councils to do their duty?
Lord Belstead: Very briefly, I am afraid that the answer is no because we have provided Clause 6(5) as being the right route forward.
Baroness David: I am disappointed with the answer that the Minister has given. Here we are really getting to the heart of the debate about adult education and what the adult education colleges can do. I am quite prepared to believe that the wording of the amendment is not satisfactory and that in effect it is
584
doing something that we did not intend it to do. I shall read extremely carefully what the Minister has said and send Hansard to those who are involved with adult education and who are very interested in all these amendments and then hear their comments. We shall certainly come back to this issue. It will probably be very important in a number of the amendments that we have to consider tomorrow.
Although I shall withdraw the amendment tonight I can assure the Minister that we shall be back at the next stage of the Bill and tomorrow when we shall be moving a great many amendments to do with adult education. But for tonight I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before midnight.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 2nd DECEMBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 2nd DECEMBER
  POLITICAL UNION: MINISTERIAL MEETING, 2nd and 3rd DECEMBER
  POLITICAL UNION: MINISTERIAL MEETING, 2nd and 3rd DECEMBER
  BURMA: CONTROL OF HEROIN
  BURMA: CONTROL OF HEROIN
  BURMA: ARMS CONTROL
  BURMA: ARMS CONTROL
  BURMA: UNIVERSITIES
  BURMA: UNIVERSITIES
  BURMA: REFUGEES
  BURMA: REFUGEES
  BURMA: ALLEGED USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  BURMA: ALLEGED USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ARTS COUNCIL GRANT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ARTS COUNCIL GRANT
  VEHICLE BRAKING DISTANCES
  VEHICLE BRAKING DISTANCES
  LONDON UNDERGROUND TRAINS: VERTICAL HANDRAILS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND TRAINS: VERTICAL HANDRAILS
  CROWN COURT CENTRES
  CROWN COURT CENTRES
  EX-SERVICE AFFAIRS: PROPOSED DEPARTMENT
  EX-SERVICE AFFAIRS: PROPOSED DEPARTMENT
  COMMUNITY CARE: TRANSFER OF RESOURCES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  COMMUNITY CARE: TRANSFER OF RESOURCES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  EMERGENCY TREATMENT BY GPs
  EMERGENCY TREATMENT BY GPs
  GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL STRATEGIES REPORT
  GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL STRATEGIES REPORT
  RUSHCLIFFE BOROUGH COUNCIL: BUNNY HALL BARNS PLANNING CONSENT
  RUSHCLIFFE BOROUGH COUNCIL: BUNNY HALL BARNS PLANNING CONSENT
  ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME: SEN CHILDREN
  ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME: SEN CHILDREN