Sitting of 19 November 1991

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
      TORQUAY MARKET BILL [Lords]
      Read a Second time, and committed.
      TORQUAY MARKET BILL [Lords]

        KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
        That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
        That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
        That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
        That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
        Hon. Members: Object.
        To be considered on Monday 25 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Royal Air Force
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he plans to do with the aircraft taken from the front-line strength of the Royal Air Force under "Options for Change".
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Some will be used in fleet management or as long-term reserve; others will be disposed of.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that surplus aircraft will not be supplied to the
    126
    evil dictator of Indonesia? Will the discussions between the Secretary of State and that dictator on 19 September about military co-operation now be ended in view of last week's massacre in illegally occupied East Timor?
    Mr. Clark: I know that the hon. Lady would like to get rid of every aircraft in the Royal Air Force if she could. However, that view is not shared by the House or, I believe, by the hon. Lady's management committee. All export controls of armaments and all our customers are subject to the most rigorous control and scrutiny, as she knows. I certainly do not intend to reveal any of the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the leader of another state, as they would have to be confidential.
    Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend will know that reserve aeroplanes cannot simply be trundled out of a hangar and launched into the air. What provision is my right hon. Friend making to ensure that there will be enough reserve air and ground crews to fly and maintain those aeroplanes in an emergency?
    Mr. Clark: There are three categories of readiness: one month's recovery, three months' recovery and six months' recovery. As the reduction in the strength of the Royal Air Force in terms of air frames proceeds, there will be a number of crews on whom we can call should it be necessary to reactivate those aircraft.

    Trident
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total estimated annual operating costs of Trident for the first five years of operation.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): We do not expect the running costs of the Trident force to be significantly different from those of Polaris.
    Mr. Mullin: That is about £2 billion for the first five years. Is not it madness to be spending billions of pounds on a missile system which does not deter and may not work —and when we have no one at whom to point it? Cannot the Secretary of State think of better uses for the perhaps upwards of £20 billion which will be spent on the Trident missile system in capital and investments?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should come out with those remarks about the deterrent in which we are investing just when his party is purporting to change its policy. Presumably he is about to resign the Whip, or something of that sort, from the Labour party in this place.
    The nuclear deterrent has been very effective in ensuring the security of the west over the past 40 years. We are now left with major nuclear arsenals in Russia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan and there is great uncertainty hanging over those areas. It is a wise precaution to ensure that we continue to have the nuclear deterrent which has served us so well in the past.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Trident really is the queen of the defence chessboard and that many of us believe that the price that we have to pay for it is well worth paying? Will he confirm that there is a good argument for at least one European country having nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. Spending on defence is a way of reducing the chances of war. To that extent, the nuclear deterrent is very good value for money. I hope that the day when European defence does not rely solely on British and French deterrents will not come to pass, but there is clearly a risk that it could happen some time.
    Mr. Douglas: Having made a comparison with Polaris, how does the Minister reconcile having a strategic deterrent which is primarily devoted to NATO purposes when NATO is abandoning nuclear weapons to a considerable degree and when NATO per se would have no Soviet target for Trident?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, NATO is not abandoning nuclear deterrents. Some ranges of nuclear weapons are being eliminated and we totally support that. All the pronouncements from NATO of late have been to the effect that we regard nuclear deterrents as an important part of the armoury of NATO forces generally.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to replace the Wessex helicopter used for search and rescue work with Sea King or other 24-hour capability helicopters.
    Mr. Alan Clark: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement early next year.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my right hon. Friend for anticipating an announcement some time next year. Is he aware that, off the north Devon coast, our search and rescue capacity is 30 minutes away at RAF Brawdy? Excellent though that capacity is, on a cold wintry night it is too far away. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to provide not only the extra helicopters that are needed but the extra security that is desperately needed all the way across the Bristol channel.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend poses several questions on the subject. I hope that they will not be interpreted as questioning the adequacy of existing services. The House will be interested to know that, in the six months since my hon. Friend last questioned me on the subject, there have been 992 call-outs from RAF Chivenor and 591 people have been assisted. I pay tribute to the RAF crews concerned and to their skill, dedication and courage, often in very difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister understand that what he has just said underlines the public's high regard for search and rescue services provided by the Royal Air Force, particularly in a constituency such as mine, where RAF Leuchars is situated? It is well known that the Government have received an offer to privatise search and rescue services. In the light of what the Minister said and the undoubted expertise of the Royal Air Force in such matters, will he undertake that that expertise and high public regard will not be lightly thrown away?
    Mr. Clark: I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Our commitment in air-sea rescue is to those at risk. We shall continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport. What is the most cost-effective and efficient way of achieving those ends remains to be decided after proper examination.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to continue air-sea rescue from Portland in my constituency? Does he have plans to extend operations during night time as well as day time? When is it envisaged that the new Merlin helicopter will be on site in Portland?
    Mr. Clark: I have nothing to add to the present state of knowledge on plans for Portland and I have no knowledge that the EH 101 utility variant is to be used in the air-sea rescue role, at least in the predictable future.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that the almost 1,000 call-outs in the past six months reinforce the need to keep open all our bases on the western coast and that the proposed closures of RAF Brawdy, or Chivenor in north Devon, will leave part of our western coast vulnerable during dangerous times, particularly if there is no 24-hour operability? Will the Minister look yet again at the proposed closures, especially RAF Brawdy? If that versatile base is closed there will be an enormous impact on the local economy, especially when combined with the closure of the Royal Navy base at Trecwn.
    Mr. Clark: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make such comments. We are all used to the hypocrisy and double standards of the Labour party, whose representatives hang around every factory gate and base saying what terrible things will happen locally. Yet nationally, as we know, it is committed—indeed, it is under instructions from its confereence—to cut defence spending by £6 billion. There will be no announcement about the bases until the new year. I repeat the undertaking that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) a moment ago. We shall at all times continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport.

    Trident
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected date of commissioning of the first Trident nuclear submarine and the expected date of completion of the programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress with the Trident programme.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The overall Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards an in-service date of the mid-1990s. It is not our practice to make public the precise dates of submarine construction or related programmes.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the Trident programme is likely to be over £23 billion, that it is a monstrous waste of money, that to hold nuclear weapons is immoral and that in the interests of world peace he should cancel the programme and provide useful work for the highly skilled people who have manufactured those awful weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Clark: I am sure that it is perfectly possible for the hon. Gentleman to make a trip to Barrow-in-Furness and explain to the work force there what useful work is available for them. I welcome what he said. He articulates a view which is widely shared on the Opposition Benches, although the Labour party finds it seemly to repress it at

    129
    present. Certainly, it does no harm to ventilate that view in this place. I always welcome hearing it when it is delivered so lucidly from the mouth of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I would correct the hon. Gentleman on one point of fact. The cost of the system is already £1£8 billion less than the original estimate announced in the House in 1982.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to the Trident programme. Does he believe that it would be safe in the hands of Members of Parliament who continually carp and criticise? Would it be safe in the hands of a party two thirds of whose members are committed to one-sided nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Clark: This question is best answered by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who courageously and clearly articulated the views of, I suspect, more than half the Members on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why did the Minister's Department authorise Admiral Sir Julian Oswald to give information to the press on the specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), when Ministers continually refuse to answer that question in the House? Is not it reasonable that the House of Commons should be given the same information as is made available to the press in briefings? Does the Minister accept that it is entirely unsatisfactory to continue stonewalling on those questions while answering them in the press?
    Mr. Clark: The boat will be launched early next year, but I must maintain the position that I and my predecessors have always maintained—that we do not disclose any further details in the House.
    Mr. Franks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have only one policy on Trident—to build the fourth boat and complete the programme? That is unlike the Opposition, who have at least three conflicting policies—one for the Front Bench, a second for Back-Bench CND Members and, most disgraceful of all, a third for the electorate in Barrow.
    Mr. Clark: That is absolutely right. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. We are interested in receiving a report of what took place when the Leader of the Oppositon went to Barrow and had a chat with the work force. He gave them several assurances, with which, apparently, they were satisfied, but the right hon. Gentleman will not give details of the assurances. That is certainly a subject on which the House would welcome further enlightenment.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister now acknowledge that Labour party policy is to deploy the Trident system? When will the Government place an order for the fourth Trident boat and how much money have the Government already spent on it? Does he realise that his policy of drip-feeding the yard with funding for the fourth boat is unnecessarily extending the lives of the Polaris boats and jeopardising the employment of thousands of workers at Barrow, simply to safeguard the seat of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks)?
    Mr. Clark: I did not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's question. In so far as I did understand it, I welcome his commitment of the Labour party to the
    130
    Trident programme. I understood him to reproach us for being slow in commissioning the fourth vessel. If so, that is an instructive and important addition to the Labour party's nuclear policy and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminds me, is a fourth arm in such a policy.

    Infantry Regiments
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the difference in cost to the Ministry of Defence of one infrantry regiment with two infantry battalions and two regiments of one battalion each.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The average cost of an infantry battalion is £12·5 million to £15 million in the United Kingdom and £17 million in Germany, irrespective of how it is organised regimentally.
    Mr. Colvin: I expected a reply somewhat like that. What my right hon. Friend said makes it clear that there will not be a great saving to the Ministry of Defence. If the amalgamation of the Royal Hampshire Regiment with the Queen's Regiment is part of the price of a reorganised and more efficient Army, the retention of the Royal Hampshires' name within the title of the new regiment must be part of the price of the amalgamation. Will he confirm that that would be possible?
    Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend will be fair and will recognise that the Queen's Regiment is an amalgamation of the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, the East Surrey Regiment, the Royal Sussex Regiment, the Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment and the Middlesex Regiment. I remember seeing those regimental names on the cemetery wall at Kranji in Singapore a month ago. They were all fine regiments which had to suffer the disappointment of amalgamation. Now the Royal Hampshire Regiment faces the same challenge and I know that it and the Queen's Regiment will wish to approach amalgamation in the most sensible and realistic way in the interests of both regiments.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that whatever savings the Ministry of Defence may make by the regimental amalgamations proposed in "Options for Change", there will be considerable on-costs to the public purse, through expenditure on unemployment and housing benefits? What are the Ministry of Defence estimates of the costs of that and what attempts are his Department making to cover some of those costs?
    Mr. King: That is the most amazing question that I have heard in the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that our plans for defence expenditure involve a cut of 6 per cent. in real terms during the next three to four years. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that has called for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure in real terms by the end of the decade. What impact will that have on unemployment and housing benefits and every other consideration?
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Who bears the cost of the new uniforms in any amalgamated regiment? Is it true that the Army will contribute £10 to each uniform and that officers and others will have to pay any further costs? Secondly,

    131
    what redundancy arrangements are being made for members of the amalgamated regiments who will not be needed for the defence of the nation?
    Mr. King: On the first point, the usual uniform arrangements will apply as on previous occasions. I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised, because it covers a whole range of issues—resettlements and redundancy arrangements—and we are anxious that the fairest arrangements should be made.
    There was a misunderstanding in my hon. Friend's question. There will be redundancies in the Army, as in every armed force of any significance in the western world, but the Army Board intends that redundancies should be spread evenly throughout the Army and that people in the regiments facing amalgamation will not be discriminated against or at a disadvantage, compared with those whose regiments may not be so affected. I hope that that is understood, because it is a very important point.
    Mr. O'Neill: Now that the Secretary of State has issued the timetable for the mergers of the regiments, can he confirm that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative victory, there is no prospect of the Scottish regiments' future being reviewed?
    Mr. King: I have made it clear that the decisions have been taken. We have set out the timetable. The assessments made by the defence staff establish the right shape for our defences for the 1990s. The only real risk to regiments, as against the programme that we have set out, is a change of Government. If either of the Opposition parties was elected, many of the regiments that face amalgamation now would face certain disbandment.
    Mr. Mans: When my right hon. Friend considers how different regiments have merged, will he take into account, rather than discourage, the concept of the big regiment and ensure that in future the Army is organised in big regiments?
    Mr. King: As my hon. Friend knows, that was considered carefully by the Army when it looked into the best way to approach the reorganisation. I cannot go further. Obviously, the Army has recognised the role of the big regiment, but the role of other regiments with a particularly strong and well-established tradition was recognised and the Army Board also took account of those sensitivities.

    Arms Trade
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he has to further policies of achieving transparency in the world arms trade.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Following the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution recommending to the assembly the establishment of a universal and non-discriminatory register of arms transfers.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister alarmed by the news that appeared in the New York Times last Friday of the help that China has given to Algeria and North Korea in the advanced development of their nuclear weapons and by the fact that a new arms race for conventional and nuclear weapons is roaring ahead at an unprecedented rate?
    132
    Would not the best way to advance transparency in world arms sales and achieve a United Nations register be for Britain now to declare that we shall have transparency and a register of Britain's arms sales?
    Mr. Clark: I make allowances for the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his supplementary before the news was announced. It might have been slightly more gracious of him to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in getting this universal and non-discriminatory register of arms transfers recommended to the Assembly. I pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom delegation. One of my officials chairs the experts committee that laid the groundwork for this achievement. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is far better for all nuclear powers and principal arms manufacturers to move forward together, rather than for any one to break ranks and anticipate matters.
    I entirely agree that China's transfer of technology to other aspirant nuclear powers is deplorable. We must all do our best to make the non-proliferation treaty work effectively and, if necessary, give it more teeth.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our friends and allies round the world who may be faced with potentially aggressive neighbours are entitled to look to us for support in arms sales, for example, of the Challenger tank which is made in Leeds, and that nothing proposed on restricting arms sales generally in the interests of world peace will prevent us from supporting our allies in circumstances where that is necessary?
    Mr. Clark: Yes, of course. It is a cardinal principle of free determination that independent states have the right to determine their spending priorities. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom to stop defence sales would not stop the arms trade or bring about peace and security.

    Departmental Properties
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses currently owned by his Department and defence establishments are standing empty.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,966 Ministry of Defence owned houses and flats were vacant of which 9,834 were service married quarters. Many of those properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, some 1,700 dwellings were in the process of being sold.
    Mr. Ashton: In view of that enormous number of empty dwellings, will the Minister give an assurance that none of the 1,600 wives—and their children—whose husbands have left them will be evicted? What will happen when another 40,000 military personnel are made redundant as a result of the White Paper proposals? Will there be any evictions? Will the Minister assure the House that empty houses will be handed over to local councils or housing associations for rent either to redundant service men or to others? Will he assure the House that the empty properties will not be sold off and service personnel and their families turned onto the street?
    Mr. Hamilton: We attempt to treat the wives and ex-wives of service men living illegally in some of our properties as sympathetically as we can and that is why the 1,600 to whom the hon. Gentleman referred live in service accommodation.
    The figure of 40,000 redundancies is not right. For the Army we are talking about in excess of 10,000 redundancies and much of the other reductions will occur through natural wastage. A housing task force has been set up under my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and he is considering how we can use the existing housing stock to alleviate problems. In particular, he will consider the problems faced by those who come back from Germany who may be made redundant and ensure that they have somewhere to live while they are looking for a job. We are addressing that issue now. However, the number of vacant dwellings will probably increase while the running down of the Army continues.
    Dame Janet Fookes: What consideration is my hon. Friend giving to the scheme put forward by the services charity, SSAFA—the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association—to deal with redundant housing stock?
    Mr. Hamilton: The SSAFA is in close touch with the Department at all times and we listen to what it has to say about problems associated with housing and everything else. We are listening hard to its recommendations and we take seriously the points that it makes to us.
    Mr. O'Neill: We welcome the working party that has been established to deal with the housing issue. However, does the Minister recognise that there is an increasing problem of homelessness and squatting among ex-service personnel? Since the MOD housing stock is being sold off and other houses are being renovated and improved slowly, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation will not get better in the foreseeable future unless far greater urgency is given to the problem of properly housing and properly treating our service personnel and those whom we consider are no longer needed in our forces?
    Mr. Hamilton: We are well aware of this problem and the last thing we want is ex-service men having to live in temporary accommodation. For that reason, we are making the best use of married quarters to ensure that people are not forced into such temporary accommodation.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is probably the most crucial element in the redundancy programme to which my hon. Friend has referred? The priority given to resettlement through access to housing will probably be the greatest determinant of the fairness of Government policy on redundancy.
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed, I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is a difficult Catch-22 situation because people cannot get a job until they have housing and they cannot get a mortgage until they have a job. Therefore, it is important that we solve the problem of where redundant people live so that they are able to get jobs, raise a
    134
    mortgage and buy their own homes. At that stage they will no longer need the married quarters that we make available to them.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from farmers about compensation for the effects of low flying on livestock.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The Ministry of Defence continues to receive representations from farmers about compensation for the effects of low flying on livestock. No more representations have been made recently than is usual.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling among farmers that the Ministry is being less helpful than it used to be in dealing with compensation claims arising from low flying by jets or helicopters? Does he recognise, for example, that insisting on veterinary reports may cause problems in that the examinations may cause distress to animals as well as additional cost to the farmer, who may not be compensated?
    Mr. Carlisle: We try to be as helpful as possible, and I am aware of the case of Mr. Johnson in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We require some evidence of loss, either from a vet or an accountant, and as soon as we receive the reports we look at them speedily and with sympathy. Indeed, we always try to give the benefit of the doubt, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the last three years we have received 577 claims and have settled 372 of them.

    Gulf War
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the United Kingdom of the Gulf war; how much has been recovered from allied nations; and what will be final net cost to the taxpayer.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The additional defence costs of the Gulf conflict, to be spread over several years, are currently estimated to be about £2·5 billion. The bulk of the costs are offset by cash contributions from other Governments, totalling some £2 billion.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not clear from that information that not only was the Gulf war a great success in military terms, but that the financial outcome was also most satisfactory from the point of view of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, and I suspect that it has been an almost unique experience in that so much of the cost has been provided by other Governments. We are grateful to all Governments who came forward with cash for the war.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Apart from the fact that we made a profit from the Gulf war, may I ask the Minister to say what else was achieved by it, with Saddam Hussein still in power and carrying out his evil acts and with the dictatorship still in power in Kuwait? Why were our young men sent to their deaths in such a meaningless cause?
    Mr. Hamilton: I find that, from start to finish, a most incredible contribution. I thought that I had made it clear that we did not make a profit on the war. It cost £2·5

    135
    billion and we got back £2 billion, which means that it cost us £500 million, which does not look to me like a profit. The hon. Gentleman will remember—indeed, his party purported to support the action of the coalition forces—that the objective was to liberate Kuwait. That is precisely what we did.
    Mr. Conway: Does the Minister accept that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, the members of the Territorial Army and the reserve forces who served in the Gulf war were remarkably cost effective? Does he agree that that bodes well for the TA review now under way in ensuring that the TA continues to give value for money and is geographically well balanced?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes. Clearly, in the current review of the Territorial Army, we are paying great attention to the need to continue to have a good geographical spread across the country. We pay tribute to the cost effectiveness of the Territorials.
    Dr. Reid: If, as the Minister says, we recouped so much money on the Gulf war, may I ask him to explain why the Ministry of Defence is being so mean and tight-fisted towards some of those who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice during that war? Is the Minister aware, for example, of the considerable number of Territorial Army members who served in the Gulf, including over 20 from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who have been refused their bounty because they did not serve their annual camp—precisely because they were in the Gulf for over 51 days? That is a scandalous way to treat people who risked their lives and came under repeated Scud attacks for the sake of their country. Will he order an immediate review of those cases with a view to ensuring that nobody is penalised financially purely because of the bravery that they showed and the sacrifice that they were prepared to make for their country?
    Mr. Hamilton: What the hon. Gentleman says about members of the Territorial Army being refused their bounty is news to me, so I should be grateful if he would write to me. Of course we shall investigate such cases. As for our being mean and tight-fisted—the hon Gentleman's words—that is certainly not the case. There were very large claims from members of the Territorial Army for loss of earnings and most of them were met in full.

    Merchant Shipping
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in making available a pool of British-registered merchant ships for emergency defence use.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The need for Government action to ensure that sufficient ships remain on the British register to meet defence needs is under consideration.
    Sir John FarrWill my right hon. Friend assure the House that at least one of the lessons that we learnt in the Gulf war will be put into effect so that, should a similar international crisis occur again, more than one in five of those support vessels will fly the red ensign, as was the case in the Gulf war?
    Mr. HamiltonYes, I hear what my hon. Friend says. However, Operation Granby proved that it is possible to
    136
    go out onto the charter market for ships and find ships from many different nations to perform the tasks that we wanted of them. Although not as many red ensign ships supported our troops in the Gulf as might have, the task was carried out economically by other nations.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that the virtual destruction of the British Merchant Navy in the past 12 years has been one of the most severe crimes committed against this country by the present Government? Does he accept that the Government are reducing to fewer than 300 ships the number of vessels that now sail under the red ensign and that they have treated with utter contempt the red ensign, which has served this country well in times of peace and war? Will the Government, extremely belatedly, redress their policies, adopt some of the measures that other western Governments take to defend their merchant fleets, and accept the absurdity of an island state devoid of a merchant navy?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is emotional language to talk about the virtual destruction of the British Merchant Navy. Several British shipping companies have chosen to opt out —to flag out—and to run their ships under another organisation. In the circumstances, we are talking about a vast subsidy from taxpayers' money in some form to stop that flagging out taking place. We must discuss carefully whether that is the best way that money should be spent.

    Nuclear Weapons Testing
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy of testing nuclear weapons at the Nevada test site.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The United Kingdom carries out such tests of nuclear warheads as are necessary to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent. Tests are carried out at the United States Department of Energy's site in Nevada under the terms of the 1958 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. We conform to all relevant international treaties related to nuclear testing.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister confirm or deny that a British nuclear test, code-named Bristol, is due to take place soon in Nevada? The House will find it difficult to understand why the country needs another nuclear test, especially when the basic technology has been tested countless times before. Does the Minister recall that last year's EC conference on those issues ended in disagreement over nuclear testing? Which is more valuable—a few more British nuclear tests or a worldwide agreement on stopping all nuclear tests?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not general practice to confirm or deny that nuclear tests are about to take place. As for the validity of those tests, I remind him that it is important to have effective nuclear warheads, and testing is the only way to establish whether warheads are effective. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's position on nuclear weapons—like many Opposition Back Benchers, he is probably totally against them—he will agree that if we are to have them, they should operate safely. That is one of the benefits of nuclear testing.

    Scottish Regiments
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the future of the Scottish regiments and battalions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom King: I have received many such representations and I well understand the depth of feeling on the part of those expressing their concern. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in the recent defence debate, under our restructuring proposals, the proportion of Scottish units in the Army overall will increase rather than decrease.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State specify the exact circumstances that led the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland to give the clear impression during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election that a review of that decision was possible? Was that a collective decision by the Tory party or the Cabinet to raise false expectations or were the Ministers acting in a freelance capacity?
    Mr. King: The position is precisely clear and has been confirmed. I have made it clear that we have made decisions for the future structure of the Army that will result in a higher proportion of the Army overall being drawn from Scotland—I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. Since then we have published the timetable for the amalgamation of regiments, and it was to that fact that my right hon. Friends were perfectly fairly drawing attention.

    Princess of Wales RAF Hospital
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude a sale of the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: We expect to conclude a sale of the Princess of Wales hospital at RAF Ely at the earliest opportunity commensurate with our responsibility to maximise disposal receipts.
    Mr. Paice: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept the view of the local district health authority that it is absolutely essential that the core facility of the hospital should be available for the district health authority to provide treatment through the NHS? Will he ensure that when considering any bids, any prospective purchases for the hospital, the needs of the health authority will be borne in mind?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, of course, I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We shall continue to confer with the local health authority. We have been in touch with it about the proposed sale of the site and will continue to be.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report of Lancaster health authority, a copy of which I sent him, showing the immense progress that it has made during the past year —all within its budget? Is he aware of the vast increase since 1979 in the number of hip operations—from 60 to 197—in knee operations—from 16 to 90—and in cataracts of 216 to 685. Is he aware that when the hospital becomes a trust it will make even more rapid progress being run by local people for local people?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that excellent report to my attention. I think that patients can see that the reforms are working—there are better clinic hours, with evening and out-of-hours clinics, and improvements in service and the patients' environment. Such improvements are taking place in Lancaster and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that they will continue to take place everywhere.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to join me in expressing joy at the release of Terry Waite and Tom Sutherland from their long and terrible captivity? May I also express—as I am sure he will —boundless admiration for the great courage and inner strength shown by the two men and all the other released hostages. Those qualities were brilliantly manifested yet again in the remarkable speech by Terry Waite at RAF Lyneham at lunchtime today. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking everyone, including the service given by the British Government, who have worked and still work to secure the release of hostages? I particularly thank the United Nations Secretary-General and his envoy, Mr. Picco. Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement by Terry Waite's captors that they now recognise that they did wrong and that what they did has served no useful purpose should be understood by all those who engage in the vile practice of taking hostages, anywhere?
    The Prime Minister: I agree unreservedly with the right hon. Gentleman's comments and believe that they will be echoed throughout the country. This morning I spoke briefly to Terry Waite while he was on board the aircraft returning home and was able to express the delight that I and the whole country felt at his safe return and at Mr. Sutherland's release. We owe a great deal to the United Nations Secretary-General and to Mr. Picco who have worked tirelessly with others to secure the release of the hostages. In welcoming the release of Mr. Waite and Mr. Sutherland, may I express the hope that none of us forget that there are still more hostages whom we wish to see speedily returned to their homes. The developments that we have seen vindicate the policy of not doing deals with hostage takers. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the remarks by the hostage takers. Let us hope that the lesson has been learnt and that never again shall we see this vile practice recur.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shepherd: During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to look at the Harris poll in last Sunday's issue of The Observer which clearly showed that two thirds of the people of this country, including 60 per cent. of Labour voters, support my right hon. Friend's policy of reducing the standard rate of tax from 25p to 20p in the pound? Is it not clear that at the next general election the public will face a clear choice between lower personal taxes under a Conservative Government or swingeing increased taxes under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend certainly puts the point crisply, and I entirely agree with him. Conservatives believe that people should be left with as much as possible of their own money to spend in their own interests, in the clear belief that they will spend it better in their interests than any Government will do for them. We leave it to the Opposition to advocate higher taxes. That is not our view.
    Mr. Watson: Is the Prime Minister aware that under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, to which this country is a signatory, all Governments are obliged to provide asylum to those fleeing from serious human rights violations? Given that the Asylum Bill will deny genuine asylum seekers entry to this country,—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Yes it will, and the few who slip through the net will be denied legal aid to argue their case. Will the Prime Minister tell us how his Government will meet their obligations under the convention?
    The Prime Minister: The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not deter genuine asylum seekers. It will prevent the misuse of asylum procedures while protecting the position of genuine refugees. It seeks to accelerate decision making, and it will find strong support in the House and in the country.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not agree to binding minimum rates of income tax in Europe, which have been advocated by the Socialist Confederation in Europe and are supported by the Labour party in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. If the Labour party has signed European documents to that effect, I hope that it will have the courtesy to place them in the Library so that we may all see them. It is clearly Labour's vision to have high tax rates, but it is the hope of the people of this country to have the lowest possible tax rates, and that is what we shall offer.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the draft proposals on economic and monetary union and on political union involve far-reaching constitutional change to our present arrangements? If he does, why does he reject the sovereignty of the British people in taking the final decision on the matter in a post-legislative referendum?
    The Prime Minister: Because we are a parliamentary democracy.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the popular music industry and its contribution to overseas earnings? Would he echo the view of music lovers everywhere about the release of a certain rap record which shows the statesmanlike approach of the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's suggestion is tempting, but I have not heard the record and I am not sure whether it ought to be released.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1962, when he packed up work to look after his parents, he received unemployment benefit under the terms of the legislation introduced by the Labour Government of 1945–50? Is he aware that anyone placed in that predicament today, and who decided to go on the dole so as to look after his sick parents, would not receive a single penny piece? Who is the person responsible for that change? It is none other than the Prime Minister who, as Minister for Social Security, introduced measures to prevent people from receiving benefit in those circumstances. Coming from a man who claims to be in favour of the classless society, is that not hypocrisy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should, for once, get his facts straight and stick to them. I remind him that great improvements have been made not only in the amount of assistance that is available to people who are unemployed, but in the amount of assistance to ensure that people receive training so that they can get back into work. When the last Labour Government left office—[Interruption]—there were 6,000 training jobs. There are now 350,000.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down.
    Mr. Gale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in sharp contrast to the open-door policy apparently espoused by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his party, the measures contained in the Asylum Bill will be fair and of great benefit to genuine asylum seekers?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am happy to confirm that. It is necessary to provide a proper asylum law to make sure that genuine refugees can be dealt with speedily and adequately. Without the Asylum Bill, that would no longer be the case.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Why is it that £22·50 is spent on advertising and publicity for each expatriate voter who chooses to record his vote in this country, while only one tenth of a penny is spent in the United Kingdom encouraging people to vote? Is this one of the reasons why 1 million people are

    141
    missing off the electoral register? What does the Prime Minister intend to do between now and a general election to put those 1 million people back on the register?
    The Prime Minister: Both at home and abroad, the intention is to ensure that the people who are entitled to vote are aware of that fact. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself why he is so keen to see people who are entitled to vote not able to do so.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted the vote of parents in Gravesham, in the case of one school by a margin of nine to one, to take control over the management of their schools through grant-maintained status? Has he also noted the Labour party's policy proposal to reverse the decision of the parents and to claw back the education funds concerned to a centralised bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: There is nothing surprising in the Labour party's policies on that. It dislikes choice and parents having authority and power. We are determined to give both choice and power back to parents and that is why more schools are becoming grant maintained. After the general election, an avalanche of schools will seek to become grant maintained.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: In what circumstances would the Prime Minister contemplate using nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's position has always been clear—nuclear weapons are there as a deterrent. The difference between our position and that of the Labour party is that people accept that we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons and know that Labour Members would not be, so they would not have a deterrent. That is why the Opposition's defence policy is incredible.
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction of the inflation rate to 3·7 per cent. is extremely good news for business, for householders and for those on a fixed income, and will he continue the policy of reducing the inflation rate?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that that is our intention. The present inflation rate is, of course, precisely one half of the inflation rate when it was at its very lowest—just briefly under the previous Labour Government.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: This nation has been a nation of volunteers. How can we encourage volunteering if we cut community volunteering and the numbers engaged in the territorial volunteer reserves?
    The Prime Minister: We are examining and consulting on the particular position of the Territorial Army. As for volunteering generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a vast increase in volunteering in the whole range of voluntary services in the last decade. That has been a continuing trend. I welcome that and we encourage it.

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

    JUDGES (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (ISLE OF MAN)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (MOROCCO)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Morocco) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Papua New Guinea) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (CZECHOSLOVAKIA)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Czechoslovakia) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (ICELAND)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Iceland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (FINLAND)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (DENMARK)
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    Question agreed to.

Education (Schools) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I drew your attention to a series of questions which I tabled for written answer but which the Ministry of Defence refused to answer. You will have seen in earlier exchanges today, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), that the Minister again refused to answer. As I understand it, there was a convention in the Ministry of Defence that certain questions tabled by hon. Members were not answered.
However, in recent months the Ministry appears to have started the practice of authorising information to be supplied to the press which covers exactly the same ground as the questions tabled. Surely you have always deprecated the possibility that Ministers agree to brief the press but not to give the same information to the House. Will you consider the series of questions and take action to ensure that, if information is provided to newspapers or to television, it should also be provided to the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is not my function—the House knows this—to monitor answers given to questions. I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say when I called him to ask a supplementary question today. I can say only that if—if—information is given to the press, it should equally be given to the House.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Rogers: It is when it is impossible for hon. Members and for members of the Opposition Front Bench to obtain answers from the Ministry of Defence. When we table questions, we often receive a monosyllabic "no" or a refusal to answer, but information is given to the press which is not available to hon. Members.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have heard this said ever since I have been in the House of Commons.
Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well, it does take up a lot of time.
Mr. Dickens: Did you notice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition asked one sensible question? Did you also notice how many Back Benchers managed to put a question to the Prime Minister as a result? Would not that be a wonderful practice for the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order, but it enables more hon. Members to ask questions.
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although we all welcome the release of Terry Waite and Tom Sutherland, will the Government make a statement on why they reached a deal with terrorist groups? I understood that the Government would not enter into any deals, so will the Prime Minister or the appropriate Minister make a statement, because it is important that we hear their views?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is directly to do with you. All of us in the House are great admirers of Sir Winston Churchill. However, before the names of rooms in the House are changed—such as the Harcourt Room being renamed the Churchill Room—is it not right that, as when Ernest Bevin's bust was put in a place to which the whole House agreed, before names are changed willy-nilly to suit some people, the House is asked its opinion? Otherwise any self-appointed or unrepresentative person can change what they like. The House belongs to its Members, and its Members should be consulted.
Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, it was done on the advice of the Services Committee which no longer exists. The hon. Gentleman should raise the matter with the new Finance and Services Committee. I do not know whether the change has taken place, so no doubt it will listen to his views.
I think that we should get on with the debate. I have already said that I have not been able to select the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill gives effect to the main provisions of the parents charter, which we launched a month or two ago. It represents a further massive step in the direction of giving parents more power and influence over the education of their own children. It will also enable parents to exercise a more effective and a more real choice of school for their children.
Two key points of policy are encompassed by the Bill. The first is to provide for performance tables to be published for every school; the second is to make provision for the regular inspection of every state school, with clear and straightforward reporting of the results of the inspections being made available to the parents of the children who attend each school.
The overall effect of the Bill will be to give the general public and especially parents far more information than we have been able to contemplate before about the performance of our education system. We are opening up a world that has been closed to the general public for far too long. Once the Bill has come into effect, people will begin to ask why they were never previously able to receive the kind of information about their children's schools which we will now put into people's hands.
The provisions are a direct response to the general public's concern about the standards of education. The Government share that concern to the full, and that is what all our education reforms are about. We want to

145
improve the standards of education and training for our young people to the levels that the country will require of future generations. The parents charter provisions in the Bill are a key part of that whole effort.
Mr. John McAllion: If the Secretary of State is serious in saying that the proposals are a key part of the Government's educational effort in relation to the United Kingdom, why have primary schools in Scotland been excluded from the legislation?
Mr. Clarke: The Scottish education system has always varied to some extent from the English system, and matters in Scotland are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Office selects the aspects of our policy which seem suitable for Scotland.
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
Mr. Clarke: I will press on. What I am about to say gives an idea of the differences of Scottish attitude and of Scottish provisions.
We are just getting the first provisional results of the tests for seven-year-olds, which were carried out in a more widespread way in England than they were in Scotland.
The first of the provisional results, referred to in the various documents whose contents have been discussed in the public press, are now appearing, and more information will be forthcoming. As we discover from those tests the standards of mathematical and reading ability demonstrated by our seven-year-olds, we can have some cause for satisfaction, because a good proportion of children are shown to have been making very good progress.
However, there have already been some expressions of concern about the disappointingly high proportion of children, both in England and Wales, who at that stage were making very little progress with reading in particular. That information is only the tip of the iceberg—more and more will emerge as the Government's reforms come into effect—but it reveals the purpose of our reforms.
The information itself reveals legitimate cause for public concern, and an aspect of children's performance in school that parents are most anxious we should address. That is why we are acquiring the information, and the information reveals exactly why we are embarking on a vigorous process of school reform. The information and evidence of public concern justify, among other things, the considerable effort that I know we are demanding of schools and teachers.
Looking at those provisional results, I cannot help but remember that, only a few months ago, some people, including some hon. Members, were totally against the whole idea of testing seven-year-old children in schools. A campaign run by the teachers union in Scotland achieved considerable success, and fewer seven-year-olds were tested in Scotland than in England. I assume, therefore, that the Scottish public remain shrouded in ignorance to a much greater degree than the English public when it comes to the exact performance of their schools.
There were people in England, too, who claimed that the tests would not tell us anything that we did not already know. The early reaction to the information that is emerging shows that the public did not know exactly what the situation was. Although, personally, I think that the general public felt a certain disquiet and felt a need to know more about the standards being achieved by
146
seven-year-olds in our schools, there were those in the educational world who were more anxious not to test, or to remain silent about the results.
Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot refuse to answer a perfectly legitimate question about Scottish education on the grounds that it is a matter for his Scottish colleagues, while at the same time introducing a Bill, which quite disgracefully shoehorns Scottish education into what is basically English and Welsh legislation. Will he reflect, even at this late stage, on the wisdom of referring the single clause relevant to Scotland to a Special Standing Committee of Scottish Members so that it can be properly discussed?
Mr. Clarke: The Bill follows the perfectly ordinary practice of containing United Kingdom legislation, which, for the most part, will apply to all parts of the United Kingdom and also containing a clause that makes express provision for the information that is given in Scotland. That can be addressed as a Scottish issue in Committee in the ordinary way, and I see nothing in the Bill that is remotely out of the ordinary. The generality of the Bill applies to Scotland. The Government are pursuing the same policy north and south of the border but, quite properly, we are taking account of some differences in provision in Scotland, with the result that one clause applies exclusively to Scotland.
Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State does not seem to understand the terms of his own Bill, which for the most part does not apply to Scotland. The only part of the Bill that applies to Scotland is clause 17. Why cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way to the reasonable request of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the clause be dealt with separately by Scottish Members, because it affects only Scottish Members, and because no other part of the Bill affects Scottish Members?
Mr. Clarke: The policy of giving information about schools applies in its various ways to different parts of the United Kingdom. There is a clause that gives expression to that in Scotland in a way that matches the provisions of Scottish law and Scottish requirements. It is absurd for Scottish Members to say that they want a separate Committee to discuss one clause of the Bill. I am sure that most Scottish people wish their interests to be represented in debates on the education policy embodied in the Bill, and I am sure that their interests can be represented adequately in that way.
Mr. Richard Tracey: May I move my right hon. and learned Friend off the local and nationalist difficulty referred to by Scottish Opposition Members? Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the broader point of the premature judgment of the teachers' unions and the Labour party about the tests for seven-year-olds? Surely that proves that we must beware of premature judgments. The Labour party has also jumped to premature conclusions about grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and assisted places and it has condemned them. The Conservative party lends itself to more mature conclusions, to the benefit of the youngsters of this country.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's intervention is relevant. The consistent theme of Labour's approach to education is that it is opposed to innovation. It is essentially a conservative party with regard to public services. If we had had a Labour Government for the past 10 years, nothing would have changed in our education system. It would have remained entirely a matter for local authorities, acting heavily under the influence of the professional trade unions. Labour would not have introduced any of the innovations that we have been and are considering, including seven-year-old tests.
I have conceded that the first year's seven-year-old tests were imperfect in their details, and I have invited the School Examinations and Assessment Council to come back— as it has—with a much improved version of the tests for next year, which will be more manageable in the classroom and give us more detailed results about the precise level of attainment, particularly in reading, that pupils have reached.
The seven-year-old tests already carried out in England have produced most effective reporting to parents about how well their children are proceeding and have provided much more information for the teachers about how their pupils are proceeding vis-a-vis the national norm. We are beginning to get widespread national information about how our schools are performing, and we will get it county by county.
I have described what have been produced so far as provisional figures. I have made it clear that this year I intend to publish the results of the first year of seven-year-old tests local authority by local authority. I will not in the first instance publish them school by school, because we gave an undertaking that we would not do that in the trial year of the first nationwide seven-year-old tests. However, I see no reason why we should not now give proper figures on a local authority basis.
I was surprised and startled to discover, when I first intended to produce that information, that only 22 local education authorities could give me full information about the seven-year-old test results. That speaks volumes about local authority control of education in this country, particularly many Labour local authorities, which simply are not used to measuring the performance of their schools, let alone producing the results. We wait to discover how many of them will be able to produce the results, how many are bothered to collate the information for their own purposes and how many are capable of transmitting it to me.
I believe that the public are entitled to know the breakdown of the results local authority by local authority. As I have said, this first year's information, which has aroused a lot of legitimate public interest, is only the beginning of what we will produce by way of full information for the general public and parents about how well each part of the system is performing.
Mr. Elliot Morley: My county council has collated information, and it has surveyed all the teachers involved in the seven-year-old tests. This is not a political matter. The county council discovered that the vast majority of the teachers disputed the value of the tests because of the impact of the rising sixes and the wide range and disparity of ages, and also because the tests distracted them for so long from classroom teaching, at the expense of the majority of the children they were supposed to be teaching. The
148
conclusion only confirmed what was known about the children. The value of the exercise was completely undermined by the disruption that the tests brought about.
Mr. Clarke: I concede that the hon. Gentleman's second point has some validity, but it is exaggerated. I accept that the first-year tests undoubtedly took far too much time in many classrooms, and that they sometimes held back the proper teaching of classes. It is for that reason that I asked the chairman of SEAC to review the nature of the tests and to make some changes at SEAC. Practising teachers have been appointed to SEAC. For next year, we have devised a more straightforward system of testing, which will take up less time in the classroom and be more manageable but still produce worthwhile results. There will be better results, because more information will be given by more straightforward testing of such matters as reading ability.
I dispute what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said about the test not telling teachers anything that they did not already know. Many teachers assert that, but the evidence of Her Majesty's inspectorate and others clearly contradicts it. The teachers' assessment and the result of the test differed in about a third of cases. As I have said, the public information that is being revealed is new, is of value, is something which the public should have had before, and will help teachers to address the standards that they are achieving in their schools.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment. I must make progress.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe takes me back to the point that I was making. I am astonished to find that, a few months later, there are still people such as himself plainly arguing, "Let us find reasons for not testing the children and for not producing the results; it is not something that the general public should know"—opposing the general principles in the Bill.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On information, is my right hon. and learned Friend willing to comment on reports that the Richmond upon Thames borough council has advised the governing bodies of local schools that they may not legally distribute copies of the parents charter to parents? Is that not absolute nonsense? Is it not monstrous to seek to deprive parents of their right to information on the education of their children?
Mr. Andy Stewart indicated assent
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is nodding his head. In our county of Nottinghamshire, the same practice as that in Richmond has been followed. Advice has been given that schools should not distribute the parents charter. I stress that it is only advice. The county councils and borough councils concerned are not entitled to forbid the distribution of that material, which is being distributed only in the way in which successive Governments have distributed material to parents.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel): the behaviour of Richmond upon Thames borough council and that of Nottinghamshire county council shows what Liberal and Labour councils all too frequently believe about exposing

149
their activities and their performance to the general public. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) plainly agrees that councils should be encouraged to take the view that parents should not be allowed to know the results achieved at their schools, and that they should not be allowed more information about how their children are performing. The parents charter is a threat to the closed bureaucratic world in which the Liberal and Labour parties all too often like to cloak the education authorities that they control.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has been trying to intervene for a long time. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then proceed, if I may, for some time before giving way again.
Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order after we have dealt with this matter.
Mr. Peter Hardy: My point is important. A substantial number of senior figures in Conservative education authorities are not enthusiastic about Government policy. However, does the Secretary of State accept that, although he may be concerned about reading standards in our primary schools, reading standards in primary schools in England today are higher than they were 40 or 50 years ago? Will he therefore make it clear that, if he is to make comments before he has given the matter serious consideration, he will not disregard that important point? The Under-Secretary of State appeared to disagree with me, but I did considerable research on the subject in the 1960s.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order now.
Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it either proper or in the traditions of the House for a so-called Opposition Front Bench spokesman to make this gesture with his hand while the Secretary of State is speaking?
Mr. Speaker: I did not see that particular piece of body language, but body language is not unknown in this Chamber.
Mr. Clarke: I was touching on the part of the Bill which deals with the production of performance tables which will include, among other things, the results of national curriculum tests, as we steadily develop the national curriculum and the testing system. It is obvious that the production of such information arouses a great deal of controversy and body language among a large part of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Wentworth is right to say that a few senior Conservative councillors are unhappy about it, too. I regret that. On the whole, the attitude of Conservative councillors is more restrained in places such as Richmond, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and many other councils that are controlled by our political opponents.
I make no apology for the fact that performance tables will produce for the general public information about the performance of schools which local authorities were previously deeply reluctant to let out. I invite the House to
150
give a Second Reading to a Bill that will make it legally obligatory to produce information that is useful to the public and parents.
The hon. Member for Wentworth made a second point, about standards of reading. I accept that he has expertise in the matter. He is a former teacher and has always followed education matters. He claims that reading standards are no worse now than 40 years ago. I often follow such debates. As there was a tradition 40 years ago of not providing generally available or comparable national information, it is difficult to come to firm conclusions.
I notice that, every time Her Majesty's inspectorate produces a report about reading standards today, and every time that there is an inquiry into a school, there is widespread public anxiety about reading standards, and a widespread desire to improve them. That is the key point.
We cannot tolerate people leaving our schools illiterate or innumerate in any significant numbers. I do not understand how we are supposed to tackle that if no one will allow us to test children's progress at key stages or if, when we do, there is resistance from local authority bureaucracy or the National Union of Teachers to allowing anyone to know the results of that testing. We are engaged on a key part of the task that faces us all now. That task is to bring levels of literacy and numeracy and, among older children, academic attainment and vocational training up to the level which today's society requires.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: I apologise but, having given way at least half a dozen times in five minutes, I said that I would make a little more progress before I gave way again.
Mr. Thornton: On that point, Sir.
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that I shall not be allowed to get off the point entirely for some time.
I cited the seven-year-old tests as the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we shall have the results of national curriculum tests at the ages of seven, 11 and 14. GCSE results are already available to those who get hold of a school's prospectus. Other public examination results, including A-level results, are usually available if one takes the trouble to obtain the prospectus of the school. Equally key information includes truancy figures, staying-on rates for secondary schools and the destination of pupils when they leave schools. Each part of that set of information is essential if we are to know how our system is performing and to give people any effective influence on schools.
Mr. Thornton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: By popular request, I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
Mr. Thornton: Few Members of Parliament, certainly on this side of the House, would dispute the need to give the maximum amount of information to parents by publishing results. However, there are some elements of disquiet, particularly in respect of pupils with special educational needs. This is a point for Committee, but I would like my right hon. Friend to consider it. There can

151
be huge variations in the numbers, even using the Warnock figures. I should like that point to be given some consideration in Committee, to ensure that it is reflected somewhere in a coherent form in the publication of any results from individual schools.
Mr. Clarke: We can certainly tackle that in Committee; my hon. Friend has mentioned the first of many important points. One has to make sensible use of the results and to ask sensible questions about what lies behind them. As I understand it, that is the Opposition's argument. However, if one publishes in tabular form each and every qualification that someone might believe is a necessary addition to the outline results, one is in danger of making all the information completely unmanageable and shrouding it in secrecy simply by making it excessive. I shall return to that subject and to the question of special educational needs.
A few months ago, in the parents charter, we announced that we were going to publish all that information. For years it had been kept secret, and the idea of league tables had been rejected countless times. Almost overnight, we appear to have achieved a widespread public conversion from the Opposition. Although Opposition Back Benchers from Scunthorpe and elsewhere may still be opposed to the whole idea, by and large those on the Opposition Front Bench already lack the nerve to oppose the production of performance tables for schools. The Opposition are criticising them on the basis that all we are proposing is the publication of so called raw data. They have said that there is not enough supporting information to make our proposed tables suitably useful.
We are proposing to publish straightforward, factual, easily obtainable data about each school. I do not accept the view that it will be misused or misunderstood by the public. I do not accept the patronising view that the public and parents do not realise that each school may use perfectly sensible arguments to give the background to its results.
Most members of the public can use straightforward information intelligently. Every time I listen to the comment that the tables will not sufficiently take into account the number of pupils with special educational needs or the different background and circumstances of the population served by a school, I think that the people who make such comments are demonstrating that they are not capable of making intelligent use of that sort of information.
Every member of the public knows that schools' circumstances vary. Once the essential information is published, it is open to everybody concerned to make use of it and to publish it in a local newspaper if they so wish, coupled with sensible comments about the number of pupils, the differences between schools with or without academic selection and the social and economic circumstances of each school. All those matters might properly be regarded as relevant.
Those qualifications are not arguments for not producing the information in the first place. It would be a terrible mistake to allow the inclusion of so many special points of that sort that the league tables would be covered in footnotes or would be a sustained academic thesis, so that very few members of the general public would have the time to read them and digest the information.
152
Let us trust parents and the public. Most of them can make intelligent use of the straightforward information that they are entitled to.
Mr. Jack Straw: Does the Secretary of State understand that the crude view that he is adopting is wholly inconsistent with that of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)? When we discussed the matter in Standing Committee in January 1988, he said that schools' results should be
"published in the context of a report about the work of the school as a whole, including a description of its circumstances and catchment area, and a general statement about the broad effect of socio-economic factors on performance."
Far from patronising parents, that Secretary of State went on to say:
"That will allow for an informed interpretation of assessment results."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 12 January 1988; c. 425.]
Why is the Secretary of State denying that informed interpretation?
Mr. Clarke: A few months ago, the hon. Gentleman was taking the crude view that no information about a school's performance should be vouchsafed to the general public. It is certainly true that a school can set its own examination results in whatever context seems most sensible when a prospectus is issued, including a general description of circumstances.
We are talking about comparative tables. They are an important innovation proposed by the parents charter. I do not understand how one sets out comparative tables when all the figures are surrounded by full descriptions of the circumstances of each school. Every hon. Member knows the schools and colleges in his or her constituency. They know, just as their constituents will when the information is published, the circumstances of each school. They will make allowances for those matters for which they should properly make allowance. In almost every case, they will be considerably surprised by the comparisons that for the first time will be made in performance in key respects between schools of remarkably similar objectives and background.
Other comments can properly be made, and will be made by sensible local journalists and experts of all kinds. For example, the Audit Commission recently made the valid point that added value—that is Audit Commission language—was a relevant judgment of schools. I accept that.
Mr. Straw: But does the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand it?
Mr. Clarke: I understand it entirely.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: If the Secretary of State can understand it, we can.
Mr. Clarke: There is an interesting conversation going on between new-found enthusiasts on the Opposition Front Bench for giving information to the public.
Let us take this through step by step. With the full information that I have described, one can make valid comparisons between schools. One can see how far children have advanced from where they were when they arrived at where they were when they left. That can be used to compare different schools. One might still have to qualify those judgments with judgments about the social circumstances of the school, whether that school was taking a particularly high proportion of children with

153
special educational needs, and so on. Nevertheless, it would be a perfectly sensible study. That study can be made now. One can compare GCSE results with A-level results to judge the progress made by sixth forms. No other form of value added comparison is possible. Until the parents charter, adequate information was not likely to be available about schools.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with analysing the tables in that way. I have no doubt that it will be done by intelligent commentators, such as the Audit Commission, and local newspapers. If it is suggested that the Bill should require the publication of such detailed analyses in the first place—before anything can be published—members of the Audit Commission and Members of Parliament may find the document familiar and accessible, but many parents may first of all prefer to see the actual information on performance and tables.
Mr. Straw: Who is patronising now?
Mr. Clarke: We are not patronising. All I am saying is that, once we produce the material, these judgments can be made. The Labour party is coming reluctantly to the conclusion that these data must be made available, so it will come up with as many complicating amendments as possible to ensure that as few members of the public as possible get access to straightforward information.
Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall finish my allegations and then give way.
At times Labour Members are guilty of allying themselves with that section of opinion in the educational world that wants to make so many qualifications about results that, in effect, it is trying to prove that there is no such thing as one school being better than another. If one thinks of enough footnotes, qualifications, reasons and explanations, one can demonstrate that there is no difference between one school and another.
The Government's duty is to ensure that straightforward information is published, and that is what the Bill provides. People are entitled to analyse and make use of that information to the best extent they can.
Mr. Straw: Yet again, the Secretary of State has shown that he has not done his homework on this issue or, indeed, on the Opposition's position. Our position during the past month is the same one that we have taken for three years. Again and again, we have argued the need for Ministers and local authorities to concentrate on the value added by schools. If one simply relies on the raw data, and not school effectiveness data, it may show the strength of the pupils at the school, not the strength of the school. It is the Secretary of State who, thank God, is now making a deathbed conversion towards school effectiveness, not us.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has two reactions every time we produce a policy. Usually, he agrees with it rapidly, but sometimes he claims that he thought of it first. However, when one re-reads his previous statements, one finds nothing that resembles the parents charter. If the hon. Gentleman is claiming that, had he been in office, a Labour Government would have taken on the educational world and produced, out of the hands of the local education authorities and the testing system, the information that we will acquire, he is asking us to believe in cloud cuckoo land.
154
The Labour party has no essential policy on this issue. It would not drive through any of our changes against the interests of the educational world, which is strongly represented in it. Normally, the Opposition tow along until the end and then produce footnote detail to try to distinguish their policy from our own.
As a result of the Bill, a much fuller picture of how our schools are performing will be presented. Some newspapers have already produced data according to what information is available—largely, the A-level results for individual schools. That was interesting, but I did not agree with the way in which some of the newspapers presented those data. However, they were perfectly entitled to analyse the results from what they regarded as the 300 best schools, or as many of those schools as would take part in the project.
I believe that such results are almost the least interesting part of what is eventually produced by a school, not least because the schools on that list do not represent a problem. I do not lie awake at night worrying about the performance of those extremely good schools. Those data related to their performance with high-flying pupils.
When we have the full information as a result of the parents charter and the Bill, the public and the House will discover which state schools offer the worst performance. Wait until we see the recorded truancy rates in some of our more difficult schools. Wait until we see the staying-on rates and how they vary from place to place. We will then discover that we have some problem schools. We will also realise that, until the parents charter, the public were not given any straightforward information about the performance of schools.
A much-repeated criticism about the tables is that, once published, all the parents will want to go to the better schools. Some educationists argue that that is a sinful desire on the part of those parents, which will cause considerable problems for the schools that are not regarded as the better ones. However, that will provide those schools with an incentive to improve their performance.
The argument against the information that will be provided as a result of the Bill and the parents charter is sometimes reduced to one that claims that parents should not be allowed to know such information. Therefore, they will send their children to poorly performing schools without realising that, in key aspects, those schools fall below the level of performance that is attained nationally or in their specific locality.
The performance tables that will be published as a result of the Bill will—I apologise to the House for the jargon—empower parents, particularly from deprived backgrounds, to make more informed choices. They will have real influence over schools, because they will be given the information of which they should never have been deprived for so long.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I believe that the Secretary of State will find that the House is united in trying to give parents the information that will make them more informed in their choice of school. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly referred to the work of the Audit Commission on value-added information. As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the publication of such information because it takes longer to compile than the other information that he wants to publish and might therefore hold up the

155
publication of that other information. However, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seek to have that value-added information published when it is available? He may publish other information first, but will he at least commit himself to ensuring that value-added information is made available as quickly as possible?
Mr. Clarke: That can be worked out. We are producing data that will, for the first time, make it possible for those value-added tables to be produced. I do not want all the data that is required statutorily by the Bill to be produced in such a way that, instead of a few columns and a few heads of information, we have countless columns with countless footnotes. That would make it difficult to tackle all the information.
I am not being patronising when I say that I prefer, when seeing tables of figures, to see first the key tables and graphs, if one is using graphs, on which one intends to base one's decisions. That is far preferable to going through pages of analyses without the key items being highlighted. I have conceded that value added is a perfectly reasonable analysis to make of a school. The Bill will enable the data to be published so that those value-added calculations can be made.
I was intrigued to hear the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats otherwise say that there is no difference between the parties about giving information to parents. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham was referring with Richmond borough council? It is one thing for Liberals to sit powerless on the Back Benches of this House expressing their belief in virtue. Will they, in those rare cases where they have control of the local bureaucracy, take steps to ensure that it is put into practice?
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The issue which Richmond and other councils are addressing centres on the fact that the Government passed legislation saying that local authority employees should not distribute information that is politically contentious. The parents charter is unusual in that respect, in that it sets out in red type information which has not been agreed by the House, which is politically contentious and which may not be introduced this side of the next general election. The advice circulated to those local authorities is that the information may infringe the Government's legal restrictions—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will get his officials to clarify the matter.
Mr. Clarke: I join the chorus of "Weasel words" to that intervention. The method of distributing that information has been used by Government for a considerable time and is well precedented. It is not party political information. It has been vetted for that purpose by the processes we have, it has been cleared as suitable information and it is expressed devoid of political bias.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that it was not politically contentious. Although he gives that as his opinion, where we have a borough council in which his party is in control, fatuous political arguments are raised for this information not to be distributed to parents. That is because what Liberals say in the House frequently does not accord with what they do when they take power. Liberals in Richmond are as bad as socialists
156
in Nottinghamshire in believing that parents should not be given this information about their schools, information which they prefer to control through their influence in the town hall.
Mr. Derek Fatchett rose—
Mrs. Maureen Hicks rose—
Mr. Clarke: I am anxious to move to the next part of the Bill, having given way probably a dozen times.
Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has based most of his case on the rights of parents to know information. Will he explain why the report on the future of Her Majesty's inspectorate has not been made available either to parents or the House of Commons? Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman, this so-called champion of freedom of information, give only one instruction to his civil servants, which was to shred the report?
Mr. Clarke: I am about to come to the next part of the Bill. The review that was carried out was advice from my officials to Ministers. I appreciate that Opposition Members have no ideas of their own, but I do not see why they should have access to advice from my officials to give them some. I have not invented the rule that advice from officials to Ministers is not publicly available. It is time-honoured. If Opposition Members are saying that, should they gain power, they would cause the publication of all written advice given to them by their officials, I shall listen with interest to what would be a novel description of the process of government that they propose to carry out.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is not rising to his usual standards if that is the best he can do on commenting on the first part of the Bill. It will give parents more information about what matters to them—the performance of their children's schools—than anyone would have contemplated before we published the parents charter.
Mrs. Hicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider publishing details of the resources that go to local authorities? We have found in the past that, when they run out of excuses for giving information to parents, they revert to the excuse of inadequate resources. We have found in many areas, including mine, that some of the worst results often come from the highest-spending authorities.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I am surprised that that demand has not been made by some Opposition Members, because they usually blame all shortcomings in the education service on lack of resources. We are now spending 50 per cent. more per pupil than when we came to power. We are also in a year in which standard spending assessments for councils have gone up by 16 per cent., whereas inflation has just gone down to below 4 per cent.
Therefore, not only are more resources going in, but there is no direct correlation between spending and performance. Some of the highest-spending Labour authorities in the country produce some of the worst results in their schools. The parents charter will help to bring that point out and make it more evident. Clearly, we need to spend more money on our children's education —we do so each year—but, as we continually point out, how it is spent and how effectively it is deployed in schools affect the standards attained in those schools, which is

157
what really matters. The late lamented—or not lamented —ILEA was a classic example of a ludicrously overspending council that produced deplorable results for the pupils in its schools.
The other important provision in the Bill is the inspection proposal, which has the same basic purpose as the performance tables. The Bill will produce a dramatic increase in the number of inspections of schools. For the first time, it will produce open reporting to every parent of the results of the inspection of each school, and direct reporting to parents of the governors' plans, explaining how they intend to build up the strengths and tackle the weaknesses in the school in the light of the inspector's report.
The Bill proposes a system with two levels of school inspection: first, Her Majesty's inspectorate, which will be given more independence of the Government and the Department of Education and Science, as well as a more public voice; secondly, a choice of teams of independent local inspectors who will meet standards set by HMI. That is a huge improvement in public information and quality control of our schools.
In the past, HMI's main role has been to advise the Government on policy, which was the main reason for its inspections. It has tended to produce about 150 public reports a year on individual schools. Indeed, HMI's school-by-school inspection was proceeding at such a slow pace that it would have taken about 200 years before every primary school in the country had had an individual inspection and report. Where HMI produced a report, I have so far found no ordinary, "lay" parent who recalls ever having seen one. Most parents never knew that an HMI report had been produced on their school.
The present system entails local authority inspections and is extremely variable in its effectiveness and coverage. In at least 10 local authorities, it is completely non-existent, because they have no inspection policy. Moreover, local authorities never allow reports on individual schools to be seen by parents. Therefore, the old system, which the Labour party would never have challenged. was seen as inspection by professionals for professionals, with parents left out in the cold.
The Bill sets up a new office of Her Majesty's chief inspector.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to make some progress.
Most of the Bill deals with the important statutory functions of Her Majesty's chief inspector and the system that that new office will oversee. In contrast to the Bill, the Education Act 1944 devoted only two subsections to inspection of denominational religious education and one subsection to the appointment of Her Majesty's inspector, who had no function other than to inspect schools at the request of the Secretary of State of the day.
Her Majesty's chief inspector will have increased independence, a formal role and the power to publish as he or she wishes. He will not be detached from decision making and will have a statutory role of offering advice to the Secretary of State. He will advise as he thinks fit, as well as when requested.
158
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been extremely critical of the new inspectorate's authority, independence and role, because he is obsessed by the numbers employed in HMI. In a wholly typical fashion, the union objects to the reduction in numbers that I am proposing. If the union objects, the hon. Member for Blackburn objects; he makes his judgment based on the number of employees.
The numbers of staff that we shall employ in the new office will be those needed to discharge the duties set out in clause 2. The numbers that I have given publicly hitherto are the best estimate that the senior chief inspector and I can make—about 175 at the end of the transitional period. I have given that estimate before, and the hon. Member for Blackburn is reported to have said on the strength of a newspaper article that we both read:
"the Secretary of State has come close to misleading the House of Commons over the numbers required."
I utterly refute that. I repeat what I have always said: 175 is the best estimate that the senior chief inspector and I could make of the number required after the transitional period to carry out the duties that I have described.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is rising to withdraw that allegation, because it was totally groundless and misleading.
Mr. Straw: The comparison that I made in The Independent newspaper was based on what the Secretary of State's own review had recommended as the number required to run the system.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): How does the hon. Gentleman know?
Mr. Straw: The Minister of State asks me how I know. I know from a statement made by the Secretary of State in response to the Independent article, a copy of which I have here. The Secretary of State said that the review team had concluded that a maximum of 380 to 390 HMI inspectors would he needed. That was based on certain stated assumptions and the review team's recommended package.
The Secretary of State must explain how the assumptions of the review team differ from the assumptions that he now makes. What did the review team say that the Secretary of State disagrees with?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman made a totally false comparison before he made the totally false allegation that I had misled the House. He had read the article in The Independent and my response to it. The figures in the article were not those that I have ever given to the House. My figures were the best estimates that the senior chief inspector and I could make of the numbers required to carry out the policy that I have laid before the House. It is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman does not have the courtesy or good sense to withdraw an allegation based on his misreading of a newspaper article.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State made the statement once outside the House. Will he now agree that the figure of 380 was that recommended by the review?
Mr. Clarke: Last week, the hon. Gentleman was trying to be a lawyer and attempting to make me read out on the floor of the House a document that he wanted me to table. The hon. Gentleman has no ideas and is desperate for the advice of my officials. He thinks that he can lure me into making a statement that will have him attempting to give a poor man's reading of "Erskine May" and saying that he wants me to lay the document before the House. I shall not do so.
The figure that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the newspaper article bears no relation to the figures that I used, which constituted the best estimate that the senior chief inspector and I could give of the numbers required to carry out the policy. The hon. Gentleman had no basis for saying that I misled the House, and he has no basis for declining to withdraw his allegation. He should stop fooling about and making the barrack-room lawyer performances that are starting to creep into his approach to the HMI review.
Two key assumptions lie behind the senior chief inspector and myself arriving at the figure of 175. Responsibility for the inspection of further education and sixth form colleges will transfer to the Further Education Funding Council under a Bill now before another place. I suspect that it will involve largely the same personnel, but they will no longer be on the strength of Her Majesty's inspectorate and will work for the funding council responsible for further education and sixth form colleges.
The senior chief inspector and I have made the best estimate we can of the savings that can be made in the complement of Her Majesty's inspectorate based in local offices and engaged in the inspection of schools in liaison with local education authorities. Many of those activities will be displaced by the substantial increase in the evidence available from 6,000 reports each year by inspectors registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I want to be helpful, although I shall not stand as a referee between the two Front Bench teams. When the figure of 175 was given, was that simply the clause 2 figure for England, or was the clause 5 figure for the Welsh inspectorate also included?
Mr. Clarke: They are English figures. The Welsh inspectorate is not my responsibility. The Secretary of State for Wales will form his own estimate with his own chief inspector.
The inspections will be carried out at local level by independent inspectors who will be registered with Her Majesty's Inspectorate, which will withdraw the registration of inspectors who are not up to standard. That means that inspectors will be supervised and monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate and will not be allowed to carry out inspections unless they are up to standard.
Ms. Gordon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. I have given way many times, and I should like to proceed.
The independent teams and Her Majesty's inspectorate will contain some people who are not members of the teaching profession. I make no apology for that. Of course the vast majority of inspectors will have professional qualifications in teaching, but inspectors should not be exclusively drawn from that stable. Many perfectly sensible and intelligent people could be trained to make a
160
contribution to inspection. People would value lay judgment alongside the professional judgment of information about the inspection of a school.
I shall now deal with how that proposed system is being challenged. The issue between the Government and the Opposition—if there is an issue on the Bill—is that the hon. Member for Blackburn advocates a policy of patsy, unquestioning inspections of schools by people who are well known to those schools. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of doing that, but it is his mechanism. My understanding of his proposal is that inspections should be carried out only by local government inspectors.
The hon. Gentleman also takes the view that only local government should be allowed to run schools. Therefore, Labour's policy, as I understand it, is that only local councils should be allowed to run schools and that those schools should be inspected only by local government inspectors. I cannot think of a more patsy, unquestioning system better designed to produce the cosy relationship about which the hon. Gentleman so frequently speaks.
Some head teachers—a minority, I am glad to say—ask why their schools cannot be inspected by inspectors they know. There are even those who ask why they cannot be inspected by those who advise them. That would not be a desirable system. Under the registration of inspectors advocated by the Bill, local government inspection will be universally up to the standard which at the moment only the very best attain.
I am not the only one criticising local government inspection. The Secondary Heads Association shares my view of the system that the Labour party seems to defend. The general secretary of the association, Mr. John Sutton, in a letter to the Prime Minister on 23 September, said:
"That some reform is necessary is not in dispute. Schools are very rarely inspected in depth by HMI and there is a need for a more regular and systematic coverage. LEA inspection has not provided an adequate substitute or back-up for HMI. This is because:

1. They have not been co-ordinated with HMI.

2. The practice and provision has varied very widely across the country.

3. There have been no agreed criteria or standards.

4. The overall calibre of inspectors has been poor.

5. The functions of inspection and advice have been mixed.

6. Inspectors have been able to control elements of expenditure, although LMS will largely stop this.

7. Their procedures have not been seen as being as open and impartial as those of HMI.

8. With individual exceptions, they have lacked the qualities which have been judged praiseworthy in HMI."

Labour's reaction to that is that local authority inspection should be made the universal norm, with local authorities inspecting the schools which only they are allowed to run. I cannot think of a recipe for diminution of standards that is more likely to succeed.
The association and others criticise what I describe as independent inspectors, but we can reassure them in the Bill and elsewhere by showing how powerful HMI will be in ensuring that standards are up to the required level. [Interruption.] do not know whether the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on the Opposition Front Bench agrees with such systematic inspection, but if she does, the Labour party is instantly converted to such inspection and reports to parents.
There are choices. The choices are either that local—
Mr. Straw: We have already proposed that.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must have proposed it so sotto voce that neither I nor any member of the public has heard his proposal. His method of expressing himself often has its imperfections. Ever since I produced my proposals about three months ago, I have thought that he was opposing them. It is absurd, every time we introduce another element of our policy, for him to leap on to the populist pitch and then, as he no doubt will in a few minutes' time, find some detailed reasons for being opposed to it.
If there is to be local inspection of 6,000 schools a year, there are several choices. The first is to have it done by local government. The second is to increase the establishment of HMI so that it employs thousands of people, but I do not believe that a centralised civil service approach is desirable. The third is the one that we are providing—giving the governors of schools the choice of teams of inspectors, who will be up to the standards required by HMI at the centre.
The most important product of this will be the reports to the parents. They will get from the inspectors straightforward summaries saying what the strengths and weaknesses of each school are. They will then get the governors' action plans, which will be the results of all this.
When I say that parents will receive this information, I must make it clear that it will not be available on application to those parents who realise that they can obtain it. It will be sent unsolicited to all parents, so that there will be a great increase in the information available to them about the school.
Teachers will be praised for their achievements and be given incentives and guidance to improve their performance. We will build up pride in individual schools on the back of the influence of parents in what those schools are doing. The Bill will allow for reports, comparative tables and inspectors' reports. It will increase, as all our policies do, parental influence and parental choice in education on a scale on which we have never previously embarked in state education.
I disregard Labour's attempts to agree with part of this. As I have said before, I do not believe that a Labour Government would have embarked on any of this. They would not have challenged any of the interest groups that wish to maintain the status quo. The Bill will let light into the education world. Given the reaction that we are getting, it is probably not for us to defend our policy—it is more for the Opposition to tell us how darkness, secrecy and the protection of a closed professional world will serve the public good in education.
I commend the Bill to the House.
4.37 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: We have listened to the Secretary of State speak for an hour and a minute, and during those 61 minutes never once did he utter a word about the central feature of the Bill—the doctrinaire destruction of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and the privatisation of the national and local schools inspectorates.
The Conservative party has no mandate for the Bill, which will undermine standards in schools, demoralise the teaching profession and, through the privatisation of the schools inspectorate, deny parents independent information about the education of their children. It will prevent the taking of prompt action to improve failing schools.
162
In three successive general election campaigns, the Conservative party has promised higher standards in education. After 12½ years of Tory government, anxiety about standards in schools has never been greater. Britain lags behind its competitors in every measure and is bottom of the league table. For four years running, the Government's teachers' pay committee has reported that teachers' morale has never been lower. Investment in education as a share of national wealth has slumped. Parents are being forced to pay more and more out of their own pockets for their children's education.
What is the Secretary of State's response to the overwhelming lack of public confidence shown in every test of public opinion about the Government's education policy and his stewardship of it? It is not to change the policy or feel some humility about 12 years of failure. Instead, it is to send for the advertising man to produce yet another glossy pamphlet—this time, a parents charter which is allegedly embodied in the Bill.
There is nothing new in the idea of a parents charter. It is a device which Conservative central office has used twice before when it was in a hole with its education policy. The spokesman for the Opposition, the then Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, had one in 1974. The then Secretary of State, Mr. Mark Carlisle, had another in 1980, but both sank without trace.
The idea of a parents charter is not new; what is new is the brazenness with which the Government play fast and loose, spending taxpayers' money on party political propaganda. While teachers are underpaid, schools are crying out for repair and children for books, Ministers' standard answer is to say, "You can't solve problems by throwing money at them." However, when it comes to the central problem faced by the Secretary of State and his colleagues—that of being re-elected—their only solution is to throw money at it, providing that it is not their money or that of their supporters but taxpayers' money.
Although the share of national wealth invested in education as a whole has gone down, taxpayer spending on publicity by the Department of Education and Science has risen in real terms since 1979 by no less than 28 times. This year's spending of £6·5 million is four and a half times the level of two years ago. The parents charter does not merely inform people of the rights that they already have and which are approved by Parliament, but contains a list of proposals on the privatisation of the inspectorate. They are highly controversial and cannot come into force until after the next election, even if the Bill is passed, and then only in the unlikely event of the Conservatives' being returned. In other words, it is a manifesto; the use of taxpayers' money for such propaganda is an utter disgrace and the Secretary of State knows it.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I had not intended to intervene so early, because I gave way several times and we need to make progress. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the figure he quoted for our publicity budget is largely a combination of our staff recruiting campaigns, coupled with increased publishing and printing costs since 1979? If he is attacking the parents charter for being party political —although in his interventions he appeared to claim that he had thought of it first—does he accept that it does not mention privatisation? If he is claiming that it does, what existing public body is he claiming that we intend to put into the private sector, either in the Bill or in the leaflet to which he objects?
Mr. Straw: The document explains about the Government's proposals.
Mr. Clarke: Privatisation?
Mr. Straw: Of course, in terribly careful language because the last word that the Secretary of State wishes to utter is "privatisation". These days, it never falls from his mouth, but even The Daily Telegraph used the word about the proposals. As I shall show, the Secretary of State is privatising the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate and of the local schools inspectorate. As he knows, the leaflet contains weasel words about how the new system of inspection of schools will work. The document is not even an accurate representation of the Bill, so it is not an accurate manifesto of what would happen to schools and to parents' rights if the Tories were to be re-elected. Therefore, the Government can be charged on two accounts—first, of spending money on a manifesto and, secondly, of issuing a manifesto that is wholly inaccurate.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is talking passionately, but he was in the middle of a denunciation of my spending money on political leaflets advocating privatisation. Where are the political words in the leaflet to which he objects and, in particular, which public body does the leaflet say that we shall privatise or transfer to the private sector?
Mr. Straw: I have dealt with exactly that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Every newspaper understands that the Secretary of State does not wish to admit that he is privatising the schools inspectorate, which is precisely what he is doing. He knows that, and he also knows that the privatisation of public services—of which he was the architect in the health service—is very unpopular with the public. He does not wish to admit the consequences of his actions.
There is no way in which anyone considering the fantastic increase in expenditure on publicity and on public relations in the past two years can come to any other conclusion than that the Government—as in 1987 and in 1983—are spending taxpayers' money on party political propaganda in a desperate attempt to be re-elected.
We cannot judge exactly what educational standards are today because of the Government's inadequate monitoring of those standards. In each manifesto since 1979, the Government have promised higher standards. In 1979, they said:
"We shall promote higher standards of achievement in basic skills. The Government's Assessment of Performance Unit will set national standards in reading, writing and arithmetic, monitored by tests worked out with teachers and others and applied locally by education authorities."
That was what the Conservatives said in 1979, but they did absolutely nothing to implement that manifesto between 1979–83 or 1983–87. They said that the assessment of performance unit would set national standards and would monitor them. Shall I tell the House what they have done with that unit? In 1989, they abolished it. As a consequence, as the Secretary of State's predecessor told the House on 25 July 1990, no national data about standards of reading at seven currently exist. The Labour Government monitored reading standards. The Conservative Government started to do so, but then abandoned the process.
164
Educational standards could and should be higher. There is too great a variation in the performance of otherwise similar schools with similar teachers and similar resources serving similar areas and similar children. If standards in each school are to be raised, we need a better flow of information about the performance of schools, improved systems of inspection and better means by which action can swiftly be taken when a school is falling down on its job.
The Secretary of State tried to make great play of the suggestion that we had caught up with him. I wish that he had bothered to prepare properly for the debate and had bothered at least to find out what the Labour party's policy was. At the moment, in order to attack us, he must invent our policy and our record. For the past three years, we have published documents about the need to improve standards of inspection and the monitoring of standards. In June this year, well before his conclusions were announced about the review of the inspectorate, we published a document called "Raising the Standard" on which we had worked and consulted for 18 months.
That document—of which I know the Secretary of State has received a copy—states that, drawing on the experience of the Audit Commission, of which the Secretary of State approved in other respects, we would establish a tough and independent education standards commission which would take over the inspectorial work and staff of Her Majesty's inspectorate, and would lead and co-ordinate the work of local authority inspectors.
We have also read and digested the Audit Commission's report on the variability in the work of local inspectors, and we believe that it is too variable and must be reformed. HMI would be held more at arm's length from Ministers because we believe that its role as impartial monitor of the system is compromised by its other current role as private adviser to the same Ministers. Local authorities would have a clear duty to inspect and monitor schools in their areas and to publish comparative data on the performance of schools.
The Secretary of State drew attention to the curious wording of section 77 of the Education Act 1944, which deals with inspection by local authorities. In spite of the Government's claims to be concerned about inspection, they have not during the past 12 years—despite the opportunities provided by three major education Bills—bothered to try to change the current statutory basis of inspection until now.
Under our plans, local authority inspectors would be constitutionally separate from other local authority functions. Local authorities themselves would be inspected by the education standards commission. The Bill contains no such proposal. Parents and governing bodies would get new rights of complaint to the education standards commission and, in certain circumstances, they could force action by the commission in relation to a local education authority and to a school governing body.
Under our proposals, schools would receive a full inspection at least once every five years, but regular monitoring by a team of properly qualified inspectors working in all schools in an area and under the supervision of the education standards commission would provide a flow of information on a consistent basis to schools, to teachers, to parents, to local authorities, to the Department of Education and Science and to Parliament.
Our proposals were carefully worked out over a three-year period and have been widely welcomed, not

165
least by parents and by governors' associations, and by the Secondary Heads Association, which has excoriated the privatising of the schools inspectorate. In contrast, the near-universal condemnation of the plans of the Secretary of State has been overwhelming.
Under the Bill, the inspectorates at national and local level are to be privatised, but only the heads of the private commercial inspection firms will need to be registered with the rump of Her Majesty's inspectorate which remains. The requirement for training of the rest is lax and cannot be implemented unless the training itself is privatised. The only requirement in the Bill about the qualities needed for inspectors is that at least one in any team should be wholly ignorant of education and of schools. The only qualification laid down in the Bill is no qualification at all.
The system is untried and untested. None of the countries with which our education system is adversely compared—France, Germany, Japan and Korea—has privatised its inspectorate or is even contemplating it.
Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Japan?
Mr. Straw: Japan as well.
The scheme is irresponsible beyond belief. None of the claims of the Secretary of State for the new, privatised inspectorate stands up to examination. He says that the inspectorate will be strengthened and all-powerful; in fact it will be severely weakened. He says that it will be independent of Government. It will not be; it will be a creature of Government. He says that handing over school inspection to commercial inspectors will help to raise standards. In fact, it will make the establishment of any consistent standard of inspecting, with the consequent raising of standards, well nigh impossible.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that of the countries with which he made comparison, Japan and Korea, which he appears to extol, do not have a system of inspection as far as I am aware, so can hardly be described as having the Government type of inspection which he proposes?
I remember the hon. Gentleman's old proposal about the standards commission. Is it not the case that, under his proposals, inspection would be carried out only by employees of the Government or of local government—overwhelmingly by local government, which will manage the schools—and that Her Majesty's inspectorate, far from being made more powerful, would be placed under the control of a quango appointed by the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is wrong on the latter point and wholly misunderstands the former. The education standards commission would be nominated by the Secretary of State, but the nomination would be subject to the endorsement of the all-party Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, and the commission itself would appoint the chief officer. If the Secretary of State is serious about guaranteeing the independence of the senior chief inspector, he should adopt that process rather than his proposal, under which he will, in practice, appoint the senior chief inspector.
The Secretary of State is wrong to suggest that only the local authority inspectors would inspect schools, but he is right to say that the inspectors would be public service employees. We do not believe that the inspection of school systems should be handed over to private companies, any more than we believe that the police, the armed forces or
166
the national health service should be privatised. We believe that some things can be dealt with by the private sector, but that public services and the regulation of public services should be maintained within the public sector. Even this Secretary of State adopted that position in respect of the regulation of other public services for which he has been responsible.
Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during his time with the Inner London education authority, the authority appointed a number of people from outside teaching to be heads of schools, notably Margaret Miles. Those people did remarkably well. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not feasible to appoint people from outside teaching or people who have not been associated with education to inspect schools, as the Secretary of State proposes?
Mr. Straw: With the inspection of classroom practice and what goes on in schools generally, it is not possible for outside observers who have no educational experience to do the job. I visit at least a school a week. The Secretary of State has managed to visit three primary schools in a year, so he will have picked up something of what I am about to say.
I try to develop as much expertise as I can about what is going on in schools, but I have never taught. It would not be sensible to have a lay person such as myself judging what goes on inside a school. One reason why Her Majesty's inspectorate is held in high esteem is that the inspectors have had experience of classroom practice. They are or have been good pedagogues and, as a head teacher said to me yesterday, when an HMI comes inside a school, one knows that one cannot pull the wool over his eyes. If a lay person came in, it would be easy to do so.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am genuinely trying to clarify the principle on which the hon. Gentleman stands. No one is talking about privatising the education service, the health service, the police or the armed forces, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman concedes. To cut through his language, is the great principle on which he stands that those who inspect on behalf of the customers of the service should be employed by the people who provide the service for each and every case in the public services?
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has described the principle with which I disagree. I believe strongly, as I shall show, that the regulator of the services should be separate from the provider. One of the central objections to right hon. and learned Gentleman's plan is that the provider becomes a regulator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): They will be employed by them.
Mr. Straw: As is his wont, the Under-Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position. The inspectors will receive their pay cheques from the local authority, but, like environmental health officers, their statutory duties will place them at arm's length from the rest of the local authority. The Secretary of State cannot make a joke of that. The truth is that HMI will continue to be paid by the Crown. The judiciary are paid by the Crown, but that does not mean that they are creatures of politicians. What

167
matters is the constitutional relationship between those individuals and the service that they regulate, not the source of their pay cheques.
Mr. Oppenheim: What about Japan?
Mr. Straw: My understanding, based on better briefing than that of the Secretary of State, is that there are inspectorates in Japan and in Korea. It is no good the Secretary of State looking to the Box for information. Both those countries have public service inspectorates.
The claim by the Secretary of State to be strengthening the power of the inspectorate is laughable. The inspectorate is to be cut to one third of its present size. Many inspectors with years of experience are to be made redundant. Her Majesty's inspectorate will be reduced to a rump which is quite incapable of meeting the tasks imposed on it. That is not just my view, but the view of those who know a little more about the task of inspection —Her Majesty's inspectors themselves. Their association, the First Division Association, said that, far from HMI being made "more powerful and independent", it
"will be severely weakened and damaged".
We know that the secret review of HMI concluded not that 175 inspectors would be needed for the inspectorate's new role, but that at least 380 or 390 would be needed. The Secretary of State wriggled about those figures. He was desperate to avoid mentioning them, for fear that he would then have to produce the review. He knows that the review said that 380 to 390 inspectors were needed. To paraphrase the review, he also failed to explain the difference between the assumptions on which he based his policy and those made in the review.
We know that the 175 inspectors will not be able to do the job that is expected of them. A breakdown of the figures in documents sent to me shows that just 43 inspectors will be involved in the inspection of schools and of educational issues. Just 39 inspectors will be engaged in supervising the army of private commercial inspectors who will have to be registered, trained, monitored and assessed, and who will then have to log their reports. On those figures, there will be just one HMI to cover the 190 school inspections that will take place in any one year in the county of Kent.
It is ludicrous to expect anyone to believe that those 175 inspectors could conceivably monitor the system over which they are supposed to have control. The fact that the task will overwhelm those 175 inspectors is confirmed by schedule 1, paragraph 2 of which states that the senior chief inspector has powers to bring in private, outside, commercial consultants, called "additional inspectors". Scores of such private consultants will have to be brought in to do work currently carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate if the Bill's scheme is to have the remotest chance of success. Yet the Secretary of State claims that he is not privatising the inspectorate.
The second claim made by the Secretary of State is that the new inspectorate will be more powerful than the one that it replaces. The independence of any institution depends partly on its explicit power and partly on the information and knowledge at its disposal. As an institution, Her Majesty's inspectorate is to be broken up. But its intellectual foundation is also to be demolished. The respect and authority of Her Majesty's inspectorate
168
has been based upon the cohesion, dedication and skill of a single group of men and women and on their day-to-day contact with colleagues from the local authority inspectorate. All that is to go, to be replaced by a fragmented, privatised inspection system.
Aside from its formal inspections, Her Majesty's inspectorate typically visits or inspects 6,000 schools in the course of the year. Local authority inspectors visit and inspect thousands more. Under the proposals of the Secretary of State, total inspection is likely to be less than it is today. Policy issues may not be studied at all and activities such as youth and community work seem to have been forgotten altogether.
At one moment, the Secretary of State showers the inspectorate with hollow compliments, but, when he departs from his script, his true feelings and contempt for the inspectorate become all too clear. This afternoon, he sneered at the way in which, given the ordinary cycle of inspections, it would take 200 years to get through all the schools in the country.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is true.
Mr. Straw: We agree that the system ought to be reformed, but to suggest that that is all the work that Her Majesty's inspectorate does is to parody the position, and that was what the Secretary of State sought to imply. On "News at Ten" the Secretary of State sneered at unnamed teachers who felt that inspectors were people who could not teach. On 4 November, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that his objection to the local authorities inspection service was that the inspectors were "ex-teachers".
The Secretary of State has no reason to feel warmly towards the inspectorate. It has damned the city technology colleges programme and criticised the Conservatives' education policy, pointing out that, after 12 years, one in three children gets a raw deal and that 20 per cent. have unsatisfactory reading teaching. It is incredible that the Secretary of State should now expect us to believe that he wants to make the inspectorate more powerful and independent so that it can be even more critical in its conclusions about Government policy.
In any event, the Bill gives the lie to the Secretary of State's claim. Three key lines in the Bill make the senior chief inspector wholly subordinate to the Secretary of State and the Government of the day. Clause 2(5) states:
"In exercising his functions the Chief Inspector for England shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
The Secretary of State is a lawyer. He knows very well that, when an Act directs that someone shall have regard to something, that amounts to a clear direction of that individual.
Under our proposals, as I have already told the Secretary of State, the independence of the inspectorate will be guaranteed, membership of the education standards commission will be subject to endorsement by the Select Committee, and the commission, and the senior officer, will report to Parliament not to Ministers.
The independence and power of HMI will be undermined by the central proposal of the Bill that, in future, school governing bodies alone will pick, choose and pay their own inspectors. That proposal is based on a profound misconception of whom inspectors should be serving. Schools are public institutions, paid by the public

169
to serve a public purpose. The public's responsibility is to the children in each school and their parents, but also to the wider community and the national interest.
The public interests of the consumers of the service are potentially in conflict with those of the providers of the service—the teachers, head teachers and governors of any school. Governors now play a significant role in determining a school's policy and administration. The head should rightly be the most influential member of the governing body and should enjoy the closest relationship with his or her chair of governors. The governors are in no sense at arm's length from the school; in many circumstances they are the school.
In every other aspect of public life, without exception, the Government have recognised that public institutions must be regulated on behalf of the consumers, and that those regulators must be wholly at arm's length from the providers. If Ministers had come here to propose that British Telecom and Mercury could pick and choose their own regulators, there would have been a public outcry. If restaurants were suddenly allowed to pick and choose their own environmental health officers, public confidence in food inspection would plummet. If Ministers came to the House saying that they wished to encourage competition between one set of regulators and another, the country would rightly believe that they had taken leave of their senses. Yet that is exactly what is proposed in the Bill, which imports into school inspection the worst aspects of private auditing of public companies. It is the BCCI solution to the regulation of public bodies.
The Tory party claims to understand human nature, but the Bill shows remarkable ignorance of it. Allowing schools to pick and choose and pay their own inspectorate may gratuitously damage the good reputation of fine head teachers and allow underperforming heads to escape effective scrutiny. Under the Bill, schools must seek at least two tenders from different firms of private inspectors. In practice, the choice will most be influenced by the head and the chair of the governing body. On what basis will they select from those tenders? They will pick partly on price, but they will also pick the firm most sympathetic to their approach. A headmistress told me last week, "The moment that any private inspectors give us a bad report, they will not be reappointed the next time."
The ludicrous idea embodied in the Bill is, moreover, inconsistent with the stand that the Secretary of State has taken on the regulation of public services. Until the early 1980s, local authorities could pick, choose and pay for their own auditors. In 1982, a Bill was introduced to require that, in future, each local authority auditor was chosen not by the local authority but by the Audit Commission. In commending that to the House, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"It is the essence of the audit function that the auditor should be, and be seen to be, independent … because local authorities appoint their own auditors, audit is not seen to be obviously independent of local government."—[Official Report, 18 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 53.]
What is the difference between the appointment by the Audit Commission of local authority auditors and the need for the educational auditors of schools to be externally appointed by bodies external to the schools? The Secretary of State voted for that Bill.
Another example is the position of the NHS opt-out trust hospitals. Few institutions are now so detached from the public service. We have been told time and again how
170
crucial is their autonomy. As Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the choice of allowing trust hospitals to pick and pay their own auditors or of ensuring that that choice was made for them. He chose the latter course. By his decision, it is not the trusts but the Audit Commission that appoints auditors to NHS trust hospitals because of the self-same need for auditors to be, and to be seen to be, independent. I simply do not understand how, having adopted that position in respect of the appointment of local authorities and trust hospitals, the Secretary of State should now be wriggling to suggest that schools should pick and choose their own regulators.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: At times, the hon. Gentleman seems to come dangerously near to agreeing with my principles. The aim of looking after the customer, as compared with the provider, sounds very commendable, but I do not understand how any of that squares with the hon. Gentleman's proposal that local government should be the only inspector of the schools it runs. The hon. Gentleman is taking away all choice and saying that only local government should provide inspections.
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has already received one copy of "Raising the Standard". I shall send him another, which he can use as bedtime reading. He parodies our proposals. What we propose is the establishment of an independent commission, answerable to Parliament and with membership approved by Parliament, to run HMI and supervise the local authorities inspectorate, which itself runs at arm's length from the local authorities, by virtue of constitutional position and legislative power. Local authority inspectors and HMI, which are at arm's length from the schools these days, inspect the schools, but the local authorities are to be inspected by the education standards commission.
It does not lie well in the Secretary of State's mouth for him to complain about local authorities. His scheme for schools to pick and choose their own inspectors is so defective that in the body of the Bill he must make local authorities the inspectors of last resort. He acknowledges that, in the end, the responsibility may have to fall to the local authority when the privatised system fails.
The history of this is clear. Provided that the legislative framework is clear—as it is with social services inspectors and environmental health officers—there is no reason why local authorities should not be able to operate at arm's length. They are not inspecting themselves; they are inspecting schools. In addition, the education standards commission would inspect the local authorities.
Mr. James Pawsey: How can the hon. Gentleman square that? Earlier he admitted that the inspectorate would be paid by the local authority that runs the schools. He who pays the piper calls the tune. That must be perfectly logical. It is not an arm's-length operation. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the inspectorate will inspect schools in which the heads and other staff are paid by the local education authority.
Mr. Straw: The chief constable receives his pay cheque from the local authority, but that does not make him the creature of the police committee or the local authority, because his powers are clearly laid down in statute to guarantee him his independence. The Lord Chief Justice receives his pay cheque from the same computer as the Secretary of State, but that does not make him the

171
Secretary of State's creature. The structure and the powers for inspections are crucial. It is no good the Secretary of State trying to dodge our proposals. His proposals are fundamentally defective, because the schools that are being inspected will be allowed to pick, choose and pay their own inspectors from the ranks of private inspectors.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I will not, because the hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber.
One of Labour's criticisms of the present system is the inadequacy of follow-through action. Failing schools might be identified, but even when that happens, action to improve the situation has not always occurred. Labour's proposals deal directly with that problem by ensuring that each local inspectorate agrees in advance with the education standards commission management strategies for intervention so that there is a flow of information between inspections to provide early warning of failings.
The Bill will make follow-through and regular monitoring far more difficult, but the Secretary of State did not refer to that. Local inspectorates as we know them are to be destroyed. Local authority inspectorates that remain will operate as commercial undertakings. According to clause 15(4), the service must be entirely self-financing. The local authorities' general power to inspect is to be removed altogether.
When a school is found to be failing, who will intervene? If that failure is shown up in four-yearly inspections, the responsibility lies with the governors who must produce an action plan. That is an inappropriate task to load entirely onto the shoulders of governors. As the National Association of Governors and Managers has stressed, that ignores the nature of school governors as lay people with limited time and the fact that in most cases the failures identified will be those of the head and his or her senior management team whom amateurs on a governing body will find it extremely difficult to hold to account.
Problems in a school do not conveniently coincide with the one week in four years of a formal inspection. Nor may they be evident from the school's crude performance data. What if a head falls ill and major management problems develop as a consequence some months after the formal report?
Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Straw: I will happily give way to any hon. Member who has taken part in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber.
Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should retract that remark. In the past 15 minutes, I have listened to all he had to say about the local inspectorate and I simply wanted to make a relevant point about that. It is quite out of order for him to accuse me of not listening to him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor.
Mr. Straw: As I was saying, who then is under a duty to monitor the school's performance and intervene to ensure that it returns to an even keel? According to the Government's scheme, the answer is, no one. The senior
172
chief inspector will not, in general, know of such problems. Even when he does, he will not have the staff to intervene. The local authority's inspectorate will have no power to intervene off its own bat. There will instead be a great black hole. Standards of education will have been sacrificed in favour of the Bill's bizarre dogma.
Mr. Bob Dunn: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he would appoint an education commission at the centre which would comprise members appointed by the Secretary of State. It would liaise with local education authority inspectors to discuss strategies for development and improvement. However, if the policy was introduced, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would be Secretary of State—something which will not happen and I gave up fantasies a long time ago—
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why intervene, then?
Mr. Dunn: To put a sock in your mouth. Mind you, it would have to be a very big sock.
A Labour Secretary of State would appoint the membership of the commission which would deal with local authority inspectors appointed by Labour councils. I am not implying that all that is wrong: it may well be right. However, there may be collusion and conspiracy to cover up, as occurred over William Tyndall school 10 years ago, a case that has been vividly etched in my mind. Is there not a fundamental weakness in the hon. Gentleman's policy?
Mr. Straw: I will send the hon. Gentleman a signed copy of our document, and when he reads it he will be reassured. We accept that the current system for inspecting and monitoring schools must be reformed. We have been saying that for far longer than the Government have said it. I accept that local authority inspectors must be placed at arm's length from the rest of the local education authority. We are absolutely clear about that. Those inspectors must be supervised by an independent commission and that is what we are proposing.
That is a great deal more coherent than the Secretary of State's proposal, but it is not too different from the proposal in the 10-minute Bill moved by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). There were other defects, but it proposed that the Audit Commission should run the inspectors, and that is more coherent than the Secretary of State's proposal today.
Mr. Cecil Franks: I want to move the hon. Gentleman away from the constitutional position of his proposals and from the Government's proposals. The prime weakness of the present inspection process is that while the HMI can inspect a school, it is completely powerless to act if it finds bad teaching practice. I have heard nothing in the Opposition's proposals which would remedy that problem.
Mr. Straw: I agree that that is one of the major defects of the current system. With respect to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), there is far more in our proposals than there is in the Secretary of State's, although perhaps the hon. Gentleman could not hear what I was saying because of the noise created by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
I explained that, under our proposals, each local education authority would have to agree and have validated by the education standards commission

173
management systems for intervening when a school was found to be failing. There are two problems at the moment. First, there is no proper system of inspection. It is haphazard and varies from local authority to local authority. Some do it well, while others do not do it at all.
The second problem is that, where a school's problems are identified, action does not automatically follow to remedy them. We have thought about this matter a great deal. We have said that every local authority must have in place—not after the event, but before the event—strategies for intervention which will include putting people into a school or perhaps terminating people's employment. Those points must be agreed in advance with the education standards commission.
The problem with the Government's proposals is that, if problems are thrown up during the inspection, the governors must produce an action plan. I believe that it is wrong to put the duty to take action on the governors, because often the problem will be the head, the deputy or the senior management of the school. It is unreasonable to expect lay people to take action against them without any support. If problems occur at any other time than at the formal inspection, in the Secretary of State's system no one will have any duty—few will have power—properly to intervene.
There is another difference between the Secretary of State's system and ours. Under our system, the governing body or parents can, in certain circumstances, require the education standards commission to intervene over the heads of the local authority or school governing body. There is no proposal in the Bill to give parents real rights where they are willing to enter into such a situation to get effective intervention by the inspectorate.
Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way. I need to press on. Because of the restrictions that the Secretary of State seems intent on imposing on the information that local authorities and inspectors will be able to collect and disseminate to parents, the monitoring of schools will be inadequate. Although the Secretary of State spent 50 minutes talking about the issuing of information, the only clause about information in England is clause 16. It is a regulation-making clause devoid of a specific requirement, and we shall examine it in detail in Committee.
We in the Labour party have long had an overwhelming commitment to freedom of information, and our policy review and policy statements have made that clear year after year. Because of that, as a matter of open government and of parents' rights, the Labour party is committed to making available aggregate information about a school's examination results, provided that its reliability is clear.
We have specific and serious objections, which used to be shared by Ministers, about the publication of test data school by school on seven-year-olds—another matter which we shall examine in Committee. The idea that the Secretary of State was peddling again this afternoon, that the effectiveness of schools can be judged solely on the basis of crude league tables, is simply ludicrous. It is as daft as choosing a motor car on the basis of its claimed maximum speed.
The Secretary of State's position is inconsistent with that of his predecessor. If the Secretary of State bothered to read the debates in Standing Committee in January 1988, he would notice that our view is the same as we took
174
then. In his own evidence to the schoolteachers' pay and review body, the Secretary of State issued a caution about the use to which crude league tables should be put. At paragraph 56, he said that league tables were
"admittedly rather elementary performance measures and they should not be the sole determinant of discretionary pay."
If those tables are unreliable even to judge such a discrete issue as heads' pay, how much less reliable are they to judge the overall performance of a school?
I do not understand what the Secretary of State is scared about in providing additional information to parents and governors, as we propose. It is not we who are patronising parents, it is the Secretary of State. If, after all this time, he has been converted to the issue of school effectiveness, I congratulate him. We now need to see some Government investment and leadership on how local authorities and school governing bodies can best provide information on and do research into the effectiveness of schools, into their creation of value added, so that that information can be given to parents and governors alongside the crude raw data.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If comprehensive education has been such a success, as claimed by the Labour party, why do I receive day by day from senior and highly paid civil servants, doctors and teachers totally illiterate, misspelt and unpunctuated letters?
Mr. Straw: Almost all those letters would have been from privately educated people.
Few measures such as this Bill have been pulled together in such a disgraceful manner. The review—the secret review—was rushed through in two months. Public consultation on it has been a travesty. It did not begin until 2 October, after firm proposals were announced by the Secretary of State, and did not end until 15 November, after the Bill had been published.
This evening, I shall move that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee. That procedure enables there to be a Select Committee hearing to examine the consequences of a Bill before its line-by-line examination. That procedure was used by the Government in respect of the Education Act 1980, which implemented the Warnock committee's report on special needs. It is the only chance of ensuring that the full consequences of the privatisation of the inspectorate are made known before the Bill is railroaded through the House and its damage becomes irreparable.
Underlying the specific gratuitous harm that is done by the Bill's proposals is the profoundly flawed, one-dimensional doctrine of the right wing of the Tory party which has turned competition into a totem. It is an approach which means, as Cardinal Hulme so tellingly put it, that
"some schools will benefit at the expense of others, some pupils favoured while others are neglected."
Like the cardinal and, indeed, Archbishop Carey, we believe in a different ethic. We believe in an education system in which every child is stretched to fulfil his or her potential, but in which he or she is taught that the happiness and success of society and its institutions depend not on self-destructive competition but on co-operation and community.
The Bill is based upon the Government's so-called parents charter, but what parents want and need are real rights for themselves and for their children. They want the

175
right to form home-school associations in every school. They want good information about the effectiveness of their children's schools. They want the certainty of a tough and truly independent national and local school inspection. They want the right to call in the inspectors when they are needed, not once in four years. Parents want the right to a free education for their children and an end to the millions that they are forced to shell out in donations to pay for basic essentials.
Parents want the right to have their children educated in schools with roofs that do not leak and walls that have recently been painted. Above all, they want their children taught by teachers who are qualified in the subjects that they are teaching and who are valued and held in high esteem by the rest of society. They want all that, but they have had none of it from the Government. Parents want an end to the failures of the past 12 years. They want an end to contemptuous gimmicks such as those in the Bill. Parents want an end to this Government. They want a Labour Government who are committed to the education service and are ready to invest in it. We shall oppose the Bill.
5.26 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that the local education authority's inspectorate will be independent of the LEA. As the hon. Gentleman says, the LEA pays the wages and I have not the slightest doubt that the inspectorate will often consist of former colleagues of the head teachers of the very schools that are being inspected. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman does not have the courtesy to listen as we listened to him. The LEA inspectorate will be a blue-eyed inspectorate, and nothing more.
I welcome this Bill, the latest in a battery of measures designed to improve the quality and standard of the state education system in which the majority of the nation's children are educated. We are already beginning to see the benefits of earlier measures—for example, local management of schools, the national curriculum and grant-maintained schools—which are widely recognised as a major success. We look forward to many more applications for grant-maintained status when we win the next general election.
It is an unfortunate commentary on some LEAs that so many head teachers, governors and staff are not willing for their schools to apply for grant-maintained status. They are concerned that if, God forbid, Labour Members are elected to government, head teachers will have their cards marked. They know that their chances of further promotion, or even continued employment may be much curtailed. We want additional choice, and I believe we will get it with this Bill.
The measure is another major stride forward in providing parents with more information about their children's schools. For parents to make an informed choice, they must have access to as much information as possible about what goes on in their children's school and how much their children are learning.
I welcome specifically the Bill's reference to Her Majesty's inspectorate. In the past there have been long
176
intervals between full inspections of schools. Indeed, some schools have never had the benefit of a full inspection. Inspections highlight not merely the successes of the school but its inadequacies. They present an opportunity to put those inadequacies right, and they enable teachers to identify the shortcomings of the school.
The Labour party seems to think that allowing schools to choose their own inspection teams will reduce the validity of the inspections. I do not support that view. Inspectors will have to be selected from a list which has been approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate. The list will be carefully supervised, and those who fail to meet the rigorous standards imposed by Her Majesty's inspectorate will not remain on the inspection teams.
The Bill will ensure that schools are inspected every four years. Let us compare that with the present system, in which full inspections are infrequent and, in some cases, non-existent.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman intervened earlier to say, in my view correctly, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That was the hon. Gentleman's own comment. Surely that will apply in the case of schools taking on inspectors. Schools will choose those who will give the best report for the school at the cheapest price.
Mr. Pawsey: First, the inspectorate is not paid by the local education authority that runs the school which is to be inspected. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman somewhat underestimates the intelligence of headmasters and staff, who have an interest in ensuring that the report that they receive has some validity for their school. Headmasters believe that a report will be of some value to the school. I am having difficulty in making my voice last.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I, as a former head teacher of a school, would automatically look favourably on and pay for an inspection team which I knew would give a good report of the school? It is obvious that I would look for the people who would give me the best report. It baffles me that the hon. Gentleman can argue otherwise.
Mr. Pawsey: Whichever inspectors a headmaster selects, they will be from an approved list. All the inspectors on the list will have been approved. The inspectors will be rigorously inspected by the inspectorate. [Interruption.]
Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Gentleman should get himself a drink of water.
Mr. Pawsey: I am doing all right, thank you. If interventions like that are typical of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, I cannot help but feel that he would be better employed had he stayed in his former profession.
Ms. Gordon: If there are not enough HMI and LEA inspectors to carry out sufficiently frequent inspections of schools, would not the logic be to increase the number of inspectors, who have maintained standards of excellence for many years, instead of cutting the service from 500 inspectors to 175 and replacing them with commercial firms of amateurs so that, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, the schools pay the piper and therefore call the tune?
Mr. Pawsey: The logic of the hon. Lady's argument is to leave the inspectorate exactly as it is. Even her Front-Bench team do not believe in that. She referred to taking on as inspectors people who are not qualified teachers. I shall make that point in my speech in my own way, if the hon. Lady will allow me to develop it.
The Bill will enable parents to study the reports. They will be able to read for themselves the truth about their child's school. The reports will help to demystify the education process. At present, parental decision-making takes place on the basis of hearsay—a sort of "what the parents say". The Bill replaces that guesswork with a factual, unbiased report. Naturally, parents want the best for their children. The legislation helps them to achieve that laudable ambition. It encourages more parental involvement in schools, because it makes parents more aware of what is taking place in the school.
I welcome clauses 2 and 6, which give the chief inspector a general duty to ensure that the Secretary of State is advised about the quality and standard of the nation's schools. I am also pleased that the Secretary of State retains his present powers to require the inspectorate to inspect specific schools. At present, Her Majesty's inspectorate fully inspects only about 150 schools a year. The new proposals will ensure that one quarter of all schools—about 6,000—will be inspected every four years. That is extremely important. That is the difference and the benefit. The measure should be widely welcomed by both Conservative and Opposition Members and certainly by parents.
I am also pleased to observe that not all the trade unions oppose the Bill. Peter Smith of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association wrote in "Report":
"It is true that schools and teachers may have had a frequently ambivalent attitude towards HMI. Sometimes inspectors have seemed to be lofty theorists, remote from the day to day realities of the classroom, rather than expert practitioners whose inspection reports can be translated into action. Actual success in disseminating good practice—now voguishly termed 'quality assurance'—has not always been obvious."
It strikes me that that passage is something of an understatement.
Mr. Martin Flannery rose—
Mr. Pawsey: That quotation also helps to answer the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who was formerly a headmaster in Durham. Clearly, not all head teachers share his view about Her Majesty's inspectorate. I am firmly convinced that those who genuinely seek an improvement in the quality of state education will welcome the Bill.
Mr. Flannery: I also have the report from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. He neglected to read it all. At the beginning it says:
"Kenneth Clarke's decision to privatise Her Majesty's Inspectorate and put local schools inspection up for private sector tender has been fiercely criticised. And rightly so."
After the part which the hon. Gentleman quoted, it says:
"Yet HMI has always been justly respected for its professional integrity and political independence. Mr. Clarke's claim that his decision will give the national inspectorate increased autonomy is unconvincing. Some suspect that HMI has exercised its independence all too much for his liking."
Apart from the sentence which the hon. Gentleman read out, the article condemns the Bill. Yet the hon.
178
Gentleman chose one sentence without telling us about the rest. That seems a little unfair, even from Rugby and Kenilworth.
Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a sentence. It is a long sentence. If he looks at it again he will see that it is a full paragraph.
Mr. Flannery: Read it.
Mr. Pawsey: I have it here and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read it, too. I notice that he does not deny the accuracy of the passage that I quoted. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
It has been said with even more inaccuracy than usual that the Bill privatises Her Majesty's inspectorate. That is an interesting thought, given that most people believe that privatisation occurs when something is transferred from national or quasi-government control to private enterprise. In this case Her Majesty's inspector will have statutory powers and duties as laid down by this House. Contrast that with the present situation, in which his powers and duties are exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The Bill gives Her Majesty's inspectorate greater independence than it enjoys at present. However, that does not mean that we are privatising or seeking to privatise Her Majesty's inspectorate. Frankly, those who take that view have not studied the Bill.
One benefit of the Bill is that it allows those who are not normally regarded as educationists—I am coming to the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), if she will listen for a moment—to play their part in the education of the nation's children. Business men and managers will be able to make a practical input into a critical part of the education process. One criticism is that teachers go from school to college and back to school again without having
"the benefit or advantage of the world of work",
as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said.
That is a substantial benefit means that people going into the inspectorate will take with them a practical knowledge of the business world, where the majority of the nation's children will be earning their daily bread. That will strengthen, rather than weaken, Her Majesty's inspectorate. There is virtue in bringing to schools the different knowledge, experience and expertise of people who have been in industry and understand its requirements. One seldom finds business men to be "lofty theorists", to use Peter Smith's phrase.
So far, I have referred only to Her Majesty's inspectorate, but clause 16 refers to the collection and publication of information about schools. That is indeed charter country and will ensure that parents will be provided with five important documents: first, an annual report about their children's progress; secondly, a performance table giving information on all schools in a given area; thirdly, a summary of the previous Her Majesty's inspectorate report; and, fourthly, a statement from the school's governing body about how it intends to tackle any shortcomings identified by Her Majesty's inspectorate. I would describe that as a rolling programme of improvement. Finally, it will provide parents with the annual report of the school governors.
It is genuinely revealing to contrast that battery of information with Opposition Members' feeble efforts.

179
They have produced a contract which is an optional extra —a sort of bolt-on goodie, a non-binding, sign-if-you-like bit of paper. Conservative Members have some sympathy with Opposition Members, because they only recently discovered that parents are interested in their children's education and have a material part to play in that process. There are even those who believe that Opposition Members' conversion to parents' rights is due more to the onset of a general election than to any true belief in parent power.
It is also difficult to reconcile their new stance as the parents' friend with their non-acceptance of a parental vote, when expressed through a secret ballot for a grant-maintained school. Clearly, in Opposition Members' eyes, some parents and some votes have greater value than others.
The best description of Labour's proposed, solemn but non-binding agreement comes not from my right hon. and hon. Friends but from a man who formerly sat with Opposition Members. He described Labour's measures as "humiliating and intrusive", a "patronising" policy initiated by "bossy, middle-class know-alls." That is a more accurate description than I could give. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it?] Robert Kilroy-Silk, who formerly sat on the Opposition Benches and was a colleague of the hon. Member for City of Durham, who is laughing so loudly. Mr. Kilroy-Silk's description is a valuable and perceptive view of what the Labour party intend to suggest to the House.
Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the Bill. The sooner we get it into legislation and improve the quality and standard of education for the nation's children, the better.
5.45 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is always sad when someone is driven into a corner and becomes desperate. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) thought that no one would have read the report that he quoted. He did not say where it came from. It is the editorial from the magazine of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, which has 135,000 members, and it was written by Mr. Peter Smith, the general secretary. When the hon. Gentleman stoops to taking a few words which are in headlong collision with the view of an entire article, and tries to convey the impression that the article said what he says it said, it is very sad. It leaves one open to an accusation that we dare not make in this Chamber; otherwise, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth would hear me say it.
I had marked another part of that article—not the paragraph that I read in an intervention, which was near the paragraph quoted by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. Hon. Members should listen to what Mr. Smith said next:
"The attack upon local education authority inspectorates and advisory services is yet one more example of what has become an obsessive vendetta against local government in all its manifestations. Proper concern about the need for high quality, value for money public services is becoming the increasingly mindless Orwellian chant of 'Private sector good, public sector bad.'"
That is another paragraph from a report which says the exact opposite of the group of words that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth quoted.
180
I can understand that, because the Bill is so complicated and is born of desperation and stridency, it is difficult to explain, especially for Conservative Members who, only a few months ago, were defending the poll tax and saying how good it was. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth stood up and praised it to the heavens—they all did, calling it the flagship of their policy.
Now the flagship has been sunk, more quickly than the Mary Rose, but unlike that ship it will not come up again, even after a few hundred years. It is gone for ever. I think that the last peasants' revolt was in 1381. The poll tax caused a lot of trouble at that time.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science commissioned a report from the inspectorate to advise him. The report has come out and has been used in the press. One of my hon. Friends mentioned this. However, it was so alarming to the Secretary of State that he issued orders for it to be shredded. That shows his contempt for the inspectorate that he is now destroying. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) told the truth when he said that the Secretary of State, during a 61-minute speech, never got down to the fundamental reason for the Bill, which was the destruction of the inspectorate in the same way that he destroyed and shredded one of its reports to him.
What can one expect from people who do that sort of thing? They are desperate. Suddenly, 20 pages of the report by the Select Committee on Health went missing. There is an inquiry into how Tory Members who agreed those papers suddenly voted to get rid of them because they had been read in the Department of Health.
The Government are in such a fix with all their policies that a moderate organisation such as AMMA talks about their education policy being almost an Orwellian nightmare, with their hatred and vendetta and their praise of everything that is private. Apparently, private is good and all the rest is bad: if it moves, privatise it and if it does not move, privatise it. That is what the Government have got themselves into. The opinion polls will not stir; they have been the same for a year now, telling the Government that they should call a general election. The Government are pushing through all kinds of Bills at a speed that is almost unrecognisable as democracy.
This Bill, although smaller, is to education what the poll tax legislation was to taxation. It is equally daft and will have to be thrown out in time. I appeal to the Tory party to do so now. it is wrong and squalid and, like the poll tax, doomed to fail. It has a death wish within it. That was borne out by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who floundered and did not know which way to turn when a single point was put to him.
The Bill flows from the so-called citizens charter which, of course, is no charter for any self-respecting citizen. The Tory party absolutely loathes the National Union of Teachers. I was one of the first to ask the Secretary of State to give way, but he would not give way to me—no, I am in the NUT. He does not like that. I was a head teacher. He is a lawyer. I might know a thing or two about education.
The NUT described the citizens charter in this document and exchanged letters with the Prime Minister, who was hard put to defend his stance. He is, these days, is he not? He had trouble today. We described the charter as "gloss without substance". The Bill is without

181
substance, and it does not even have gloss. It is a mess, and the Tory party knows it. It is already regarded with fear by teachers, parents and the general public.
It is so silly to start attacking the inspectorate through this Bill, which will be enacted because we do not have enough Members to stop it. It is seen as an attack on state education. It is another classic example of the Government's dogmatic, doctrinaire approach. They talk about Marxism, but I have never seen a group of Marxists as dogmatic and doctrinaire as this lot. When it comes to privatisation, they want to privatise everything. It is their obsession. The word is on the lips of every British citizen. Her Majesty's inspectorate and anybody connected with education knows that.
The Minister of State should go carefully. He got himself into a bit of a mess the other day, did he not, when he made a statement outside the House about the NUT? It sued him. He will have to pay a copper or two, will he not, for not telling the truth about the NUT outside the House? That is a dangerous habit to get into—one that I am sure he will never learn anything about.
Her Majesty's inspectorate is a body of distinguished educationists of profound integrity. They are deeply respected. Anybody who has had contact with the inspectorate knows that its task is arduous—that is mentioned in the article—and that it is difficult to get distinguished people to do the work. They are away from home a great deal. Like all of us, they are seen by the teaching profession, although as dedicated colleagues, as sometimes making a mistake or saying something with which we disagree. Generally, they are people of integrity who want to advance the cause of education but, like the rest of us, they are not always right. Neither are we, and we should admit it.
HMI has become a thorn in the Government's flesh because, year after year, in successive reports, it has told the truth about the Government. It does so in a moderate and restrained way, because it is not in a position to do otherwise. I know that from having served on the Select Committee on Education and Science all these years.
Next week, the Committee will question the Minister. Hon. Members should come and listen to our questions. The Minister knows that the inspectorate is a thorn in his flesh. That is why the Bill has been introduced. As AMMA has said, it is part of a vendetta and an obsession because HMI tells the truth which is not and never has been acceptable to the Government.
Ms. Gordon: I believe that, when the scheme was first announced, the inspectors described it as sinister. May I disagree with my hon. Friend's description of the Bill as a "silly mistake"? It is a sinister conspiracy to move education back to an elitist system, such as existed before the Education Act 1944, under which the majority of the population's children get a second-class education inspected by amateurs.
Mr. Flannery: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I withdraw the words "silly mistake". The silly mistakes to which we politely refer here are often crimes, but we do not attach such a name to them.
Let us look at the background to the Bill. The size of classes is increasing. They are bigger than they were 10 years ago, and they are getting even bigger. We all know the reason: there are not enough teachers or proper schools. Yet 400,000 teachers are not teaching. So many
182
have left the teaching profession that we have been driven to recruit from Australia and even Germany, where people do not speak English. If teachers were paid a proper living wage, we could recruit them all over our own country.
There is a lack of books and equipment. Everyone in the teaching profession knows that. If hon. Members go in and look at the schools, they will see the lack of books and equipment. Dog-eared books are passed around and there is not enough money for major pieces of equipment. Schools lack general resources because they lack money. That is all part of the background.
Mr. Steinberg: May I tell my hon. Friend a little story about the age of books? Recently, a young student from Johnston school in Durham came to see me with a book that he was using for his A-level history. On the first page, it said. "This book belongs to Gerald Steinberg." In other words, that school is still using a book that I used 30 years ago.
Mr. Flannery: That story, which I knew about, is not only a true story and a condemnation of the Government, but a tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend and successive groups of children in state education have looked after their books. Nevertheless, in time, even those books become dog-eared, yet there is no money from the Government to buy more books.
Mr. Pawsey rose—
Mr. Flannery: Not again.
Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman's picture of the teaching profession is accurate, can he say why entrance to teacher training colleges has increased by 20 per cent. this year?
Mr. Flannery: Of course I can. I have given an accurate picture. Thousands of teachers have left the profession, and we want them back. However, at a time of mass unemployment—it is steadily heading towards 3 million —there are always people who decide to become teachers.
I was unemployed a long time ago, and I wanted to be a teacher, but it was difficult to get into a college. However, many of my colleagues had been unemployed before they eventually became teachers. When there is a great deal of unemployment, people will go into teaching, but the core of the teaching profession is made up of those who want to teach and who want the dignity of that profession. They want to be properly valued. They do not want to be slandered and abused as they have been by the Government for the past 12 years—hence their low morale. The Minister may smile, but he must try to deal with that fact, just as we will have to deal with it when he leaves all his mess.
Class numbers are increasing because of the insufficient number of teachers available, and schools face other problems because of crumbling buildings. Everyone knows what a mess they are in. Many of the schools have not been painted because they do not have the money to buy that paint.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, if a school is in a well-to-do area, there are bound to be plenty of books in each child's house. Their parents will listen to them reading and will take an interest. Those parents can also give more money freely to their child's school. If a school is in an area of high unemployment, the parents of pupils may have difficulty in finding enough

183
money to feed their children, pay the rent and pay the poll tax, as well as all the other things that have been heaped upon them by the Government and then withdrawn when they panic about them. That means that that school will suffer. We will end up with a two-tier system because the school in the posh area will have plenty of money coming in from parents, while the school in the poor area will receive no such funds. Therefore, the children in the poor area will suffer. Ever-increasing class sizes will cause further problems for schools in poor areas.
The other morning, on "Today", the Secretary of State said that it was not always a bad thing to have a large number of pupils in a class. Let him say that to those who have children in the private sector. He should tell us how many children there are in classes in the private sector schools. Conservative Members send their kids to private schools while our children in the state sector take a kicking from the Government.
Teachers perform well, but they are always vilified and attacked by the Government. In the meantime, the specially favoured city technology colleges are absorbing massive amounts of money. Most Conservative Members do not know how much the CTCs and the assisted places scheme cost. I looked up that cost in the Government's own publications and found that it was nearly £700 million. That public money has been taken out of the education system and away from children who urgently need it and given to those who are already rich. We do not need any lessons from the Conservative party.
Private education is flourishing because of the assisted places scheme. Many of those schools receive £1 million and more each year of public money. That money is taken from the state education system.
Morale among teachers is low, and that feeling has been created by the Government. However, now the Government have begun to praise teachers because they know that they have gone too far. Dedicated independent inspectors have repeatedly drawn attention to the problems caused by low morale, increased class sizes and the poor state of school buildings. Their reports are an acute embarrassment to the Government, so HMI must go. However, the Bill is designed to ensure that it looks as though HMI has not gone. That is why the Bill, which will make all the problems worse, is pregnant with chaos. It will create such chaos in our schools, but then that is what will be caused by the new poll tax Bill and all the other Bills.
AMMA has stated that it wants
"good school inspection arrangements and improved and increased access to information about the quality of the publicly funded education service."
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth should read a little bit further than he did from its editorial. The association also states:
"We judge that the provisions of the Bill, as printed, are confused and inadequate for their purposes."
The hon. Gentleman should read that, and he should talk to the general secretary of AMMA. He should admit how he distorted what was said by neatly picking out a certain part of the editorial, when in fact that editorial was against the Bill.
The National Association of Head Teachers represents 35,000 heads and deputy heads. It is deeply concerned about the Bill, and, in the conclusion to its briefing, states:
184
"However, many in the Education Service, and very many Head Teachers, will feel that the correct balance has not been struck by this current piece of legislation. The consequences of the lack of balance, contained within an Act, as currently displayed in the Bill, are potentially very serious."
Those head teachers are important people. Conservative Members know that because they always praise head teachers, except me and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).
Mr. Pawsey: You can understand why, Martin.
Mr. Flannery: Of course I can, because, in common with HMI, I tell the truth. I am happy to read more of what Conservative Members would consider as "select" truth from leading teachers' organisations.
Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman always tells the truth, perhaps he can explain to the House his earlier remark that money spent on assisted places and the CTCs goes to those who are already rich. Can he justify that remark? He knows perfectly well that the assisted places money is provided to parents through a proper means test. At least one third of that money goes to parents whose total income is less than £8,000 a year. He knows perfectly well that the CTCs choose pupils who apply to them and ensure that those pupils are representative of the area in which each CTC is based. Will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the truth and withdraw his earlier remarks?
Mr. Flannery: I am content with completely disagreeing with the Minister. He knows as well as I do that the money for the CTCs and the assisted places scheme has been siphoned from the education system into middle-class areas. If he can disprove that, he can do so later.
Mr. Steinberg: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the Minister forgot to tell us that savings are not taken into account in the means test?
Mr. Flannery: The Minister and his colleagues know that I am telling the truth, but they are free to try to disprove what I have said.
What the NUT has said about the Bill will also be denounced by the Government. It states:
"The proposal that each school chooses its own inspection team could lead to a 'cosy relationship' with Heads and Governors choosing inspectors who will be friendly to existing practice within the school. Given the inevitable wish to guarantee being 'bought in' four years later, inspection teams are liable to play safe in terms of their report. If they do not, a different inspection team may be chosen four years later with no consistency between one inspection and the next."
That would be dangerous. At the moment, dedicated inspectors go around the country. I believe that there are insufficient numbers of them and that Her Majesty's Inspectorate needs more personnel, never mind reducing its number, to report properly. That would sink the Government, and they would be shredding a few more reports if that happened.
The NUT also states:
"The facility for schools to choose their own inspectors is likely to result in parents receiving a report in which they can have little confidence.
Inspection should be seen as a contribution to the ongoing process of raising pupil achievement within a particular school, rather than the 'Labelling of that School—.
The Government intend to label certain schools as sink schools. They intend to produce a league table as though we were talking about football teams. That cannot be done

185
in education, because education does not allow for it. An important lesson lies ahead for those who intend to do that to our children and teachers.
The briefs which hon. Members have received from many of the teachers' organisations accentuate a number of points. One is that teachers have immense respect for the existing inspectorate and suggest ways not of privatising it but of improving and expanding the inspectorate and giving parents improved access to information about the public education system.
Next, they are immensely fearful of the Bill and consider it to be confused, inadequate and fraught with peril for the education service. Provision for the majority of pupils is getting worse, the teacher-pupil ratio has worsened for the first time in 26 years and the average size of primary class is larger than it was in 1981. City technology colleges receive £150 per pupil more than local authority schools, grant-maintained schools average £187,000 by way of capital grant, and LEA schools get only £18,000.
We need a real citizens charter, standing for the rights of education. Such a charter should lay down enforceable standards of education, with maximum class sizes, so that there are not huge classes in one school or in one part of a school and smaller classes elsewhere.
Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman believes what he is saying, will he explain why his own contract does not set out what he is aiming at?
Mr. Flannery: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I mean every word I say. I would answer his question if I knew what it meant. That intervention was about as clear as his speech.
We must have maximum class sizes so that we know where we stand and minimum levels of resourcing for books and equipment so that there is enough money in the public sector to provide our children with good equipment and books, items that are to be found in all private schools. There must be minimum standards of provision for support staff. In other words, there must be cover for teachers who are ill or who need to be on courses. Perhaps Conservative Members do not appreciate that, in schools generally today, only the lucky teachers can go on courses, particularly in primary schools. It is clear from the blank looks on their faces that they are not aware of that.
Many primary school teachers cannot attend courses because teachers are not available to take their classes when they are away. In addition, most of them have no free time or marking time. They come to school early in the morning, work through lunch time and leave later at night than they used to. Change is imposed on them with undignified haste, and it contributes to lowering teacher morale. Supply staff must be guaranteed to cover teacher absences. When teaches are away ill, other teachers are not available to take their classes, particularly in the primary sector, but increasingly in the secondary sector.
Those are all matters which, in a moderate and restrained way, HMI has pointed out over the years to successive Conservatives Governments. The result is that the Government have introduced a ghastly Bill to get rid of awkward people who keep telling the truth about what the Conservatives have been, and are, doing to education.
The Government have embodied in this pitiful measure their contempt for our excellent and improving, but grossly underfunded, state education system. Just as the
186
NHS is not safe in their hands and is being steadily privatised, so our education system, which is also now being steadily privatised, is not safe in Conservative hands. The whole nation is unsafe in their hands. The Bill is a major warning to all. It must be fought and ultimately thrown out, as it will be, and soon, by a Labour Government.
6.14 pm
Mr. John Greenway: The debate provides us with a timely opportunity to take stock of what is happening in our schools, to speak of the success to date of some of the reforms introduced in the last five years —the Education Act 1956 and the Education (Reform) Act 1988—and to examine the changes outlined in the Bill to improve still further the education arrangements for our children.
Concern about education was a major motivation for me to enter politics. I was elected to North Yorkshire county council in 1985 and served, albeit for only a couple of years, on the education committee and schools committee. I was a governor of several schools, including two large comprehensives, a large junior school, a special school and the York college of art and technology, a further education college.
It was a pity that I was not able to serve longer on those bodies. My service was interrupted because I was elected to this place in 1987, and I admit that education has not been an avenue into which I have channelled in my party activities. But I visit many schools in my constituency regularly and particularly keep closely in contact with the school that my children have attended. Two of my children have left school and gone on to college and my youngest is still there. I shall say more about that school later.
One might believe, listening to some hon Members' speeches and from reading the newspapers, that the whole of our school system is crumbling. I cannot speak for other parts of Britain—I will not speak for what I have not seen —but I know what is happening in North Yorkshire schools. The education system there is delivering a first-class system of schooling for our children. There is much of which we can be proud in our schools. Parents and the public at large can be proud of our schools and of the achievements of our young people.
In the 1986 Act—I was serving on the local education authority at the time—the Government introduced a requirement for reports to be presented to parents and introduced parent governors. Last week I received, as a parent, the annual report for Huntington school in my constituency on the outskirts of York. I spotted in it only one factual error. It referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) as having been promoted to Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, when he is still the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. That must be a prophecy that he will retain his seat in the general election and will later be promoted to Minister of State.
There is a genuine concern lest, in giving information and promoting the results of examinations, reports to parents may neglect other important areas of educational activity—that, in the pursuit of better examination reports, some of those areas may be left behind. That does not appear to be happening at Huntington school, so we must examine some of the issues examined in its annual report.

187
There is, first, a detailed report about events earlier this year when the 25th anniversary was celebrated. The school does not have a long history, but it has some excellent examination reports to which I shall refer. Clearly, the school's social life is extremely active. The report includes a long section on how the school has implemented the proposal to have its own budget. I supported the measures in the Education Act 1988 to introduce such a system.
Indeed, North Yorkshire already had a pilot scheme in place before the last election. The report shows that the school has benefited greatly from controlling its budget and resources. It has made improvements by creating a new post of office manager, upgrading stock in the library, extending and reorganising the office for clerical staff, creating new areas for sixth-form students, including a BTEC facility and an additional seminar room, significantly upgrading technology and audio-visual equipment, implementing an extensive programme of internal decoration and providing additional departmental resources for text books and equipment.
The report states:
"The governors' broad policy is to use the increased funds wisely, both in the provision of the best up-to-date facilities and equipment for pupils and for enhancing the school environment with emphasis on security, safety and energy efficiency. Certainly, we are very pleased with the extra flexibility and benefits we now have over purchasing, decorating and maintenance".
That sentiment has been echoed by other head teachers. When I visited another large comprehensive school only a couple of weeks ago and addressed the sixth form, the headmaster told me that the school has now been able to carpet and curtain some of the noisiest classrooms, creating a much better environment for teaching the children.
That was one of the schools that took part in the pilot project for LMS in 1986–87. Although the LMS initiative has brought considerable benefits, problems with the funding formula for junior schools and some smaller comprehensive schools still exist. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the North Yorkshire education authority will continue to consult to ensure that the best arrangements are made and that some schools do not suffer as improvements are made in others.
The annual report also deals with the school's budget, which was £2 million in 1990–91 and has increased to more than £2·2 million in 1991–92, the current academic year. The report says that 1,316 pupils are now on the roll and that the staff consists of 80 teachers. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has that to do with the Bill?"] It has everything to do with the Bill, because it proves that it is possible to provide comprehensive information for the benefit of parents. That is what the parents charter is about and it goes to the heart of the Bill.
I have not yet referred to the publishing of examination results, which is the main concern about which we have heard this afternoon. A conclusion which I, as a parent, draw from the information that I have just given is that the school is spending £1,671 per pupil—a 10·3 per cent. increase on the figure for the previous year. We must bear in mind the fact that the education authority still has responsibility for some expenditure. That figure represents the best bargain that exists in public spending.
I sincerely believe that the money that we are spending on our schools provides an excellent return, and it must
188
continue to be one of the key areas for growth in public expenditure. The past 12 years under this Government have seen a growth in public expenditure and it is for local education authorities and county councils to decide on the priorities for their expenditure. The Government and North Yorkshire county council have done that. No one can argue that expenditure per pupil provides anything other than value for money, provided that we look at the other side of the coin and consider what we can achieve with that money in terms of successful education.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to school numbers, and I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber to hear my remarks. The figure in the annual report shows that the school roll of 1,316 and 80 teachers is a pupil-teacher ratio of less than 17:1. I think that, in 1979, the figure was about 19:1. My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding, so I seem to have the statistic right.
Examination successes are a major concern. The annual report points out that last year's A-level results were the best that the school had achieved and this year's were even better. It says:
"17·6 per cent. of all passes were at A grade and 60·3 per cent. of all grades were at C or above".
That was a commendable result. As for the results of the GCSE examinations, the report says:
"Bearing in mind that our policy is that all students are generally entered for GCSE examinations in all the subjects they are studying"—
no picking and choosing those most likely to succeed—
"it reflects great credit on staff and students that only 26 of the 1,780 examination entries were ungraded. At the other end of the scale, 53·9 per cent. of students achieved five or more grade C passes compared with 49·3 per cent. in 1990."
As a proud father, I can tell the House that my son Anthony was included in that 53·9 per cent.
It is well known that schools in North Yorkshire achieve considerably above-average results. North Yorkshire does not spend above-average amounts on resources—its resourcing is about the national average. Some hon. Members wish to point out that North Yorkshire is a relatively affluent area, and I willingly accept that. However, affluence does not ensure that children will do better.
Comparative figures for other schools in North Yorkshire show that the number of grade A and B passes range from 18·8 per cent. to 51 per cent. Some head teachers were grossly offended when figures in the Sunday Times survey omitted state schools in North Yorkshire, because some of those state schools have performed considerably better in their A-level results than some of the best independent schools in the United Kingdom. Therefore, even in an affluent county some state schools do better.
As for the publication of a more detailed breakdown of results, I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister of State another document that came with the annual report. It gives a breakdown of the number of students entered in each subject at GCSE and A-level in 1990–91 and 1989–90, and the number of passes obtained at each grade. I used my marker pen to mark the grades that my sons had attained in the examinations. I found nothing offensive in publishing such information.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State say earlier that we should persist in trying to devise ways of making value-added judgments

189
about children's progress. It seems that some comprehensive schools do not have sixth forms, so the child moves on to a sixth form college to take A-levels. The child may have poor GCSE results or good ones. We should also address the issues of how he or she performs at A-level or on a business studies course at a further education college.
One benefit to be derived from testing seven, 11, 14 and 16-year-old pupils is that, over time, we shall be able to monitor their progress and give parents the information that they need on their children in a way that they can understand and—the key issue—to help them to feel encouraged that they are working with teachers, head teachers and the governing body to the benefit of their children's education. That is happening increasingly in schools in my constituency. They may be performing in the best way—I perceive that to be so—and we should work towards attaining that standard in all our schools across the length and breadth of Britain. To do so we must introduce new regulations, and the Bill does that.
The first of my pleas to my hon. Friend the Minister is to take care that, in drafting the regulations to improve standards in sectors where that is needed, we do not undo good work or create unnecessary difficulty for schools that already provide the very best. We should allow the necessary flexibility. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree and I shall send him the report to study. If we can ensure that all schools send such reports to parents and include the performance of each individual child, it will lead to greater parental involvement in our children's education.
Ms. Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the publication of raw materials in league tables will mean that schools considering their position in the league will become increasingly reluctant to accept children with special needs? Consequently, those children will, to their detriment, be educated in sink schools. The hon. Gentleman approves of the testing of seven-year-olds. Does he know of the concept of reading readiness? Many children are not ready to learn to read until the last term of infant school, and if they are tested and pushed too early by teachers and parents, it can undermine their confidence, preventing them from becoming readers, not helping them. Therefore, the test could prove to be a two-edged sword.
Mr. Greenway: I listened with interest to the hon. Lady and am not out of sympathy with her concern. However, there is no evidence that children with special needs will not be accommodated in schools at all levels. In 1986, I was a governor of a junior school which was one of four schools competing for pupils under a shared catchment area policy. That was before the Education Reform Act 1988 and parents could choose which school their child would attend. My school specialised in educating children with special needs and enjoyed great success.
On the hon. Lady's second point, on the telephone today I asked the chief education officer of North Yorkshire, Mr. Fred Evans, about the parents charter. He suggested that we should consider it the other way round. He said that, based on the current performance of schools in the county, parents sending children to schools in North Yorkshire could expect that more than 95 per cent. of seven-year-olds would achieve the reading ability laid down in the test and there was an 82 per cent. chance that
190
the child would be ahead of chronological development. Therefore, I do not believe that the hon. Lady's assertion is borne out by the facts.
We have heard much claptrap this afternoon about the Government's proposals on the vexed question of inspections. There will certainly be controversy when the issue is discussed in Committee. Yesterday, North Yorkshire education authority discussed the issue. It resolved that the council supports the principle of independent inspections of schools. It is important that the House should accept that principle. There is great benefit to be derived from having independent inspectors who are properly trained and monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate.
I have sympathy with the two reservations expressed by the county council. It said, first, that the education authority would wish to maintain a school advisory service to help schools to remedy faults found in inspections. Secondly—this lies at the heart of our proposals—the authority would want to be able to take action to remedy faults when governors are inactive and fail to take any action on inspections. It would be wrong and unwise of us to rely totally on the willingness of parents and governors to ensure that action considered necessary following an independent inspector's report is carried out.
I do not suggest that we should retain the inspectorate as it is now; we are absolutely right to bring in an independent inspectorate and allow Her Majesty's inspectorate more of a monitoring role. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give careful consideration to the crunch issue.
Ultimately, if local education authorities are retained, their role must be to decide policy, provide resources and play a part in monitoring the progress of policy implementation. I am not advocating that a local education authority inspectorate should be sent in on a regular basis, but it would be wise to consider ensuring that there remains a reserve power. Perhaps we should not abolish section 77(3) of the Education Act 1944, and the education authority should reserve the power to send its own inspectors into a school which remains under local education authority control and in which there are clearly management problems.
During the last election campaign, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to my constituency. At a public meeting, there was a lively debate on education reforms—a key issue in that election campaign—and I said that I strongly suspected that, by the time of the next election, there would not be one school in North Yorkshire that was grant-maintained. That is the case. [Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh. I predicted that none of the schools would think it necessary to seek that status. However, schools in other parts of the country have done so, and that says rather a lot against the education authorities from which those schools have escaped. Many of those authorities are Labour-controlled.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I do not like to have to confront the hon. Gentleman with facts, but I must tell him that the overwhelming majority of grant-maintained schools are in Tory areas.
Mr. Greenway: If that is the case, I stand corrected. One or two schools in the North Yorkshire education authority area have expressed interest, but none has taken the step

191
of becoming grant-maintained. That speaks volumes for the education service provided by the North Yorkshire authority.
I hope that in winding up the Minister will be able to answer my questions and will confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a local education authority from forming its own independent inspectorate which schools may prefer to use. Of course the authority will have to tender for the contract along with private inspectors in the normal way, but the matter should be carefully considered.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), came to North Yorkshire, he found a great deal which pleased him. If we want to make the best education service available everywhere, it behoves Ministers to come to North Yorkshire more regularly to see what it is doing to get education right. That will ensure that the benefits of our success can be passed to schools in other parts of Britain.
6.41 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I was pleased at the way in which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) commented on the high quality of much of the state sector. In debates that tend to focus on faults, there is an inevitable tendency to forget about what is good in education. Teachers sometimes feel that they suffer from general and unfair criticism. The hon. Gentleman spent so much time commenting on the school which I understand his children attend that he gave the impression that he was standing as a parent governor and was making the opening speech of his campaign.
Mr. John Greenway: I have been a governor of the school.
Mr. Taylor: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman is on a re-election campaign. We agree with much of what he said about the Bill's proposals, because, although I do not think that he intended it, what he said amounted to criticism. He supported much of what we have said, not least in his succinct and accurate description of what an LEA should do and the need for it to have the power, in some instances, to inspect what is going on in schools and help put matters right.
As I have said, much of what happens in the state sector is good, but there are clear problems. It is not politically divisive to say that, because that view is held on all sides. Teachers complain of difficulties in education and blame the Government, just as much as the Government tend to put the blame on teachers.
In the past few days, a series of problems have been reported in the press. Yesterday's issue of The Guardian reported on an NUT survey showing that over a quarter of primary school classes contain more than 30 pupils. Sunday's issue of The Observer reported that, in the past three years, parents have spent £75 million on basic books and equipment for schools to make up for underfunding by the Government. The Times Educational Supplement reported on Friday that instrumental music teaching provided by schools has in some areas been cut by more than a third. We read of parental concerns about the shortage of qualified science teachers, the lack of nursery places and the poor condition of many school buildings.
192
The initiatives presented by the Government, after 12 years in office, in this Bill and in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill do not address one of those multitudinous concerns. The so-called parents charter offers only the promise of regular school inspections and more information for parents. No one would deny the importance of regular school inspections or of information to parents, but much else is needed which the Government do not offer. Inspection must be thorough and must be followed by good advice. Parents need meaningful and helpful information and action to put right what is discovered to be wrong. The Bill offers none of those things.
How will the Bill improve standards when it reduces the number of Her Majesty's inspectors from 480 to 175 and reduces the role of HMI to that of a supervisory body? It farms inspection out to private companies to be bought in by schools which will be offered choice only on the basis of who offers the most easy-going report at the cheapest cost. It does not specify how information will be provided, but grants unlimited power to the Secretary of State to require whatever he wishes, when he wishes it, without consultation.
If the Bill is supposed to be about raising standards and giving full information to parents, it will fail. I shall later explain why in more detail. If it is about winning votes by taking a populist platform—which I suspect is the case—it will likewise fail, because parents will become increasingly concerned when they look at the Bill's detail. Parents are well aware that the problems created in schools by the Government are too far-reaching to be solved by the Bill's provisions.
Liberal Democrats have deep-seated concerns about the Bill and will oppose it and seek detailed and comprehensive amendments in Committee. Our main worry is about the fragmentation of the inspectorate. The Bill says that the chief inspector for England will have the duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education and standards in schools. However, his power to do that is seriously limited by the reduction in the number of inspectors from 480 to 175. That reduction will mean a loss of many specialist skills, and the time of inspectors will be largely taken up by the new regulatory function.
The Government introduced the Education Reform Bill, now the Education Reform Act 1988, and other major education reforms, but they are now breaking the back of the one body that could effectively report on how successfully those reforms are working in the nation as a whole. If the Government really want to know how the system is performing, they should strengthen Her Majesty's inspectorate, not weaken it.
How will competition between inspection teams promote higher standards? If the basis of competition, which the Government have adopted from the private sector, is offering a good product at a low price, what choice does that leave schools except to choose inspection that is likely to offer an advantageous report at an advantageous price? Even if that were not so, financial constraints on schools could mean that they will have little choice but to opt for the cheapest teams. Small schools, of which there are many in areas such as mine, are likely to suffer most from the cost of that process.
The chief inspector is required to advise the inspection teams, but who will advise schools on who to call in, the kind of contract to draw up and the qualities to be sought

193
in the inspection team? What advice will there be about the form that inspection should take? There are no details in the Bill about that, and that gives rise to justifiable fears that inspections will not even be of current quality. Frequent but poor inspections are not an improvement on infrequent but good inspections. Will there be the ability to deliver detailed departmental inspections? Will there be an examination of how effectively cross-curricular subjects such as environmental education are taught?
The Government are foolish to underestimate the value that schools place on a local education authority's continuing and knowledgeable role and its knowledge of an area's background. Where in this Bill is the opportunity for follow-up advice and further inspections to be called in when that is necessary? The benefits of on-going support and advice will be lost, to the detriment of our schools, and the Government have little to say about that.
We risk more than the inspection system. Because it is so tightly worked in with the advisory system, there is a fear that, in the process of sorting out, we could lose much that is of value in the advisory system as well. The Government have not explained how they envisage that process taking place in such a way as to prevent that.
If the HMI can have a role in organising private inspection teams, why not keep local inspections but have them monitored by the HMI rather than having them purely subject to LEA supervision? That would ensure the strength of a locally based system linked into advice, but with monitoring from a national body to ensure that standards of independence and rigorous inspection are upheld. If the Government were coming forward with that proposal—it would not require substantive amendment to change their present proposal into that one—there would be a broad welcome for it. Instead, because of an ideological commitment to privatisation and competition in a sector where it is inappropriate, the Government are leaving us with a Bill for which they claim many advantages but in which all those commenting on it can see only disadvantages and ultimately falling standards.
If the Government do not accept that that will be the result, are they prepared to publish the results of the consultation exercise on the inspection system that is to be embarked on? I very much doubt it. So far, the process has attracted damning criticism, and praise has been hard or impossible to find.
Who will make up the inspection teams? We have the requirement that a lay member be included, but how about the rather more important principle that, for example, there should be a member with expertise in special needs education to examine what is happening on that? Will there at least be an assurance that training given to would-be inspectors will include training in assessing the quality of special needs education?
Among my deep misgivings about the Bill is a fact that is obvious to anybody who looks at the Bill—there is no detail in it. The Government are giving themselves sweeping powers to set up a system, but they have refused to give details of how it will work in practice. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that he understands the problems of pupils with special needs, but he has refused to make provision for the concerns that we have expressed.
The Secretary of State spoke about league tables and his understanding of the value-added principle, but he has refused to do anything about incorporating it. As is so often the case with the Government, particularly when
194
they frame education legislation, they are asking Parliament to grant the Secretary of State wide powers and are leaving him, unfettered by proper debate or restrictions on what he does, to prescribe the details of what will happen.
The part of the Bill dealing with the publication of information by schools gives the Secretary of State many powers, but few details of how he proposes to use them, and gives parents no powers to get something done about what that information reveals. We understand that the Government's intention is that LEAs should publish league tables, including exam results, truancy rates and figures on the numbers continuing education or entering employment on leaving school.
The Secretary of State says that he wants straight, understandable information, not cooked figures. However, the limited information that he proposes to give will mean confusion rather than clarity and will lead to unfair comparisons between different schools. If the Secretary of State wants to help parents to choose the right school for their children, this is not sufficient.
Simplistic league tables will discourage schools from admitting pupils with special needs and so reduce opportunities for those pupils. They will encourage teachers not to enter pupils for exams in which they are not certain that the pupils will score highly, and so reduce opportunity for those pupils. They may tell parents, rightly or wrongly, that the school is under-performing, but they do nothing to give parents or pupils any opportunity to do anything about it.
Few would disagree that information for parents is important. Those parties committed to a freedom of information Act have already committed themselves to a far broader measure than is proposed in the Bill. There must be enough information to give a fair reflection of the achievements of the school. If the Government are insistent on compelling LEAs to draw up league tables, why can they not also insist on the giving of background information?
Why are the Government pressing ahead with their plans so determinedly despite the fact that the Audit Commission has said that it is possible to measure the performance of schools by showing the progress made by pupils rather than raw results? For the first time, the Secretary of State showed some signs of beginning to understand that principle, but he refused to make any provision to ensure that such information is published in a form that is accessible to parents. On the other hand, he still has an over-abundance of enthusiasm for raw data that do not provide anything like the same information for parents.
A school with an intake of high achievers does nothing more than we expect if they leave as high achievers. A school whose intake is of low achievers has achieved something truly remarkable and worth while if at least some of them leave as high achievers. Why demolish the reputation and self-confidence of such a school with crude league tables that would relegate that excellent school to the also-rans?
If the Government want an alternative, would it not make sense to give the job of establishing performance measures and the task of specifying the form in which the information is to be published to the Audit Commission, which specialises in such measures? If they are not prepared to take that step, they should at least make a commitment in the Bill, or even across the Dispatch Box

195
in the way that they refused to earlier, to ensuring that value-added information is made available alongside the crude information.
If the Secretary of State wants to ensure that parents can make important decisions about schools, he should give them the information that he said earlier that he believes is a helpful part of any analysis of how a school is performing. Nothing in what the Audit Commission said would require detailed intricate information at the bottom of every list to help the average parent to understand it. The Opposition parties might want more to be added about children with special needs, but that is not my point. I am asking only that the Government adopt the Audit Commission policy and show the value added by a school.
It is obvious from the Minister's unwillingness to come forward that the Government's aim is not to give useful information to parents but to create lists that will distort and deceive. I may be in a stronger position to say this than Labour Members, but, above all, lists will show schools in deprived areas—often those with the greatest numbers of pupils who do not have English as their first language—as under-performing. Uniformly, those schools are in LEAs run by the Labour party or in some cases by the Liberal Democrats. The Government are creating a political weapon that, in its present form, will do nothing to help parents to make rational choices. We are not arguing that this information should not be made available. We are saying that all the information—not just that which suits the Government—should be made available. When there is evidence that the value-added approach to providing information is possible, and will provide for fairer assessment of a school's quality, as the Secretary of State admits, why not use all the available options?
What do the Government envisage with these league tables? Such choice as the Government offer, if choice it is, will be meaningless to most parents in rural areas such as mine, as they do not live within easy travelling distance of several schools from which they can make a choice. Even in urban areas it will not be long before schools that show up at the top of the league tables are full and, again, parents will have no choice but to send their children to schools which the Government are creating league tables to rubbish but for which they are providing no resources to solve the problem.
For most parents in Cornwall there is no option but the local school. Parents want to know that that school is providing a good education for their children, not that there is a better school at the other side of the county to which they have no hope of sending their children. If there are weaknesses, parents want to know that resources will be provided to put right those weaknesses, but the Bill does not provide for that. Above all, no one wants a local school to be labelled a failure if it is a success in terms of value added and of improving a poor child's education.
My comments reveal what I hope will be raised in detail in Committee, and I shall certainly raise such issues. I hope that the Secretary of State will participate in the Committee. He portrays the Committee as dealing with a Bill that is a Government flagship, one that is vital for the nation, a principal aspect of the Prime Minister's citizens charter and fundamental to the parents charter. However, there is little chance that the Secretary of State will attend
196
the Committee to defend the proposals in detail, and no wonder now that we have seen how weakly he performed when trying to do so in the debate.
I also support the request that the Bill should be brought to a Special Standing Committee. One of the abiding features of the Government's reform process has been a lack of consultation and the infliction of rapid change on schools, followed by a rapid reversal of those changes. The lack of consultation has been raised by the Secretary of State to the status of high art in his proposals for the inspectorate. If the Bill were dealt with in a Special Standing Committee, we could call the people who will be directly affected by and who are most knowledgeable about the issues. At that late stage, we could at least have a genuine consultation and debate with everyone involved.
It is hypocritical for the Government to argue that the Bill is about freedom of information, about making available to parents and to the wider public information on which to judge schools and about making available what they regard as an improved inspection system, but then to refuse hon. Members permission to see the evidence presented to the Secretary of State about the inspectorate and to refuse to publish the consultation responses about proposals for the inspectorate.
Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been in government and that he is not likely to be, but will he confirm for the record whether it is the Liberal party's official policy that internal advice to Ministers will always be released to the public?
Mr. Straw: The Rayner scrutiny on the HMIs.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says that the Rayner scrutiny on Her Majesty's inspectors was published, but there is a more fundamental issue. If Ministers seek to justify their policies by referring to information and advice made available to them, not to allow that information and advice into the wider public arena so that people can judge for themselves whether Ministers are telling the truth suggests that they are not telling the full truth.
In those circumstances, my party believes that the information should be made available, and that would be the aim of a freedom of information Act. The Government try to have it both ways. They say that the advice from civil servants is impartial and that it must not be seen because it is private to Ministers who make the decisions, but when they are questioned about their decisions, they refer to the private advice that they will not publish. That is a deceit. It is not democratic and it comes ill from a Government who propose the Bill in the name of freedom of information.
7.3 pm
Mr. Alan Amos: I begin by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing the Bill which is a logical and sensible next step in the implementation of the citizens charter. Its two underlying aims are to raise standards and improve the quality of our educational system and also to widen choice which will be an informed choice and, with open enrolment, real and meaningful.
The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association said:
"We … support the broad aims which underly this Bill —improved school inspection arrangements and increased public access to information about the quality of the

197
publicly-funded education service. We believe that proper steps towards these aims would contribute to securing further improvement in the quality of children's education."
The National Association of Head Teachers said—
Mr. Derek Enright: Read the rest.
Mr. Amos: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) read from the same brief. As he is a natural pessimist and I am a natural optimist, I quoted the good and he quoted only the bad.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman quoted the first paragraph of AMMA's report. I know that he would not like to do any injustice to the report, but if he were to read the second paragraph, which contains its judgment on the Bill, he might come to a different conclusion. To put the record straight, I shall read the second paragraph:
"We judge that the provisions of the Bill, as printed, are confused and inadequate for their purposes. We therefore ask Members to seek very considerable revision to the Bill in Committee, in order to secure more confidently that the reforms will realise their intentions."
If the hon. Gentleman is to be consistent with his opening sentence in which he quoted AMMA's report, he must proceed to argue—rightly—that the Bill is confused and inadequate for its purposes and he must tell us what revisions he will seek. If not, I suggest that he withdraws his reference to AMMA.
Mr. Amos: I was a member of AMMA for eight years and I understand its concerns, but I have quoted the brief which shows its support for the Bill's underlying aims. Therefore, it seems logical to support Second Reading and to debate the details later.
The National Association of Head Teachers said:
"There is undoubtedly a need to improve the regularity of formal school inspections, as well as a strong case for the provision of detailed information about schools to parents."
That is an example of another highly respected teaching organisation which supports the principles behind the Bill. Therefore, I assume that the Opposition will want to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
On the question of raising standards, the Bill will increase the frequency and regularity of school inspections. It will lead to about 6,000 inspections a year compared with a measly 150 last year under the present system. I was a teacher in a state comprehensive school for eight years and I never saw an inspector. Perhaps my lessons were so good that they did not need to be inspected, but I never saw an inspector. Every school will in future be inspected every four years.
The Government are rightly concerned with not only the relevance of what is taught, but the quality of how it is taught. Hitherto, inspectors' reports have been kept secret from parents and from the public, but under our proposals every parent will automatically receive a readable and understandable summary of the report with a concrete action plan from the governors telling parents how they will act on the findings.
The method and procedure of the inspection will mean that HMI will develop new powers, duties and responsibilities and that it will become more powerful and independent of central Government, as it should be. However, its role as guardian of educational standards will not change. It will regulate the standards of the new inspection teams and only those registered by HMI will be
198
allowed to operate. The work of the new teams will be carried out to agreed national standards, properly and carefully monitored and enforced by HMI.
The inspectorate will continue to be responsible to the Secretary of State. Even though LEA inspectors and advisory staff will probably be part of many of those teams, it is right to end the role of the local education authorities in inspection, because of the inherent conflict of interest. To have a dual role as advisor and inspector is incompatible, just as we agreed that it was in the water industry. It can never be right to be both judge and jury.
The Bill provides for a logical and sensible extension of local management of schools and the greater independence that we have given to our schools. Parents should have the right to independent information about their children's schools. They can still choose the local education authority if they want, but—importantly—they have the choice not to. If the local education authority team is better and cheaper, the school can choose it if it wishes.
It is wrong to suggest that schools will be able to choose an easy inspection team. With the enhanced and more meaningful quality control function of Her Majesty's inspectorate, it will not be possible for that to happen. It would not be in the professional or career interests of the inspectors. The leader of each inspection team, a registered inspector, will be licensed for a renewable fixed period, so his professional status would be at risk.
I agree that we must strive for as much consistency as possible in the new system. There are real problems under the current arrangements which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) wishes to preserve for all time. He was not here a moment ago, but I see that he has now run hot foot into the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats want to retain the present system.
On the current arrangements, an Audit Commission report in 1989 entitled "Assuring Quality in Education" revealed wide variations in the size of the local education authority inspectorate services. It criticised their monitoring role as
"uneven and in some LEAs disturbingly small."
On 28 June this year, The Times Educational Supplement published a brief summary of the data available on LEA inspectors. The article said:
"Workloads varied considerably and between authorities … An Audit Commission survey of 67 authorities in 1988 showed that some inspectors spent less than 10 per cent. of their week observing in classrooms, whereas others spent more than 60 per cent. of their time in the classroom. A National Foundation for Educational Research survey found that only 40 per cent. of LEAs required inspectors to write any sort of report on all or most of their school visits."
Consistency is important, but equally and possibly more so are rigour and regularity.
Under the Bill, more information will be provided to parents and to the public generally. I am pleased that the proposal has widespread support among parents and within the profession.
Mr. Flannery: Where?
Mr. Amos: I just quoted AMMA and the NAHT, which are two highly respected organisations. Both have accepted the broad principles that underline the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should not be so pessimistic. He looks only for bad news, but there is a lot of good news around.
The National Association of Head Teachers—I did not rise to the dizzy heights of headship, but was merely a classroom teacher—says that it is

199
"strongly in favour of the principle of providing information on schools to parents."
It accepts the principle underlying the Bill.
I do not know what all the fuss is about. When I was the chairman of Enfield education committee in 1981, I decided to publish all the schools' public examination results, despite strong and sustained opposition from the educational establishment. I took the view, which I still hold, that parents and taxpayers had a right to that information. It was not for me to justify the release of the information, but for others to justify their demand that it should remain secret. The real reason was that they could not trust anyone to have the statistics, and that is the Labour party's view today.
There may have been a genuine fear that as a result of the release of information, there would be a widespread movement of pupils between schools—from the less popular to the good schools. That did not happen. There was no dramatic sea-change and there will be no dramatic sea-change under our proposals, which involve public examination results, national curriculum test results, truancy rates and the destinations of school leavers.
The vast majority of people know their local schools, but the parents who do not or who want to make a carefully considered choice of all the schools in the area are entitled to as much information as possible. The information should be provided as of right so that they can make as informed a choice as possible. Parents should not have to extract the information from unwilling local councils, which do not have a monopoly right to the information.
I understand the concerns about the examination league table. That is why contextual information will be available in the schools' prospectuses and in the governors' annual report. Together with the annual written report on the pupils' progress and our other reforms, we are building up a profile of pupil achievement. All good schools should already give annual written reports especially at a time of regular testing and with the measurable progress and benchmarks that we have built into the national curriculum.
Other hon. Members have referred to value added information. How can that be provided practically? As the National Association of Head Teachers—perhaps the hon. Member for Hillsborough would like to contradict this—rightly said:
"attempts to build in weightings according to social circumstances are almost certain to be unsuccessful and are likely to be ignored."
The concept of value-added information sounds fine, but in reality there are practical problems.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. Social background is one possible measure and there are difficulties with that. The value-added proposals of the Audit Commission take as the fixed point what the child has achieved, whether GCSE or other level, and consider the point to which the child has moved at the next examined level. That could be done comprehensively, as the Secretary of State agreed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that could be published.
Mr. Amos: That is perfectly possible. As the results are published over a period of years and over the pupils' time in the school, the information will be built up and
200
available, but one cannot have all the information immediately. One has to start the tests and start to produce the information before there can be a comparison. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. I have always supported measuring and testing pupils as early as possible so that, as they go through school, one can measure how they are performing in relation to their potential. Unless one has the information at the beginning, one cannot measure later progress and thus identify those in need to whom help should be channelled.
The hon. Gentleman is right. We want as many tests as possible early on so that the information can be used for later comparisons. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is a perfectly reasonable man, supports that principle.
Mr. Eggar indicated assent.
Mr. Amos: I shall develop the point. Does one add 10 per cent. for children from single-parent families? That would be wholly wrong. When I was teaching, two of my best students came from single-parent households. Does one add 15 per cent. for ethnic minorities? We are told constantly of the high achievement rates of Asian pupils. The proposal is nonsense in practice. With the publication of the list of examination results in comparison with capital spending and with the list of LEAs showing what percentage of their potential schools budget has now been delegated to the schools to spend for themselves, we have already established the principle.
I do not believe that a convoluted system attempting to justify and explain the results would do anything other than add confusion to a situation in which we can safely trust the parents. Parents properly take many factors into account in choosing schools, including discipline, school uniform and the ethos of the school. The annual report and the prospectus contain all the relevant information about the school, including academic and non-academic activities, so parents have access to a complete profile of what is on offer at the school.
It is a pity that the Labour party is so misguided in its obsession with input into education. It judges everything by the amount of money spent—even though expenditure is at record levels—rather than according to how effectively that money is used and the quality of output. Northumberland came 63rd of 96 in the per capita spending league, whereas, in the exam results league table, it came 15th. That is a commendable result. What matters is how the money is spent, and we should not pour money in regardless.
The examination league tables published in the Sunday papers recently left out many good schools because trendy left-wing councils refused to co-operate and hand over the information. That simply proves how important it is not to publish partial information but to publish comprehensive data in a standardised format for all schools. That is exactly the purpose of the Bill.
For the past four and a half years, I have had to listen to the whingeing and whining of the Labour party while it has opposed every single measure that we have introduced to raise standards and widen choice. Usually, the Opposition have been confused, incoherent and inconsistent, as witness their stance on the pay review body. They take the view that, if something is not done by the state bureaucracy, it should not be done at all. On the provision of more information, the Opposition clamour for open

201
government and open access to education, yet they do not, and cannot, trust parents and the public to be given the information, let alone to interpret it sensibly.
I trust parents and I believe that they have the right to information. Unlike Labour Members, I believe in competition and incentives. I do not fear the facts; the whole point of establishing them in the first place is to find out where help is needed and to direct help to the schools that need it. The Bill is all about raising standards and it does not pretend that schools do not vary in quality. I strongly support it and commend it to the House.
7.21 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The Bill will dismember and privatise Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. It will privatise the local inspectorate system, so that schools themselves will choose who is to inspect them. It is proposed that Her Majesty's inspectorate be vastly reduced in size. The Secretary of State told us today that the Government propose to cut the number of inspectors from 500 to 175. The inspectors will continue to carry out certain inspections at the instruction of the Secretary of State and, in advising the Government, will supposedly draw on a large number of inspection reports by independent inspectors,. Schools will now buy in inspections. Regulators will be chosen and paid for by the schools being inspected. What a crazy idea. That certainly cannot provide HMI with a proper basis on which to advise the Government.
The proposal that each school should choose its own inspection team could lead to what has already been described as a cosy relationship, with heads and governors choosing inspectors friendly to existing practice within the school. That seems to me a fair assessment of what will occur, because the bought-in inspectors will inevitably wish to guarantee that they are bought in again four years later. They are bound to play safe in their report. If they do not, a different inspection team may be chosen four years later, and that will mean that there is no consistency between one inspection and the next.
It is incredible that much of the work will be done by audit inspectors, who will obviously include private money-making firms. That means that the quality assurance inspectors will be able to observe the work of the new independent inspectors only once a year. Some of HMI's work will have to be curtailed or stopped altogether. In the longer term, the capacity to provide district school inspectors will also be doubtful.
The Government argue that, as a result of the changes, HMI will be much more independent. That is nonsense, because the Bill explicitly gives Ministers power over HMI. In fact, it is clear that the Government are determined to silence HMI, because each year HMI has produced a damning report on the state of our education service, and each year the Government have simply ignored it. Every year, HMI says that our schools are crumbling and that many children do not get a proper education. Every year, the Government ignore such reports. Recently, they have not only ignored them; they have actually shredded them.
Now, they plan to get rid of the inspectors, so that they can no longer produce damning reports. Instead, the job will be given to private firms, which will have every reason not to make accurate reports about schools. Consequently, the Tories' undermining of our education system will be swept under the carpet. The Government
202
talk about freedom of information and about parents' having all the information they need. We have heard about that in speech after speech, but the Bill proves that it is bunkum. The Government do not want parents to have information. They want it swept under the carpet because they know what they have done to our education system over the past 12 years.
How can anyone trust criticisms made or reports written under a system that allows inspection teams chosen by school governors to inspect schools and report on them? Inspections will be carried out by private consultants. How in the name of heaven can one allow a school to appoint its own inspectors and then expect an accurate unbiased report? For that matter, how can one expect schools to chose an unbiased consultant?
If any system of inspection is to work properly, those who carry out the inspection must be totally independent of those who are being inspected. They should also be seen to be independent. How can the public have any confidence in an inspection service under which schools will pick and chose their own inspectors? It is a mockery; it is ludicrous.
In my view, the inspectors should have a role that will ensure and support effective change and development within schools. Surely, under the Bill, it will not be in the business interests of the inspection team to encourage schools to develop better systems of self-evaluation and review. The new inspectors will be primarily responsible to the school rather than to the local education authority, and half the local education authority resources currently allocated to inspection, advice and advisory teachers will be delegated to schools to buy in their chosen inspectors. The reduction in resources will drastically curtail the ability of each LEA to monitor provision and provide support services to schools. More incredibly, it will remove LEA's right to inspect any school that they maintain.
To make matters worse, the inspection reports that the schools will receive will be anything but useful. They will be inconsistent and unreliable. The emphasis will be placed on inspections based on single schools rather than work on trends or issues, phases or subjects, such as Her Majesty's inspectorate's important recent work on the introduction of a national curriculum. As I have already said, the Bill will lessen the quality of advice that Her Majesty's inspectorate can give the Government.
The inspectorate should be free to investigate and to instigate reports on the effectiveness of Government policy, and not just to act on the direction of the Secretary of State. I am sure that most parents would welcome a broad picture of schools' strengths and weaknesses. Independent inspection teams are unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of the local community, a school's history and of other local schools to be able to provide reliable information about the effectiveness of that school. The result is that parents will receive a report in which they can have little confidence. Inspections should be regarded as a contribution to the continuing process of raising pupil achievement in a school rather than as labelling that school.
Perhaps the most objectionable thing about the private inspectors is the proposal that the inspection teams must provide a lay member. The criterion is that they must not be involved in education. That is absolutely appalling. How in the name of heaven can someone with no background in education make a valid judgment or criticism of a school? That is like asking a layman to go

203
into a hospital operating theatre and make a judgment of how the doctor or surgeon is operating. That is a crazy and appalling system and it is the most disgraceful part of the proposals. How on earth can an inspection team function if it is not based on expertise and experience? The team can have expertise and experience only if its members have been involved in education at some point in their careers.
We have heard much about parents in this debate, and the views of parents should be paramount. Those views must come from representative parents such as governor parents or parent association officers, and they must be based on clear terms of reference. If teacher morale is not to be further undermined, there must be an absolute guarantee that individual members of staff should not become subjects of discussion. There must be an obligation to discuss a serious complaint with the head teacher and staff before the complaint is included in the report.
The Government introduced a national curriculum supposedly to develop a nationwide education strategy. However, the measures in the Bill are contrary to that aim. The Government are doing away with the mechanism by which national standards can be measured and improved. It is clear to me that the proposals in the Bill will make it easier for poor standards to go unnoticed. It will be much more difficult for parents to exercise rights in relation to their children's schools. So much for the Prime Minister's citizens and parents charters.
The second part of the Bill can be summed up as "league tables". The Bill gives enabling powers to the Secretary of State relating to information about the performance of schools. There are likely to be league tables giving examination results, truancy rates and leaver destinations for every school in a particular area. It is desirable for parents to receive meaningful information about their children's achievements and for schools to be able to monitor how effective they are. However, the publication of raw assessment and test results will not achieve those aims. Such publication would be divisive and meaningless.
Without a fuller analysis of value-added information, the publication of results will simply reflect the difference between schools in terms of cultural and socio-economic profiles of their pupil intakes. By comparing raw data with pupil intake and weighting achievements, if necessary, the information will not give the true picture at any school. The publication of results will not take account of the influence of the proportion of pupils with educational disadvantages, learning difficulties and other variables such as pupil mobility, teacher turnover and resourcing levels.
Monday's edition of The Northern Echo, the local paper for the north-east of England, carried an article about school standards. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) must have shares in that paper, because he seems to appear in every edition. That paper does not particularly support Labour's point of view, but, the article by the education correspondent stated:
"Education standards are rising as more pupils in County Durham schools get top marks in GCSE and A-level examinations. But the statistics vary considerably from school
204
to school, demonstrating the difficulty of compiling league tables just as much as they may indicate problems in some schools."
The article quotes Keith Mitchell, the director of education for Durham. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State has a tremendous relationship with him and agrees with almost everything he says—as we read in the paper virtually every week. Keith Mitchell stated:
"the difficulties of judging school performance through examination statistics are notorious."
He presented a report to the county council in which schools were referred to in alphabetical order rather than in statistical order. He said:
"exam results are of great importance, but they arc only one measure of a successful school. Results tend to reflect the social and economic background of pupils and their different expectations."
Instead of having an alphabetical league table, The Northern Echo decided to produce a league table according to GCSE results. It was no great surprise that that league table showed that four of the top five schools in the county of Durham were located in the university city of Durham, where a significant number of pupils' parents are academics. The city is also reasonably affluent.
In that area, the number of children receiving free school meals is considerably lower than in seven of the 10 schools at the bottom of the league, 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of whose pupils come from deprived homes. The Northern Echo stated:
"Although this table highlights schools with a high percentage of O-level passes, we could produce a league table putting Carmel ahead of Park View, Belmont and St. Leonards"—
schools within the city—
"and promoting Wolsingham from 27th place to fifth place since over 90 per cent. of the pupils gained five or more GCSEs."
The point is that league tables can show anything we want them to. We cannot depend on a league table to show how well a school is doing. A league table can prove anything.
The Northern Echo then stated:
"The permutations are endless and the county council must pursue them so schools are fairly placed on the Government's examination league tables next year."
That proves conclusively that league tables are absolutely worthless. They provide information that should already be known if the job is being done properly.
Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for his kind references earlier. I should have thought that the example that he has just given proves almost exactly the opposite. If he is capable of interpreting, as he has just demonstrated he is, the league table that showed that four of the top five schools are in his constituency, why are his constituents incapable of interpreting the table in that way?
Mr. Steinberg: With respect to the Minister, my constituents already know that. They do not need a league table to tell them that they have very good schools. The league table gives a false impression of the schools below the top five in the table. The table seems to imply that those schools are inferior, but they are not; they are just as good. In many respects, they could be doing a better job, but because of the raw results and the permutations, the statistics can prove anything at all.
Mr. Flannery: Is it not clear from the outbursts from Conservative Members, and especially from the Minister,

205
who clearly does not seem to understand education, that they really believe in elitism in education and the devil take the hindmost? That is why they want league tables.
Mr. Steinberg: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. League tables do not show anything more than we already know. We do not need them.
The publication of results will cause schools and pupils who are identified as failing in comparison with others to be demotivated and undermined. That is what league tables will do. It is also obvious that the publication of results will mean that, because such a huge significance will be given to the assessment of certain parts of the curriculum and to academic aspects of achievement, teaching to the test will actually be encouraged. The consequence will be the narrowing of the curriculum. In the long term, that will mean the lowering, not raising, of standards and the demotivating of many pupils.
The assessment of pupils' progress is important because it should encourage pupils to learn, inform teachers and pupils of progress, and provide feedback on achievement. If assessment becomes dominant—in other words, teaching to the test—curriculum aims are unlikely to be achieved. The effectiveness of a school is measured by what is taught in the whole curriculum and by the quality of life in that school.
Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman speaks with sincerity and knowledge about education, because he was a professional before he came to the House. However, I am a little confused by the drift of his argument. He said that, in his constituency, all the information that went out was known to parents, so there was no need to publish. Surely the need to publish a league table is obvious. The hon. Gentleman's constituents might think that they know which are the best schools and which are the worst schools in his constituency, but the league tables might show a different picture and might enable parents to make a positive, defined, sophisticated choice about the school to which they may want to send their children. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Gentleman does not understand league tables and the results of league tables. Parents know the performance of the school to which they send their children. Many of them would not have sent them there in the first place if they did not know how the school was performing. Many parents have no choice—it is the school within their area. Parents know how a school performs. They do not need league tables showing the top, bottom or middle. It is wrong to argue that league tables would give that information. I have already explained that league tables can be jiggled. They can be based on fewer results and on many other things. League tables do not give reliable information.
The Bill will do nothing for education. It is a further step in reducing standards in schools and lowering the morale of school teachers. We should have had a Bill that defined maximum class sizes and the minimum level of resourcing of books and equipment. Incidently, the school that is top of the list according to The Northern Echo is using books that are 30 years old. It must scrimp and save and use books that are 30 years old.
We should have had a Bill that defined the minimum standards of provision of support staff, guaranteed standards for school buildings, and guaranteed provision
206
of supply staff to cover for teacher absences. That would have been helpful for education. That would have helped to improve standards.
The only policies that will help all our children are those designed to limit class sizes, provide the books and equipment that are needed, and replace crumbling schools. The Government could have introduced a Bill that did just that, because that is what is needed. However, the Government gave us this Bill which, once again, will undermine the education service and teachers, and not help one iota to improve standards.
7.44 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: In supporting a very important measure for raising standards in schools over the next few years, I wish to refer to three points, two of which have already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) related an educational idyll of his constituency, and very impressive it was too. Educational standards in my hon. Friend's constituency have risen considerably over the past 12 years. However, that rise is not peculiar to his constituency. Spending per pupil has gone up by 40 per cent. over the past 12 years. We have already heard that the pupil-teacher ratio has also improved. Evidence shows a significant improvement—about a third—in the number of those who attain levels A to C in their GCSE results. There has been a significant improvement in the number of those attaining two or more A-levels. However, it must be said that there is improvement across the education spectrum.
I could take my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale to my constituency and show him a middle school which has spent £1 million on capital improvements over the past four years. I could take him to a secondary school in my constituency where the staying-on rate, which is a good index of educational achievement, has risen from 28 per cent. of the relevant age group to 55 per cent. over the past five years. Obviously, that success does not apply only to my constituency, where we have a relatively low-spending Conservative-controlled county council with, nevertheless, good examination results. It also applies to schools in inner-city areas. Over the past 12 years, great progress has been made under this Government in respect of educational standards and investment in education.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) said that we need no strictures from the Labour party on making education more parent-friendly. Here we have the Johnnies-come-lately who, when we were examining the Education Reform Act 1988 in Committee, opposed open enrolment which allowed parents to choose schools, certainly opposed the national curriculum because they thought that it was too centrist, and certainly did not like the idea of assessment. They now seem to think that they were all their own ideas all along and would like to adopt them with enthusiasm. I am absolutely certain that, in three years' time when we have another Conservative Government, Labour Members will still claim parentage of this measure, because they will then think that it will raise educational standards.
Thirdly, if we are to succeed in an economically competitive world in which technological advances are taking away the manual jobs that have been available for people who did not succeed at school, we have a duty to make sure that not only GCSE A to C achievers but every

207
pupil has a rigorous education and attains the necessary qualifications for a job. Staff at the employment training centres in my constituency say that the problem is that 40 per cent. of the people on their schemes have no basic education achievement, despite spending 11 years in the state school system. That is a fair cause for concern, at which the Bill is aimed.
A good education rests on a rigorous curriculum that is clearly understood, taught by well motivated teachers and has parents' support because they know what the curriculum is intended to achieve and what its results are likely to be.
The problem in Britain during the past 15 to 20 years has been that we have shied away from objective results in education. We have been too child-centred. We have not liked the idea of relative standards.
I can give an example of the problems that that attitude causes. I remember a parent coming to me about two years ago. She had just found out that her little nine-year-old, who had just gone into middle school, was two years behind on his reading age. I asked why she had not found out earlier. She said that she had asked the teachers and attended teacher sessions, but had been told that her son was fine. I asked whether she had received reports in the previous school. She said that she had never received any reports. Because that woman had no way of assessing what her child was doing, she had no idea of his achievement. The requirement in the Bill to publish results, including examination results, and provide written reports will help to alleviate that problem.
During the past 15 years, education has too often not been regarded as a body of knowledge to be imparted from teacher to pupils in an objective way. That was well put by Dr. Anthony Daniels earlier this year:
"There was a supposedly libertarian revulsion against 'bourgeois' standards of grammatical language: … That two and two make four is considered an intolerable insult to human freedom."
He says that the trouble is:
"scores are the young people I have encountered who left employment after a few days, simply because, on their own admission, they could not endure taking orders. They have never known what it is patiently to grow in skill and knowledge. They have been taught that what they already know and do is 'equally valid'."
That is the result of too great an adherence to a subjective, child-centred theory of education. The results are obvious.
Although at the top end of the scale more people than ever go to university—280,000 additional students every year in the past 12 years—a quarter of our seven-year-olds cannot give the result of the sum three multiplied by 10p plus four multiplied by 1p. Just in case anyone does not know, the answer is 34p.
The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales shows that too many of our seven-year-olds cannot achieve a satisfactory standard of reading. [Interruption.] I am referring to education methods. The bottom range of ability in the population is often affected by the lack of rigour in the education system.
Just as the Education Reform Act 1988 led, as Robin Wilson, the headmaster of Trinity school said recently in The Times Educational Supplement, to a phenomenally rapid and healthy change in schools, so the Bill will be crucial in bringing about improved standards in the classroom.
208
We have heard much debate tonight about whether the data on a school's performance should be given on a raw basis or a value-added basis. The reason why I support using raw data is not practical but philosophical. Through my associations with schools, I have found that if one concentrates on value-added data and takes into account what pupils knew when they entered a school, too often their basic education problems are obscured. Too often it institutionalises low achievement and therefore leads to unreasonably low expectations among teachers for the pupils whom they teach. That produces a downward educational spiral which it is difficult to stop.
For a long time I have been associated with a school called Perry Common, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is true that no less than 40 per cent. of the entry at age 11 have some special educational needs. I do not know whether that is due to their basic level of ability, poor teaching in the previous school or whatever. The problem is that because teachers know that, they have a disincentive to aim for the highest possible standard among the children they teach. That is not to say that the teachers are unprofessional. They are a good lot, but their standards and expectations are lower than they otherwise would be.
We did some interviews recently for a new head teacher. There were 40 applicants from all over Britain, of whom we interviewed 10. It was significant that all 10 spoke about the low expectations that teachers at the school seemed to have of pupils. The publication of raw data will act as an antidote to that problem and maintain the highest expectations. However, that does not mean that I am in complete agreement with what the Bill proposes should be published. In some schools BTEC is an important part of the curriculum, and the Government should consider whether those results should be published too.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman says that he has reservations about the publication of raw data, although they seem to me to be limited. Will he take into consideration the fact that there is great danger in publishing league tables produced on the basis of raw data? Unless the method by which data are compiled is taken into account, schools will discourage borderline pupils from sitting examinations. If the school ensures that its best pupils go in for exams, it will have a higher percentage pass rate. In a league table, that factor may hide a poorly performing school. It might look good in a league table, but the school could be under-achieving. How would it improve teachers' expectations if pupils of average ability were discouraged from sitting examinations?
Mr. Coombs: There is a variety of answers to that question. The main one is that I have more faith in the professionalism of teachers and their ambitions for their pupils than the hon. Gentleman appears to have. Most teachers want their children to improve and show what they can do in examinations. Therefore, teachers will enter pupils for examinations for which they think that the pupils are fit. That is why I argue that BTEC should be included in the examination results which the Bill requires schools to publish. Many schools do well in BTEC and do not lower standards or expectations as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham was right to say that, under the Bill, there will be 6,000 inspections a

209
year rather than the measly 150 full inspections that have taken place in the past. My attitude to inspections in schools stems from my experience as chairman of schools in Birmingham for two years. I set up a working party on standards. It was sad that the Labour party did not want to co-operate in the working party, at least initially, because it felt that it might have to "put the finger", as it put it, on schools which were under-performing.
The problem with inspections in Birmingham was, first, that they were too rare to be of any real use. Full inspections, which will happen every four years under the Bill, happened every 20 years if one was lucky under the old system. The second problem was that the results of the inspections were rarely known outside the education department. They were not conveyed adequately to governors and if the governors received them, they were couched in such jargon that the governors could not take action on them.
Thirdly, the inspections were never discussed by the education committee—except when I became chairman and set up the working party. That is why we set it up. It is very sad that, when we lost power in 1984, the first thing that the Labour did was to abolish the standards working party, so the inspections were never discussed. The Bill requires the results of inspections to be made available to parents through governing bodies. Because of local management of schools, governing bodies will be able to do something about them, so inspections will be extremely valuable.
The reservations about inspections that have been expressed in the debate have not been objective and do not carry a great deal of weight. It appears that I have more faith in school governors than have many Opposition Members. School governors will be going for the best and most objective inspections, because that will add to the school's credibility. If inspections are sufficiently rigorous—with raw data or not—well motivated teachers, with good head teachers, will find that they are an incentive to improve standards in schools rather than the opposite.
I know of a school where only 6 per cent. of students passed the GCSE level with a grade between A and C. That is appalling. The national average is 30 per cent. Faced with those results, the teachers did not put their heads down and hope that the problem went away; they got stuck in. That proportion was built up to 12 per cent. in one year.
The Opposition have said that the publication of raw data will act as a disincentive, but, in most cases, it will act as a significant incentive for educational improvement.
Therefore, the Bill will give parents the knowledge that they need to become an effective part of the partnership between parent and teacher upon which all good education is based. As an extension of the parenthood charter, the Bill proves that the Government—through measures that they have already taken, such as open enrolment, local management of schools, greater control of governing bodies for parents and now through the publication of exam results, better school reports and better inspections —represent the party that takes parents' interests seriously. That is the way to better standards in education.
8.2 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: First, I shall discuss that part of the Bill which deals with testing and the publication of results. As I have made clear on the Floor
210
of the House and in letters to Ministers, I am not opposed to testing, as long as it is done sensitively and used properly. I spent a considerable amount of time observing the testing of seven-year-olds in schools in my constituency. The tests were carefully designed and appropriate for seven-year-olds. By and large the youngsters seemed to be enjoying the tests immensely, and I felt that there was much advantage in them.
I was worried about the length of time that the tests were taking and the demands that they made of teachers because of the lack of additional classroom support. I am glad that that problem is being taken seriously.
I have been concerned about the way in which some of the test results have been used almost immediately in the political arena. Although I do not wish to focus wholly on the testing of seven-year-olds, the way in which those tests have been used has much relevance for how we use testing in general. I was worried about the dramatic announcement that 25 per cent. of seven-year-olds are illiterate and about the equally dramatic announcement by the Opposition spokesman. The Opposition were castigating lack of resources and the Government were implying that teaching methods left much to be desired. That may be the case, but it is certainly not proven. It is not fair to children or to teachers to dismiss 25 per cent. of seven-year-olds as illiterate.
The important thing is that both young children and those in secondary schools are on a learning curve and are making progress. Many children, who were only six when they took the test and were perhaps on the brink of achieving that, would be illiterate according to those criteria.
My son is six and will be taking the tests in the coming year. I have observed his reading progress. As with walking, talking and many other developments, children often make steady progress followed by a great surge. My six-and-a-half-year-old would just about pass that test now, whereas two months ago he would not. What matters is not where he was on the day he took the test, but the fact that he is making steady progress and can be expected to read confidently and with comprehension in the next year or so. That is the important thing and that is what must be addressed. Dismissing children as illiterate because of a fixed test on one day is a great mistake.
Crude league tables, based on raw data, have a number of major disadvantages. I have listened carefully to Conservative Members' arguments that such tables are effective and valuable. One hon. Member said that as much information as possible should be given to parents, not partial information. That information should include some idea of the standard of the child to start with—it is not merely a question of ensuring that results are assesed fairly and meaningfully—as that is important for parents of children with certain qualities when they decide where to send their child.
When I was considering the choice of school for one of my children, who was assessed as band 2 under the local education authority system, I looked at the league tables differently. I was interested to know which school in my area did well with band 2 children—at which schools such children went on to achieve. I chose the school with those criteria in mind and I have not been disappointed.
The results of the different schools were interesting. In many schools in my area, comparing intake with GCSE results and subsequently A-level results, band 1 children went on to do remarkably well, but band 2 and 3 children

211
disappeared without trace. I was not interested in those schools. I wanted a school where band 2 children were achieving, expectations were high and they were making progress. That is an important consideration.
Parents of children with special needs need to know where they will be well catered for. That may never show up on the sort of league tables that we are talking about.
There is a danger that the Bill will encourage some schools, although certainly not all, to be rigorous in excluding pupils who they think might have a downgrading effect on their league tables, or that schools might discourage children with only a marginal chance of succeeding in an examination, not allowing them to take it because it will depress the school's results. That is not pie in the sky. In my area, two comprehensive schools have been vying in the local popularity stakes for some time. Although it is going back a considerable time, when the results of one school were analysed on the same basis as the results of the other it became clear that the school had presented its statistics in a misleading way. It also became clear that the numbers of pupils allowed to take some exams were different. That is of particular importance.
Falling standards and substandard school performance must be identified and tackled. The raw data will not necessarily give that information. We are looking not for raw results or a fixed result, but for progress, development and what schools have achieved with the pupils in their area. I hope that the Government will think again before deciding to publish raw data without any additional information. I recognise that we could get into a confusion of innumerable value-added dimensions, but there must be a balance between sensible, additional information on which to make an informed judgment and obscuring the important results.
The inspectorate has proved to be a critical aspect of the debate. Before the Government's proposals on how the inspectorate might operate in future, there seemed to be general agreement that inspectors were trusted and respected and had integrity and objectivity. So far as I can gather, the only criticism of inspectors is that there are not enough of them, so they cannot produce as many thorough, formal reports as desirable. Their advice to Ministers and schools has generally been accepted as invaluable and of the highest calibre. I fail to see how the new system can be an improvement on that.
Schools are to employ an inspecting agency. Educational consultants will vie to be chosen for that task. Those people, living in the real world of the free market, of competition, failed businesses and bankruptcies, as human beings, will look for renewed contracts and recommendations to other schools that they are the sort of inspecting agency with which a school likes to deal. There may not be consistency, but that anxiety pales into insignificance beside the considerable worry that the new system will be fraught with temptation to load, flatter or mislead in presenting a report. Obviously, word will go round that certain agencies are particularly critical and venomous while others are softer and gentler. That is what will happen in the real world, and we must resist it at all costs.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said that governors would exercise far more sense and, given a level playing field, I am sure that they would. But
212
governors, too, will be making decisions in a tough climate. Many of them face critical financial decisions. No more than a couple of weeks ago, I had a letter from the parent governors of one of my children's schools about opening a special fund to make good the shortfall in the main budget. The school is in Lewisham which, the Minister will be aware, has particular financial problems, so perhaps it is not entirely typical. Nevertheless, governors who have to perform a difficult juggling act to make ends meet and who are looking for some approval for their decisions may be unduly biased.
Nobody can fail to agree with some of the Government's recommendations. At present, two out of five local education authorities do not systematically inspect and seven out of 10 do not publish results. We all know of the extraordinary inspection frequency, which results from the present level of the inspectorate, of a 200-year cycle for infant schools and a 60-year cycle for secondary schools. That is nonsense. Any intention to make formal inspection a four-yearly event must be right and must be applauded. There is no argument about that.
There is argument about who should carry out the inspection and who is best suited to it. I believe that a bolstered, more independent HMI would be the best vehicle. We understand from the review that we can read about only in leaked reports to The Independent that
"a number of head teachers and principals to whom we spoke said that the characteristics of independence, objectivity and breadth of experience … were best exemplified by HMI."
If that is the case, I fail to see why we are lurching off at a tangent and appointing a separate set of bodies which may lack consistency to do this vital job.
I do not share some of the anxieties raised by Opposition Members about lay members of inspectorates. Education must be examined by people other than simply the providers. It is easy to get too immersed in education practice and too involved in one's own educational philosophy to make an objective assessment of what is happening in a given school. I do not object to a degree of laymen representation, but I have great anxieties about the changes in the Bill.
We are told that the idea of expanding HMI has been dismissed because, it is claimed, the inspectorate could not deal with the 8,000 school assessments each year. Yet, paradoxically, we understand that it will be able to monitor those 8,000 inspections by other inspections teams each year. That seems extraordinary and something of a duplication of tasks. The lack of logic in that must be apparent to all. We can only plead that the necessary resources for it to conduct those 8,000 reviews a year will be made available. That is the only safeguard in the current form of the proposals against the possibly skewed results from inspection teams with a natural eye on their future commissions and business viability.
All the inspection in the world, however perfectly done, is academic, as is testing, if there are no means of following up the recommendations, tackling the weaknesses or making good any shortfalls. A few months ago, a constituent came to see me with a boy of 14 who could not read. She was a working-class mother who had been worried about that since she had become aware of his reading problem when he was seven. Each year various schools and teachers told her, "We'll give it another year and see how it goes." Now he is 14 and still cannot read. If problems relating to particular teachers or pupils are

213
identified within schools or in subject areas within schools, they must be dealt with. Otherwise, the whole exercise is simply academic.
We recognise that there are shortfalls in the educational system relating to nursery provision, special needs provision and the number of educational psychologists in post. There are also teacher shortages in certain subjects and in certain geographical areas where teachers are unwilling to apply for vacancies. Without tackling those fundamental problems, the rest of our debate will be of little value towards improving standards in our schools.
The shortcomings appear to have been diagnosed only recently and I fear that there is a tendency to go for alternative forms of educational practice that may be no more tried and tested than those which we are leaving behind. There has been a lurch back to the blackboard style of teaching, with all children facing the same direction, having the same lesson at the same time. That change, together with the abolition of project work in schools, is a dangerous move and must be resisted. Education does not have to be miserable to be effective. A good teacher can make education enjoyable and effective.
I was alarmed to hear one Conservative Member say that education had become too child-centred. What an extraordinary statement. I accept that we must look to the outside world and the end product as well as considering what the child experiences during his school years. However, to be effective, education must be child-centred. I accept that some education has been ideologically based and I do not defend that. However, when pupils work according to their own ability, in different ways and on different subjects in the same classroom, that is extremely effective—as long as the teacher is good.
I have said on many occasions, and no doubt I shall do so many times again, that education depends on good teachers who are well motivated and well paid. They must enjoy the right status and they must feel that they are regarded with considerable esteem by society. That is not the case now.
A small number of teachers caused a great deal of misery for the rest of the profession when they lurched into industrial action in the 1980s. My older son, who is 18, suffered three years of disruption to his secondary education because of that industrial action. I recognise that many of his friends from less fortunate backgrounds have never recovered. They do not have the type of parents who can pick up the pieces and who can say, "Have another year or two at school to make good." Those children have been failed for life by those three years of industrial action, and I do not defend it. However, I hope that the pay review body will redress the imbalance in teachers' pay and that marked improvements will occur.
I conclude by repeating an anecdote that I recently heard at a prize-giving day in a school in my constituency. The headmaster told us about a school in America where the results were extremely poor. Its headmaster decided that something had to be done, so he selected a group of pupils and a group of teachers. He told them that they were earmarked for special achievement, he gave them extra resources and extra study time. The expectation that they would do well was evident to all. The pupils went on to do very well in their subsequent examinations and everyone was pleased.
The teachers held a small party to celebrate and, after the pupils had left, the headmaster said, "You must realise that I did not select those pupils according to any
214
particular criteria. They were selected at random from the rest of the pupils." When the teachers heard that, they congratulated themselves wholeheartedly and said, "Well, we did extremely well if you did not pick the best to achieve those results." The headmaster replied, "Well, you were not selected either as especially good teachers. You were selected at random from the teaching staff."
That story shows what can be achieved when the expectations of teachers and pupils are high. As the education debate proceeds, we must examine each issue according to such expectations.
8.24 pm
Mr. David Evennett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As someone who came through the state school system and benefited from the investment that previous taxpayers spent on our schools, I believe that it is vital that today's children and their parents get value for money from the present state school system.
I believe passionately in the state school system, and I want the very best for our children and our country. A great deal of work is done in our schools, and we must not underestimate it. However, there are also many problems. Despite the vast increases in expenditure on education in real terms recently, the public are not satisfied with the performance of our schools. Pupils are dissatisfied, and industry and commerce remain somewhat dismayed at the results from our schools. Therefore, something must be done.
In the past few years, the Government have introduced a number of beneficial educational reforms, which will definitely improve matters. I believe that the Bill continues that process. It should and will be welcomed by the vast majority of people, and it proves that the Government are continuing their endeavours to improve our schools and our education system.
The Conservative party believes in choice and opportunity for people in terms of how they spend their money and their time. We believe in providing people with the opportunity to utilise their talents to the full. Education is a passport to a full and fulfilling life. However, in some schools, in some areas, many children are being denied that passport. That is unacceptable to the Conservative party, and further action must be taken to improve the situation. I am sure that the Bill will improve the standard and quality of educational provision.
I must preface my remarks about school performance by stating that school provision in general is extremely good in my borough of Bexley. We have a varied mixture of good schools—grammar, technical, comprehensive and single sex. We also have a bilateral school in Erith in my constituency. Therefore, parents in my area have a true choice. I admit that our schools are so good that parents from neighbouring boroughs such as Greenwich, Lewisham and Bromley want to send children to our schools in Bexley. My hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well that that desire has caused concern to parents in Bexley. We have urged him to legislate to reverse the Greenwich judgment, so that priority is again given to children of our borough.
Although I welcome the Bill, I fear that publication of performance tables could make our problems in Bexley worse. Unless the Greenwich judgment is overturned, parents in Greenwich and other neighbouring boroughs

215
—once they see how good and how well our schools perform—will be even more enthusiastic in their attempts to get places in Bexley schools. That would be detrimental to children in my constituency, unfair to parents and unacceptable to me. I hope that the Minister will note that.
On a positive note, I welcome the fact that schools will have to disclose their GCSE and A-level results. That is a big step forward, because parents will then be able to use examination results to challenge schools to improve. The educational establishment likes to keep up an old-fashioned mystique on such matters, and I believe that that establishment is one of the problems we face. It believes that it knows best and what is good for us and for our children. It believes that it alone can analyse, comment and advise.
It is amazing how dominant the educational establishment has been for so long, which is totally unacceptable. Today the Opposition revealed themselves as dinosaurs because they acted as mere apologists for the old established order.
Just as the old order has fallen in eastern Europe, so it is falling in educational establishment circles in Britain. There is a new mood afoot. Parents will no longer accept being fobbed off by the so-called experts. After all, parents are concerned about their children. They have a right in today's society to as much information as is available.
Let us remember that parents are making choices about their children and their future. They want to know how school examination results compare, about the level of truancy and about the staying-on rate after 16. Many parents also want to know what pupils do and where they go after leaving school—how many go into further education, to university or into employment.
The facts that will now be provided will give parents the missing information which will allow them to judge a school overall. Good schools will have nothing to fear. Weak schools will be encouraged to improve. Children and education will be the winners. The idea that information should be hidden from or denied to parents, as apparently advocated today by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the Labour party, is amazing. It is also insulting to parents.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Evennett: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. He spoke for a long time.
Most parents of children at poorer schools already know about those schools, though they do not have the information to confront the governors, teachers and heads to urge them of the need to improve the school.
Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the Official Report tomorrow and tell me where I said that information should be hidden from parents. At no stage did I say that, nor do we believe it.
Mr. Evennett: The hon. Gentleman implied it in what he said during his very long speech.
Parents need more information about their children. The jargon, the mystique and the experts have dominated in the recent past. As a public service, schools should provide each year a written report on each child's progress. That would be helpful to parents in the task of continuing their children's education at home. Opposition Members
216
seem constantly to forget that parents, not teachers, are the primary educators of children. The teacher is the professional, so the teacher should report on the child's progress. The aim must be to help the child and keep the parents fully informed and advised. That is why the reports will be most helpful.
Inspection has come in for much discussion today as a major part of the Bill. Inspection in schools must be considered a vital part of the education system. It is essential if we are to know how schools, teachers and pupils are progressing, highlighting areas of concern and problems, while praising and congratulating areas where good practice and work is being carried out. A radical reform of HMI is long overdue.
As a former teacher with a wife who is a teacher, and as one who was a school governor throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s, I have always been surprised and disappointed at the way in which most schools are infrequently inspected. Educational fashions change. Over the years, teaching fashions have changed and have become less formal. The results were often not good, yet only in a few severe cases did HMI go in and make an impact with its report.
Investigations are not meant to condemn but to evaluate, suggest and recommend. Yet with such infrequent investigations, there is often considerable disadvantage for the schools and the children. Four-yearly inspections must be good news; I warmly welcome that part of the Bill.
A result of the Government's proposals will be more inspections and reports. HMI will still have a vital role to play, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn. Indeed, it will have an enhanced role. It will have a new independent statutory role, not only to inspect and produce reports, as now, but to advise and monitor the new system for schools with delegated budgets.
There will, of course, continue to be local council inspectors to inspect schools without delegated budgets. Regrettably, over the years local inspections have varied widely in quality, for many reasons. But to the Labour party, it seems that the solution always lies in having more ex-teachers, more ex-educationists and more establishment figures who alone, Labour thinks, are capable of doing the necessary inspections in our schools.
I find that view absolutely amazing. We need a breath of fresh air in school inspections. We must look at the standards and work in schools from an objective standpoint, and that should involve some outsiders, which means non-educationists, looking, inspecting and reporting. As I say, we must introduce a breath of fresh air into the inspection system. So long as HMI monitor and control the standards of the inspections, the changes proposed will bring many positive benefits. The most important will be better education provision for our children and the nation.
During the last five years, we have highlighted the problems and brought forward many reforms in the schools system, to the benefit of education and the children. It is vital that our children have the best possible education to allow them not only to have the best possible standard of life and maximise their opportunities, but for the benefit of Britain, so that we can compete in the world in trade and industry.
We must not simply retain the old-fashioned, traditional ways. It is clear from the remarks of Labour Members that they do not like change, even though they

217
have no ideas about what should be done to improve the education system. They are mere apologists for the existing system. They believe that it will be fine so long as more money is put into it. That is clearly not the solution to the problems of education in Britain. Over the years, more money has been put into education, but regrettably in certain areas little has been achieved. More money was spent in ILEA than in any other authority, yet the results were a disaster.
A basic amount of money must be provided, and the Conservatives have put more money than ever in real terms into education. We need an improved education system, and the Bill will go a long way to achieving that for the benefit of our children.
8.36 pm
Mr. John McAllion: It is said that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, and it is clear that Tory Ministers are mad. If they seriously believe that in the context of the present constitutional crisis between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom they can introduce what are crude and dangerous league tables into Scottish education—and do so by means of a single clause tacked on at the end of an English and Welsh Bill which is otherwise wholly irrelevant to Scotland—they have taken leave of their collective senses. They will have to pay a further political price for their insensitive treatment of Scotland.
Some hon. Members believe that the Tories have got themselves into a spot of bother in Scotland, and we are not referring to the occasional by-election disaster such as occurred in Kincardine and Deeside recently, or even to the reduction of Scottish Tory representation in the House to the completely inadequate level of nine. We are talking about a spectacular slide in support for Conservatism in Scotland, which has taken the Tories from the high point of being the majority party in Scotland in the mid-1950s to the point today when they are on the edge of extinction as a serious and significant force in Scotland.
One might think that, in those circumstances, Ministers would begin to ask themselves a few basic questions, such as, "Where have we gone wrong in Scotland? What are we doing or not doing in Scotland that is alienating from us our natural Scottish supporters?" It is not for me to help Scottish Tories in those circumstances, but I suggest to them that it may have something to do with the way in which the Government treat Scotland in legislative terms. The Government treat Scotland as an afterthought and something to be tacked on at the end when the serious business has already been dealt with.
I can imagine the scenario that must have taken place before the Bill was introduced. A team of Education Ministers will have been locked up together for days or even weeks on end to thrash out the details of the Bill. They will have gone into detail about Her Majesty's inspectorate for England and for Wales and about the powers of the chief inspector for England and for Wales. They will have discussed the supply of information for grant-maintained, state and private schools in England and Wales. Then, just when they thought that they had finished and were about to leave the room, up pipes a small Scottish voice in the corner which says, "What about Scotland?" The Government had forgotten all about Scotland.
218
The Secretary of State was so ignorant that he believed that the Bill applied to Scotland. He was unaware that 20 of the 21 clauses and all the schedules had nothing to do with Scotland. In answer to a question from me, he suggested that the Bill affected all areas of the United Kingdom in the same way, with additional provision for Scotland in clause 17. He appeared to be completely at sea again when I asked why primary schools in Scotland were excluded from the Bill, and did not seem to know that Scottish primary schools had been excluded.
It is contemptible for a Government to behave in that way about an important and constituent part of the United Kingdom. They treat Scotland as no more than a mere appendage of England, and seek to impose on Scotland an educational agenda that is irrelevant to the real needs of Scottish education. Indeed, the Bill is aimed primarily at England, rather than at England and Wales.
The Bill is contemptible in practical terms because, when it is debated in Committee, there may be only one Scottish Member on the Committee. The Labour party will ensure that Scottish Labour Members are represented, but will the Government ensure that there is Scottish representation in the Conservative party? The Minister of State, Scottish Office was present during the opening speeches of this debate but he has since disappeared and has not returned since. Nor is he likely to wind up the debate as I understand that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), or some other English Minister will do so.
In any case, a concurrent Bill will involve the Scottish Office Minister, so there is unlikely to be a Scottish Minister in the Committee. There are unlikely to be any Scottish Conservative Back Benchers either, not only because there are so few of them but because none of them has participated in this debate, apart from a brief intervention by the hon. and learned member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that could hardly have been described as serious participation.
Mr. Straw: He was drunk.
Mr. McAllion: He may have been drunk, but his participation was not serious.
A Scottish Labour Member could find himself isolated on the Committee and virtually speaking to the walls of the Committee Room, because he will get no reasonable or logical answers from Ministers who have no responsibility for Scottish education and will be unable to deal with the criticisms and questions which that Labour Member may raise.
For the House to deal with Scotland in that manner shows nothing but contempt for Scotland and the Scottish people. Clause 17 should be dealt with separately, if not by a Bill in its own right then at least by the Scottish Grand Committee, which should sit separately to consider clause 17, as it applies only to our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will apply for an early sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee to deal with clause 17. He will have the support not only of Labour Members but of all Scottish Members who are genuinely concerned about Scottish education and keen to see it debated properly in the House.
Like Scottish plays, Scottish clauses will become famous in Westminster and a Scottish clause will now be added to every Bill to deal with Scotland as an afterthought. Clause 17 provides for the publication of

219
crude league tables showing exam results, truancy rates and the destination of pupils once they have left school in Scotland. Ministers claim that the clause is designed simply to convey more information to parents and give parents a choice about the educational future of their children. That is so much bunkum, as every Labour Member knows. The tables are designed to exclude from comparison all the factors that influence examination results, particularly the social class make-up of a school.
It has long been known in education circles that a clear correlation exists between social class background and examination success. League tables that do not take that correlation into consideration distort reality and are inaccurate. The league tables published under the Bill will distort and be inaccurate and, to that extent, they will be useless as a guide to parents on how to choose a school.
Much more important is the use to which those league tables will be put. Parents will naturally clamour to get their kids into schools at the top of the performance tables. Those schools will then be in the fortunate position of being able to pick and choose between applicants. They will be aware that the reason for their educational success in the first place was the high proportion of their intake coming from social classes 1 and 2. Therefore, they will be predisposed to choose applicants from those social classes, thereby reinforcing their examination success and leading them on to greater success than ever.
The Bill will reinforce the marked differences that now exist between schools in terms of the social class make-up of school populations. Successful schools will have a higher proportion of pupils from social classes 1 and 2. Pupil rolls will be full to bursting and staff will be of the highest standard because of the large school rolls. Additional pupils bring additional resources, which will create yet more success.
The other schools will have fewer pupils from social classes 1 and 2. Fewer pupils will attend the schools and they will thus have fewer teachers. The schools will have fewer resources and a narrower range of subject options and, as a result, their relative failure will be reinforced. The old senior-secondary and junior-secondary divide will be re-established in Scotland, like the old grammar-secondary modern divide that used to exist in England and Wales. Tory Governments have always been about creating a two-tier educational system.
Mr. Pawsey indicated dissent.
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disagreement. I refer him to a pamphlet that was published in the mid-1980s by an obscure group of Back-Bench MPs called the No Turning Back group. The pamphlet was called "Save our Schools" and its authors included the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who is now the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who is Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is the Scottish Office education spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who is now at the Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who is sitting on the
220
Front Bench now, and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), who is now a junior Transport Minister.
The pamphlet described the system of comprehensive education under local education authority control as a "monolithic system" that was impervious and insensitive to parents. It said that it was an impossible system, inside which able teachers had become imprisoned—a system that thwarted those who genuinely care about pupils and education. It referred disparagingly to "comprehensive conformity" and bemoaned the departure of grammar schools, which it described as having taught rigorously, maintained discipline and specialised in the production of excellence.
That was the attitude of those hon. Members when they were obscure Back Benchers and I am convinced that it remains their attitude now that they are Ministers at the very heart of the Government.
Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May we return to his attitude? Is he arguing —as he seemed to be before he lurched off into the quotation—that no examination result should be made available to Scottish parents? Is that the position of the Scottish Labour party as distinct from the English Labour party?
Mr. McAllion: The Minister is naturally anxious to get me off the subject of the "Save our Schools" campaign, the No Turning Back group and his views on comprehensive education. I shall answer his question directly: we do not believe that the information should be denied to parents, but we believe that crude performance tables should not be used to distort the choices that parents make between different schools in Scotland, as would be the case if the Bill were implemented. The Minister's attitude reveals a clear determination to break up the system of comprehensive education in this country and replace it with something different.
When one of the Scottish education Bills was in Committee earlier this year and the Minister of State, Scottish Office—who is no longer present—was leading for the Government, he said that the Tory party was the revolutionary party of Scotland. The Secretary of State for Education and Science echoed those sentiments today when he referred to the Labour party as the conservative party with a small "c", and to the Conservative party as the truly radical revolutionary party. It did not seem to matter to him that the last right winger to claim to be a revolutionary in European history was Adolf Hitler. The Conservative party has taken on the mantle of right-wing revolutionaries.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Too subtle.
Mr. McAllion: It may be too subtle, but it may be too true.
All those years ago, the right-wing revolutionaries sketched out in their pamphlet a series of three critical reforms that they said would dismantle the comprehensive education system, all of which the Government have implemented in their legislation. First, there was to be the creation of a new sort of school. In Scotland it is called the self-governing school; I do not know what it is called in England and Wales. Secondly, there was to be direct funding of those schools by central Government, which would not only free them from local education control, but

221
allow the Government to favour them over schools that remained under local education authority control. Thirdly, there was to be the creation of an internal education market through the publication of examination results to allow parents to choose between schools and decide, through the marketplace, which schools would survive and which would fail.
Unfortunately for the Minister and his friends, the revolution never got off the ground in Scotland. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill on school boards which was introduced in the first year of this Parliament. At the time, great claims were made about the Bill. It was said that it would lead to tremendous parental power and parental involvement in education, but it ended in disarray. There was widespread apathy at this year's elections to school boards in Scotland. In parts of Scotland such as Grampian, up to 40 per cent. of schools received no parental nominations to their boards because parents did not want to be involved in what was essentially a foreign idea imposed on them by a Government based in Westminster.
The second stage of the revolution involved a Bill to introduce self-governing schools. I remember that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), now Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, was confident about the Bill's implications. In Committee he framed what he called the "Gainsborough question" asking how many schools in Scotland would opt out. He kept demanding that question of the Labour spokesmen because he was confident that, under the legislation, plenty of schools in Scotland would opt out.
So confident were Ministers that the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for education authorised the expenditure of £12,510 to produce 12,000 copies of a booklet on how to become a self-governing school, but that money, time and effort were wasted because not one school in Scotland has opted out. The Under-Secretary of State has the answer to his question, as do the Government. Scotland is not interested in opting out of local education authority control.
The Bill relates to the third of the critical reforms: the publication of league tables to allow schools to be set against schools, and the operation of the internal education market. It forms the third part of what was initially a three-part revolution. However, as the first two parts of the revolution have collapsed in disarray in Scotland, it can hardly be argued that it is necessary to impose the third part of the revolution on a country which simply does not want it.
Publication of primary school examination results in Scotland have been excluded from the Bill. Reform of the inspectorate, which formed a large part of tonight's debate, is also excluded from Scotland. The self-governing schools reforms have fallen flat on their face in Scotland. School boards in Scotland have been increasingly ignored by uninterested parents. The last thing that we need now is the importation of an English idea that we in Scotland do not want to know about.
It is time that the true education agenda was addressed in Scotland—the lack of statutory nursery provision, which exists not only in Scotland, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the crumbling buildings in which too many of our children in Scotland have to receive their education, the chronic underfunding of equipment and materials in Scottish schools and the oversized and composite classes. All those problems must be tackled by
222
a Government who genuinely support the system of education in Scotland. This Government do not, but the next Government will, because it will be a Labour Government.
8.56 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I have listened with great care to all the speeches in today's debate and have concluded that the Bill is better than I thought it was when I entered the Chamber. It is an excellent Bill which, outside the House, will be seen as a measure of great common sense and a necessary and important addition to the education reforms that the Government have already implemented.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), although he made a good debating speech, showed that he did not oppose much of the Bill. He reserved his strongest attack for the level of the Government's education advertising budget. However, it is clear that, apart from a good bit of 1960s stuff from the Opposition and a truly unrevised speech from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—who demonstrated that he is a genuine socialist—opposition to the measure is pretty thin.
I have a specific reason for welcoming tonight's measure. In March, a number of my hon. Friends and I introduced a Bill on the publication of exam results in which the hon. Member for Blackburn was kind enough to take a small interest and to which he was not entirely opposed. The Bill was supported by many people, but, unfortunately, one Friday an Opposition Whip consigned it to oblivion by objecting to it. Today, the Government have brought back the entire contents of that Bill, about which I am delighted.
Since then, the support of the hon. Member for Blackburn for the principle of the Bill has increased. Recently, in a front-page interview in The Guardian, the hon. Gentleman was reported to have said:
"Let 1,000 league tables bloom",
thus demonstrating that he is not opposed in principle to the measures discussed tonight.
Two arguments are advanced against the league table principle. The first is that parents cannot be trusted to interpret the information satisfactorily. When we introduced our ten-minute Bill, I said that such attitudes were odiously patronising to the majority of parents, and everything that we have heard since supports that view. I do not think that parents want to hear excuses about the performance of schools: they want to see them reformed and made better to give greater opportunities to their children.
In a patronising letter to a local newspaper, Nottinghamshire education authority stated:
"Raw exam results unrefined for socio-economic factors give a false impression of performance."
That is absolute nonsense. Even in Albania, socialists no longer believe such rubbish.
The other argument advanced against league tables—it has been made tonight—is that they will do nothing to help sink schools. However, league tables will at least identify the depth of the difficulties of those schools which means that we can place much greater focus on them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) makes an important point when he speaks about the Gujerati community in his constituency. That community does not have many inbuilt advantages, but

223
achieves well above average results. That demonstrates that there is little correlation between home background and intelligence.
Parents want objectivity and do not want subjective results that have been tampered with and to which socio-economic factors have been added. They do not want results that have been massaged to suggest that there is no such thing as a good or a bad school, just schools. Parents know perfectly well that that is not true. They also know from gossip at the school gate the subjective pluses and minuses in schools and are able to consider those in interpreting examination results. That enables them to see whether a school is good at art or music, to define its degree of community awareness and determine its emphasis on values and so on. Parents have a right to receive detailed information based on the objective results of schools. Such a measure was not dreamed up by the Conservative party. I responded to the wishes and representations of my constituents in Nottinghamshire and my ten-minute Bill received widespread and positive support.
I know that the Secretary of State has carefully considered the argument by the Audit Commission about added value. I accept his point that he does not want results tampered with and made more socio-economic but wants them raw. That is the right approach. However, I hope that he will accept that there is a powerful case for value-added information as a second stage. Value-added information will enable us to demonstrate the improvements in local schools that have been achieved one compared with another and also against the national average.
When the system envisaged in the Bill is up and running, I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider promoting, not necessarily through legislation, the concepts in the Audit Commission report. Such added-value information is important not only to parents but to teachers, because it will enable them to see how well they are doing.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the system of inspection envisaged in the Bill is a great improvement on the current system. Above all, this is a matter of management. Perhaps it is worth considering further a Bill presented some time ago which included a proposal for an education audit commission. The methodology of the Audit Commission and the way in which it subcontracts work and co-ordinates and polices proper assessment are important. The commission has a proven track record in this area and although it could not itself carry out the work that I have suggested, it provides some useful pointers to the way ahead.
Some hon. Members have spoken about "croneyism" between head teachers and inspectors—the fear that a school would tend to stick with a group of inspectors which produced a favourable report. It is incumbent on the Government to make clear in Committee why they believe that there are no grounds for such fears. They should at least quieten existing fears.
What we have so far heard about the new system of inspection does not make it sufficiently clear that it will give the necessary independence and will accept the purchaser-provider split that we have put in place in the
224
national health service and the enabler-provider split in local government. There must be a clear differential so that inspections can be respected as impartial and accurate.
If the Secretary of State is not convinced by that argument, I urge him to accept the need for tight guidelines on inspection and a clearly defined code of practice, because such safeguards would make it clear that the fears that I have expressed would not materialise. The Secretary of State has spoken about the composition of the inspection teams. Those teams should be a healthy mix. There is bound to be a role for management consultant skills, to which the Audit Commission frequently refers, and for the value-for-money skills, which it has. I am sure that the mix of inspection teams envisaged by the Secretary of State is absolutely right.
The Bill undoubtedly extends choice and opportunity for parents. It builds on the changes that we have already made and on the citizens charter process. When the Prime Minister said recently that the trendies have had their say and their day, there were cheers in many houses all over the country as people welcomed what he had said. Schools and teachers must be more answerable to parents. I am delighted that the Government intend to publish truancy rates and school leavers' destinations, because such information will give a useful steer to parents. It is an excellent idea that lay assessors will now appear on appeals committees.
The process of schools opting out of LEA control will continue with remarkable intensity. Perhaps the Minister can say whether his Department will be able to cope with that flood after the election.
The Minister should also give a hearty vote of thanks to governors. On a recent—greatly appreciated—visit to my constituency, he spent the best part of the day with teachers and governors at two schools and met all six headmasters in the secondary sector. The teachers and the staff were delighted that he came, and it was noticeable that he listened to their concerns and was able to reassure practically all of them.
The correlation between spending and academic results shows that we have made enormous progress. It is not true that one needs to spend more money to get academic results. In Japan, the average 16-year-old reaches a standard in maths that is reached by only 2 per cent. of the equivalent pupils in this country, but the Japanese spend less per head on education than we do. Therefore, the problem is not necessarily one of money. Some of the highest-spending LEAs produce the worst results.
I welcome the Bill. It is an excellent step forward, although I have one or two reservations that we can discuss in Committee. I trust that it will rapidly reach the statute book.
9.5 pm
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) spoke scathingly of experts, and I accept that it is as well to be sceptical in the face of experts. However, I remind Conservative Members of the saying of Werner Heisenberg: an expert is someone who knows what are the greatest mistakes that can be made in his specialism and, even more, knows how to avoid making them.
I have risen to speak against the Bill because I feel that it is pregnant with error. The most marked feature of the Government's management of the state education system

225
is the ever-whirling wheel of changes that are so frequent and frenetic that one could be forgiven for not being able to judge whether the result is change or progress. Perhaps the eye is meant to be deceived.
I shall deal with the proposed change in the inspection of schools through the reduction in numbers, and change in the role, of HMI. I regard this as a whimsical, wanton, rushed and misbegotten change. Her Majesty's inspectorate has a distinguished history in the service of state education. Its aim was set out when the first two inspectors were appointed in 1839. They were
"to carry on the inspection of schools and to convey to … teachers a knowledge of all improvements in the art of teaching."
They had also to convey to the Privy Council progress in education.
HMI has performed this dual role with distinction for more than one and a half centuries. It produced the classic handbook for teachers in 1905. It was involved in the great advances in pedagogy between the wars. It had an input into the policy for reconstruction of the education service after the second world war. In the 1970s, a Labour Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, in his Ruskin speech, initiated the great debate in education and recognised the important role of HMI.
Her Majesty's inspectorate undertook a major report on primary and secondary schools in the 1970s and produced great pamphlets on the curriculum, such as the red book published on 16 November 1977. It carefully prepared the ground for more uniformity of provision. It prepared the way for the national curriculum with its notion of a common core of entitlement. It did all this alongside its inspection role, and it also protected standards.
I refer here not only to the role that HMI played in the payment-by-results system in the latter part of the 19th century—a system so detested by that great inspector, Matthew Arnold—but to the courageous stand taken by Senior Chief Inspector Sheila Brown in the early 1980s, when she insisted on reporting to the House the damaging effect on schools of cuts in funding. I am surprised that it has taken the Government, in this case, so long to shoot the messenger—a talent that they have.
It appears that HMI is to be reduced to a rump of 175, if I understand the Secretary of State correctly. I leave aside his coyness about the numbers recommended in the review which he apparently dare not lay before the House. It also appears that half that number will have the impossible task of monitoring the 6,000 inspections per annum which are to be carried out by the new breed of licensed inspectors. HMI's other task is to issue the licences and to produce national reports—so much for its great achievement and traditional role in the past 150 years. Why cannot the House be enlightened by the evidence and arguments of the review document to the effect that it is not a stultification of HMI's role? We have been told only that 175 is the best possible estimate of the acting senior chief of HMI, an internal temporary appointment of the Secretary of State.
The role of HMI as envisaged in the Bill is Mission Impossible. It would be ameliorated if the job of inspection were assigned to local education authority inspectors, as appears to have been envisaged in the late 1980s following the recommendations of, for example, the Taylor report and as chronicled in the important study by the Foundation for Education and Research in 1989 entitled,
226
"The LEA Adviser—A Changing Role", which showed that more than three quarters of local authority advisers were already involved in inspection. There were reorganisations and reappointments all over the country and it seemed that the Government were prepared, through the local education authority training grants scheme, to put money into the training of local authority advisers to enable them to become more inspectoral in their role.
The Opposition could have lived with the trinity of a strong initiating HMI—as it has traditionally been—an education standards council and a strong local inspectorate. The Secretary of State referred to the LEA's system of inspecting schools for which it is responsible as a system designed to guarantee a failure to insist on adequate standards in schools. I leave aside the disgraceful insult to the integrity of local government inspectors and the fact that they are responsible to local government representatives, Conservative as well as Labour, but what evidence has the Secretary of State that the proposed system of licensed inspectors—a privatised system of inspection—offers a better guarantee?
It has been said that to ask for advice is nine times out of 10 to tout for flattery. The proposed system is an invitation to schools to buy flattery. Given that we presume the lowest common denominator of integrity, which is what the Secretary of State suggested with reference to local authority inspectors, what reliability can we expect in reports purchased in a competitive market? What guarantee can the Secretary of State offer that the relationship developed between schools and their hired inspectors will be any less cosy than that which he suggested would exist between schools and their parent LEAs?
Will the spirit of Miss Jean Brodie stalk the land? What assurance can be given that all pupils in the 6,000 schools will not be described as la creme de la creme? Reductio ad absurdum perhaps, but there is no more hyperbole in my criticism of the basis of a privatised system of inspection than in the Secretary of State's flippant dismissal of the LEA inspectorate.
I prefer to address my remarks not to the likely integrity of private inspectors or, indeed, of head teachers and governors, but to their ability to do the job. I leave aside the amazing criterion that each team must contain someone who knows nothing about education. There is no requirement that the teams should have any local knowledge. Is not that important to inform their judgment of the schools that they inspect? If a different team is parachuted in every four years, what guarantee is there that it will have any effect on the needs and development of the school?
The carousel of change does not represent progress; it is a change too far. In the words of Sean O'Casey, the Government are reducing education to a "state of chassis".
9.14 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I give total and unqualified support to the Bill. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) gave an account of the speech by Lord Callaghan, who was then Prime Minister, on 18 October 1976 at Ruskin college. It is true that his speech started the education debate, which was the good side of it. The bad side was that nothing was done by the Labour party between 1976 and the election of this Government in 1979.

227
Lord Callaghan made three points. The first concerned teaching methods, the second concerned standards and monitoring, and the third concerned education and industry. Under the second point, he raised the related issue of the proper role of the inspectorate and emphasised the need to find the best means of monitoring the use of resources to maintain a proper national standard of performance. The unease that Conservatives—and, I suspect, some Opposition Members—have today about the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate was shared by Lord Callaghan when he was Prime Minister. All of us, whichever party we represent in the House—
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dunn: No, I will not give way, although I usually give way to the right hon. Gentleman because I have waited to speak and I have only four minutes. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I must finish speaking at 9.20 pm.
Before I was so politely interrupted, I was about to say that Lord Callaghan made the point about the need for a refocusing of the inspectorate. We believe that the Bill will achieve that, although not in the way that the Labour party's proposals would do. The Labour party seems to imply that there was a golden age for the inspectorate. I suspect that, in 1966 and again in 1976, when circulars 10/66 and 10/76 were introduced by Labour, the inspectors were leaned on by Labour Education Ministers so that they would support the Government policies of the day.
During my time at the Department of Education and Science, I saw no record of protest by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools about the loss of the grammar schools to the British people. There was no golden age and no independence. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South referred to the time when Sheila Brown was senior chief inspector. The end of her time in the post overlapped with my first two years at the Department of Education and Science. I can remember no occasion on which a Conservative Secretary of State doctored, altered or refused to publish the report of the senior chief inspector. It has always been a matter of principle and of honour that the reports have gone forward.
What comes out of the debate tonight is that the Labour party's policies are the same as those in 1976. The Labour party still believes that the education service should be used as a means of social engineering. The Labour party still states that its fundamental objective is to establish a comprehensive system of education from nursery schools up to and beyond school leaving age.
Mr. Morley indicated assent.
Mr. Dunn: Labour Members nod. The Labour party criticises the publication of examination results because it believes that that will reinforce social division. In the future, it is likely to restate its long-term aim to eliminate all forms of variety and all forms of education apart from that provided by the state.
I note that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who chastised hon. Members for not being here, is now no longer here himself. He referred to the Conservative party's shortage of representation in Scotland. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to
228
Labour Members generally, that, in England, the Conservative party's majority over all the other parties combined is 200. That was true at the time of the 1987 election, and it will continue to be true. It is plain that, if the Conservative party's writ does not run in Scotland, the writ of the Labour party does not run in England.
I commend the Bill to the House, and I assume that it will attract the majority that it deserves.
9.20 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) finished his speech with an uncharacteristically churlish comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) had been here throughout our proceedings. He had spoken and had listened to the subsequent speech before nipping out of the Chamber for a few moments. My hon. Friend followed the normal conventions and was absolutely right to say that at no stage has a Scottish Conservative Member been willing to participate in the debate. We have seen today the sort of opposition that we can expect from Scottish Conservatives after the next election—non-existent.
The Bill supposedly enacts the parents charter, but there is one substantial omission from the parents charter: it makes no reference to the adequacy of resources for our education system. Not one Conservative Member has had the courage to argue about the adequacy of resources. No Opposition Member would say for one moment that the management of public resources is not important, but what we should like to hear from Conservative Members is a defence of the current inadequate level of resources allocated to our state education sytem.
Last week, we had four pieces of evidence—
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: What does this have to do with the Bill?
Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for 61 minutes almost without referring to the Bill introduced by his own Government, so he can hardly criticise me in the first two minutes of my speech. If he would listen for a few minutes, he would realise that resources go to the heart of the quality of our education system. That is probably why the right hon. and learned Gentleman bought private education for his children while allowing the rest of us to have our children educated in a system that lacks resources.
In the past few days, four pieces of evidence have appeared. The first was a survey produced by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations telling us that parents are donating £75 million from their own pockets to provide schools with basics. We are not talking about luxury items; we are talking about basics such as the maintenance of schools buildings, decorating and the provision of an adequate supply of books. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) told us that a textbook that was used in his school is still there, a generation later. That is how up-to-date we are in our commitment to resources. My hon. Friend said that the book was still in good condition, and I suspect that that is because it was largely unused.
The second piece of evidence was a report about music from the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales—an organisation with an impeccable, objective record—saying:

229
"Children in deprived inner city areas are likely to find it particularly difficult to learn musical instruments as schools divert funds to what they see as more important needs".
The quality of our children's education is being undermined.
No wonder HMI is under attack. We were told by the inspectorate last week that schools had had difficulty in introducing the national curriculum. Some 85 per cent. of secondary schools reported difficulties because of the shortage of staff in specialist subjects, and the whole of the primary sector reported difficulties with primary technology and primary science. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Bill?"] All this relates to the parents charter.
On Monday, a survey by the National Union of Teachers referred to class size. We all heard the Secretary of State say on the "Today" programme that large classes do not matter and that they are not important to the quality of education. That is absolute rubbish. Why do Cabinet Ministers buy private education for their children? They do not want large classes; they want small classes and preferential treatment for their children. The parents charter does not refer to the adequacy of resources for our education system.
The Secretary of State said that this is the flagship Bill this Parliament for his education policies. I understand that it is the first flagship Bill where the captain will not serve on the Standing Committee. The captain has left the bridge before the Bill leaves the dockyard. That is typical of the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State said that he did not want to be confused by the data published about school performance. He said that many of the electorate do not understand such complicated issues. He went so far as to say that the issues that we are discussing today may be beyond the reach of the electorate.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State's argument was patronising.
The Secretary of State may be interested in the figures. When questioned, 10 per cent. of the electorate recognised the term "HMI". When asked to identify a photograph of the man trying to run the education system—in other words, the Secretary of State—7 per cent. of the electorate recognised him. Perhaps that 7 per cent. should have been asked whether they understood what HMI stood for.
Opposition Members have presented a sensible and sound argument today. We have begun to persuade all Conservative Members, with the exception of the Secretary of State, that the so-called raw data is misleading, confusing and potentially damaging. There are many examples of that. If we publish the results of seven-plus assessment, what will happen in inner-city schools like those in my constituency? Are we going to make judgments about those schools when some of the youngsters do not have English as their first language and will have been in this country for only a short time? How are we to judge those data?
On the Government Benches, only the Secretary of State believes that we should not present more than the raw data. Several of my colleagues referred to special needs. If only crude raw data are published, schools will be reluctant to take on youngsters with special needs.
Mr. John Greenway: Rubbish.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman may say, "Rubbish," but what I have described is a fact of life, which is already happening under local management of schools because budgets make it difficult for head teachers to take on special needs youngsters. That is what will happen with the publication of league tables.
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is aware that I have a personal interest in the problems of dyslexia. The Dyslexia Educational Trust has stated that, if we proceed with raw data,
"Such a measure would be to make head teachers and governing bodies unwilling to accept any child with a learning difficulty"
because of the effect on the local community and the judgments they would have to make because they would not appreciate problems like dyslexia. I am greatly concerned about that, but nothing seems to have been done about that problem.
Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend's point has also been made by Deaf Accord and Mencap and a range of organisations representing youngsters with special needs of all kinds. If we adopt crude league tables, the needs of those youngsters will not be taken full account of.
Several of my colleagues reinforced the point that it is always possible to produce good league tables if a head teacher in a particular school limits entry to examinations. That is clear from the league tables published in the national press. We should be trying to persuade more youngsters, not fewer, to enter examinations, and more youngsters, not fewer, to push up standards instead of simply maintaining league tables.
I realise that the Minister of State has problems with his Secretary of State, but we must make sure that we invest in the notion of added value that the Audit Commission was talking about. We need that added value to judge the performance of a school. We need information that tells us about the quality of school life, and the availability of music, art, drama and sport in schools. All that is relevant to parents, but none of it has been discussed by any Conservative Member. All that is crucial in providing us with the necessary information.
The crucial aspect of the notion of league tables is that the Government are abdicating management of the education system and leaving its standards to the market. The Government's position assumes that each parent has equal and absolute freedom to move his or her child from one school to another. That is the thesis behind the publication of league tables—one moves one's child from the school with a poor record to another school, and then levers up standards by that process.
That might happen in the private sector, and it might happen for the children of Ministers, but for the vast majority of parents, that is not a proposition. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, that is not a proposition for parents in Cornwall, because they relate to the neighbourhood school. They want the standards of the neighbourhood school to be improved.
Also, it is not a proposition for many inner-city schools. Many parents do not have the personal and financial resources to shop around and move from one school to another. That is why the proposal to privatise the inspectorate means that the Government have abdicated their responsibility for the general improvement of standards. It means that the Government have decided that they are concerned not with opportunity but with the

231
education of a few. That outdated philosophy will leave Britain unable to compete economically and educationally in the 21st century.
The proposal to privatise will lower standards and will be expensive, but the real reason for the proposal to privatise the inspectorate comes from the Government's vendetta against the inspectorate. My hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that, time after time, the Government have been embarrassed by the reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate. It is typical of the Conservative party that, faced with criticism and embarrassment, it does not take up the arguments: it simply wipes out the source of the embarrassment. That is the reason for privatisation.
That applies to what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), said in criticism of the educational establishment. I fear that he will regret the phrase if he is looking for promotion, but he referred to the educational establishment as "men in suede shoes". The only difference is that we have replaced one pair of suede shoes with another, and the latter pair carries a series of prejudices with it.
There is concern about standards, because this is the first time that we have a system embedded in law which states that the people who are to carry out a particular task will be best qualified for it if they have no skill whatsoever. That job advertisement states, "Apply if you have no ability in this matter." It is like advertising a job for a long-distance lorry driver and saying that the best qualification is not to be able to drive a car or lorry of any description.
It is a peculiar notion of the Government that people who are to make professional judgments of others are to be without expertise. The point is even deeper than that, because the choice will be made by governors and by head teachers. The system will be incestuous, because it will enable reports to be produced which are satisfactory and which reflect well on schools. That is not to question the integrity of those who become inspectors.
But what will happen? Let us say that, after the next election, the hon. Member for Dartford has some spare time on his hands and chairs a school governing body. He has various views about the education system.
Mr. Straw: He might be an inspector.
Mr. Fatchett: As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Gentleman could offer his views as an inspector. He would certainly qualify as someone with little or no expertise—that is clear from his record as a Minister. He may go to a school and say that he had a particular view of the education system. Will not school governing bodies and head teachers ask for a report from that inspection team to ensure that their work is reinforced?
For the sake of an ideological belief in the market and privatisation, the Government are getting rid of a system that has maintained standards. They are getting rid of a system that has worked and are replacing it with one that will be confusing, chaotic and expensive. It will be expensive, because the economies of scale that is currently possible with local inspectors and in Her Majesty's inspectorate will disappear under the new contractual system.
232
But we will lose more. We will lose the ability of HMI to produce reports on sectors of education such as special needs, primary education and the delivery of certain subjects. For simple ideological reasons, the Government are throwing away what has been good in our education system, yet again because they want change for change's sake. They have given away the opportunity to lever up standards. They care only about a certain belief and a certain dogma.
During the debate, Opposition Members have suggested a set of proposals based around Labour's education standards commission which are designed to lever an improvement in general education standards. They are designed to enhance opportunities and not only to work but to ensure that opportunity exists across the whole of our education system.
The proposals in the Bill have gained no widespread support. There has been no process of consultation. But the Secretary of State held himself forward as the champion of free speech and information.
Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: I will not give way at this stage.
Mr. Dunn rose—
Mr. Fatchett: No. I have only three minutes left.
The Secretary of State keeps referring to the report which reviewed the functions of the inspectorate. Yet the same Secretary of State has denied that information to the House, parents and the country. The Secretary of State uses that report as an objective, impartial report. If he wants to use it in evidence, every other Member of Parliament should have the right to see it.
That is why we argue that the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. We want to have the right to weigh up the evidence and the arguments and find out what support there is in the country for the proposal to privatise HMI.
It was R. H. Tawney who said:
"What good parents would want for their own children, so the state should wish for all its children."
Ministers decide what they want for their own children. They opt out of the state system. They go to the private sector. They want to use the rest of our children, the 94 per cent. of children who use the state sector, for one ideological experiment after another.
Change for change's sake: that is the point about the Bill. It is further change for change's sake and further experimentation. It is for that reason, and because the Bill throws away good standards and does not give us the ability to improve standards, that we shall reject it. We shall vote against it this evening. We shall campaign against it and ensure that parents throughout Britain see the Bill as deeply damaging, because it is an ideologically driven privatising measure. We will vote against the Bill and we will win the argument, because parents want better. They want a change of Government—they want a Labour Government.
9.39 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Normally we expect better and get better from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Was it not interesting that not one Labour Member paid tribute to the excellent results being achieved by so many of our schools? My hon. Friends the Members

233
for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) did, as did the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). But Labour Members are interested in only one thing—
Mr. Steinberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eggar: Labour Members are interested only in—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a point of order. What is it?
Mr. Steinberg rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear.
Mr. Steinberg: The Minister deliberately misled the House. He said that not one Labour Member paid tribute—[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) to withdraw the phrase "deliberately misled the House".
Mr. Steinberg: I withdraw the word "deliberately". The Minister misled the House.
Mr. Eggar: Of course, if the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) claims that he made such tributes in his speech, I am happy to accept it. The trouble is that the hon. Member for City of Durham made exactly the same speech as he usually makes. As usual, it was incomprehensible and perhaps I could be forgiven for failing to pick up his argument.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is it? [Interruption.] I must hear the point of order.
Mr. Haynes: You must understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister made a mistake with my hon. Friend, and he made a mistake with the National Union of Teachers. It goes on and on with this Minister and it is time you did something about it.
Mr. Speaker: I often hear that hon. Members make mistakes in this place, but I am not responsible for what they say, provided that it is in order.
Mr. Eggar: The greatest mistake of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is his retirement from the House at the next election. We really shall miss the court jester of the House, who has contributed a great deal to our debates.
Mr. Dunn: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will find my remarks helpful. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who is an apprentice chair of the worst order, said that the Government had not consulted on this legislation. With his infinite knowledge of education, will the Minister of State remind us that, when the Labour party introduced the Education Act 1976, which led to the abolition of grammar schools—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not all of them.
Mr. Dunn: It led to the abolition of almost all the grammar schools. Is there a commitment from the Labour
234
party that it would consult if it came to power and introduced legislation to abolish grammar schools? The answer is no, not then and not for the future.
Mr. Eggar: As usual my hon. Friend is right. It is extraordinary that the Opposition appear to be worried about standards and have been talking about them at some length, but they are committed to destroying grammar schools, to withdrawing the assisted places scheme and to scrapping grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and much of what is excellent in our existing system.
What is more, despite all this business about consultation, in which the Opposition claim to be interested, they have told us that they will introduce a public inquiry system on school closures. Are the Opposition committed to a public inquiry on CTCs, grant-maintained schools and grammar schools?
It is appropriate now to turn to the particular crusade of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who has played such an important part in bringing to the attention of the House the vital need to publish exam results in a readily understandable way. He is clear, but the Labour party is far from clear. Indeed, at one stage during the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) I thought that he was getting near to saying that the Labour party was committed to publishing examination results; but no, he did not quite come out with that. I noticed that for at least 10 minutes of his speech the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was desperately trying to haul back the various commitments that the hon. Member for Blackburn may or may not have given. As usual, the Labour party is trying to have it both ways.
The Labour party has come to admit that testing pupils is an essential aid to learning—not something that it admitted as recently as a couple of years ago. Although testing may now be accepted within a socialist state—
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Not in Scotland.
Mr. Eggar: Not in Scotland, as my hon. Friend admits, but at least south of the border, the Labour party has not gone on to accept that the results of those tests should be made available to the public.
Apparently the only sort of publication that Labour Members will allow is one that is so hedged around with correction factors, socio-economic variables and explanatory footnotes that only a parent with a PhD in statistics and a specialisation in sociology could understand it. Under that system parents would be seen but not heard.
What sort of corrections are to be made to the basic examination data? We can take our pick. There are as many views as experts in the field. Should we expect less of a pupil because she or he has only one parent—however supportive? Should we assign a pupil a negative correction factor just because, for whatever reason, he qualifies for free meals? Conservative Members do not think so.
Perhaps we should look beyond pupils to the characteristics of their schools. Perhaps we should not expect too much of pupils who are educated in older buildings. Perhaps we should have a factor that takes account of the old Victorian high ceilings. Another factor that we could introduce might take account of buildings with 1960s flat roofs. Or we could introduce a factor relating to the quality of the environment. We could knock

235
off a few points for trees, grass verges and clean pavements and top up the scores of those whose schools are in grimy streets—mainly, I might add, in socialist boroughs.
An adjustment which, I am sure, would commend itself to Labour Members is one that would take account of poor local education authority practice. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central will recognise the need to do that. After all, he represents a seat where primary pupils have been illserved by their LEA's imposition of a particular primary practice. Perhaps he could devise for us a correction factor—
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.
Mr. Eggar:—for not being educated at Leeds. That is the sort of issue that the hon. Gentleman should address—
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mr. Eggar: But in his own time.
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Get him to sit down, please. One at a time, please.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman would not give way, so I see no reason why he should make inroads to the limited time available to me. The basic fact is that a youngster will not get a job armed with a socio-economic factor or a correction factor. A youngster will not move on to further or higher education with a correction factor. What counts in the outside world is real achievement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We must ensure that every child, from every background and in every school, does as well as he or she is capable. We must not cover up under-achievement with fiddled figures, whatever the various arguments from the Opposition.
The Opposition have not sought to deal with one question: what is the reason for depriving parents of information about examination results? Why should parents be kept in the dark? Why should they not be able to make their choice of schools with the full benefit of the relevant information?
The hon. Member for Blackburn made quite a lot of the document, "Raising the Standard", Labour's plan for an education standards commission. The Opposition told us that parents would be misled by simple examination result information. In the document of which the hon. Member for Blackburn is so proud, we are promised that the standards commission would
"publish detailed information on how to judge a school's performance."
In other words, the standards commission would be telling parents how they should interpret information. Doubtless it would doctor that information in one way or another according to the diktats of the Labour party.
Parents already know how to judge schools. What they want is the one thing that the Labour party would keep from them—the information on which to base their judgment.
Mr. John McFall rose—
Mr. Eggar: I will not give way.
236
The hon. Member for Blackburn tried to claim that his document on inspection offered clarity and a way forward to real quality control. I have had a careful look at that document and some things are clear. First, the Labour proposals destroy the independence of Her Majesty's inspectorate. It is placed under the overall control of an appointed quango and that quango will control Her Majesty's inspectorate's priorities, its inspection programmes and its reports. Her Majesty's inspectorate has a great deal more independence now than Labour would offer, and it will have even more when the Bill is passed.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Eggar: No, no.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Eggar: HMI would be gratuitously split under Labour's proposals, with the larger part of it under the control of the quango and the lesser part reporting to the Secretary of State. In other words, those in HMI who inspect would not advice and those in HMI who advise would not inspect. As the former senior chief inspector, Eric Bolton, said:
"This would ensure that HMI would cease to exist."
It would cease to exist as a powerful force offering advice based on observation and inspection. In contradistinction to that, the Bill retains the integrity of HMI and strengthens its constitutional position.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Eggar: No, I have not finished with the—
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask both hon. Gentlemen to sit down. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Eggar: I have not finished with the hon. Gentleman yet. I have done him the courtesy of reading his document. The fact that he does not appear to have done so recently and that he was giving a very fanciful interpretation of the document does not deter me from going on to make my point. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not read his own policy document.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, that document simply offers validation by the new standards quango of LEAs'—not inspectors'—policies and guidance and "close informal links", to quote from the document. It does not offer what the hon. Gentleman claims it offers, which is direct control by the quango of the local inspectors.
The Labour party does not propose a model for external quality control. Under the hon. Gentleman's system, the true controller of quality remains the LEA, and the LEA decides who may or may not be an inspector. Under the Bill, that crucial decision—and it is crucial—remains with HMI. In the Labour party document the decision rests with LEAs. But there is another point—
Mr. McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clause 17 refers directly to Scotland. No mention has been made of Scotland. In view of the debilitating—[Interruption.]—political situation facing Conservatives there, that is a further slight on the people of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have five minutes to go. Perhaps some comment will be made about that.
Mr. Eggar: Absolutely nowhere in the Labour party policy document is there anything about the publication of inspection reports. Labour Members appear to be converts to regular inspection, but only if it is secret and not available to parents.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made clear, much of the Bill is about strengthening Her Majesty's inspectorate's position. Her Majesty's inspectorate will have a clear duty to advise the Secretary of State and the ability to publish whatever, whenever and however it wishes. It will be in charge of the new system of inspections. It will decide who may and who may not inspect.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Eggar: No, I will not give way.
Hon. Members: Chicken.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Eggar: Her Majesty's inspectorate will be making a direct impact on over 6,000 inspections each year, far more than at present. The numbers of Her Majesty's inspectors will be reduced, it is clear, but their influence and effect will be much greater.
Labour Members have only recently been converted to the case for school inspections. That interest was not manifest between the publication of the Audit Commission report and June this year. Indeed, between December 1989 and May 1991, the occupants of the Labour Front Bench did not ask one parliamentary question relating to inspection. That is how much they were concerned with inspection.
But it is far worse than that. Let us examine the practice and experience of LEAs on inspection and consider some of the authorities that Labour Members know. In Lancashire, for example, the hon. Member for Blackburn will know that the authority does not believe in inspection. It employs only advisers, not inspectors. The advisers' role in Lancashire is to "validate schools' self-evaluation"—not to go into the classroom to see what is going on, but to hear from staff how they would like things to be—[Interruption.] That is a Blackburn model of inspection. That is the Labour party really in action.
The vociferous hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) had much to say about inspection, but he did not refer to the lack of inspection in Sheffield, where only an advisory service is on offer, the policy guidance of which is unclear and where written reports are not produced.
I could go on at some length, but the examples that I have given are typical of Labour local education authorities. The Bill is good for parents and standards. I urge the House to vote for it.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 219.

Division No. 12]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Amos, Alan

Aitken, Jonathan

Arbuthnot, James

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashby, David

Allason, Rupert

Aspinwall, Jack

Amess, David

Atkinson, David

238

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Batiste, Spencer

Franks, Cecil

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Freeman, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gale, Roger

Benyon, W.

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gill, Christopher

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Goodlad, Alastair

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boswell. Tim

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bottomley, Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Gregory, Conal

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Grist, Ian

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Ground, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Grylls, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Hague, William

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

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

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hannam, John

Buck, Sir Antony

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

Budgen, Nicholas

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Burns, Simon

Harris, David

Butcher, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Butler, Chris

Hayes, Jerry

Butterfill, John

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hill, James

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hind, Kenneth

Carrington, Matthew

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cash, William

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Chope, Christopher

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hunter, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Conway, Derek

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Janman, Tim

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jessel, Toby

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Couchman, James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Cran, James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Key, Robert

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

Kilfedder, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Day, Stephen

Kirkhope, Timothy

Devlin, Tim

Knapman, Roger

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dicks, Terry

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Latham, Michael

Dover, Den

Lawrence, Ivan

Dunn, Bob

Lee, John (Pendle)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Eggar, Tim

Lightbown, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lord, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Favell, Tony

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Maclean, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fishburn, John Dudley

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Fookes, Dame Janet

Major, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Malins, Humfrey

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mans, Keith

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Maples, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Marland, Paul

239

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Shersby, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Speller, Tony

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Squire, Robin

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Miller, Sir Hal

Stevens, Lewis

Mills, Iain

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, Sir David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moate, Roger

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Moss, Malcolm

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Thorne, Neil

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Thornton, Malcolm

Nelson, Anthony

Tracey, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tredinnick, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Trippier, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Trotter, Neville

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Norris, Steve

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Page, Richard

Walden, George

Paice, James

Waller, Gary

Patnick, Irvine

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Warren, Kenneth

Patten, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Pawsey, James

Wheeler, Sir John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whitney, Ray

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wiggin, Jerry

Portillo, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Wilshire, David

Price, Sir David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Raffan, Keith

Winterton, Nicholas

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wolfson, Mark

Redwood, John

Wood, Timothy

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Yeo, Tim

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Callaghan, Jim

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Alton, David

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Anderson, Donald

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Armstrong, Hilary

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Carr, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clelland, David

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Cohen, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Battle, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Beckett, Margaret

Corbett, Robin

Beith, A. J.

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bell, Stuart

Cousins, Jim

Bellotti, David

Cox, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Crowther, Stan

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

Cryer, Bob

Benton, Joseph

Cummings, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bidwell, Sydney

Cunningham, Dr John

Blunkett, David

Dalyell, Tam

Boateng, Paul

Darling, Alistair

Boyes, Roland

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradley, Keith

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dewar, Donald

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Dixon, Don

Caborn, Richard

Dobson, Frank

240

Doran, Frank

McLeish, Henry

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

McMaster, Gordon

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McNamara, Kevin

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Madden, Max

Eadie, Alexander

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eastham, Ken

Marek, Dr John

Edwards, Huw

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Enright, Derek

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Martlew, Eric

Fatchett, Derek

Maxton, John

Fearn, Ronald

Meacher, Michael

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Meale, Alan

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

Michael, Alun

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flannery, Martin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Flynn, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Foster, Derek

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fraser, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Fyfe, Maria

Morley, Elliot

Galloway, George

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Murphy, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Nellist, Dave

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Brien, William

Gordon, Mildred

O'Hara, Edward

Gould, Bryan

O'Neill, Martin

Graham, Thomas

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Parry, Robert

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Patchett, Terry

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pike, Peter L.

Grocott, Bruce

Prescott, John

Hain, Peter

Primarolo, Dawn

Hardy, Peter

Quin, Ms Joyce

Harman, Ms Harriet

Radice, Giles

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Randall, Stuart

Haynes, Frank

Redmond, Martin

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Richardson, Jo

Henderson, Doug

Robertson, George

Hinchliffe, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Rogers, Allan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rooker, Jeff

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Rooney, Terence

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howells, Geraint

Rowlands, Ted

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Ruddock, Joan

Hoyle, Doug

Salmond, Alex

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Illsley, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Ingram, Adam

Short, Clare

Janner, Greville

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kennedy, Charles

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

Kilfoyle, Peter

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

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Kirkwood, Archy

Snape, Peter

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Soley, Clive

Lambie, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Leadbitter, Ted

Steinberg, Gerry

Leighton, Ron

Stephen, Nicol

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Straw, Jack

Lewis, Terry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Litherland, Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Livingstone, Ken

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Livsey, Richard

Turner, Dennis

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wallace, James

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Walley, Joan

Loyden, Eddie

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McAllion, John

Wareing, Robert N.

McAvoy, Thomas

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McCartney, Ian

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McFall, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wilson, Brian

McKelvey, William

Winnick, David

241

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Martyn Jones.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill 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 Special Standing Committee. —[Mr. Straw.]
The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 259.

Division No. 13]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Allen, Graham

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Alton, David

Eadie, Alexander

Anderson, Donald

Eastham, Ken

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Edwards, Huw

Armstrong, Hilary

Enright, Derek

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ashton, Joe

Fatchett, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Faulds, Andrew

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fearn, Ronald

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barron, Kevin

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

Battle, John

Fisher, Mark

Beckett, Margaret

Flannery, Martin

Beith, A. J.

Flynn, Paul

Bell, Stuart

Foster, Derek

Bellotti, David

Fraser, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fyfe, Maria

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

Galloway, George

Benton, Joseph

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Bermingham, Gerald

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Bidwell, Sydney

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Blunkett, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Boateng, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Boyes, Roland

Gould, Bryan

Bradley, Keith

Graham, Thomas

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Grocott, Bruce

Caborn, Richard

Hain, Peter

Callaghan, Jim

Hardy, Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Canavan, Dennis

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Henderson, Doug

Carr, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clelland, David

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cohen, Harry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howells, Geraint

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Doug

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Crowther, Stan

Ingram, Adam

Cryer, Bob

Janner, Greville

Cummings, John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cunningham, Dr John

Kennedy, Charles

Dalyell, Tam

Kilfoyle, Peter

Darling, Alistair

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kirkwood, Archy

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

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

Lambie, David

Dewar, Donald

Leadbitter, Ted

Dixon, Don

Leighton, Ron

Dobson, Frank

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Doran, Frank

Lewis, Terry

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Litherland, Robert

242

Livingstone, Ken

Reid, Dr John

Livsey, Richard

Richardson, Jo

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Robertson, George

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Robinson, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

Rogers, Allan

McAllion, John

Rooker, Jeff

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terence

McCartney, Ian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Rowlands, Ted

McFall, John

Ruddock, Joan

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Salmond, Alex

McKelvey, William

Sedgemore, Brian

McLeish, Henry

Sheerman, Barry

McMaster, Gordon

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Madden, Max

Short, Clare

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Martlew, Eric

Snape, Peter

Maxton, John

Soley, Clive

Meacher, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Meale, Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Michael, Alun

Stephen, Mr. Nicol

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Straw, Jack

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Morgan, Rhodri

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Morley, Elliot

Turner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wallace, James

Mowlam, Marjorie

Walley, Joan

Murphy, Paul

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Nellist, Dave

Wareing, Robert N.

O'Brien, William

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

O'Hara, Edward

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Parry, Robert

Wilson, Brian

Patchett, Terry

Winnick, David

Pike, Peter L.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Prescott, John

Worthington, Tony

Primarolo, Dawn

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, Stuart

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Eric Illsley.

Redmond, Martin

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Aitken, Jonathan

Bowis, John

Alexander, Richard

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Allason, Rupert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Amess, David

Brazier, Julian

Amos, Alan

Bright, Graham

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Ashby, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Aspinwall, Jack

Budgen, Nicholas

Atkinson, David

Burns, Simon

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Butcher, John

Batiste, Spencer

Butler, Chris

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carrington, Matthew

Benyon, W.

Cash, William

Bevan, David Gilroy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Chapman, Sydney

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Chope, Christopher

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Boswell, Tim

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Bottomley, Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Colvin, Michael

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Conway, Derek

243

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hind, Kenneth

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Patrick

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

Couchman, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cran, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Day, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

Devlin, Tim

Irvine, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jack, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Janman, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dover, Den

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Eggar, Tim

Key, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Kilfedder, James

Evennett, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Fallon, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Favell, Tony

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Knox, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lord, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Freeman, Roger

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

French, Douglas

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fry, Peter

Maclean, David

Gale, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Major, Rt Hon John

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Malins, Humfrey

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Mans, Keith

Goodlad, Alastair

Maples, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Maude, Hon Francis

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gregory, Conal

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Grist, Ian

Miller, Sir Hal

Ground, Patrick

Mills, Iain

Grylls, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Hague, William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Mitchell, Sir David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Moate, Roger

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Sir Hector

Hannam, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Harris, David

Moss, Malcolm

Hawkins, Christopher

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hayes, Jerry

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Nelson, Anthony

Hill, James

Neubert, Sir Michael

244

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Norris, Steve

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Oppenheim, Phillip

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, Richard

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Paice, James

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Thorne, Neil

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thornton, Malcolm

Pawsey, James

Tracey, Richard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tredinnick, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Trippier, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trotter, Neville

Portillo, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Price, Sir David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Raffan, Keith

Walden, George

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Waller, Gary

Redwood, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Warren, Kenneth

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Watts, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wheeler, Sir John

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Whitney, Ray

Sackville, Hon Tom

Widdecombe, Ann

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wiggin, Jerry

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wilkinson, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shersby, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wolfson, Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wood, Timothy

Speller, Tony

Yeo, Tim

Squire, Robin

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stevens, Lewis

Tellers for the Noes:

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

EDUCATION (SCHOOLS) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified —
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Schools) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of —

(a) any sums payable under the Act in respect of the office and functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England and the office and functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales;

(b) any other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(c) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting tomorrow, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to European Community: The Inter-Governmental Conferences may, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), be proceeded with, though opposed, until Midnight.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Trunk Roads (Leicestershire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10.25 pm
Sir John Farr: I am most grateful to have the opportunity to develop once again on the Adjournment the problems associated with trunk roads in Leicestershire. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who has paid particular attention to the problem over recent months to try to get things right.
As my hon. Friend may know, three problems concern us. The first is what is known as the EDDR—the eastern district distributor road. The second problem is the new proposed Leicester eastern bypass and the third, which concerns me very much, is one of the most important east-west roads in the county—the A427 which runs from Loughborough to Market Harborough.
The eastern district distributor road is part of the relief road system round the city of Leicester. My hon. Friend, who has been courteous and kind in meeting delegations led by me and by other hon. Members to discuss the problem, has pointed out from time to time that the scheme is the responsibility of the county council.
The county council started the EDDR almost 50 years ago and it is still not finished. My hon. Friend was kind enough to tell me in answer to a question on the third problem, asking him whether he would make the east-west A427 a trunk road, that it came under the county council's responsibility for bypasses. Yet in the 20 or so years during which we have been associated with processions and demonstrations about the A427, not a single bypass has been built.
The EDDR was planned and begun more than 50 years ago under the aegis of the county council. The House and the public at large are entitled to study the performance, or lack of it, of the county council in that respect after 50 years. From the results on the ground, it seems that there is a great deal left to be desired. At the present speed of work on the EDDR—when it is finished it will provide much relief for traffic going round the city—the road is unlikely to be completed this millenium. In other words, it is unlikely to be completed before the year 2000.
The part of the Leicester relief road known as the SDDR—the southern district distributor road—is already discharging traffic on to the A6 at Oadby, a borough in my constituency, to the south of the city. In fact, the SDDR, upon which work has progressed well and speedily—it is all part of the relief road system round the city—has started to discharge traffic at a great rate on to the A6 at Oadby, which is seeking to percolate further south on the A6 or further east towards the A47.
When the traffic reaches the end of the SDDR at Oadby, there is nowhere else for it to go. As far as I can see, there is not likely to be anywhere for it to go for the next five or 10 years, except east on the A47 or south on the A6. There is no connecting link. Part of the EDDR is missing and that leaves a gap of two or three miles. As I have said, that stretch of road is not likely to be completed this millenium.
Most of my constituents find it amazing that that part of the road is missing, given that it is a planned and agreed eastern relief road for city traffic. I say planned and agreed, because, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, more than
246
one public inquiry has taken place and the go-ahead has been given after all the proper formalities have been gone through. The EDDR, which is causing so much concern among my constituents, is the last piece of the Leicester ring road. Nine tenths of the Leicester ring road is finished and has been for some years. But the remaining tenth, on the eastern side of the city, running from Humberstone to the A6 at Oadby is still held up.
My hon. Friends and I feel justified in asking for a special debate to call attention to the ridiculous fact that, at Humberstone, which is part of the EDDR route, a mile of new road costing £1·5 million has stood finished and unopened for over a year, while the county and city councils argue about a proposed route by the side of the clinic on Scraptoft lane through a recreation area which happens to be owned by the city council. Meanwhile, the sealed-off stretch is being vandalised while it stands idle.
I find it extraordinary that the EDDR, planned for over 50 years, has been blocked by the city council. The council built 120 new houses on Goodwood road, which, in my view, should be demolished forthwith. Many people feel that that constituted a deliberate attempt by the city council to block Goodwood road, even though the council knew that it was part of the long-planned eastern relief road. That was an ill-advised planning decision by the city council, and questions could well be asked about the considerable waste of public money involved in building the new houses in Goodwood road.
Most Conservatives in the county, and many in the city, feel that the EDDR must go ahead, and must still follow the Goodwood road route, even if the houses there have to be soundproofed. Colchester road is also part of the planned route: it is already dual carriageway and presents no problems.
As I said a moment ago, I have carefully considered the problems that I have tried to outline tonight. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister and recently he was kind enough to meet a delegation of Conservative Leicestershire county councillors, Oadby and Wigston borough councillors and Harborough district councillors. The united view of the delegation was that the EDDR must forge ahead on the agreed route along Goodwood road soon and on the planned route to the A6 to relieve traffic at Oadby.
When we raised those points at the meeting, the Minister made the perfectly valid point that the responsibility for the EDDR was not his. He said that it was the responsibility of the county council. However, the county council's engineer said that, while the council is acting as the Department's agent, no money can be spent on speeding up the EDDR without the Minister's specific consent. Some of us hope tonight to persuade the Minister that the county council should be authorised to speed up completion of the EDDR before the most unimaginable chaos occurs in Oadby in my constituency.
My next point concerns the Leicester eastern bypass. I want to place on record my appreciation of the Minister's kind and careful attention to the views of the delegation consisting of Conservative county councillors, borough councillors and district councillors. One of the reasons for tonight's debate is to try to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister that the points raised by the delegation should at least be considered before the Leicester eastern bypass is proceeded with.
We were united when we asked the Minister why Leicestershire county council, Oadby and Wigston

247
borough council and Harborough district council were not consulted. None of them was informed about the bypass. Even hon. Members were not asked for an opinion. That is regrettable, because if the Minister had taken the trouble to consult some of his colleagues in the House, he would have been told not to hurry over the bypass.
A solution is being sought today to a problem that many of us feel will not arise until the end of the century provided that the link—the EDDR—is made to work. It is essential to get that working like a clock and if that is achieved, the need for an eastern bypass will recede into the mists of next century. There is no hurry. The EDDR should be sorted out and a much more relaxed programme for an eastern bypass could then be adopted.
Another important point that I raised with the Minister when we met him—it was a point of which I should have given him notice—continues to recur relates to the name of the consultants that he has appointed for the new Leicester eastern bypass. We raised that subject at the meeting at the Department the other day. We said that we were unhappy with Travers Morgan, which had been appointed as agent for the Leicester eastern bypass, as it was the agent employed by the Co-operative Wholesale Society for its Stretton Magna scheme, which involves urbanising up to 5,000 acres in my constituency near Oadby with golf courses, business parks—the lot.
That organisation certainly was engaged in a study at the request of the CWS. Of course, the CWS farms to a great degree in Leicestershire. Travers Morgan, at the time of the submission of the CWS project a year or two ago, did the work for the CWS proposed link road, which it was going to throw in as a sweetener, between the A47 and the A6.
So far, I have been on ground which the Minister cannot challenge, because I am quite exact in my information. However, there is a question mark over the impartiality of Travis Morgan. If Travis Morgan had already done a good deal of the work for the proposed Leicester eastern bypass, as employee and having been paid a fee by the CWS to do the work only a year or two ago, surely it was able to use that recently acquired knowledge to submit to the Department a tender which was probably unfairly competitive because the organisation had already done a great deal of the ground work as a paid agent of the CWS.
The House is entitled to know the actual tender figures for the new Leicester eastern bypass and by how much did Travers Morgan win the contract. If the gap was large, did it represent best practice? With that organisation's previous knowledge, paid for by the CWS, it would seem that, to put it mildly, that was, questionable. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in such matters of public concern, everything must be seen to be absolutely above board.
I have been asked about the presence of Travers Morgan in preparing for the Minister's Department a scheme for much of the work which it had already carried out. When Travers Morgan quoted, were the other tendering companies aware of Travers Morgan's previous involvement? What would their feelings be? Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that they were informed, as they should have been, in the public interest? If they were not informed and if there was anything—I will not say
248
"underhand"; not as open as it should have been—would not it be best, to restore public confidence to the issue, for Travers Morgan to be dropped as consultants for the Leicester eastern bypass and for fresh consultants to be appointed?
The A427 from Lutterworth to Market Harborough is also a county council road. Quite rightly, in answer to questions that I have tabled in the past couple of weeks, my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he is not responsible and that it is a matter for the county council. The county council has again written to me to say that, as far as Leicester is concerned, only three bypasses can be funded annually in the county, simply because the Minister quite properly keeps his fingers on the till. Three bypasses a year in Leicestershire means that plans for bypasses that are badly needed on the A427 at towns such as Theddingworth fade away into the dim and distant future.
The A427 runs from Lutterworth to Market Harborough. Only recently there was a march by protesters along the whole length of the road. Some had endearing messages for me and some had not so endearing messages for the Government. It is all recorded on film. The A427 is an important little road. It is the main southern east-west road running through the county. The whole lot needs improving.
Mr. Michael Latham: Hear, hear.
Sir John Farr: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend, who knows the road well. It aggravated the people who were marching the other day that, over 15 years ago, Leicestershire county council agreed a bypass plan for Theddingworth. The plan was about to go ahead. Land was acquired. The scheme had been approved, but it was suddenly dropped like a hot potato because the council had heard that a road called the A1-M1 link road was due to be built in another county.
The county council lost interest in improving the A427 in any manner. Many of us feel that that is a shoddy way to treat people who have the most terrible problems. Villages are almost snuffed out by articulated vehicles every day. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine once again the problem of the A427 at Theddingworth. It is a strategic road. Will he authorise, or instruct the county council to authorise, the early commencement of a bypass for Theddingworth and one or two other communities?
10.46 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is with considerable diffidence that I respond to an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir John Farr), who has served his area of Leicestershire for more than 20 years with such distinction. He is an expert, if ever there was one, on roads and other matters in Leicestershire.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Leicester eastern distributor road is a cause of great frustration. The road has not yet been completed and the prospect of its being completed soon are not nearly as good as we would wish. The city of Leicester has developed on a fairly conventional pattern, with main radial roads feeding to business and employment areas in the centre. In recent years, the county council has developed inner and outer orbital routes to distribute traffic around the city. Both the

249
central relief road and the completed sections of the outer district distributor road have been funded with the help of 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant.
As my hon. Friend says, three quarters of the outer distributor road is now complete. Two sections remain to be completed. The A46–A47 link was accepted for TSG in 1986–87. The first western stage was completed in December 1989. The remainder of the scheme has planning permission, but orders are required for alterations to side roads and accesses and for compulsory purchase. The orders were published in March 1990 and the public inquiry was originally programmed for this summer.
Land will be acquired principally from the Leicester clinic and public open space in the control of Leicester city council. Negotiations have been proceeding with both. The city council previously showed an unwillingness to take the land out of public open space, possibly to frustrate the road scheme, although recently it apparently reluctantly agreed to support the scheme, subject to conditions. As my hon. Friend said, part of the completed first stage is not yet open to traffic and is subject to vandalism.
I am afraid to say that it is a sorry saga and an example of the worst conflicts that arise between a city and a county council which do not act together in the interests of the local citizens.
The Leicester eastern distributor road was originally planned back in the 1930s. There was land reservation for a dual carriageway and in the late 1960s Leicester city council—then the highway authority—built houses on the reservation for the second highway.
Recent traffic studies justify the need for greater traffic capacity than that provided by a single carriageway, but Leicester city council has recently resolved to reject the option that would have required extensive property demolition, in favour of a more modest improvement of an existing road.
The Government have responsibility for trunk roads and motorways and allocate resources, under the transport supplementary grant system, for local authority schemes. We often express our views on what we would like to happen, but we do not have the ability to require local authorities to take particular courses of action.
As I said in an earlier debate, mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and as I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough in meetings, it seems totally illogical that the distributor road has not been completed, and I hope that it soon will be. Certainly, any suggestion that it cannot be completed because of the Government's reluctance to give it funding is totally mischievous. It is included in Leicestershire county council's transport planning programme for construction in 1993, 1994 and 1995, and has good economic justifications.
Obviously at the moment grant for 1993 only has been applied for. If the county council thought that it could start work in 1992, it would have put it in the programme submission that is currently under consideration. If the council still thought that it could start work in 1992, it might not be too late for it to propose an amendment to
250
the submission, although time is extremely short, because we will be announcing the final determination of the allocations in December.
Any suggestion that the Government are holding up the scheme is totally mischievous and without foundation. The Government would be pleased for the scheme to proceed and have always made it clear that it would probably qualify for transport supplementary grant.
I also refer to the A427. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for a long time for an improvement to that corridor; and, as he says, again that is not a direct responsibility of the Department of Transport. However, I hope that he will be pleased today—not only for himself, but for his constituents—to know that contracts 2 and 3 on the M1–A 1 link road have been awarded to Tarmac Construction. It is a two-year contract with a value approaching £36 million and is a further major investment in the roads infrastructure in Leicestershire.
That road will give tremendous relief to people living alongside the A427. Obviously, it is not as good a solution as a bypass and no doubt that will still be a priority for the local authority. However, I hope that, by getting much of the through traffic off the A427 with the M1–A 1 link, it will bring the relief that my hon. Friend seeks.
As regards the Leicester eastern bypass, that scheme was put into the roads programme in May 1989, in the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper. Its planning and design are at a very early stage, with consultants only recently appointed to undertake initial design work. The next key event for the scheme will be a public consultation, which is planned to take place in 1993. The Leicester eastern bypass is thought to be an important strategic route, because it will bring relief to that side of Leicester and will complement the western bypass, work on which is expected to begin next year.
The A46–A6 link, which is effectively the Leicester eastern bypass, was introduced into the programme because it was thought that it would be able to provide continuity in the trunk road network for long distance north-west to south-east traffic. I know that my hon. Friend has concerns about that and about the consultants chosen after competitive tender to be responsible for its design. On the latter point, that was after a competition in which Travers Morgan One was successful. I cannot give my hon. Friend the details of exactly the amount by which it was more successful than any other tenderer. I hope that he will accept that the tendering carried out by the Department of Transport is purely objective.
It is true to say that these are the same consultants who have been advising us on the Leicester western bypass. They are highly esteemed and wholly professional. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that they will look at the scheme objectively and will take into account all the views of the local people which will be expressed during the consultation period that will precede the announcement of any preferred route. It is still possible, even now, if everybody says that they do not need the bypass after all, that the Government may withdraw it from their programme. It would be premature to take such a decision tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff, both police or civilian, are employed by the Serious Fraud Office; and how many there have been in each year since its creation.

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office currently employs 116 permanent civil servants. The figures for previous years are as follows:

  Sixty-two in 1988–89, 83 in 1989–90 and 101 in 1990–91. The permanent civil servants employed are supplemented by temporary staff whose number varies with operational requirements. The number of temporary staff so employed is currently 57. The Serious Fraud Office does not employ police officers. Police officers work in conjunction with the Serious Fraud Office and are attached to cases under the control of the Serious Fraud Office by agreement with the appropriate police force.

TRANSPORT

  Locomotives
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he gave financial approval for expenditure on the electric locomotives used on the Stoke on Trent-Euston service; and how many(a) class 90 electrics and (b) class 86–2 electrics (i) were approved and (ii) are currently in use;

  (2) how many 1987–88 InterCity new 110 mph class 90 electric locomotives were (a) approved and (b) delivered to InterCity for use on the west coast main line out of Euston, and of those how many are used on (a) the InterCity sector (b) Railfreight and (c) parcels;

  (3) how many class 90 locomotives built between 1988 and 1990 were allocated from InterCity to Railfreight; and what impact this reallocation has had on InterCity's capacity to meet its quality of service objectives.

  Mr. Freeman
  Approval for 50 class 90 locomotives was given in 1984. Fifteen were allocated by BR for use on InterCity services on the west coast main line, of which the Stoke-Euston route is a part. All are currently in use on that line.

  The remaining 35 class 90 locomotives were allocated to what are now the freight and parcels sectors.

  Approval for class 86/2 locomotives was given in the mid–1960s. Information on their original deployment is no longer available. Twenty-two class 86/2 locomotives remain in service on the west coast main line.

  Freight Operations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he plans to commission a study on the implications of continental-gauge freight operations into the United Kingdom and the effect upon existing freight operations to and from the existing regions;

  (2) when he last discussed with the chairman of British Rail the implications of building a continental-gauge freight route to London.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR is confident that it has sufficient capacity on its existing lines to cope with forecast increases in international freight and its limited programme of structure gauge enhancements on specific route sections will enable some 95 per cent. of swap bodies and containers used on the continent to travel to the BR network of regional channel tunnel freight terminals. Operating continental gauge freight wagons in the United Kingdom would require either the construction of new lines or very costly modifications to existing lines and rolling stock. It is envisaged that the new channel tunnel rail link to London would be built to continental gauge. My Department is considering with British Rail the revenue and cost implications of designing this link to accommodate freight as well as passenger trains, compared with alternative ways of providing additional capacity for freight movements.

  King's Cross
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision is included in his Department's expenditure plans for 1991 to 1994 published in February 1991 and adjusted in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement for the construction of the proposed new terminal at King's Cross.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to decide its investment programme and priorities within the resources available.

  High-speed Rail Link
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from British Rail about the amounts of revenue income from high-speed rail link services along the Ove Arup route that will be attributable, respectively, to the financing of the proposed new terminal at King's Cross and that of the planned station at Stratford East.

  Mr. Freeman
  For each of the routes studied, the forecast revenues associated with proposed stations were treated as an integral part of the route and not individually identified.

  Goods Vehicle Instructors
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to introduce minimum standards for large goods vehicle instructors; and how this will be implemented and monitored.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Road Safety Schemes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the average typical first-year costs and rates of return for local road safety schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  A report published by the Transport and Road Research laboratory in 1989 showed that the average local safety scheme cost about £7,000 and saved just over one casualty accident per year, valued at £16,690, where both figures are in 1987 prices.

  Splash and Spray Suppression
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the British standard for splash and spray suppression to be upgraded to the higher European directive standard.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope that a revised standard will be available by the middle of next year.

  Lorry Overloads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of lorries stopped and checked for possible overloading expressed as a percentage of total lorry journeys.

  Mr. Chope
  It is estimated that in 1990 about 0·06 per cent. of all HGV journeys were checked for excessive weight.

  This statistic relates to vehicles weighed by Department of Transport and local authority trading standards enforcement staff. The police also weigh vehicles, but no information on the numbers they weigh is available.

  Highways (Damage)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the damage and wear inflicted on highways by private cars.

  Mr. Chope
  The damage and wear inflicted on highways by private cars is very small in relation to that caused by lorries.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the annual cost over the past five years of the damage caused to(a) highways and (b) under-road services by lorries.

  Mr. Chope
  The road track costs of vehicles in the United Kingdom, and the amounts allocated to large goods vehicles are given in the Department's annual publication "The allocation of road track costs", copies of which are available from the House Library. Technical investigation has failed to establish any direct causal link between heavy lorry traffic and damage to underground services.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will give details of any time limits which have been set within his Department within which statutory procedures for the introduction or alteration of speed limits on principal roads must be completed; and whether he will make a statement.
  92
  Mr. Chope
  No statutory time limits are set for my Department to deal with speed limits on principal roads. They are dealt with as quickly as possible. I intend to set target times within which this work should be done in future.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current number of formal applications submitted by local highway authorities to his east midlands regional office seeking to introduce new or revised speed limits on principal roads; how long ago the earliest submission which remains undetermined was made to his Department; and how many full-time staff are deployed on this work.

  Mr. Chope
  There are currently seven applications still undetermined. The earliest was submitted on 8 February 1991. No staff work exclusively on speed limit orders. Resources are deployed as and when necessary and target times within which this work should be completed are to be set to avoid such long delays.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement, with specific dates, on the involvement of his Department in approving the 40 mph speed limit on the A6003 road through Preston, Rutland; and what action he intends to take to prevent any repetition in Leicestershire or Rutland of the incident by which the signs were erected but remained covered and inoperative between January and October 1991.

  Mr. Chope
  The formal application from Leicestershire county council was received on 21 March 1991 and after due consideration consent was notified to the county council on 20 September 1991. The erection of the necessary signs is a matter entirely for Leicestershire county council as the local highway authority. I am unable to comment on why the council chose to erect the signs in advance of the order being sent to my Department. The signs were uncovered shortly after consent was granted.

  Tube Trains (Capacity)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations he has had with London Underground over the standing capacity limits in tube carriages;

  (2) what representations he has received over the capacity limits of London Underground trains.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have received only one representation in the last three years about the capacity limits of London underground trains, although I understand the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has received a few letters.

  The inspectorate has discussed with London Underground on the Secretary of State's behalf plans for refurbishing existing trains and proposals for new stock. It has been an objective of these discussions to maximise passenger-carrying capacity while maintaining safety.

  Filton Airfield
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with councillors from Avon county council over proposals to develop Filton airfield into a commercial airport.
  93
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Filton is one of the 10 locations being considered by a working group, chaired by my Department, in terms of their ability to help meet air traffic demand after the turn of the century. The local authority input to the group's work, including that from Avon county council in respect of Filton and Bristol Lulsgate, is being coordinated by Serplan.

  Yachts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the estimated cost to an average yacht owner of installing the necessary safety equipment and crew required by the proposed Merchant Shipping (Pleasure Yacht) Regulations; and when he plans to bring these regulations into force.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There will be no cost to the average yacht owner. The proposed regulations will apply only to commercially operated yachts. It is intended that the regulations come into force on 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which yachts will be subject to the proposed Merchant Shipping (Pleasure Yacht) Regulations; and how many such yachts he estimates there are in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Only commercially operated yachts will be subject to the proposed regulations. Yachts used solely for the sport or pleasure of the owner are excluded from the regulations. Information on the numbers and use of yachts is not held by the Department.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on similar regulations to the proposed Merchant Shipping (Pleasure Yacht) Regulations in force in each of the other EC countries; and if he will report when such legislation was enacted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Scandinavian standards, which detail extensive requirements, for commercially operated pleasure craft are being implemented in 1992 by Denmark. The Netherlands are incorporating similar regulations next year and Belgium in 1993. No information on the requirements of other EC countries is available at present.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many surveyors from his Department will be employed, and at what cost to the Exchequer, to enforce the proposed Merchant Shipping (Pleasure Yacht) Regulations; and what he will charge yacht owners to have their vessels surveyed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Application of the regulations will require no additional surveyors or cost to the Exchequer. Any survey required on commercially operated yachts will be charged for surveys in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 1991, SI 1991/784.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) angling boats, (b) charter yachts, (c) cruising yachts, (d) diving boats and (e) sailing schools, respectively, will be affected by the proposed Merchant Shipping (Pleasure Yacht) Regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the various types of craft, used commercially, is not held by the Department. Sailing schools can operate under the terms of the code of practice for sail training ships. Compliance with the code,94
  which was developed with the industry, gives exemption from the requirements of legislation. If agreement can be reached with those concerned it is proposed to introduce further codes of practice to cover other categories of pleasure craft used commercially.

  Train Accidents
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost of the single track train accidents at Bellgrove, Hyde and Newton, including loss, damage, repair, replacement of rolling stock, other assets and equipment, related staff, resource and disruption costs, legal fees and all forms of compensatory payments made to passengers, British Rail's staff and relatives.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of these costs are matters for British Rail.

  Trains (Servicing)
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in securing the introduction and servicing of the class 159 DMU trains due to operate on the Waterloo-Andover-Exeter service from October 1992, to which he referred to his answer of 19 November 1990,Official Report, columns 35–6.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that BR expect the new class 159 DMU trains to be delivered during the summer of 1992 and to enter service from September 1992. I can confirm that British Rail are now able to go ahead with the construction of the new depot at Salisbury to service and maintain these trains, within the finance available to them within the autumn statement. The Government's decision to provide a substantial increase in funding for investment in the railways has enabled BR to allocate money to this project.

ENERGY

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the report of the wave energy review being carried out by his Department will be published.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The interim report on the wave energy review is published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House. The report explains the methodology being used in the review. All interested parties are being consulted in this work as it progresses. The final report containing the results of the review will be published early next year.

  Joint European Torus Laboratory.
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the amount of energy recently produced by the joint European torus laboratory at Culham.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the experiment on 9 November, the JET device is reported to have produced an energy release equivalent to 1 MW for two seconds. Many times this amount of energy was required to operate the device.
  95
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the cost to date of the JET programme at Culham.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The cost of the JET programme to the European Community and associated partners Sweden and Switzerland has been about £750 million to the end of 1990.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Benefits
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were dependent on state benefits in 1961; and how many families are dependent on state benefits in the current year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Provisional figures show that 353,000 families were receiving family credit in August 1991. In 1990, the latest yar for which figures are available, there were 1.15 million families receiving income support. Figures are not available for 1961.

  Sources: Family credit statistical sample and annual statistical inquiry 1990.

PRIME MINISTER

  Executive Agencies (Disabled Workers)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 356, if he will list the six Departments and agencies which exceeded a 3 per cent. level of staff registered as disabled in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1990 more than 3 per cent. of employees were registered disabled in each of the following departments and agencies: Crown Estate Office; Department of Employment Group; Land Registry; National Investment and Loans Office; Paymaster General's Office; Registers of Scotland.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will arrange for the common core memorandum on departmental annual reports issued by Her Majesty's Treasury in July to be further revised to include in section D research and development undertaken by or sponsored by the Department;

  (2) if he will make it the practice for all departmental annual reports to include as part of their common core information a statement of research and development activity sponsored by or undertaken by the Department.

  The Prime Minister
  All departments with significant levels of spending on research and development already include relevant material in their departmental annual reports. Past and planned spending by departments on research and development was set out in table 4.13 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement", Cm. 1520. Up-to-date information will be published early next year in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement". Extensive additional information is published by the Cabinet Office in the annual review of Government-funded research and development. The 96
  requirements for the 1993 departmental reports will be reviewed in the light of comments on the 1992 reports from Select Committees and others.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to co-ordinate the activities of the Departments of Health and of Education and Science on including health promotion and self health care into the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is already the policy of both Departments to work together closely in order to secure that young people are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to promote their immediate and long-term good health. To that end, aspects of health education are already included, wherever relevant, in several national curriculum foundation subjects.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

ENVIRONMENT

  Right-to-buy Legislation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to introduce identical service charges for people's properties purchased under the right-to-buy legislation, where the properties are similar and receive the same services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are no plans to amend the legislation, which provides that a tenant exercising the right to buy a flat may be required to bear a reasonable part of the costs of repair and other services provided by the landlord.

  The protections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply to purchases of local authority flats under right to buy as well as to purchases in the private sector. Leaseholders have the right to information on how their service charges have been made up and may challenge unreasonable demands in court.

  UN Environment Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed and decisions taken at the third preparatory committee meeting for the United Nations conference on environment and develop-ment in August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The preparatory committee for the United Nations conference on environment and development-UNCED—held its third session at the United Nations Office in Geneva from 12 August to 4 September 1991.

  The preparatory committee considered reports on the activities of the conference secretariat and of other intergovernmental bodies. In its plenary sessions, the preparatory committee considered the structure and

  97
  organisation of the UNCED action programme and cross-sectoral issues such as finance and technology. The preparatory comittee also considered the arrangements for UNCED, which will take place in Rio de Janeiro from 1 to 12 June 1992.

  Working group I of the preparatory committee considered proposals relating to the atmosphere, land resources, biological diversity and biotechnology. It also began work on a statement of principles on the management, conservation and development of all types of forests. Working group II considered proposals relating to the oceans and seas, freshwater resources, wastes and chemicals, while Working group III discussed legal and institutional matters, including proposals for a declaration of principles on general rights and obligations in the field of environment and development.

  Many of the decisions the preparatory committee adopted requested the UNCED secretariat to prepare revised proposals for the preparatory committee at its fourth session, which will take place in New York from 9 March to 3 April 1992.

  The United Kingdom presented reports by consultants on the role of technology transfer in the conservation of biological diversity and in tackling global climate change, and a discussion paper on the linkage between population, environmental degradation and development. These documents will be laid before the House.

  River Quality
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the National Rivers Authority report on river quality.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority expects to publish its report of the 1990 river quality survey in December.

  Local Government Finance Bill
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account was taken of the ideas submitted to him by the Liberal Democrats in the preparation of the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Key
  We welcomed the Liberal Democrats' decision to take up our offer of discussions on the future of local government finance. We do not, however, believe that a local income tax is the way forward.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will quantify the net value of transfers—gross transfers minus reverse transfers from housing revenue accounts to general funds—from local authority general funds to their housing revenue accounts for each calendar year between 1980 to 1990 both on an England and Great Britain basis.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested for English local housing authorities for the financial years 1980–81 to 1989–90 is shown in the table.98

  Year

  Net Value of Transfers to Housing Revenue Accounts £

  1980–81

  308,697,811

  1981–82

  327,383,247

  1982–83

  251,723,321

  1983–84

  291,333,242

  1984–85

  287,590,281

  1985–86

  257,615,638

  1986–87

  276,691,862

  1987–88

  279,016,885

  1988–89

  308,841,920

  1989–90

  82,580,313

  The figures are taken from housing subsidy claim forms and are not audited.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in(a) Great Britain and (b) England made transfers from their housing revenue accounts to their general funds during 1990–91 and 1991–92; what is the estimated total value of such transfers; and if he will provide similar information on a projected basis for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Yeo
  Schedule IV to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires a local housing authority to make a transfer from its housing revenue account to some other revenue account if its housing revenue account subsidy calculation results in a negative amount. The transfer must be equal to that amount. An authority not entitled to housing revenue account subsidy may also transfer any end-of-year surplus on its housing revenue account to some other revenue account. In 1990–91, a total of 19 English authorities transferred an estimated total of £23,227,569 from their housing revenue accounts. In 1991–92, a total of 14 authorities are expected to transfer an estimated total of £21,741,658 from their housing revenue accounts.

  The level of transfers from housing revenue accounts in 1992–93 and 1993–94 will depend largely on annual decisions about rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances for those years and the amount of rent rebate expenditure incurred.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authorities in England failed to attract a positive housing borrowing capital account during 1990–91 and 1991–92 and the total aggregate value of the annual housing capital guideline allocations to such authorities;

  (2) how many local authorities would continue not to attract a positive borrowing capital account if total gross capital housing allocations to local authorities in England were raised to (a) £5 billion, (b) £7 billion and (c) £10 billion, assuming that the pattern of distribution of that allocation prevailing during 1991–92 between authorities remained unchanged and both their RTIAs and the capital grants provided to them for housing purposes did not change; and what would be the aggregate value of their annual housing capital guideline allocations.

  Mr. Yeo
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the information given in his answer of 28 March 1991,Official Report, column 533, on how much the estimated cost of housing revenue account

  99
  rent rebate subsidy for years 1990–91 and 1991–92, and its planned provision for years 1991–93 and 1993–94 would be were it not for the assumed transfer of rental income from the tenants of some councils.

  Mr. Yeo
  The total contributions to rent rebates which local authorities made from their housing revenue accounts in 1990–91 is estimated to be £195 million. It is estimated that authorities will make contributions of £302 million in 1991–92 and £530 million in 1992–93. The estimate for 1992–93 is subject to the outcome of the current consultation exercise on proposals for rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances for that year. No decision has been made for 1993–94.

  Local Authority Notices
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a complete list of all those local authorities that have been issued with(a) section 13 notices, (b) section 14 notices, both under the Local Government Act 1988, (c) section 19a notices and (d) section 19b notices, both under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, giving dates of issue in each case, and indicating for each case the reason for issuing the notice.

  Mr. Portillo
  Following is the information:

  Notices issued under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 where

  (a) the authority appeared to have acted in an anti-competitive manner

  Birmingham City C—10 May 1990

  Braintree DC—29 March 1990

  Bristol City C—4 September 1989

  Bury MBC—1 June 1990

  Camden LB—3 July 1990

  Charnwood BC—21 December 1989

  Doncaster MBC—21 September 1990

  East Lindsey DC—9 April 1990

  Eden DC—29 March 1990

  Halton BC—9 October 1991

  Haringey LB—12 November 1991

  Hillingdon LB—4 September 1989

  Knowsley MBC—7 December 1989

  Leicester City C—11 September 1990

  Liverpool City C—31 May 1990

  Redditch BC—18 January 1991

  Thurrock DC—3 October 1990

  Wakefield MBC—6 March 1991

  Warrington DC—2 August 1991

  Waveney DC—24 July 1991

  Wolverhampton MBC—3 January 1990

  Woodspring DC—6 September 1990

  York City C—10 May 1990

  (b) the authority appeared to have failed to achieve the prescribed financial objective

  Breckland DC—19 September 1991

  Camden LB—3 July 1990

  Crawley BC—29 July 1991

  Crawley BC (2 notices)—9 October 1991

  Eastleigh BC—18 December 1990

  Epsom and Ewell BC—1 July 1991

  Gloucester City C—28 October 1991

  Gosport BC—29 July 1991

  Harrogate BC—1 July 1991

  Haringey LB—12 December 1990

  Humberside CC—8 June 1990

  Lewes DC—28 October 1991

  North Tyneside MBC—1 July 1991

  Redbridge LB—1 July 1991

  Shropshire CC—28 October 1991

  Surrey CC—28 October 1991

  100

  Waverley DC–28 October 1991

  West Devon DC–1 July 1991

  and

  (c) the authority appeared to have failed to comply with the detailed specification for the work

  Camden LB—3 July 1990

  Directions served under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 where

  (a) the authority appeared to have acted in an anti-competitive manner

  Doncaster MBC—11 December 1990 (replacement direction issued 28 March 1991)

  Hillingdon LB—13 March 1990 (replacement direction issued 1 August 1990)

  East Lindsey DC—6 July 1990 (replacement direction issued 31 July 1990)

  Knowsley MBC—6 July 1990 (replacement direction issued 3 August 1990)

  Leicester City C—19 December 1990 (replacement direction issued 29 January 1991)

  Liverpool City C—6 August 1990 (replacement direction issued 24 June 1991)

  Redditch BC—5 March 1991

  Thurrock DC—19 December 1990 (replacement direction issued 5 March 1991)

  Wakefield MBC—15 August 1991

  Woodspring DC—8 November 1990

  York City C—9 August 1990 (replacement direction issued 13 September 1990).

  (b) the authority appeared to have failed to achieve the prescribed financial objective

  Camden LB—31 October 1990

  Eastleigh BC—9 April 1991

  Haringey LB—20 June 1991

  Harrogate BC—15 November 1991

  Humberside CC—30 July 1990

  and

  (c) the authority appeared to have failed to comply with the detailed specification for the work

  Camden LB–31 October 1990.

  Notices issued under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 where

  (a) the authority appeared to have acted in an anti-competitive manner

  Wirral MBC—28 March 1989

  Liverpool City—30 May 1991

  Salford City C—1 July

  and

  (b) where the authority appeared to have failed to achieve the prescribed financial objective

  Barrow in Furness DC—1 July 1991

  Brent LB—20 December 1989

  Bromley LB—29 July 1991

  Camden LB—1 July 1991

  Copeland BC—9 July 1991

  Eastleigh BC (2 notices)—18 December 1990

  Greenwich LB—10 April 1991

  Harrogate BC (2 notices)—1 July 1991

  Kingston Upon Thames LB—29 July 1991

  Milton Keynes BC—15 October 1991

  Portsmouth City C—29 July 1991

  Rochdale MBC—7 February 1991

  Salford MBC—1 July 1991

  Shepway DC—1 July 1991

  Stroud DC—10 April 1991

  Tonbridge & Malting BC—10 October 1990

  Tower Hamlets LB —1 July 1991

  Waltham Forest LB—29 July 1991

  Warrington DC—29 July 1991

  Worthing BC—29 July 1991

  Wychavon DC—29 July 1991

  Wycombe DC—12 December 1990

  101
  Directions served under section 19B of the Local Government planning Act 1980 where

  (a) the authority appeared to have acted in an anti-competitive manner

  Wirral MBC–23 October 1989

  and

  (b) where the authority appeared to have failed to achieve the prescribed financial objective

  Brent LB—24 July 1990

  Barrow-in-Furness DC—15 November 1991

  Greenwich LB—25 September 1991

  Harrogate BC (2 notices)—15 November 1991

  Shepway DC—15 November 1991

  Tonbridge & Mailing BC—28 February 1991

  Directions served under section 19B of the Local Government Planning Act 1980 where

  the authority appeared to have acted in an anti-competitive manner

  Wirral MBC—23 October 1989

  and

  (b) where the authority appeared to have failed to achieve the prescribed financial objective

  Brent LB—24 July 1990

  Barrow-in-Furness DC—15 November 1991

  Greenwich LB-—25 September 1991

  Harrogate BC (2 notices)-I5 November 1991

  Shepway DC—15 November 1991

  Tonbridge & Mailing BC—28 February 1991

  Air Pollution
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the EC directive of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (84/360/EEC) has been transposed into United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Baldry
  Implementation of the air framework directive in Great Britain has been by means of the Alkali &c. Works Regulation Act 1906, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and regulations made thereunder. This will be reinforced by the new controls introduced under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Implementation in Northern Ireland is also by means of the Alkali Act. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland intends to make regulations to bring into effect the residual requirements of the directive relating to public access next spring.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review government classification of ozone levels so that they are in line with World Health Organisation guidelines and report exceeding of eight hour guidance values.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 11 November 1991,Official Report, column 394.

  Lincolnshire
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Lincolnshire will be in the first batch of local authorities that will be recommended for consideration by the local government commission when it is established.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are still considering what would be the most balanced and manageable programme of reviews for the Local Government Commission.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the university of Aston business school to report on the national survey of parish and town councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have received the results of this survey. The university of Aston business school is preparing its final report which we hope to publish in the new year.

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environmnent what progress has been made in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on a protocol controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Negotiation of a protocol to the 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, which would control the emissions of volatile organic compounds—VOCs—or their transboundary fluxes, has now been successfully completed and the United Kingdom today became one of the first signatories to the protocol.

  VOCs are major precursors of ground level azone, a pollutant which can affect human health and damage crops and trees. Ground level ozone is an international problem, and some of the worst ozone episodes in the United Kingdom have significant contributions of continental origin. It therefore needs to be tackled by international agreement.

  The new protocol is the first international commitment to VOC abatement across the board. It obliges most parties to secure a 30 per cent. overall reduction in their VOC emissions between 1988 and 1999. Other basic obligations include requirements, two years after the protocol enters into force, to apply national or international emission standards to new sources of VOCs, taking account of guidance on control technologies given in the protocol; to apply national or international measures to products that contain solvents and promote the use of products with low or nil content; and to foster public participation in VOC emission control.

  The United Kingdom is already taking a number of steps which will help it to comply with the protocol, which represents an important step forward in international action to improve the quality of our environment. I am arranging for a copy of the protocol to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be meeting members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am meeting members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee today following the inaugural meeting of the reconstituted committee. I have asked members of the new committee to look at the three particular subjects. First, I have asked them to review the radioactive waste disposal issues which are likely to arise over the next 20 years. Secondly, I have asked them to review the overall national radiation monitoring programme following the installation of phase 2 of the radioactive incident monitoring network and to make recommendations. Thirdly, I have asked them to
  103
  consider and advise on the extent and nature of the Department's radioactive substances research pro-gramme.

  The members of the reconstituted committee are:

  Members of the reconstituted RWMAC Chairman: Professor John Knill—Chairman of NERC

  *Dr. Jack I. Abernethy-Member of the Institute of Professional Managers and Specialists (BNFL)

  *Professor Kathleen J. Anderson OBE-Depute Principal, Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh, Biologist

  Dr. Helen ApSimon—Imperial College, Senior Lecturer-Atmospheric Modelling

  Professor Andrew Blowers—Professor of Social Services, Open University

  *Professor Keith Boddy OBE—Head of Regional Medical Physics Department, Newcastle General Hospital, Northern Region Health Authority

  Professor Charles Brown—Heriot-Watt University (Marine Biologist)

  Mr. Wilf Cassidy—Scientific Advisor and County Analyst Somerset CC

  Dr. Roger H. Clarke—Director, National Radiological Protection Board

  Dr. Martin Courtis—Director of Environmental Services Environmental Health, Carlisle DC

  *Professor H. John Evans—Director of the MRC Human Genetics Unit at Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  *Dr. Ron H. Flowers—Chief Technologist (Nuclear), AEA Technology

  Mr. Michael Folger—Managing Director, UK Nirex Ltd

  Dr. Eleanor James-Lecturer Mathematics, University of Aberystwyth, Member of Executive Committee of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales

  South Western Region1 Discounted value of all sales (£ '000)

  Local authority

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Bath

  2,491

  2,197

  1,769

  2,013

  1,835

  1,416

  2,359

  4,993

  7,430

  3,177

  1,888

  Bristol

  0

  14,263

  19,236

  11,870

  12,537

  9,339

  9,307

  13,229

  23,430

  25,019

  11,579

  Kingswood

  316

  4,155

  4,847

  2,093

  1,658

  1,389

  1,264

  2,487

  5,591

  2,955

  1,069

  Northavon

  1,906

  2,538

  3,699

  3,039

  2,315

  1,395

  1,931

  2,379

  6,558

  n/a

  1,922

  Wansdyke

  3,359

  3,066

  2,317

  1,581

  1,685

  1,633

  2,335

  3,336

  6,651

  3,019

  1,063

  Woodspring

  335

  6,520

  n/a

  6,358

  4,625

  n/a

  5,325

  5,553

  10,268

  7,983

  3,914

  Caradon

  0

  985

  2,052

  1,462

  1,657

  1,125

  1,468

  1,823

  4,978

  n/a

  n/a

  Carrick

  894

  2,445

  1,722

  673

  n/a

  1,510

  n/a

  n/a

  2,945

  n/a

  1,378

  Kerrier

  0

  2,456

  1,072

  850

  770

  730

  663

  829

  2,098

  1,370

  653

  North Cornwall

  0

  1,926

  2,118

  1,946

  1,564

  1,154

  1,271

  1,621

  4,788

  4,613

  1,816

  Penwith

  838

  848

  1,172

  1,355

  815

  824

  n/a

  1,621

  2,678

  2,686

  852

  Restormel

  45

  2,429

  1,889

  1,382

  1,056

  933

  1,227

  1,657

  4,066

  1,533

  937

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  60

  60

  16

  35

  27

  143

  77

  n/a

  32

  East Devon

  1,519

  1,285

  1,843

  3,154

  2,268

  1,742

  2,181

  4,181

  6,316

  3,748

  1,585

  Exeter

  1,133

  1,958

  2,340

  2,520

  2,294

  2,635

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5,075

  1,834

  Mid Devon

  0

  1,685

  3,444

  2,124

  1,675

  1,304

  1,894

  3,363

  4,290

  1,857

  1,083

  North Devon

  0

  2,369

  3,409

  1,800

  n/a

  n/a

  1,789

  2,521

  4,396

  2,750

  1,180

  Plymouth

  5,296

  5,539

  9,420

  8,021

  4,763

  n/a

  6,309

  7,612

  15,991

  19,310

  7,426

  South Hams

  732

  1,380

  2,030

  1,840

  1,765

  1,981

  1,468

  2,236

  3,181

  3,294

  1,443

  Teignbridge

  n/a

  2,632

  2,359

  1,922

  1,780

  2,252

  2,055

  2,424

  7,265

  5,362

  1,406

  Torbay

  622

  915

  1,360

  1,948

  2,154

  1,983

  2,320

  n/a

  11,619

  4,713

  1,692

  Torridge

  18

  2,776

  1,245

  928

  723

  677

  1,052

  1,481

  2,924

  1,596

  775

  West Devon

  860

  1,244

  1,031

  1,272

  1,220

  1,091

  846

  n/a

  2,010

  1,524

  n/a

  Bournemouth

  1,088

  3,199

  2,870

  5,599

  3,861

  3,060

  3,959

  5,214

  9,340

  5,311

  2,730

  Christchurch

  768

  960

  902

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,422

  n/a

  1,144

  n/a

  East Dorset

  865

  924

  1,091

  n/a

  1,602

  1,252

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Dorset

  597

  1,386

  1,912

  1,441

  1,379

  1,309

  1,374

  2,571

  3,646

  2,335

  1,181

  Poole

  1,087

  963

  4,217

  5,790

  4,484

  3,195

  4,113

  n/a

  6,241

  8,937

  2,583

  Purbeck

  844

  1,583

  1,182

  1,237

  1,650

  908

  1,236

  1,382

  2,768

  3,250

  n/a

  West Dorset

  10

  2,469

  3,933

  2,623

  2,390

  2,566

  4,691

  3,166

  5,462

  2,950

  1,839

  Weymouth and Portland

  789

  1,401

  2,590

  6,317

  2,014

  1,326

  1,992

  2,711

  3,910

  2,803

  898

  Cheltenham

  1,197

  3,672

  3,394

  2,905

  1,161

  1,793

  1,684

  2,777

  7,441

  4,709

  1,820

  Cotswold

  0

  3,318

  3,566

  2,018

  1,904

  1,489

  1,549

  2,235

  3,371

  1,853

  1,589

  Forest of Dean

  0

  n/a

  2,901

  1,831

  1,617

  1,218

  1,279

  2,276

  5,526

  1,961

  929

  Gloucester

  942

  2,533

  2,805

  1,744

  1,661

  1,207

  1,841

  3,125

  4,436

  n/a

  1,573

  Stroud

  1,527

  2,666

  3,232

  2,491

  2,129

  2,046

  2,643

  2,116

  5,702

  4,594

  1,425

  Tewkesbury

  454

  4,241

  2,536

  1,768

  1,191

  1,026

  1,024

  2,057

  3,682

  2,046

  1,234

  Mendip

  1,601

  3,287

  2,392

  2,587

  2,587

  2,823

  3,489

  3,614

  7,797

  n/a

  1,999

  Sedgemoor

  1,260

  3,805

  4,253

  2,552

  1,486

  2,140

  2,434

  3,610

  4,770

  4,965

  2,272

  South Somerset

  1,829

  2,872

  3,237

  2,882

  3,193

  2,588

  3,521

  6,016

  12,007

  6,321

  3,337

  104

  *Professor Gilbert Kelling—Professor of Geology and Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Keele

  Miss Angela M. Killick—Chairman, Hampstead District Health Authority

  Dr. John McKeown—Director of Safety, Scottish Nuclear Mr. George J. Medley OBE-Director World Wide Fund for Nature UK

  Dr. Les A. Mitchell Director of Technology, Nuclear Electric PLC

  *Dr. William L. Wilkinson CBE—Deputy Chief Executive, BNFL

  *Professor David R. Williams—Professor of Applied Chemistry, University of Wales

  Those names marked with an asterisk are members who have previously served on RWMAC.

  Council House Sales
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by district authorities in the south-west region all capital receipts from the sale of council houses received each year since the introduction of right to buy.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The total discounted value of all sales of houses and flats for each year from 1980–81, as reported by local authorities, are in the table. Actual cash receipts in any year will depend on the extent to which the sales were financed by loans from the authorities.
  105

  Local authority

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Taunton Deane

  1,877

  2,596

  1,997

  1,935

  2,200

  2,306

  2,581

  3,889

  6,370

  4,338

  2,042

  West Somerset

  83

  1,507

  2,170

  1,040

  624

  561

  421

  982

  1,692

  999

  516

  Kennet

  642

  832

  2,291

  3,363

  1,575

  1,556

  1,762

  2,835

  5,686

  n/a

  2,086

  North Wiltshire

  680

  2,683

  2,812

  2,585

  2,619

  2,791

  2,691

  3,660

  6,749

  4,473

  1,783

  Salisbury

  0

  2,979

  3,456

  2,524

  2,475

  2,225

  3,041

  3,877

  6,081

  6,720

  n/a

  Thamesdown

  0

  n/a

  9,519

  5,664

  4,586

  4,888

  n/a

  n/a

  12,858

  10,936

  3,706

  West Wiltshire

  2,878

  2,514

  3,042

  n/a

  1,629

  2,863

  4,113

  3,551

  6,296

  3,550

  1,285

  1 Figures shown are as reported by individual authorities.

  Cats
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department offers to land owners and others concerning the control of straying domestic or feral cats.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. I am not aware of any demand for such advice.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltic Gold
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the negotiations with the Baltic states on the Baltic gold.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Talks were held with an Estonian delegation on 7 November; a Latvian delegation on 8 November; and a Lithuanian delegation on 13 November. The discussions were friendly and useful progress was made. In each case it was agreed that a further round of discussions be held soon.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meetings with representatives of Lithuania concerning repayment of the Baltic gold.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the question of the gold when he met President Landsbergis in Blackpool on 8 October. Subsequently talks on the gold and other financial issues were held in London on 13 November with a Lithuanian delegation led by the Lithuanian deputy Foreign Minister. It was agreed that a further meeting be held soon.

  Libya
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans to reopen diplomatic relations with Libya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There are no such plans.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of refugees fleeing Yugoslavia and going into Italy, Hungary and Austria.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A total of 35,000 Yugoslav refugees have registered in Hungary. Between 5,000 and 8,000 106
  refugees are believed to have arrived in Austria. Since there is no visa requirement for Yugoslays travelling to Italy, no figures are available for refugees there.

  Libya
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the numbers of British citizens employed in Libya during the past five years to the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Figures are available only for 1988, 1989 and 1990. We estimate that 5,000 British nationals, including dependants, were living and working in Libya in 1988 and 1989 and around 5,500 in 1990.

  EC Competence
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will veto the extension of EC competence into any areas not directly related to the establishment of the single market.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A number of proposals have been put forward in the intergovernmental conference on political union for extensions of EC competence. We consider them on their merits, but the Government have made clear that a significant increase in competence would be undesirable.

  Media Funding
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 525, if he will place copies of the papers concerning the Morning Star and Pergamon Press in the Library.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We will do so when they have been translated.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are committed to a comprehensive test ban within the context of general and complete disarmament. Because our security will depend for the foreseeable future on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons, we have a continuing need to carry out nuclear tests to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our deterrent.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate
  107
  voted on the draft resolution on a comprehensive test ban treaty (Document A/C. 1/46/L.4) at the United Nations on 11 November.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom abstained on the resolution in the first committee.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards a moratorium on United Kingdom nuclear tests.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have a continuing need to carry out tests to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards a negotiated gradual reduction in the number of nuclear tests worldwide.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  This is primarily a matter for the United States and Soviet Union. The United Kingdom has only a limited test programme.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment of the potential impact of a comprehensive test ban treaty on the futher proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The 1968 non-proliferation treaty—NPT—is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. A comprehensive test ban would not change the policies of those states not parties to the NPT, or prevent certain countries like Iraq who are parties to the treaty from seeking a nuclear capability.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment of the potential impact of a comprehensive test ban treaty on the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  For as long as the United Kingdom's security and that or our allies relies on our possession of a minimal nuclear deterrent, the United Kingdom will have a requirement to carry out tests from time to time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs (Foreign Prisoners)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) men and (b) women who are foreign nationals and are at present serving prison sentences in prisons in England and Wales for conviction for seeking to import illegal drugs into the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information readily available does not distinguish the different types of drugs offence.

  On 30 June 1990, the latest date for which information is available, about 1,090 males and 160 females recorded as foreign nationals were held in prison service establish-ments in England and Wales under sentences for drugs offences.

  Prisoners in Police Accommodation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost(a) to his Department and (b) to police authorities, of holding
  108
  prisoners in police accommodation during the action by prison officers to limit numbers at Cardiff prison (i) as a total to date and (ii) in each month to date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Separate information on the cost of holding Cardiff prisoners in police cells is not collected centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Car Theft (Guidance to Magistrates)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to magistrates on passing those convicted of taking away a motor vehicle without consent to a higher court for sentencing.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The power to commit for sentence does not apply to the current offence of taking a vehicle without consent, which is triable summarily only. We shall shortly bring forward proposals for a new offence of aggravated taking carrying more severe punishment in the Crown court. Magistrates would be able to commit an offender convicted of the new offence to the Crown court for sentence.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the number of crimes committed by individuals granted bail during the last 12 months;

  (2) how many police officers have been injured or assaulted by persons who were on bail at the time of the offence during the last 12 months.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the number of recorded offences committed by persons who were on bail is not available separately.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Parole Board was informed about the case of a prisoner about whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill wrote to the Minister of State in the Home Office on 17 September; and when he expects to receive a reply from the Parole Board.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The case was referred to the Parole Board on 28 October 1991 and is scheduled for consideration on 27 November. I will write to the hon. Member once the outcome is known.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of putting a potential immigrant through a test to determine whether he or she has sufficient knowledge of the English, Welsh, or Gaelic languages.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no language test for potential immigrants. In a small number of cases, it may be necessary to make special inquiries to establish that applicants for naturalisation meet the statutory require-ment to have a sufficient knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language. The cost of these inquiries cannot be separately identified from the cost of other inquiries that are made in particular applications.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning convicted and remand prisoners being kept in police stations because prisons are full; whether he has any immediate plans to reduce the number of prisoners being held in police cells in Leicester; and whether he has any timetable for ending the holding of convicted and remand prisoners in police stations nationwide.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have received a large number of representations from hon. Members and others about this problem. As my hon. Friend has made clear, he has taken a number of steps to reduce the numbers held in police cells, by converting young offender establishments to adult use, deferring the closure of wings, and retaining in use establishments which would otherwise have closed.

  Because the arrangements for holding prisoners in police cells are co-ordinated nationally through the police mutual aid co-ordination centre, it is not possible to predict the effect of these measures on police cells in particular areas. While not being able to predict accurately when the problem will be solved, I can say that I believe the measures taken, together with new prisons opening, will relieve the pressure in the foreseeable future.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on which Acts of Parliament are in force governing which shops and markets may open and what goods may legally be sold on Sundays in England; and who has responsibility for enforcing such Acts.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Part IV of the Shops Act 1950 contains the general prohibition on Sunday trading in England and Wales. It also contains provisions for partial exemption from, and modification to, that general prohibition, and for there to be, in schedules 5, 6 and 7 to the Act, lists of exempted transactions. Special exemptions from the general prohibition are also made in the Tyne and Wear Act 1976 for the Quayside market in Newcastle upon Tyne; in the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 for the national exhibition centre in Birmingham; and in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Acts 1981 and 1983 for exhibitions, trade fairs and conferences held at certain specified premises in Greater London.

  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing this area of the law.

  Street Lighting
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has on the link between the level of crime and poor street lighting.

  Mr. John Patten
  Recent independent research for the Home Office ("The Influence of Street Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime", Crime Prevention Unit paper 28 and "The Effect of Better Street Lighting on Crime and Fear: a Reveiw", Crime Prevention Unit paper 29, both papers published in August 1991 and copies available in the Library) has shown that good street lighting is helpful in reducing the fear of crime but has little effect on crime itself, except perhaps in small localised spots where 110
  lighting is particularly inadequate. Other research has shown that it can also, in some cases, reduce the incidence of anti-social behaviour.

  Personation
  Mr. Brando-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the guidelines to presiding officers at polling stations in order to minimise the risk of personation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Revised and updated Home Office guidance for acting returning officers was issued in September of this year. If my hon. Friend is aware of a particular problem with regard to personation, perhaps he would consider writing to me about it.

  Retailers (Crime)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of annual retail turnover lost through unauthorised entry to premises by retailers in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the percentage lost by similar crime from retailers in other EC countries.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is estimated that retailers lose some 2 per cent. of turnover annually through the disappearance of stock. This loss includes thefts of all descriptions; the proportion attributable to unauthorised entry is not known and cannot be ascertained.

  Information about losses elsewhere in the EC is not available.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for spending by the Metropolitan police on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: I understand from the Commissioner that expenditure by the Metropolitan police on all forms of recruitment and other advertising, and other promotional material in each financial year since 1979–80 is as follows (it is not possible to give separate spending figures for the years before 1987–88):

  £

  1979–80

  759,000

  1980–81

  967,000

  1981–82

  1,062,000

  1982–83

  1,028,000

  1983–84

  1,675,000

  1984–85

  1,747,000

  1985–86

  1,868,000

  1986–87

  2,269,000

  Television advertising £

  Radio advertising £

  Newspaper advertising £

  Other promotional literature £

  1987–88

  —

  3,000

  1,,722,000

  1,111,000

  1988–89

  —

  6,000

  1,881,000

  1,258,000

  1989–90

  472,000

  15,000

  1,660,000

  663,000

  111

  Television advertising £

  Radio advertising £

  Newspaper advertising £

  Other promotional literature £

  1990–91

  683,000

  59,000

  1,065,000

  1,322,000

  11991–92

  200,000

  66,000

  1,110,000

  1,852,000

  1 Estimated out-turn.

  Decisions on expenditure for 1992–93 have yet to be settled.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by the Metropolitan police on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding 5 November 1991]: I understand from the Commissioner that expenditure on staff and accommodation costs of the directorate of public affairs, and on recruitment and other advertising and other promotional literature, in each financial year since 1985–86 and estimate expenditure for 1991–92 are as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  3,622,861

  1986–87

  4,444,103

  1987–88

  4,555,000

  1988–89

  5,475,000

  1989–90

  5,366,000

  1990–91

  5,921,000

  11991–92

  6,274,000

  1 Estimated out-turn.

  Information for the years prior to 1985–86 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Decisions on expenditure for 1992–93 have yet to be settled.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Education Expenditure
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the percentage element of central Government support in local education authority expenditure for each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Eggar
  The bulk of central Government support for local authority expenditure is channelled through revenue support grant, which is not hypothecated to individual services. Latest available published data suggest that specific and special grants to local authorities falling within the Department of Education and Science programme have accounted for the following percentages of local authority recurrent education spending:

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  6

  1980–81

  7

  1981–82

  7

  1982–83

  6

  1983–84

  6

  1984–85

  6

  1985–86

  6

  1986–87

  5

  1987–88

  6

  1988–89

  6

  112

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  17

  1990–91

  19

  1 estimated

  Expenditure by local authorities on education is also supported by grants within the programmes of a range of other Government departments, including grants made under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, the urban programme, the technical and vocational education initiative, and the work-related further education programme.

  Health Care
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science is he will make it his policy to include individual self health care in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's policy is to secure that young people are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to promote their immediate and long-term good health. To that end, aspects of health education are already included, wherever relevant, in a number of national curriculum foundation subjects.

  Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will publish the final report of the Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The final report of the Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils is published today, covering the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991. The board's responsibilities were transferred to the Universities Funding Council and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on 1 April this year.

  The computer board's remit was to:

  —assist United Kingdom universities in keeping at the forefront of information systems (IS) developments in support of their academic research;

  —promote innovation, sound practice and value for money in the provision and use of information systems; and

  —foster universities' interaction on IS matters with the wider academic and research community.

  I pay tribute to the computer board's achievements over the past 25 years. Thanks to the board, the use of computers in the universities is now spread extensively over all subject areas. Before it began its work it was the preserve of only a few specialists.

  The board's vital contribution to this process was in helping and encouraging the universities to develop information systems strategies while also taking account of the rapid pace of technological change, initiating developments and promoting sound procurement procedures.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to lay before parliament the annual report of the Agricultural and Food Research Council for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.
  113
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The annual report of the Agricultural and Food Research Council—AFRC—has been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend as required by the Science and Technology Act 1965. A copy is being placed in the House today.

  During the period covered by the report a new chairman, Mr. Alistair Grant, and a new director general, Professor Thomas Blundell FRS, have been appointed to the council.

  I am pleased that the AFRC has continued to make notable achievements under their leadership. For example, scientists at its Institute of Plant Science Research have identified and isolated a single plant gene which controls the development of flowers—the most productive part of the plant and also the source of grain, fruit and seed for propagation. Research on seed oils is providing new options for industry, including use of enzymes to upgrade low value oils and expansion of the industrial use of oilseed crops in the manufacture of plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals.

  In 1990–91, the AFRC launched a new £9 million programme over four years on the biology of spongiform encephalopathies, involving seven universities, including an award to the AFRC centre for genome research in Edinburgh, the AFRC institute of animal health and the joint AFRC/M RC neuropathogenesis unit. A FRC scientists are also co-ordinating a 1·2 million ecu programme, involving 16 laboratories in eight European countries, to produce a genetic map of the pig. This will allow breeders to identify genes that determine commercially important traits, such as temperament, litter size and meat quality, and will greatly advance livestock breeding programmes. AFRC's scientists are participating in more than 50 EC co-ordinated programmes and the council has signed a five-year memorandum of understanding with its Dutch counterpart and has commenced a programme of joint research fellowships with its French counterpart.

  I congratulate the council on these and numerous other achievements.

  Science Budget
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science what rates of inflation he has applied in estimating the real increases in the science budget over the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend used the forecast Treasury GDP deflators of 4·5 per cent. for 1992–93, 3·75 per cent. for 1993–94 and 3 per cent. for 1994–95 announced in the 1991 autumn statement.

  Women's Institutes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from women's institutes concerning their responses to the White Paper on education and training for the 21st century; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a large number of such representations. I met representatives of the National Federation of Women's Institutes on 31 October.

  Science Policy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what preparations have been made by his Department to make an input on science policy for the 21st century, to the United Nations conference on environment and development in June 1992.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department and the research councils are providing input to the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's preparation for the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Global Science Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department will be represented at the ASCEND 21 global science conference organised in Vienna on 24 to 29 November by the International Council of Scientific Unions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The ASCEND 21 global science conference in Vienna, attendance at which is by personal invitation to scientific experts, will be attended by 12 scientists from the United Kingdom, including a member of the Natural Environment Research Council and three members of its staff.

  Higher Education
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he proposes to ensure parity of treatment for students in higher education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The higher education funding councils, set up under the Further and Higher Education Bill now before Parliament, will be required to eliminate unjustified differences in funding methodologies between universities, polytechnics and colleges, while safeguarding the best of the distinctive missions of individual institutions.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all local education authorities in rank order by percentage change of total pupil numbers for each of the last three years giving in each instance the percentage change for each authority in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) 16 to 18 years age groups.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on the percentage change of full-time equivalent pupil numbers, in each of the age groups requested, within each local education authority and the rank order of each local education authority in England for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991—provisional—has been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Local Government Finance Bill
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what effect he estimates the proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill will have on inward migration into Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I do not expect that the Local Government Finance Bill will have any material effect on the pattern of migration.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of new dwellings constructed in Wales in each of the past 10 years by(a) councils and (b) housing associations.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Annual data from 1975 to 1990 were published in table 2.3 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 11, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  TECs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the chairmen of training and enterprise councils to discuss their budget plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have regular meetings with the TEC chairmen in Wales and arrangements are being made for our next meeting at which a range of issues will be discussed.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will propose initiatives amongst the young males in Wales who are unemployed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are providing a wide range of employment and training programmes focused on both young men and women. All those under 18 not in full-time education or training are guaranteed the offer of a training place, recruitment into employment training affords priority to those aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months, and the employment action scheme enables the unemployed to contribute their skills and efforts to work of value for their area while at the same time gaining work experience. The training and enterprise councils are tailoring these schemes to local labour market and are also able to introduce their own initiatives to meet the needs of young people in their areas. In addition the Employment Service has a range of measures to help young people into work.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, since 1988, any auditing firms have been criticised in more than two DTI inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. Once such firm has been criticised in more than two inspectors' reports published since 1988.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has plans to propose legislation under which companies would be required to publish the fees paid to auditors for recruitment of company executives.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any staff from accountancy firms criticised by his Department's inspectors are currently seconded to his Department.
  116
  Mr. Redwood
  The Department currently has one secondee who is a staff member of an accountancy firm which has been criticised in a published inspector's report during the period since June 1979. A further two secondees are from an accountancy firm, the predecessors of which have been criticised.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to propose legislation under which all political donations by any company would require a specific resolution at the annual general meeting.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. There is a general requirement in the Companies Acts for directors' reports to disclose the amount and beneficiary of any money given for political purposes exceeding in aggregate £200. This report must be circulated to all shareholders before the annual general meeting. Shareholders may then comment on the donations and put down resolutions on them in the same way as they can for other aspects of the management of the company's funds. In the Government's view this gives shareholders sufficient protection.

  AGIP (Africa)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the inquiries he has conducted into the AGIP (Africa) affair.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not our practice to confirm or deny the existence of Companies Act inquiries in relation to a particular case unless there has been an announcement of an investigation.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rights the public has under the terms under which he has given recognition to the supervisory bodies(a) to know the findings of the bodies' monitoring activities and (b) to require the bodies to investigate complaints against auditing firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  The recognised supervisory bodies' monitoring reports on individual auditing firms are intended to be internal documents. However, I understand that the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants proposes to include in its annual report a report of its monitoring unit, and the other bodies are considering what information to publish. It was a precondition for recognition that the supervisory bodies had effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints, details of which are readily available from the bodies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to propose legislation under which any member of the public will have a right to know shortcomings in auditing firms discovered by the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will propose legislation under which the Accounting Standards Board will be required to open all its meetings to the public.
  117
  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Fraud, Tenerife
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make representations to the Spanish Government over the alleged fraud which has led to the forthcoming foreclosure of 101 apartments on the Parque Don Jose, Costa Del Sileneis, Tenerife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I sympathise with the owners of the apartments at Parque Don Jose, but I believe that the applicable contracts are subject to Spanish law in which case neither the United Kingdom Government nor English law has any jurisdiction. Even if the contract was subject to English law. in so far as this is a civil dispute between purchasers and the developers, it would be for the civil courts to resolve. If an allegation of fraud or other criminal activity is involved it would be a matter for the police. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to make representations to the Spanish Government.

  Hostile Bids
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what period he will allow for negotiation of undertakings relating to a hostile bid under section 75G of the Fair Trading Act 1973 as amended in 1989 to protect the public need for relevant information.

  Mr. Redwood
  The timetable established for negotiating undertakings under section 75G of the Fair Trading Act 1973 will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. The Secretary of State will wish to secure undertakings as soon as practicable while ensuring that third parties are given a reasonable opportunity to comment on what might be appropriate to remedy the adverse effects expected to arise from the merger situation.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the degree of proof a hostile bidder under section 75G of the Fair Trading Act 1973 as amended in 1989 must provide to satisfy him that assets acquired in a hostile bid will be sold to avoid a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  Undertakings given by a company under section 75G of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to divest or separate part of a merged business in lieu of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are enforceable in the courts. Alternatively, the Secretary of State may make an order to remedy the expected adverse effects of the merger when it appears to him that an undertaking has not been or will not be fulfilled.

  Footwear
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken and intends to take to discourage foreign manufacturers producing fraudulent imitations of United Kingdom manufacturers' footwear products.

  Mr. Redwood
  Our legislation provides effective remedies against the sale of counterfeit goods in the United Kingdom. The Government also recognise the importance of discouraging international trade in counterfeit goods. One of their chief objectives in the 118
  current GATT Uruguay round negotiations on trade-related aspects of intellectual property is to achieve strengthened multilateral rules for combating trade in counterfeit goods, which should be of benefit to all sectors of United Kingdom manufacturing.

  Political Risk Insurance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that political risk insurance is readily available to British exporters on terms which enable them to compete on equal terms with their overseas competitors.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade during the debate on the Lords Amendments to the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill on 22 October,Official Report columns 815–17, in which he described the two forms of reinsurance which the Government, through ECGD, will provide to the insurance services business after the latter's privatisation.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the resignation of the chief executive of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, Mr. Malcolm Stephens.

  Mr. Lilley
  Mr. Stephens will be leaving ECGD later this year to take up the post of chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce. I should like to record my gratitude for his effective and professional leadership of ECGD over the last four and a half years. I wish him well in his new career in the chamber movement, to which the Government attach great importance.

  Astra plc
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date, on what grounds, and by reference to which section of legislation he referred problems at Astra plc to his inspectors; if he will name the inspectors involved in this investigation; and when he expects the inspectors to report.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following an application by the company, Colin Percy Farquharson Rimer QC and John White FCA, were appointed inspectors on 16 August 1990 under section 431(2)(c) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of the company. My right hon. Friend has asked them to look in particular at the events surrounding the rights issue by the company in July 1989. The inspectors are making good progress, but I cannot say when they will complete their report.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals to help stimulate investment in films; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  A working party, chaired by my Department, is looking at ways of increasing private sector investment in film production in the United Kingdom. It will report to me when it has completed its work.

  Industrial Policy
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet representatives of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional CBI to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional CBI, but officials of my Department keep in touch with them on a wide range of business matters. I met a large number of CBI representatives when I attended their national conference on 4 November 1991.

  Relocation Assistance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he carries out of the financial viability of companies before providing them with relocation assistance.

  Mr. Redwood
  Grants are not normally made available by my Department solely for the purposes of relocation. Where such a case may qualify for regional selective assistance, a financial appraisal of the commercial prospects of the company would be undertaken to enable a judgment to be made about the viability of the business, before any offer of grant is considered. A simplified appraisal is used for smaller value cases.

  Copenhagen Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department was invited to participate in the conference on ecologically sustainable industrial development in Copenhagen on 14 to 18 October 1991.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes, my Department was represented. I will place a copy of the conference's report in the House Library as soon as possible.

  UN Environment Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make it his policy to put forward proposals for the promotion of hand tools as part of a strategy for appropriate technological support to the United Nations conference on environment and develop-ment to be held in June 1992;

  (2) what preparations have been made by his Department to make an input on business, trade and technology issues for the United Nations conference on environment and development in June 1992.

  Mr. Lilley
  I draw the hon. Member's attention to the report "Global Climate Change: the Role of Technology Transfer" which was prepared for UNCED by Touche Ross and funded jointly by my Department and the Overseas Development Administration. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  This report aimed to offer a constructive contribution to UNCED's discussions on technology transfer in the context of climate change. I am pleased to say it has been well received by delegates to the preparatory meetings for UNCED and has helped focus on this subject in a positive way.
  120
  One of the findings of the report emphasises the importance of appropriate technologies reflecting the different technological needs, abilities and circumstances of developing countries.

  Officials in my Department have also established contact with the Business Council for Sustainable Development—BCSD—the body set up by Mr. Maurice Strong, secretary-general to UNCED, to provide the business input to UNCED. Links have also been established between BCSD and the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment set up by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, and myself.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 61, how many Post Office Crown branch offices in (a) Great Britain and (b) South Wales are currently in each of the three categories A, B and C specified by Post Office Counters.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding 18 November 1991]: The numbers of Crown post offices currently in categories A, B and C in (a) Britain and (b) South Wales Counters district are as follows:

  A

  B

  C

  Britain

  484

  430

  161

  South Wales

  20

  12

  The categories A, B and C referred to represent very broad sizing guidelines indicating large, medium-sized and small offices respectively. As such, the number in each category should not be regarded as hard and fast.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Single European Act
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for copies of the Single European Act to be available at the Vote Office ahead of the debate on 20 November.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Copies of the Single European Act were placed in the House Library on a Command Paper basis—Cm 372—in 1988.

  I understand that copies will also be placed in the Vote Office in advance of the debate. Members can, of course, also order a copy from HMSO on a "green form" basis.

  Empty Offices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many offices are currently empty in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Thirteen.

  Members' Offices
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. and right hon. Members now have a single office; and when he expects that all hon. and right hon. Members will be so provided for.
  121
  Mr. MacGregor
  As a result of the occupation of No. 1 Parliament street, 334 Members now have single offices either in the Palace of Westminster or one of the parliamentary outbuildings. A small number of additional offices will become available next year following the conversion of accommodation in Speaker's Court. The objective of providing a single office for each Member who wants one will be fulfilled on completion of phase 2 of the new parliamentary building. It is impossible to predict with any accuracy at this stage when this will be achieved, since to a large extent progress on this building is dependent on progress in the construction of London Underground's new Westminster station. The new parliamentary building will certainly not be ready for occupation before 1996.

  Contracts of Employment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to publish the names of those hon. Members who have not issued a contract of employment to any of their staff paid from the office costs allowance.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No.

  Medical Facilities
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to increase medical facilities within Parliament for the benefit of hon. Members and their staffs.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding 18 November 1991]: The Houses of Parliament occupational health service was established on 1 March 1991. It is being run by a full-time occupational health manager with assistance from a full-time nurse. The manager is qualified in occupational health and St. Thomas's hospital are providing medical back-up and the services of a part-time occupational health physician.

  The aim of the service is to provide general health care and to promote and maintain the highest attainable standards of occupational health in the two Houses. The Members' medical surveillance scheme, which has operated for a number of years, continues unchanged.

  There are at present no plans to increase on these arrangements, which have only recently been introduced.

EMPLOYMENT

  Skills Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what meetings he has had with staff of the former skills training agencies sold to TICC Ltd. and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I met representatives of the staff and trade unions on 30 September 1991.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department proposes to take with regard to the former employees of TICC Skill Centres Ltd. and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  With the completion of the sale of the Skills Training Agency in May 1990, all the operating 122
  businesses passed to the private sector and their subsequent activities have not been a matter for the Government. However, we are aware of the position of former civil servants employed by TICC Ltd. and am currently considering the representations made to the Department by TICC's staff and their trade union.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 constituencies with the lowest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  For areas with different sized work forces, such as parliamentary constituencies, the only meaningful comparisons are based on unemployment rates. These are not available at the level of parliamentary constituencies.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the up-to-date figures of recruitment of health and safety inspectors over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the year ended 1 November 1991 a total of 171 inspectors were recruited by the Health and Safety Executive. A further 63 joined the organisation with the transfers of responsibility for offshore and railway safety.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the number of jobs lost to the United Kingdom by outward divestment or the export of British jobs to overseas countries, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am not aware of any such assessment.

  Co-operatives (Aid)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the organisations which have received or are to receive pump-priming cash or other grant aid from his Department in order to help develop co-operatives.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has agreed to provide pump priming support for the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. A number of other proposals are under consideration at present for development funding.

  Co-operative ventures and other organisations in-volved with the co-operative sector can also receive assistance indirectly from the Department through the training and enterprise councils or local enterprise companies, bodies such as the Prince's Youth Business Trust and a range of Government initiatives available for small businesses.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to reintroduce section 4 grants in England to fund tourism-related projects; how many representations he has had over the withdrawal of section 4 grants; what consultations he has had with the British Tourist Authority regarding section 4 grants; and if he will make a statement.
  123
  Mr. Jackson
  No. Funding for the section 4 scheme in England was withdrawn in 1989 because of doubts about its value and effectiveness. Nothing since the scheme's suspension has given cause to believe that its reintroduction in England would be justified.

  The Department has on occasions, received representa-tions in support of reintroducing some form of financial assistance for tourism projects. The British Tourist Authority has not offered any comment on the withdrawal of funding for the section 4 scheme in England.

  Shoe Repairing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide and encourage improved training provision for the shoe repairing industry.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provision of training is primarily the responsibility of employers, but Employment Department funding is being provided to support youth training and employment training in the shoe repairing industry. The Department is also helping the industry to define and meet its training needs by promoting more effective industry training organisation arrangements. Funding is also being provided for the development of vocational qualifications in shoe repair.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will expand the wages inspectorate.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. The wages inspectorate has adequate resources to enforce wages council orders effectively.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, whether any items have been accepted in lieu of tax and allocated so far in the present Session.

  Mr. Renton
  Since my announcement on 25 July, at column 794, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), I am pleased to inform the House that an offer of English porcelain has been accepted in lieu of £77,000 tax. The porcelain was offered on condition that it be allocated to the Fitzwilliam museum, Cambridge and it has, therefore, been allocated to that institution.

HEALTH

  AIDS
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funds are currently being paid to the Health Education Authority for AIDS awareness campaigns;

  (2) how much expenditure on AIDS awareness is targeted at ethnic minorities;

  (3) how much money is paid yearly by the Health Education Authority to the National AIDS Trust and upon what conditions as to the following of an equal opportunities policy by the National AIDS Trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the current financial year the Health Education Authority (HEA) has been allocated 124
  £9·5 million to carry forward AIDS mass media campaigns in the United Kingdom and for supporting AIDS educational work in England.

  Of this sum £640,000 has been allocated to media, project and research work directed at ethnic minorities. In addition, health authorities have been asked to give priority attention to the HIV educational needs of ethnic minorities in developing local HIV prevention work.

  Funding to the National AIDS Trust (NAT) is for specific projects, as follows:

  £

  1990–92 NAT young people's initiative and 46,000 publication of a report

  46,000

  1991–93 Funding over three years for the NAT HIV/AIDS women's project

  105,000

  The HEA has also provided £3,139 in the current year to assist the NAT in co-ordinating the United Kingdom response to world AIDS day on 1 December.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the HEA direct for information about equal opportunities policy.

  Manual Lifting Injuries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees in the NHS suffered manual lifting injuries in 1988–89; and how many suffered manual lifting injuries in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally by the Department.

  Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1986, all employers, including the national health service, are required to report certain types of industrial injuries to the Health and Safety Executive. Data of a limited and broadly classified nature are maintained by the executive in respect of those manual handling injuries reported to them.

  Census
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many breaches of security occurred in collecting the 1991 census data; how many of these were by individual census numerators; how many were after the individual enumerator had passed on this information to the district co-ordinators; and how many individuals' census files were subject to security failures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the 109,700 enumeration districts in England and Wales, in which some 20 million forms were collected, 24 incidents have been reported where there were actual or potential breaches of confidentiality of census documents. In eight of these incidents forms were stolen from enumerators or collected by people impersonating enumerators. Fourteen incidents were due to errors made by field staff. One incident occurred as forms were in transit between the local census officer and the census office, as a result of which two forms are missing, believed destroyed. In the remaining incident one enumeration record book containing addresses for an enumeration district was lost in the post. The total number of census forms involved was 253, of which 121 were recovered. Of the remainder, 117 were stolen or fraudulently collected and 15 are unaccounted for.
  125
  There have been no breaches of confidentiality of census documents since the forms were delivered to the census office.

  Two further incidents are under investigation, involving the alleged passing by census staff of details on other census staff to third parties.

  Disablement Services Authorities
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department will reimburse health authorities for their expenditure in meeting the unpaid bills passed to them from the Disablement Services Authority when it was disbanded in April 1991;

  (2) how much of its unspent budget for the year 1990–91 the Disablement Services Authority returned for the year 1990–91 to the Department; when the Disablement Services Authority requested the money to be returned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Disablement Services Authority notified the Department in February 1991 of a forecast cash underspend of some £5 million on its income and expenditure account for 1990–91. That sum was transferred from class XIII, vote 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—which included provision for the authority, to class XIII, vote 1—hospital and community health services, family health services (part) and other services (England)—in the revised spring supplementary estimates presented on 28 February 1991.

  In late March 1991, the authority notified the Department that it had received invoices which it wished to settle prior to its dissolution. The sum of £1 million was made available to the authority to assist it to settle some of those accounts.

  In August 1991 health authorities were allocated some £3 million to meet unpaid bills inherited from the authority that extended beyond the normal period of credit. This is in addition to the £111 million revenue resources allocated to health authorities in 1991–92 for disablement services.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service patients were receiving kidney dialysis at the latest date for which figures are available; what proportion of these are aged 70 years or over; and what are the comparable figures for the private sector.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally. According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association the total number of people receiving dialysis in the United Kingdom as at 31 December 1990 was 8,857. At the end of 1989 there was one such patient over the age of 70 years for every 13 under that age.

  Back Pain and Injury
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the number of working days lost to the national health service each year through back pain or back injury;

  (2) what is the total amount paid out in terms of damages by the national health service to staff who have suffered back pain or back injury;
  126
  (3) what are the sickness absence costs to the national health service of back pain or back injury to staff in terms of (a) sick pay and (b) additional staffing costs to cover for sickness absence;

  (4) what percentage of sickness absence in the national health service is due to back pain or back injury;

  (5) what is the cost to the national health service of treating national health service staff who are off work temporarily or permanently due to back pain or back injury.

  (6) how many staff leave the national health service each year due to back pain or back injury.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the incidence of cross-infection in general dental surgeries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has issued guidance on various occasions since the publication of the report of the Expert Advisory Group on Hepatitis in Dentistry in 1979. The chief dental officer wrote to all general dental practitioners on the subject in April 1986 and May 1988. In addition, the general principles of cross-infection control have been outlined in the publication "Guidance for Clinical Health Care Workers", a copy of which is available in the Library. The Department also contributed to the British Dental Association's revised guidance on cross-infection control. The Department regularly considers the question of further guidance on cross-infection control in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the regulation to empower family health service authorities to inspect general dental surgeries will include the provision for financial penalties and disciplinary action when such surgeries expose their patients to unacceptable risks from cross-infection.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The terms of service under which dental practitioners provide general dental services under the NHS already make it clear that they must employ proper skill and attention, provide suitable equipment, and provide treatment with suitable instruments for their patients. A dentist found to have acted in breach of his terms of service is vulnerable to sanctions which may be imposed by the family health service authority.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of those hospitals providing paediatric emergency dental services staffed by the community dental service.

  Mr. Dorrell: This information is not held centrally.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out by his Department into the effect of the fluoridation of drinking water on the level of morbidity in human populations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A number of studies have been undertaken on behalf of the Department into major causes of morbidity in relation to fluoridation of drinking water.
  127
  These include tuberculosis, cancers, cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, peptic ulcers, renal disease, congenital malformations, thyroid disease and musculo-skeletal disorders. These, and other authoritative reviews of the extensive worldwide scientific literature, have found no evidence to show that fluoridation has any adverse effect on health.

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of patients from Wales treated at Liverpool's St. Paul's eye hospital in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Michael Emberton, the chairman of Liverpool health authority, for details.

  Rehabilitation Consultants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants in rehabilitation medicine were appointed, and salaries ring-fenced, by the Disablement Services Authority; how many are still in post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest figures available show that, by 30 September 1990, 11 consultants in rehabilitation medicine had been appointed and are still in post. The remainder of these 40 newly created posts were expected to be filled by the middle of 1991, mainly by medical officers working within disablement services. Resources for disablement services are ring-fenced within total health authority cash limits for the two years, 1991–92 to 1992–93; salary costs for consultants in rehabilitation medicine are included within these ring-fenced allocations.

  Hospital Social Work
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will issue guidelines to local authorities about appropriate levels of service for hospital social work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responsibility for providing social work services to hospitals rests with local authorities under arrangements established in 1974. Local authority circular LAC(91)14 and NHS executive letter EL(91)122 issued in October clarified the position. Copies are available in the Library.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the progress of the social services inspectorate's inspection of social care to NHS patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The inspection process is underway. Fieldwork in five local authorities in England is due to be completed in February 1992 and a report subsequently prepared.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making on establishing agreements about funding hospital social work services in London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has completed a pilot exercise to provide information about the provision of health-related social work services by local authorities to non-residents. The outcome will be discussed with the Local Authority Associations at the end of November.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that high-quality hospital social work services are part of the community care plans currently being drawn up by local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An integral part of local authorities community care plans will be their plans for health-related social work. This was made clear in local authority circular LAC(91)14, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospital Appointments
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures setting out the number of patients who failed to attend national health service hospitals after being granted firm appointments region by region for the year to March 1991.
  130
  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of patients who did not attend for appointment at consultant out-patient and general practitioner maternity clinics in 1990–91 (provisional), national health service hospitals England

  Regional health authority

  Referral attendances

  Consultant initiated attendances

  Total

  Northern

  65,910

  286,097

  352,007

  Yorkshire

  75,375

  317,241

  392,616

  Trent

  89,454

  372,723

  462,177

  East Anglian

  28,180

  103,063

  131,243

  North West Thames

  96,052

  317,434

  413,486

  North East Thames

  129,985

  434,484

  564,469

  South East Thames

  106,784

  337,209

  443,993

  South West Thames

  52,202

  178,227

  230,429

  Wessex

  45,156

  158,850

  204,006

  Oxford

  40,024

  144,700

  184,724

  South Western

  47,067

  164,700

  211,767

  West Midlands

  109,552

  449,860

  559,412

  Mersey

  69,520

  261,015

  330,535

  North Western

  120,796

  452,390

  573,186

  Special health authorities

  18,854

  94,184

  113,038

  Total

  1,094,911

  4,072,177

  5,167,088

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the length of time that patients have to wait for radiotherapy at(a) Newcastle general hospital and (b) other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will outline the steps he intends to take to improve the position for patients who urgently need treatment in the area served by this hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on waiting times for individual hospitals is not held centrally. Information for regional health authorities can be obtained from the "Hospital In-patient Waiting Lists England at 31 March 1991", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimate for community care services provided jointly by the health authorities and local authorities for 1991–92 to attend to the needs of the mentally handicapped and the mentally disabled transferred into the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about joint funding by health and local authorities of community care services is not collected centrally. We do however have figures for joint finance and dowry expenditure for 1989–90. In that year, health and local authority joint finance expenditure on services for people with learning disabilities and for people with mental illness was £60·4 million and £14·5 million respectively on revenue and £9·4 million and £0·8 million respectively on capital (England only; no capital figures for eight local authorities). Health authority dowry payments to local authorities for people with learning disabilities and for people with mental illness were £1·2 million and £12·3 million respectively (England only). Joint finance and dowry arrangements are described in HC(83)6, HC(84)9 and HN(86)11 copies of which are available in the Library.

  Cot Deaths
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice is now given to parents on the avoidance of cot deaths; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what progress is being made in reducing the incidence of cot deaths.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 15 November 1991, c. 681–82]: To reinforce the advice on reducing the risk of cot deaths which has already been sent to all doctors, midwives, health visitors and other professionals concerned with the care of young babies, the Government are arranging an information campaign aimed directly at mothers and others who care for young babies. This will be led by advertising next month in the national and specialist press which invites people to obtain a leaflet setting out the main steps to be taken to reduce the risk of cot deaths. This leaflet—also available in ethnic languages—will in addition be widely distributed, for instance to doctors' surgeries, maternity units and public libraries. The intention is that the leaflet can be retained for reference by families with young babies.

  Racial Equality
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many decisions have been taken by industrial tribunals that health authorities have discriminated against black employees or job applicants.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1 April this year, 38 decisions have been promulgated for cases brought under the Race Relations Act 1976 against health authorities. There were no successful applications amongst them.

SCOTLAND

  Foresterhill Hospital
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Foresterhill hospital's trust application.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is presently considering the application and expects to make an announcement soon.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to tackle the problem of violent crime in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The detection and prevention of violent crime is given a high priority by police forces throughout Scotland. The Government continue to provide substantial resources to assist the police in maintaining law and order: since 1979 police expenditure has risen by more than 50 per cent. in real terms. The Government will also continue to ensure that an adequate range of penalties is available to the courts to deal with all crimes and offences, including those involving violence.

  Hospital Services, Skye
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the future of Gesto hospital, Edinbane, Isle of Skye.
  132
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for Highland health board.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds are available for the care of the elderly in Skye; and what is their occupancy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the year ended 30 June 1991 there were, on average, 28 staffed national health service beds available for the care of the elderly. The occupancy rate was 60·7 per cent.

  Incinerator (Granton)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from community groups or individuals about the proposed erection of an incinerator by the Lothian Chemical Company at Granton foreshore, Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the last three months, representations about the proposed incinerator have been received from six individuals. Over the same period, none has been received from community groups.

  An application by Lothian Chemical Company for the registration of an incinerator at its Granton works is currently being considered by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. In determining the application, account will be taken not only of the steps to be taken by the company to control emissions from the proposed plant, but of the representations made by members of the public about the application.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new money will be made available to education authorities in Scotland to promote partnerships between the careers service and local employers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend expects to issue shortly further details about the development of partnerships between the Careers Service and local enterprise companies in Scotland.

  Civil Actions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to provide a substantive response to the letter of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to the Lord Advocate, dated 30 October, concerning the legal right of an individual to raise a civil action in the High Court; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has today written to the hon. Member in response to his letter dated 30 October.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in Scotland for which management agreements are currently being negotiated, giving details of the damage threatened in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding 18 November]: The information requested is confidential to the parties.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Norwich Office (Closure)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had regarding the closure of his Department's office in Norwich; and if he will make it his policy to review the closure decision.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has received representations, principally from staff representatives, about the future of the Norwich office. It sees no cause to review its decision to transfer grant and subsidy processing and other services from Norwich to a new regional service centre at Cambridge. The Norwich office will continue to provide a base for Ministry field officers and ADAS staff, as well as serving as an animal health office.

  Stilton Cheese
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for the naming of Stilton cheese if the Council of Ministers accepts the Borgo report.

  Mr. Gummer
  The report of the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development on the Commission's proposal for a council regulation on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (the Borgo report) has not yet been considered by the plenary session of the European Parliament. It remains unclear whether the Commission's original proposal or the recommendations of the Borgo report, if acceptable, would have any effect on the naming of Stilton or whether Stilton producers would be able to seek protection for the name Stilton under the terms of the proposed regulation, since Stilton cheese is not produced in Stilton.

  However, Stilton is already protected by a registered trade mark belonging to the Stilton Cheesemakers' Association, and can be used to describe only a product made in the three counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire, which do not encompass the village of Stilton. Under the Commission proposals as they now stand, it would not be possible to register a geographical name which conflicts with a registered trade mark.

  Poultry Farms
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the reports by departmental veterinary officers on matters relating to hygiene on poultry farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  Reports prepared by my Department's veterinary officers about hygiene on individual poultry farms are confidential and the details are not published. Information about diseases in animals including poultry are contained in such publications as the report of the chief veterinary officer, "Animal Health 1990".

  Milk
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much he expects the United Kingdom's national milk quota for the current year to be exceeded; and if he will make a statement.
  134
  Mr. Curry
  Experience of previous years suggests that production is likely to exceed quota by a small margin.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish hygiene-related reports on slaughterhouses within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities—district councils—are responsible for the enforcement of hygiene standards in slaughterhouses and it is for individual authorities to decide whether or not to publish related reports.

  As announced on 3 April this year, agriculture departments will take over responsibility for licensing all slaughterhouses in Great Britain when new EC rules come into force on 1 January 1993. My ministerial colleagues and I are considering what information should be made publicly available when we assume this responsibility.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of clenbuterol; and if he will make it his policy to press for a Community ban on this product.

  Mr. Maclean
  Clenbuterol is the active ingredient within three veterinary products licensed in the United Kingdom for use on prescription to treat respiratory and calving disorders in cattle and horses. I have no plans to press for a Community ban as this would unreasonably put a stop to such legitimate use.

  I am aware of reports from other member states of the illegal use of this substance as a repartitioning agent but we have no evidence of unauthorised use of clenbuterol in Great Britain at present. Nevertheless tighter controls on such substances will be introduced within the next few weeks. Interested parties have already been consulted about these measures, which amongst other things will enable animals and carcases found to contain residues of illegally administered beta agonists, including clenbuterol, to be condemned as unfit for human consumption.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and by what mechanism he proposes to implement Council directives 71/118 on trade in fresh poultrymeat and 89/662 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade.

  Mr. Maclean
  EC directive 71/118, on trade in fresh poultry meat, was implemented in England and Wales by the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (as amended). Similar regulations were introduced in Scotland (also in 1976) and in Northern Ireland (in 1977). Detailed discussions on a range of issues arising out of the directives on veterinary checks are still on-going in Brussels. As a result mechanisms for implementation in this country of directive 89/662, which comes into force on 1 July 1992, are still under consideration.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what advice he has received from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment regarding the use of canthaxanthin; and if he will make it his policy to ban canthaxanthin in commercial egg production.
  135
  Mr. Maclean
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has advised that the use of canthaxanthin in animal feeds should be discontinued. The United Kingdom has urged a prohibition on its use in feed in the EC. The Commission's export committees have advised that a decision should be made when further test data are available late next year.

  I have accepted this position given that any effects on consumers from intake of canthaxanthin would only occur over a long period of time and are not of an acute toxicological nature. I also understand that the use of canthaxanthin in poultry feed has declined recently.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many evaluations of pesticides under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 have been published; how many products await evaluation; and whether he intends to publish all evaluations of pesticide products.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since the introduction of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, a total of 41 evaluation documents have been published for new and reviewed pesticides. There are at present 54 new pesticide active ingredients that are awaiting approval, 19 of which are currently under evaluation. Evaluations will be published for each of these as and when approvals are granted. Evaluations will also be published on further pesticides considered by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides as part of the reviews programme. When an evaluation is issued the data underlying the published evaluation are available for public scrutiny on application to the registration authorities.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his review of the farm woodland scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  On 23 July I announced that the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I were undertaking a comprehensive review of the farm woodland scheme and that pending the outcome of the review we would continue to accept applications under the existing rules of the scheme until 31 March 1992. We have now completed the review and we announced on 6 November, in the context of the Government's public expenditure plans, that a successor to the farm woodland scheme, to be called the farm woodland premium scheme, will be introduced on 1 April 1992.

  The new arrangements will offer increased grants for planning woodland and higher incentives to encourage farmers to convert land now in agricultural use to woodland. The aim is to enhance the farmed landscape and environment and provide a productive land use alternative to agriculture. It will also be very much easier for farmers to understand and simpler to operate than the current scheme. Detailed proposals for the new scheme have been drawn up and are being sent to the main interested organisations for comment. A copy of these proposals has been placed in the Library of the House, and they contain the following main elements:
  The administration of establishment grants will be separated from that of annual incentives.
  The Forestry Commission will pay the grants for planting and managing trees under the woodland grant scheme, including
  136
  the better land supplement and community woodland supplement where appropriate, and Agriculture departments will pay the annual incentives under the farm woodland premium scheme. The Department of Agriculture will pay all the grants in Northern Ireland, where the enclosed land supplement is paid instead of the better land supplement.
  Annual incentives of up to £250 per hectare will be paid for either 10 or 15 years, depending on the type of woodland created on arable or improved grassland. Annual incentives of £60 per hectare will be paid for trees planted on unimproved grassland in the less favoured areas only.
  There will be no limit on the number of applications that can be made, but planting must not, in aggregate, exceed more than 50 per cent. of any individual agricultural unit. In addition, planting of unimproved grassland must not exceed 40 hectares of any individual agricultural unit.
  The definition of "improved grassland" will now be based on the content of "productive" species. This has the advantage of being easily checked by a physical inspection and puts no restriction on the method of grassland improvement.
  No quotas or targets will be set for the scheme but it will be subject to cash limits.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount received, in each of the past three years, from penalties imposed on those late in paying value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total amounts received from penalties for late submission or payment of value added tax returns, in each of the past three and current financial years are as follows:

  Total revenue £ million

  Financial year ending 31 March 1989

  79·1

  Financial year ending 31 March 1990

  82·1

  Financial year ending 31 March 1991

  83·1

  1 April 1991 to 30 September 1991

  42·7

  Frozen Assets
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the assets of other countries currently frozen in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  The Bank of England issued a notice on 7 August 1990 drawing attention to the Treasury directions issued under the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964, which have the effect of freezing certain Iraqi assets held in the United Kingdom. The assets of no other countries are currently frozen in the United Kingdom.

  Planning Estimates
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table which provides an analysis by economic category of the 1991–92 estimated outturn for the planning total as announced in the 1991 autumn statement, on definitions consistent with those of table 3.6 of Cm. 1520.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Data for the autumn statement forecast of outturn in the current year are collected for each Department, by spending sector and in total. No economic category analysis of spending by Departments is collected at this time of the year.
  137
  It is possible, however, to provide an approximate analysis by economic category of forecast outturn in 1991–92 on the definitions used in table 3.6 of Cm. 1520, taking broad account of the nature of spending by individual Departments. This is set out in the following table. An economic category analysis of forecast outturn for 1991–92 based on Departments' assessments of the economic category composition of their spending will be provided in the supplement to the 1991 autumn statement to be published around the end of January 1992.

  Planning total forecast outturn 1991–92

  Economic category

  (£ billion)

  Current expenditure on goods and services

  72·1

  Subsidies

  5·8

  Current grants to persons1

  66·3

  Current grants abroad1

  2·1

  Current grants to local authorities

  33·3

  Distribution of non-domestic rate revenue

  14·3

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  7·2

  Capital grants to local authorities

  1·4

  Other capital grants

  5·4

  Credit approvals

  4·3

  Lending and other financial transactions

  0·5

  Privatisation proceeds

  -8·0

  Adjustment

  0·3

  Planning total

  204·9

  1 These categories were combined in Cm. 1520. The figure for current grants abroad is net of other governments' contributions to the cost of the Gulf conflict.

  National Heritage Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are imposed upon a landowner for the payment of tax if the agreement for inheritance tax exemptions on national heritage land of outstanding scenic, historic or scientific interest has been broken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  If a landowner breaks an undertaking given in respect of conditionally exempt land, inheritance tax is chargeable on the current value of the property.

  Wildlife Trade
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the level of resources allocated in 1992–93 for wildlife trade control by officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs involvement in wildlife controls extends over a wide area, embracing both health and conservation aspects. It also covers a diverse range of activities, from checks on the validity of import and export licences to investigation, as the need arises, of suspected fraud. All those activities take place within the broad framework of Customs enforcement generally, with no individual officers specialising in wildlife controls. It is therefore impracticable to identify separately those resources which are, or will be, allocated specifically to those controls.

  Tobacco
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the total tax burden on the leading United Kingdom cigarette brands has increased since May 1979.
  138
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total tax burden on the leading five cigarette brands has increased on average from 69 per cent. in May 1979 to 76 per cent. in November 1991.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the proportion of income tax paid by the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers(a) now and (b) in 1979–80.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that in 1991–92 the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers will be liable to pay about 42 per cent. of the total yield of income tax. The corresponding figure for 1979–80 is 34 per cent.

  VAT Returns
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average penalty imposed in Leicestershire on those who submit value added tax returns late by(a) one week, (b) two weeks and (c) four weeks, respectively.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs do not maintain statistics for individual counties or regions. The penalties imposed for late submission or payment of VAT returns do not vary with the length of the period between due date and receipt by Customs. Nationwide, the average penalty imposed on defaulting traders—including those who may have received more than one penalty—over the current and preceding financial years is:

  Average penalty £

  Financial year ending 31 March 1989

  266·24

  Financial year ending 31 March 1990

  375·42

  Financial year ending 31 March 1991

  429·39

  Period from 1 April to 30 September 1991

  441·41

  Inheritance Tax (Business Relief)
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of increasing the present business relief on inheritance tax from 50 per cent. and 30 per cent. to 100 per cent.(a) if the increased relief included agricultural property and (b) if the increased relief excluded agricultural property.

  Mr. Maude
  The full-year costs of increasing these inheritance tax reliefs are estimated to be: £40 million if relief for business and agricultural property is increased to 100 per cent.; and £15 million if relief for business property only is increased to 100 per cent.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken regarding the second paragraph of article 8 of the European Community Council decision dated 12 March 1990, on multilateral surveillance and on the attainment of progressive convergence of economic policies and performance during stage one of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the requirement in article 8 of the Council decision of 12 March 1990 to which the hon. Member refers, I have drawn the results of multilateral surveillance discussions in the Council of
  139
  Economic and Finance Ministers to the attention of the House when reporting the outcome of Council meetings in answer to questions. The annual economic report has also been deposited in the Library of the House and considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation.

  EC Budget Council
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Community's Budget Council.

  Mr. Maude
  The Budget Council met in Brussels on 12 November. I represented the United Kingdom. The Council established a second reading draft Budget for 1992 totalling 65,634 million ecu—£45,738 million—in commitment appropriations, compared with the total after the first reading of 65,606 million ecu—£45,718 million.

  Financial Perspective

  Draft Budget1

  mecu

  £ million2

  mecu

  £ million

  Commitment appropriations

  1. Agricultural guarantee

  35,039

  24,417

  35,008

  24,396

  2. Structural operations

  18,009

  12,550

  18,009

  12,500

  3. Multi-annual programmes

  3,115

  2,171

  2,687

  1,872

  4. Other policies

  5,224

  3,640

  5,135

  3,578

  5. Reimbursements and administration

  4,205

  2,930

  3,795

  2,645

  6. Monetary reserve

  1,000

  697

  1,000

  697

  Total: Commitment appropriations of which:

  66,592

  46,406

  65,634

  45,738

  compulsory

  38,729

  26,989

  38,548

  26,862

  non-compulsory

  27,863

  19,417

  27,086

  18,875

  Total: Payment appropriations3 of which:

  63,241

  44,070

  62,417

  43,496

  compulsory

  38,669

  29,947

  38,475

  26,812

  non-compulsory

  24,572

  17,123

  23,942

  16,684

  1 Council's second reading draft budget established on 12 November.

  2 The ERM central rate of £1 = 1·435 ecu is used throughout this reply.

  3 There is only a global ceiling for payments.

  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget at its plenary in December. The 1992 draft budget is expected to be adopted by the Parliament on 12 December.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to improve the quality of economic statistics.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On 17 May 1990 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister then Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced steps to improve the quality of economic statistics, particularly on services, companies and the balance of payments. The measures are now leading to more reliable statistics in these areas and will yield additional improvements over the next year. But if we are to have economic statistics which are sufficiently up to date and reliable, we need to build on those measures and to strengthen some of the key components not covered by them. I have therefore asked the Central Statistical Office to undertake a further programme to strengthen the reliability of statistics on retail sales, consumers' expenditure, industrial and service sector output, producer prices, stockbuilding, the balance of payments, companies' finances and the transactions of financial institutions.

  Like the first initiative, these measures are designed to make the early estimates more reliable, thus reducing the
  140
  Payment appropriations represent 1·14 per cent. of Community GNP, compared with a ceiling of 1·2 per cent. in the own resources decision, leaving a cash margin of around 3–5 billion ecu-£2·4 billion.

  The Budget Council rejected most of the European Parliament's amendments and modifications to the Council's first reading draft Budget, adopting a draft Budget broadly in line with its first reading in July, respecting the existing financial perspective ceilings. In rejecting most of the Parliament's proposals the Council was able to put back into the draft Budget a provisional figure of 400 million ecu—£279 million—for technical assistance to the Soviet Union, and a total of 160 million ecu—£111 million—for emergency food and humanitarian aid. The following table summarises the second reading draft Budget, with reference to the financial perspective ceilings:

  need for subsequent revisions, and to reduce both discrepancies between the different measures of gross domestic product and the balancing items in the sector accounts. The first improvements in the CSO's statistics resulting from these measures are expected during 1992.

  The new measures take account of recommendations from a detailed review of the way balance of payments statistics are collected and compiled. The review, carried out by Mr. Richard Eason, was commissioned as part of the initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May 1990. A copy of Mr. Eason's report and the CSO action plan in response to his recommendations have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  The new measures, like some of those announced in May 1990, involve the wider use of existing statutory powers to secure full response and a more evenly shared burden on businesses. They include transfer to the CSO of some data collection previously undertaken mainly for national accounts purposes by the Bank of England.

  In implementing the measures the CSO will consult the appropriate bodies and special efforts will be made to ensure that the burdens on businesses are kept to a minimum. A significant part of the extra burden will fall on businesses that currently have few statistical demands made of them, while some reductions will be made to other surveys.

  These measures, combined with the CSO's launch today as an executive agency, demonstrate the

  141
  Government's commitment to bringing about a significant and lasting improvement in the quality of the nation's economic statistics and minimising the burden imposed on business by their collection.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards establishing the Central Statistical Office as an executive agency.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am pleased to announce that the Central Statistical Office became an executive agency today. Copies of the framework document are being placed in the Library of the House. This sets out the functions and objectives of the CSO, defines clearly the basis of accountability and the division of responsibilities between the director of the CSO and Ministers, and sets out the CSO's commitment to minimising the burden imposed on business by the collection of economic statistics. It also restates the arrangements to ensure the integrity and validity of United Kingdom official statistics.

  I have set challenging targets for the agency focusing in particular on the need, both within government and outside, for reliable and timely macro-economic statistics. Since the establishment of the enlarged CSO as a separate department in July 1989, significant progress has been made in improving the quality of these statistics. Agency status will give added impetus to this process.

  Sir Jack Hibbert, the director of the CSO and head of the Government statistical service since 1985, will be the agency's first chief executive until his retirement at the end of February 1992. A successor to Sir Jack is currently being recruited through open competition.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to decentralise civil service offices to the south-west of England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Since 1988, Departments have decided to relocate or locate around 5,000 civil service posts to the south-west region. These include around 3,000 Ministry of Defence procurement executive's land, air and sea systems controllerates posts which will move to Bristol and Bath in 1994–95, and 500 Department of Social Security Child Support Agency posts due to move to Plymouth in 1993.

  Duty-free Goods
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue lost in granting duty-free status facilities for people travelling to and from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he calculates will be the loss of revenue to the Treasury of the proposals to extend for a further 15 years the duty-free concession currently available at United Kingdom ports and airports.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answers 7 and 8 November 1991]: It is very difficult to provide an estimate because there is no information available on the amount of expenditure on duty-free goods purchased abroad by travellers entering the United Kingdom.
  142
  A certain amount of rather dated information is available from independent surveys by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Netherlands Economic Institute on purchases of duty-free goods by travellers leaving the United Kingdom. Using that data, it is estimated very roughly that the loss of revenue to the United Kingdom from duty-free purchases by travellers entering the United Kingdom from the EC may be between £25 million and £50 million a year.

  Inland Revenue (Structure Reviews)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify the number and designation of jobs which he expects to be lost following the structure reviews within the Inland Revenue department; what consultation has taken place with the appropriate trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding 18 November 1991]: The team reviewing the Inland revenue's organisation and structure has yet to report. The review team is consulting a wide range of staff within the Department, has invited representations from the appropriate trade unions and has had discussions with trade union representatives.

  Inland Revenue
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the details of the timetable he expects to implement in respect of converting Inland Revenue departments to agency status.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding 18 November 1991]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 7 February 1991—Official Report, c. 205–6—a wide-ranging action plan, prepared by the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, to introduce changes by April 1992 which would enable the Department to operate fully on "next steps" lines and improve its service to the public. This action plan is being implemented on schedule.

  The valuation offices for England and Wales and for Scotland were launched as a single Valuation Office Agency within the Inland Revenue on 30 September. Copies of the agency's framework document have been placed in the Library. The agency's objectives and targets for 1991–92, as agreed by Ministers for the valuation offices at the start of the year, are reproduced in the table.

  For the rest of the department, as already announced 33 executive offices are being set up within the Inland Revenue to deal with the work of assessing and collecting the taxes and duties for which it is responsible, and for support services. The head of each office will have significant delegated responsibilities for managing the people and the resources in the office and will be personally accountable for its performance. All 33 executive offices will be set up by April 1992. Framework documents setting out their responsibilities and delegated authorities, and describing their accounting and financial systems and performance measures, will be published at that time.

  The action plan also noted that the future organisation of the Inland Revenue's information technology division was under consideration. It has now been decided that the division will also become an Inland Revenue executive office in April 1992. As with the other 33 executive offices, a framework document will set out the authorities to be delegated to the director of technology and the enhanced responsibilities and accountability the director will have

  143
  for providing the best quality of service and value for money. The question of an agency for IT services will be reconsidered in 1994, in the light of the department's IT needs at the time and its experience of operating on "next steps" lines.

  These changes will mean that over 95 per cent. of the Inland Revenue's staff will be working in the Valuation Office Agency or one of the 34 executive offices by April 1992.

  The "next steps" initiative is making good progress in the Inland Revenue and I am confident that it will enable the department to improve its efficiency and quality of service in the interest both of taxpayers and the staff of the department.

  Valuation Office Agency: 1991–92 objectives and targets The Valuation Office Agency's objectives and targets for the current year, as agreed by Ministers and published in the Inland Revenue's operating plan, include financial, efficiency, effectiveness and quality elements. They are:

  —to clear 834,300 cases relating to rating work, valuations for Inland Revenue taxes and other work.

  —to maintain gross expenditure within a ceiling of £125 million (excluding superannuation and capital) and to match the forecast of £126·5 million receipts from charges.

  —to reduce the number of local offices from 124 to 120

  —to achieve the improvements in productivity and efficiency targeted below.

  Detailed targets:

  1991–92 target

  1990–91 actual

  Valuer productivity (weighted work outputs per valuer)

  324

  312

  Overall local office productivity (weighted outputs per staff year)

  121

  119

  Unit costs (full cost, constant 1990–91 prices)

  —Rating work £

  185

  229

  —Revenue work £

  154

  153

  —Other work £

  138

  137

  Clearance of rating work on 1990 rating list: pre-October 1990 appeals outstanding at year end

  362,000

  623,000

  Timeliness (per cent, of work completed to external and internal time limits)

  82

  80

  Valuations accurancy (per cent, valuations settled within ± 10 per cent, of initial valuation when facts settled)

  80

  78·8

  Targets for work in connection with the proposed council tax will be set in due course.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the organisation and structure reviews within the Inland Revenue department.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding 18 November 1991]: A review of the Inland Revenue's organisation and structure was commissioned in April 1991 as part of the department's response to the "next steps" programme.

  The review is being undertaken by a team of Inland Revenue officials and consultants from Andersen Consulting and Kinsley Lord with experience of other large organisations in the public and private sectors. They will be reporting to the board by the end of December.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the inquiry led by his Department into Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding 18 November 1991]: There has been no Treasury-led inquiry into the inspectorate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Murders
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of persons convicted of terrorist murder in each of the last five years indicating how many were actual triggermen or bombers and how many were lookouts, drivers or other accessories to the persons who directly executed the murder.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of persons convicted of the scheduled offence of murder in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1986

  24

  1987

  10

  1988

  12

  1989

  11

  1990

  8

  I regret that information on the extent of each individual's involvement in the murder for which he-she was convicted is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland do not meet the EC water directive 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  In Northern Ireland all persons supplied receive water which complies with the overwhelming majority of the EC drinking water directive—80/778/EEC—standards. There is the potential for non-compliance with the aluminium standard in 39 of the Province's 123 supply zones and a general potential for non-compliance with the iron standard and related turbidity standard in all zones, because of the number of iron mains still in service. A programme of works to ensure full compliance with the directive standards is underway.

  Cannabis and Crack
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest quantities of cannabis and crack seized in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am informed by the Chief Constable that the latest significant seizure of cannabis in Northern Ireland was in Belfast on 9 November 1991, when 1.5 kg was seized by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There has been no seizure of crack.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which overseas countries he visited or were visited by the Northern Ireland Minister for Economic Development during the past 12 months for the purpose of seeking investment in Northern Ireland and the creation of more jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1 November 1990, the Secretary of State has visited Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States—twice—Canada, the Republic of Korea, France and Germany. I have visited the United States—twice—Canada, the Republic of Korea, Japan—twice—Indonesia and Germany.

  Drink-drive Offences
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been convicted of drink-drive offences in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is:

  Persons convicted of drink-driving offences in Northern Ireland1

  Number

  1986

  2,985

  1987

  2,990

  1988

  2,750

  1989

  2,432

  1990

  2,711

  1 These figures refer to convictions where the drink-drive offence was the primary offence.

  The Government are fully committed to continuing their campaign against drinking and driving.

  Handicapped People
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional resources he is making available to health boards in Northern Ireland to ensure that the needs of handicapped people are provided for in the community.

  Mr. Hanley
  Health and social services boards in Northern Ireland have resources of £837 million available to them in 1991–92, an increase of almost £71 million over 1990–91. Within these additional resources, the following sums of money have been earmarked for a number of initiatives which will directly benefit people with a handicap living in the community:

  (i) £2·6 million towards part implementation of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, to meet the costs of additional assessments and services;

  (ii) £2·847 million to provide community support for long-stay patients discharged from psychiatric and mental handicap hospitals;

  (iii) £2·95 million for implementation of "People First" particularly to enable boards to establish inspection units and a complaints procedure and to improve social work training.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to deal with alcohol abuse by youngsters under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Alcohol misuse is covered in health education programmes in many schools, and seminars on this topic are organised regularly by the youth service. Coverage in schools will increase when health education becomes a compulsory cross-curricular theme next year. In addition, the licensing laws prohibit the sale or supply of alcohol to persons under 18 and its consumption by such persons in any place other than a private residence.

  Owen and James Carragher
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the firm of Robins AHW Ltd., loss adjusters, was appointed to deal with compensation claim ASC 24337/45 submitted on behalf of Owen and James Carragher.
  146
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 15 November 1991,Official Report, column 673.

  Paramilitary Organisations
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of terrorist incidents there have been since 1970; and which paramilitary organisations have either claimed respon-sibility for them or have been attributed responsibility.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding 7 November 1991]: It is not known precisely how many terrorist incidents there have been since 1970, nor is it always known which paramilitary organisation was responsible. I refer the hon. Member to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's annual reports, which gave details of some of the information requested.

  Terrorism Risks
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what facilities and resources are made available to both elected representatives and other public figures at risk from terrorist organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding 7 November 1991]: I do not consider it appropriate to disclose information about security arrangements for individuals.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been convicted of scheduled offences since 1970; and what were their paramilitary affiliations at the time of conviction.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding 7 November 1991]: Statistics on convictions for scheduled offences were riot recorded prior to 1975. From that year until the end of September 1991, a total of 11,095 people were convicted of scheduled offences. Information on their paramilitary affiliations is not available.

  Terrorism
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the security forces have been killed by terrorists since 1969; how many were members of the armed forces including the Ulster Defence Regiment; how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve; and if will give figures for those in the two categories who have been wounded.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding 14 November 1991]: The following table details the number of members of the security forces who have died or who have been injured as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland since 1969:

  1969 to 31 October 1991

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Regular Army

  432

  4,669

  UDR

  195

  439

  RUC

  187

  16,855

  RUC Reserve

  97

  —

  147
  1 Statistics on injuries of RUC and RUC Reserve officers are not recorded separately.

DEFENCE

  Soviet Union (Military Threat)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's current assessment of the military threat from the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Tom King
  It is clear that the Soviet Union as we have known it no longer exists. Much of the old Soviet system has effectively collapsed and power is increasingly transferring to the republics. The most recent decision, if sustained, by Russia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan, that the Soviet Union is no longer authorised to represent their economic interests, will have the most profound economic effects and will further complicate the question of paying for their armed forces. At the same time, if the present forces are split up between the republics, Russia alone would still have conventional forces larger than any other European state, and would remain a nulcear superpower. NATO's new strategic concept agreed at the Rome summit two weeks ago takes prudent account of these continuing capabilities.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he has in mind for the Territorial Army of the future.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement setting forth the rationale for the proposed reduction of the Territorial Army units in Northern Ireland, particularly the RAYC and artillery units.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is in a position to announce the future shape of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Tom King
  As I have made clear on several occasions the reserves, of which the Territorial Army is an integral part, will continue to make a vital contribution to our defence effort.

  In the future, the TA will provide a wide range of capabilities, including participation in the ACE rapid reaction corps and in military home defence. I hope to make further announcements on the way ahead for the TA before the end of the year.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future role, strength and composition of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). I envisage that the long-term future strength of the Territorial Army will settle at between 60,000 and 65,000.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans for Tornado updates and the European fighter aircraft.
  148
  Mr. Alan Clark
  On Tornado, work is currently proceeding on the development and production planning phases of a mid-life update for the IDS aircraft, with a planned deployment date of the mid–1990s.

  On European fighter aircraft, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 15 October.

  Trident
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the first Trident missile submarine to be effectively in service.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our practice to make public the exact date upon which Royal Navy warships become operational, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Trident remains on course to enter service from the mid–1990s onwards.

  NATO
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any further plans to initiate changes to the remit of NATO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the House on 12 November. The NATO summit meeting in Rome on 7 and 8 November completed the fundamental review of NATO strategy put in hand at the London summit in July 1990. The Government welcome the success of this review which has adapted NATO's role to the changed political circumstances in the new Europe.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the Secretary-General of the Western European Union to discuss the joint British-Italian proposals for European defence co-operation.

  Mr. Tom King
  I attended a meeting of the WEU Ministerial Council in Bonn yesterday, at which a range of issues concerning the future role of the WEU were discussed.

  Submarines
  Sir Patrick Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what approaches have been made to potential overseas buyers with a view to the disposal of the conventional submarine fleet.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Whenever naval vessels are to be disposed of, an investigation is made of possible overseas interest in purchase. Details of approaches to particular countries are matters of confidence between Governments.

  Experimental Ranges
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department intends to take to ensure that proof and experimental ranges are more environmentally aware.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In line with our policy to increase environmental awareness within the Ministry of Defence, focal points have been established at the headquarters of
  149
  the proof and experimental establishments and at all ranges under is control, to ensure that such issues are accorded due attention.

  South-east Asia (Personnel Training)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries in south-east Asia have in the past 12 months sent personnel to the United Kingdom for training at MoD establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the 12 months to 1 November 1991 the following countries in south-east Asia have sent personnel to the United Kingdom for training at MoD establishments:

  Brunei

  Hong Kong

  Indonesia

  Malaysia

  Philippines

  Singapore

  Thailand

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the "Options for Change" implications for MoD and related employment in south Dorset.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Decisions taken to date on "Options for Change" are likely to involve relatively little change to defence-related employment in south Dorset. Other decisions remain to be taken and full consideration will be given to employment aspects where appropriate. Employment in the Defence industry is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has recently received from the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association on compensation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have received no recent representations from the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association on compensation.

  Senior Officers (Newspaper Interviews)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answers of 14 November,Official Report, columns 667–68, relating to HMS Vanguard and Admiral Sir Julian Oswald's interview with The Times of 29 October 1991, if he will make it his practice to give in reply to parliamentary questions any information which may properly be given by senior serving officers and officials in interviews with newspapers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is the practice of the Ministry of Defence to give appropriate information in response to questions asked by hon. Members, taking account of security and confidentiality constraints.

  Musgrove Park Hospital (Bombing)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there was a breach of Army security at the military wing of the Musgrove Park hospital on 150
  Saturday 2 November; and if he will make a statement on security at hospitals in Northern Ireland for army personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military wing of Musgrove Park hospital is not a military base but part of a national health service hospital. The terrorists who perpetrated this disgusting attack deliberately chose to carry a bomb through a civilian wing of the hospital and place it adjacent to the military wing. Appropriate security arrangements are taken to protect service personnel but, regrettably, total security cannot be achieved.

  Guards Regiments
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many horses and troops will be available compared to the current position if his proposals to amalgamate the Blues and Royals and Life Guards are implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Household Cavalry mounted regiment will consist, as at present, of two mounted squadrons, one from the Life Guards and one from the Blues and Royals, as well as a joint headquarters squadron. Each regiment will also contribute two squadrons to the Household Cavalry reconnaissance regiment. This regiment, which will be one of the two regular reconnaissance regiments, will also have a joint headquarters squadron.

  Training Exercises (Deaths)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the criteria for establishing a board of inquiry for accidents to service personnel during training; and if such inquiries are set up in every case of death or serious disablement;

  (2) if he will appoint a military ombudsman with responsibility for investigating complaints of Ministry of Defence secrecy from families of service personnel who die on training exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The rules governing the convening and conduct of boards of inquiry are contained in Queen's regulations for the three services. While it is not mandatory to convene a formal board of inquiry in every case, all deaths or serious accidents in service are subject to an internal investigation either by a formal service inquiry or by the service police. We have no plans to appoint a military ombudsman.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in how many cases of death of service personnel during training in each of the past five years have(a) families requested a full report of the board of inquiry and (b) his Ministry have not complied with this request;

  (2) how many complaints have been received in the last five years from the families of service personnel, who died during training, about inadequate information concerning the deaths.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue new policy guidelines to commanding officers requiring them to provide maximum information with the minimum of delay to families of service personnel who die during training exercises.
  151
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The services have detailed regulations, governing the action to be taken in the event of injury or death to service personnel.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have(a) died and (b) been injured during training in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of deaths and injuries attributable to training or exercises in the three services in each of the last five years is set out in the table.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Deaths

  19

  14

  15

  22

  7

  Injuries

  1,219

  1,131

  1,140

  896

  779

  Notes:

  1. The figures for injuries relate to episodes of bedded sickness of 48 hours or more.

  2. The figures include sports injuries sustained by personnel while specifically training or on exercises.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what authority his Ministry declines to disclose to families details of the deaths of service personnel during peacetime training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has always provided details of the deaths of service personnel killed during training in response to a request from the bereaved family. This information takes the form of a specially prepared statement giving an accurate and objective summary of the service investigation.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that families of service personnel who die on training exercises are provided on request with full medical records of a deceased person, including the autopsy report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Requests for the release of medical records will be considered on their merits in accordance with the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is given to commanding officers regarding providing information to the families of service personnel who die in training exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Procedures for the notification and assistance of next-of-kin on the death of service personnel are laid down in the regulations of each service.

  Unoccupied Homes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence homes are currently unoccupied; and what percentage they are of the total stock.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,966 Ministry of Defence owned houses and flats were vacant. Of these 9,834 were service married quarters and 132 Ministry of Defence civilian houses, representing 13·4 per cent. and 9·5 per cent. of the stock respectively. Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal.
  152
  In addition, some 1,700 dwellings were in the process of being sold.

  Regiments
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the assessment he has made on the number of service and ancillary redundancies that will result from an amalgamation of the Staffordshire Regiment and the Cheshire Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Redundancies will be spread across the Army, and will not be concentrated in Regiments that are due to be amalgamated. Until the applications for redundancy have been assessed it is not possible to provide the detail requested.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he decided not to consult or warn the colonel of the Staffordshire Regiment of the likelihood of amalgama-tion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All regimental colonels were invited to express their views about how the reductions were to be achieved, but none were told of the Army Board's decisions before the day of the announcement.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the assessment he has made of the extra burden on local authority housing provision in Staffordshire and the west midlands resulting from the service job losses created by an amalgamation of the Staffordshire Regiment and the Cheshire Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not able to make such an assessment. Redundancies will be spread across the Army and not confined to those units which are to be amalgamated or disbanded. It is not possible to state at this time how many members of the Staffordshire Regiment or the Cheshire Regiment will be made redundant. Nor do we have any information on the proportion of those made redundant who will wish to settle in Staffordshire and the west midlands and who will be seeking local authority housing. We believe that the majority will be in a position to make other arrangements for their housing.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the inquiry to be carried out into the safety and security of Britain's nuclear weapons led by his Department's chief scientific adviser will address issues identified by the Drell report to the United States Congress in December 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The terms of reference of the group are:"To review, in the light of any relevant aspects of the report of the Drell panel in the United States, the safety of the present and prospective UK nuclear armoury."

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all transportation of United Kingdom nuclear weapons will be stopped pending the outcome of his Department's inquiry into the safety and security of British nuclear weapons in the light of the Drell report to the United States Congress in December 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.
  153
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the inquiry into the safety and security of British nuclear weapons will use the same computer modelling techniques as those employed on United States weapons for the Drell report to the United States Congress.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The working group is free to conduct the review as it sees fit.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the total number of civilian deaths caused by bombing during the Gulf war in Iraq, Kuwait and Israel, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no authoritative information on civilian casualties sustained in Iraq or Kuwait during the coalition bombing campaign. In the middle of February, an Israeli Minister said that 13 people had died during Iraqi Scud missile attacks and 1,305 were injured.

  Greek Campaign (Commemorative Medal)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his counterpart in the Greek Government to discuss the issue of a commemorative medal for participants in the Greek campaign.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Secretary of State maintains regular contact with his NATO colleagues on issues of mutual interest.

  Defence Industry (Job Losses)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans to promote alternative jobs to offset losses in the defence industry in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding 18 November 1991]: The promotion, creation and sustenance of jobs are matters for industry.

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

Heart Disease: Prevention
Lard Campbell of Croy Lard Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to increase the number of heart specialists in the United Kingdom in order to reduce the number of premature deaths from heart disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government's policy set out in 1987 envisaged an annual increase of 2 per cent. in the number of all consultants, including heart specialists. In fact, the number of consultants in cardiology has increased by 19 per cent. and in cardiothoracic surgery by 10.4 per cent. over the past five years. However, the emphasis in combating heart disease is now on prevention and that is reflected in the Health of the Nation Green Paper.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. As so much is now known about heart disease and its high incidence in Britain, should not more medical students be encouraged to specialise in that disorder in order to produce a greater number of cardiologists in future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the discussions on the Green Paper strategy document—the consultation period has just ended—highlight coronary heart disease as a key area for targeting. Doubtless that will influence junior doctors in making decisions about their future, and the royal colleges, which advise on medical manpower.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the greatest single contribution to the reduction in the number of premature deaths from heart disease has been an increase in the knowledge and practice of first aid rather than an increase in the number of specialists?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that the effect of a person's lifestyle from day one throughout his or her life most influences the incidence of coronary heart disease.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that smoking is a prime cause of heart, cardiac and circulatory problems? We should need less heart specialists if we could reduce smoking.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. That is why that area [s targeted in the Green Paper.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite the very welcome increase in the consultant grade to which she referred. report after report by the Royal College of Physicians has indicated that the number of specialists which we have in the various branches of medicine in this country in relation to unit populations is still far below that of other countries in the European Community? That applies not only to cardiologists but also to gastroenterologists, neurologists and so on. Therefore, will the Minister encourage her colleagues to do what they can to accelerate the increase in the consultant grade which the National Health Service so greatly requires?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we look very carefully at that area. We take advice from experts, including the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Cardiac Society and the royal colleges have estimated that there is a shortfall of 50 per cent. in the number of cardiologists as against the established requirement? Is she aware also that, even if the shortfall were filled, we should have less than seven cardiologists per 1 million of the population in England and Wales compared with 45 per 1 million in Europe and a target of 60 per million in the United States? Are the Government aware of that alarming situation and what do they intend to do about it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not accept the suggestions made by the noble Lord. In fact an increase of 19 per cent. in the number of cardiologists in the past five years is a remarkable achievement.
Lord Carter: My Lords, those suggestions come from the British Cardiac Society and the royal colleges and not from me.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend receiving all the support she needs from the royal colleges and the British Medical Association to speed up the appointment of a number of senior registrars to consultant posts? Is that not one way of increasing the number of consultants and offering a better career prospect for those entering into that specialty?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. We are considering a variety of ways to speed up the decisions in that area. However, I refer my noble friend and other noble Lords to a number of recent initiatives in addition to the normal growth, which include the appointment of an additional 100 consultants during 1987–89, an additional 100 consultants appointed to tackle waiting lists and an additional 200 consultants and 50 staff-grade doctors appointed during 1991–92 to help to reduce junior doctors' hours. That is an area to which we are giving considerable effort.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, if we are to increase research in certain spheres, that is needed in the unglamorous areas of medicine; namely, orthopaedics, dealing with the disease of arthritis, from which millions suffer, and

815
with what is a very common disease in this Chamber —deafness? We should make our research effort in those areas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. I do not necessarily agree that they are unglamorous areas. However, they are certainly important and we will of course take expert advice on the matter.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, in spite of what has been said, the answer is in fact DIY? The main way of reducing premature deaths from heart disease is not only complete cessation from smoking, but also reducing blood pressure, cholesterol and weight. That can be done quite simply by encouraging people not to eat too much of the gross national product.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Certainly the health education authority and other Department of Health education initiatives—such as the "Look After Your Heart" campaign—are all directed at ensuring that people help themselves.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, while everyone accepts that a healthy lifestyle will lead to a longer life, we receive too much conflicting information? One week cholesterol is good and the next week it is bad; next too much salt is bad and then a little salt is good. Would it not be a good idea for proper research to be conducted so that we knew what was good and what was bad? We could then abstain from the bad things.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, earlier this year an important tome was produced entitled The COMA Report on Dietary Reference Values. It provides all the scientific information that one could seek. We are endeavouring to turn it into an easily digestible form for people to understand.

Cyprus
2.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote a negotiated settlement in Cyprus.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we continue to give active support to the UN Secretary General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, can he go a stage further and advise the House of any definite progress in convening an international peace conference such as the one proposed for New York? Does the noble Earl have any details of that conference? Can he give an indication as to when Her Majesty's Government will meet to discuss the matter further with the US Government and our EC partners?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are continual discussions. The correct forum in which these matters should be taken forward is the UN, and we therefore support the UN Secretary General's initiative. We hope that he can make sufficient progress to enable an international meeting to be convened soon which will lead to an overall framework agreement.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in view of the enormous influence of the United States of America in the Middle East, are we in close co-operation with the American administration to put pressure on Turkey to withdraw her army from the occupation of Cyprus? Until that is done a settlement is impossible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are two sides to the agreement. However, I can confirm that we are in close touch with the Americans.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the references made by the noble Earl to the United Nations. Does he agree that probably the only way of resolving what is an almost intransigent problem is through strong action by the United Nations? For example, in the first instance we could send a fact-finding mission to Cyprus. Is there any possibility of that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for the principle of supporting the UN Secretary General's initiative. With regard to sending a mission to Cyprus to find out the exact situation, I believe we are clear as to what the position is. However, I shall certainly report the comments of the noble Lord.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, while recognising the extraordinarily complex issues involved in the dispute, is there any evidence that the conference to which the noble Earl referred is likely to be called? What does the noble Earl mean by "soon" in that context?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we hope that a conference will be held soon. "Soon" is very much dependent on the Secretary General.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that settlement of the Cyprus problem should be a prerequisite to consideration of Turkey's admission to the EC?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a different question.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when I was last in Cyprus a couple of years ago I discovered that a surprising number of the less sophisticated Greek Cypriots were firmly convinced that all they had to do was sit back and wait? They felt that sooner or later Mrs. Thatcher would come along and help to liberate Northern Cyprus from the Turks just as she liberated the Falkland Islands from the Argentinians. Nothing one could say or do would sway them from that conviction. In the light of that, the most helpful gesture by Her Majesty's

817
Government would be to try and gently persuade the Greek Cypriots that we do not live in a perfect world and never have done and that the Turks hold most of the cards, just as the Israelis hold most of the cards 150 miles to the south-east in their area. If the Greek Cypriots want a settlement they must move in the direction of the Turkish proposals, which would at least allow them to repossess around 25 per cent. of the area at present occupied by the Turks.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that other people in the world also think that my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher is a remarkable woman. The future must be with the UN Secretary General.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Earl's replies, while partially helpful, do not take us much further along the road as regards details of the international peace conference. Would it not be useful for Her Majesty's Government to meet representatives of the Turkish and Greek communities as well as of the Greek. and Turkish governments before the conference in order to brief themselves on the problems?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have a special position in Cyprus, as the noble Lord will be aware. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend but I am sure that every effort is already being made.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Common Market's influence in Cyprus is likely to be limited while its grants to that country are disproportionately given to the south?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Community has a role to play but it must play that role within the United Nations.

EC Budget: UK Contribution
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated net United Kingdom contribution to the EC budget in respect of the financial year 1992–93, after all abatements and receipts; and what is the estimated extra cost to the United Kingdom for the same period of the Community compliance provisions contained in the latest draft treaty for presentation at Maastricht on the assumption that the Government were to agree to such provisions.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the United Kingdom's net payment to European Community institutions in 1992–93 is forecast to be £2,463 million. The Forecast assumes no effect as a result of the inter-governmental conferences. The Community's finances in the longer term are due to be reviewed in future financing discussions next year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his figure reveals that during the past eight years the British taxpayer has paid into the European
818
Community the net amount of almost £14 billion? Bearing in mind the Government's addiction to the cost benefit formula, and as a useful adjunct to the public discussions now taking place about Maastricht, will they convey to the British public the benefits that Britain has received in return for the £14 billion net to which I have referred?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the United Kingdom is in the lead in pressing for effective financial management and accountability within the EC. We have succeeded well in the Fontainebleau abatement talks. The benefit is a cumulative one and will be some £12.5 billion by the end of next year.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it right that rather than informing the British public, it is more desirable to inform our colleagues in the EC of the benefits that they receive at our hands?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister inform the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of the substantial benefits that this country will receive if Mr. MacSharry's proposals for the reform of the CAP are put into practice?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly we would wish the CAP to be one of the main areas in which expenditure could be constrained. Agricultural guarantee expenditure is limited by a legally-binding ceiling. It has fallen down to 57 per cent. of the budget in 1991 as against 65 per cent. in 1987. That forecast reflects our policy.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House which EC country, pro rata to the population, contributes more to the EC coffers than does the United Kingdom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, surprisingly, the Commission does not give details of the net contributions of member states. However, from the limited data available, it is clear that Germany is the largest net contributor; probably three times larger than the United Kingdom.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, while recognising that we make a large contribution to the EC budget, are we not entitled to some financial return? Is the Minister aware that the European Regional Development Fund has afforded Her Majesty's Government £100 million of RECHAR money? That money is intended to recharge the coal and steel communities in this country which have been described as distressed areas by the EC. What are Her Majesty's Government doing about obtaining that money for our regions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figures that I gave related to net contributions to the Community. Therefore, I do not have details of the specific item to which the noble Lord refers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why we have not received as much from the EC as we might is that we have been

819
extremely slow in finding out what is available and in being there on the spot? Furthermore, we have not listened at keyholes as well as some other people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot accept that argument from the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what is meant by the term "Community compliance provisions"? Does it include the cost of preventing Community fraud? What are the terms contained in the latest draft treaty? Some of us find it difficult to understand exactly what the question is about.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the precise meaning of the term "Community compliance provisions" contained in the noble Lord's Question is for him to explain rather than for me. However, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is referring to the cost of compliance of any measures which come from the inter-governmental conferences. We can make no assumption about that at present.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the £2,400 million is only part of the cost to this country of membership of the EC? Does he agree that its membership costs every family in this country an additional £16 per week on its food bill, and that therefore the total cost to this country is about £14 billion per annum? Will the Minister say what our net contribution will be next year when the rebate agreed by his right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher is renegotiated and probably taken away? Will it be £3 billion, £4 billion or what?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figure that I gave of £2,463 million is the contribution for 1992–93. That is the net payment after rebate and abatement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister did not appear to understand my question. The rebate must be renegotiated in 1992 and is likely to be withdrawn. What will be our likely contribution after that renegotiation has taken place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the only figures that I can give to the House are those that are published in the Autumn Statement. I had assumed that they took into account the noble Lord's anxiety. If I am wrong, I must write to him.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, how much of our contribution is spent on supporting the growing of tobacco in the Community, and how much is spent on supporting the Community's campaign against smoking?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have at hand the figures for those particular items of Community expenditure. I am well aware that my noble friend has asked that question on several occasions—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, and I have never received an answer.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the most significant figure that he has given in this complicated exchange is that Germany's net contribution to the EC is approximately three times that of the United Kingdom? It might also be agreed that during the past 30 years the greatest overall beneficiary of the Common Market has been Germany. Putting those two facts together, might not the Minister encourage some noble Lords to raise their sights a little from the foothills and take a more overall view?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain that it is for me to do as the noble Lord suggests. However, the figure that I gave for Germany's contribution is significant.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in real terms today's food prices are less than they were between 1930 and 1934? Then we had the famous free market that many noble Lords would like to see again.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not wish to engage in a great debate on the EC. But I may have misunderstood the Minister's reply. Did he imply that the MacSharry proposals were advantageous to this country? I believe the estimates show that the proposals will be enormously costly to this country. Furthermore, did the Minister say that the Government believe that Maastricht will cost us a great deal? Surely there is no evidence as yet that we shall be net losers from Maastricht; we must wait until we know what will happen there. Will the Minister clarify both those answers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly did not mean to say—in fact, I do not think I did say—that the MacSharry proposals were necessarily beneficial to this country. I said that it is one of our country's aims to reduce the cost of the CAP. The noble Lord also asked about any proposals that may come from the inter-governmental conferences and the cost thereof. I said that we could not forecast those; but we certainly fully recognise that some of the proposed extensions of competence are potentially very costly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my question was about the net cost to the United Kingdom. Is it not correct that they are not necessarily very costly to the United Kingdom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, they are potentially very costly to the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's reply in regard to the compliance section of my original Question that no Treasury representatives are sitting in on the inter-governmental conferences in order to provide the Government with some estimate of what the new provisions are likely to cost the United Kingdom? In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are the Government aware that

821
in the one case of an extension of Commission competence into the realm of fraud, the Commission secured a budget provision of some £21 million for one year? That is more than the total cost of the Court of Auditors, and it is about one hundredth of the cost of a similar investigation carried out by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The committee's report was much more effective and far better informed than the waffling document that has been produced by the Commission since.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is another question. The intergovernmental conferences are discussing treaty issues, and not costs of programmes. There are no direct or immediate effects. We shall have to await the outcome of discussions on, say, extended competence or qualified majority voting before we know what the effects are.

Social Security Administration Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of three Bills in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, I shall speak to all three together, and then move the other two formally.
The Bills between them represent the first consolidation of all the statute law on social security. It is a very considerable achievement and I should like to ex press my appreciation—and I trust also that of the House—to the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission and to the draftsman for their outstanding work in completing this difficult and important exercise.
The Social Security Administration Bill is concerned, as its name implies, with the administration of the social security system. It deals with matters such as the payments of benefit, adjudication, enforcement and uprating. The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill deals with the contributions on which certain social security benefits depend, and also with the various benefits themselves. It covers a wide range of benefits from unemployment and sickness to child benefit and the Christmas bonus to pensioners. The Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill contains repeals and consequential and transitional provisions arising out of the other two Bills.
The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have, in accordance with usual practice, issued a report on the consolidation in which they make a number of recommendations for minor amendments that are necessary in order to produce a satisfactory consolidation.
The first two Bills, if your Lordships give them a Second Reading, will go to the Joint Committee in the ordinary course. The third Bill, the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill, is an essential part of the consolidation but is riot, strictly speaking, a consolidation Bill. Therefore, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, I shall in due course move a
822
Motion that it should be referred to the Joint Committee. The rules of the House require that it be referred to the Joint Committee specifically as it is not, strictly speaking, a consolidation Bill. I beg to move that the first of the three Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, all noble Lords will agree that one of the most useful legislative functions that Parliament performs through this House is that of the consolidation of legislation. In the rather difficult field of social security it is so necessary that practitioners, those who are due to benefit and organisations which look after those who are recipients of social benefit should, where possible, be able to turn to one Act of Parliament and see the whole of the law applicable to their field.
From this side of the House I echo all that the noble and learned Lord has said about our indebtedness to the Law Commission, the Scottish Law Commission, the parliamentary draftsman and, as usual, in so far as it has anything to do with the matter, the patient committee of both Houses on consolidation measures. It is not the most interesting of occupations that noble Lords can ever indulge in but it is nevertheless a most useful one. In those circumstances I believe that the noble and learned Lord will take back to those concerned our grateful thanks.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee, perhaps I may say how much my noble friend's comments are appreciated. On the other hand, I should point out that it is not a committee of your Lordships' House. It is a Joint Committee, and we sit with Members of another place.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who was responsible for social security administration for longer than any other Minister, perhaps I may say what a wonderful job has been done in consolidating the immensely complicated law on these subjects. It will be of real help to those who have to administer the system to have the law consolidated in this way. I should like respectfully to express my great admiration of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the guidance he gave to this process, as well as of the draftsman and others who have done an extremely good job in consolidating the law. It will be of the greatest assistance to those charged with responsibility for administering this vital public service.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Strabolgi, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for their remarks. The Joint Committee is indeed a Joint Committee with Members of another place. I join in thanking the committee for the work that it will do on this consolidation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I believe that this is an important measure. I should like to think that it is one on which there will be no division on party lines, or indeed on any other lines, other than to ensure that we get the best possible Act of Parliament in the end. The need for legislation has been widely accepted and it has, I am glad to say, been warmly welcomed, particularly by the charity world.
The system of charities in this country is, in some ways, unique. It is, one could say, something of a national treasure. Charitable giving makes—or perhaps reflects—a huge contribution to the quality of life which we and others enjoy. Charities engage in an immense range of activities. They span the world from the village hall to the tropical rainforest. Some survive virtually without any resources. Some, on the other hand, are multi-million pound international businesses.
By definition, money which is given for charity is for public—and not for private—benefit. Once donated, it enters the public domain. That is why a legal framework exists to ensure that charitable funds are used for the benefit of the community, that trustees apply the highest standards of stewardship and that abuse is prevented.
The Charity Commissioners play a key role in all this, for it is they who are charged specifically with promoting the most effective use of charitable resources. They are, therefore, charged with investigating and checking abuse in the charitable sector.
The world has changed almost beyond recognition since the last major piece of charities legislation was passed in 1960. It is not insignificant that two of those who were primarily responsible for the passage of the Bill are now Members of your Lordships' House. I refer to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble
824
and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As Home Office Minister and Solicitor-General respectively, they propelled the last Bill through another place with great distinction. As a latter day colleague in the Home Office, I hope that I can rely upon what I might describe as their "helpful" influence upon the passage of the present Bill which is before your Lordships today.
The number and variety of charities has grown enormously since 1960, as has the amount of money which is donated to them. There are now over 170,000 charities registered with the Charity Commissioners. A new one is registered every 30 minutes of every working day. At the same time, the resources of the charitable sector continue to grow. It is, by any standards, big business. I said the other day—and I have no hesitation in repeating it—that its turnover is estimated at £17,000 million. Sometimes nowadays people say £17 billion, but I believe that it is much more impressive to say £17,000 million. That is more than the whole of the output of British agriculture. When one thinks that British agriculture is in fact the largest industry in the United Kingdom, one realises that one is not in the tiddly-wink sphere.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the system of supervision under which charities operate should need something of an overhaul. The Charities Bill follows closely the ideas which were put forward in the White Paper Charities: A Framework For The Future which was published in May 1989. But the Bill takes account of the very many constructive comments which we received from all quarters—from your Lordships, from the charitable sector and from others.
The Bill is designed essentially, first, to improve the arrangements for the supervision of charities in England and Wales; secondly, to introduce a measure of control over the activities of professional fund-raisers and commercial participators when they are raising funds on behalf of charities and charitable institutions; and, thirdly, to update the legislation relating to the conduct and the supervision of public charitable collections.
The underlying purpose is to enhance public confidence in the charitable sector by ensuring that charities are well managed and properly regulated. It is not a question of increasing bureaucracy, which none of us wants; but it is a question of ensuring that there should be a regime which will result in the public having confidence in the charitable sector.
We think that the best way of maintaining the public's goodwill is to ensure that every charity is accountable, publicly and openly, for the manner in which it conducts its affairs and that, in the rare instances where abuse or serious mismanagement occur, these matters are promptly investigated and those responsible called to account.
The provisions in Part I of the Bill, therefore, seek principally to enhance the existing powers of the Charity Commission so that it can identify, investigate and remedy abuse when and where it is found.
That has resulted in us proposing to amend substantially the 1960 Act so as to modernise and to extend the commissioners' existing powers and to relieve them of certain of their statutory duties. The

825
resources, which will thereby be released, will he available for redeployment on monitoring and investigation.
Clause 2 arises out of the proposal in the White Paper that it should be clear that the commissioners have the power to refuse to register a body—or to remove it from the register—where it is acting in pursuit of its objectives in ways which are not for the public. benefit. In essence, it amends the law so that the court and the commissioners, in determining whether an institution is charitable, may take into account its past, present and intended future activities before coming to a decision.
One of the commissioners' main tasks under existing legislation is to maintain a register of charities in England and Wales. That will not change. Indeed the register will be enhanced and it will become an even more important source of information relating to charities. There are three changes made by Clauses 3 and 4: first, the commissioners will be able to include such information relating to registered charities as they think fit; secondly, the income limit below which charities are not required to be registered is raised from £15 per year, which is clearly out of date, to £1,000 per year—that is one category of excepted charity; and, thirdly, registered charities must state the fact that they are registered in the fund-raising literature and in certain other financial documents so that the general public will be aware of the fact that the organisation is a registered charity, and that it is therefore subject to the scrutiny of the Charity Commission.
Under Clauses 5 and 6 the commissioners will have power, for the first time, over the names by which charities are known. They will be able in certain circumstances to direct a charity to change its name. That will help to eliminate the confusion which can sometimes arise and will also prevent the unscrupulous from attempting to exploit another charity's good name for their own benefit.
With Clauses 7 to 13 we come to the first of the key areas of the Bill. The commissioners are empowered, under Section 6 of the 1960 Act, to institute inquiries with regard to any charity other than one which is an exempt charity. Under Section 20 they can take various measures to protect charity property.
The new powers will enable the commissioners to take action more quickly and will give them a wider range of means with which to protect charity property. Most significantly, under Clause 9 their powers to protect charity property are to be extended. First, there are powers which can be exercised at any time after the institution of an inquiry where the commissioners are satisfied that there has been either misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the, charity or that it is necessary to protect the property of the charity.
Those powers include the commissioners' existing powers to freeze bank accounts, to restrain the actions and transactions of trustees and others, to suspend them, or to vest the charity's property in the Official Custodian for Charities. But they will be enhanced by new powers. The purpose of such powers is, first, to restrain debtors of charities from parting with money
826
which they owe to the charity; secondly, to appoint additional trustees to the charity to secure its proper administration; and, thirdly, to appoint a receiver and manager of a charity's property and affairs. The last of these powers would be used, for example, where there was evidence that the administration of a charity had completely broken down.
Further, there are to be powers which may only be used where there has been both misconduct or mismanagement and where it is necessary to protect the property of the charity. Under those powers, the commissioners will be able, as now, to remove trustees or others. They will also be able to make a scheme of their own for a charity which is under investigation. Such a scheme might for example make provision for its property to be transferred to another charity.
Clause 11 enables the commissioners to petition the High Court for a charitable company to be wound up. Clause 13 provides for the commissioners to exercise most of their powers of investigation and protection over Scottish charities which are managed or controlled wholly or mainly in or from England or Wales.
Next comes a group of clauses covering powers relating to the administration of charities. Among other things, they make it easier for applications for schemes to be made to the commissioners and for the commissioners to take the initiative where they are satisfied that the trustees should apply for a scheme in the interests of the charity and have neglected to do so.
Appeals for funds for specific purposes—perhaps a new swimming pool or a hospice—may sometimes fail to reach their target. In other cases more is raised than is actually needed. Where that happens, a problem can arise as to what to do about the shortfall or the excess. The existing procedures in the 1960 Act for dealing with such problems will be streamlined so that the money given can be used for charitable purposes more swiftly than is now possible.
The investment opportunities which are open to charities will now be increased by giving the commissioners power to make schemes establishing common deposit funds. When a charity invests in one of these, it will be entitled to the repayment of the sums which it deposits plus interest at a rate which may be determined under the scheme. The commissioners will also be able to authorise the trustees of a charity to make ex-gratia payments out of its funds where the trustees feel themselves under a moral obligation to do so.
Your Lordships will know that a good deal of anxiety has been expressed in recent years about the possibility of charitable moneys lying idle in dormant bank accounts. Clause 19 will enable the commissioners to direct the transfer of funds from such accounts to other charities having similar objects to those of the charities to which the moneys were originally donated.
Clauses 20 to 28 create a new accounting and audit regime for charities other than for exempt charities and for charitable companies which are subject to other regulatory frameworks. The trustees of all charities other than those which I have mentioned will be required under the Bill: to keep proper accounting

827
records; to prepare accounts, the form and content of which will be set out in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State; and to have the accounts audited or, in the case of a charity with an income not exceeding £100,000, independently examined.
The trustees of registered charities, including charitable companies, will be required to submit their accounts together with an annual report of the activities of their charity. Trustees of excepted charities will be required to submit their accounts to the commissioners when they are specifically requested to do so. Accounts will have to be available for public inspection, and members of the public will be able to obtain copies of any charity's accounts direct from the charity upon payment of a fee. The commissioners will be able to require a charity's accounts to be audited in certain circumstances and to recover the costs of such an audit from the private resources of the charity's trustees. It will be an offence to be persistently in default of requirements regarding the submission of accounts.
Another important feature of the Bill is Clause 29. For the first time, the commissioners will be able, with the consent of my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, to take direct action in the courts against defaulting trustees, and they will be able to recover misappropriated or misapplied charitable funds.
Clauses 30 and 31 relieve the commissioners of certain statutory duties by allowing for the official custodian to divest himself of stocks, shares and other property which he holds in trust for charities and to return them to the trustees of the charities or their nominees. That does not apply to land or to property which has been vested in the official custodian under the commissioners' powers to protect charity property.
Clauses 33 to 36 create a new regime for the disposal of charity land, dispensing with the consent of the commissioners where the trustees have satisfied certain conditions before the sale is completed and the disposition is not being made to what is to be called a "connected person".
Clauses 38 and 40 are designed to protect the property of charities which are companies by providing that any alteration to their objects clauses or to any other clause, which restricts the way in which their property may be used, will be ineffective without the prior written consent of the commissioners.
Clauses 41 and 42 replace the present provisions of the Charities Act 1985 which is now thought to be too restrictive.
In future the trustees of any charity, which is neither an exempt charity nor a charitable company and whose income did not exceed £5,000 in its last financial year, will be able to modify its objects, to alter certain provisions in the governing instrument or to transfer its property to another charity having similar purposes by unanimous resolution—subject of course to the commissioners' approval.
Similarly, the trustees of certain charities which are permanently endowed, and whose income did not exceed £1,000 in its last financial year, and which are
828
neither exempt charities nor charitable companies, may resolve to expend their capital as if it were income, provided that they have the commissioners' approval.
Clause 43 disqualifies from being trustees people such as those who have been convicted of offences involving dishonesty or deception, who are undischarged bankrupts and others whose past conduct as a charity trustee was such that they have had to be removed from their trusteeship. It will be an offence to act while disqualified. The commissioners will be able to waive an individual's disqualification in certain cases, for example a charity working with ex-offenders.
Clauses 45 to 55 make various miscellaneous and supplementary provisions. In particular Clause 49 allows the commissioners to charge for some of their services and Clause 52 makes it an offence to provide the commissioners knowingly or recklessly with false information or to destroy documents or otherwise to suppress them.
Part II of the Bill deals with fund-raising on behalf of charities and charitable institutions. Our intention here has been to address the areas of greatest mischief identified in the White Paper. These are, first, the excessive sums which are paid to, or retained by, professional fund-raisers for the fund-raising services which they provide to charities; secondly, the lack of information which is given to potential donors by professional fund-raisers and others; and, thirdly, the inability in many cases of charities to stop fund-raising activities which may be undertaken in their name or ostensibly for their benefit but without their consent.
We propose to make it unlawful for professional fund-raisers and commercial participators to solicit money or property on behalf of a charity, or to represent that a charity will benefit from the proceeds of a campaign or promotional venture, otherwise than in accordance with an agreement with the charity concerned which satisfies requirements to be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Donors must have information about where their money is going and how much of it will reach the charity in question; so professional fund-raisers and commercial participators will have to give prospective donors details of the charities or charitable institutions for which they are soliciting money or purporting to benefit. They will have to give details of their remuneration and the proportion in which the money or other proceeds are to be distributed. It will be an offence not to do so.
Certain types of appeal—those on television in particular —have an emotional immediacy which is not present in other kinds of approach. In certain circumstances, particularly where they have responded to appeals by telephone or television broadcasts, donors will be able to cancel their agreements to pay and to claim refunds.
At the moment charities have little or no control over many of those who raise funds for them. Some fund-raisers use methods which are, to say the least, highly dubious and tarnish the reputation of charity generally. The courts will be able to grant a charitable

829
institution an injunction preventing unauthorised fund-raising which may be undertaken on its behalf. It will be an offence to solicit money or other property for a particular institution on the basis that it is a registered charity where it is not.
The interests of the public, of donors and of charities have to be protected. This is just as true of Part III of the Bill as it was of Parts I and II. Clauses 63 to 72 are designed to make fresh provision for control of public charitable collections.
It will be an offence for promoters to organise, or for collectors to make a collection, without a permit from the local authority or an exemption order from the Charity Commissioners. Collections at public meetings or in places of worship are excluded from these provisions. There will be a right of appeal to a magistrates' court when a local authority refuses to issue a permit or where conditions are attached or varied or where the permit is withdrawn.
Exemption orders will allow a charity, which pursues its purposes throughout the whole or a substantial part of England and Wales, to carry out public charitable collections without the need to obtain permits for collections from each and every local authority in which it seeks to carry out its collection, although it will have to notify local authorities in whose areas it proposes to collect.
This is a fairly extensive and important Bill. It seeks to regulate charities. Charities form an enormous part of our public lives and a large part of most people's private lives. It is important that those who give to charily should know that their money goes to charity.
The Bill is designed to improve and generally to update the law on charity. I have tried to give a résumé of what it seeks to do and I trust that it will have the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, at the outset I wish to pay tribute to Sir Philip Woodfield and his committee for their report which formed the basis for the White Paper and the Bill. It was a timely, thorough and detailed examination of the existing laws on charities and fir that we should all be grateful.
We on this side of the House think it right and appropriate that we should have a fresh look at the law relating to charities. Legislation is needed to deal with the small number of bogus charities and dishonest fund-raisers who harm the image of charities in general. It is right too because the charity world has changed fundamentally since the last legislation in 1960. As the noble Earl told the House, there are now over 170,000 registered charities raising over £17 billion—I apologise to the noble Earl for using the word "billion"—a year. Not only that, but they ''requently undertake business activities to raise funds or provide services. More and more they rely upon fund-raising rather than endowments as a source of income. So we accept the need for the legislation and we will on the whole give it our support.
However, the noble Earl will not be surprised to hear that there are matters which will have to be dealt
830
with in detail at the Committee stage of the Bill. I shall, if I may, express some of our preoccupations and concerns at least in general terms today.
Perhaps I may also point out that the problems of charities are problems of growth, not of decline. As the noble Earl said, they represent a major section of our voluntary effort in this country. It is healthy that they are expanding. We should pay tribute to the vigour of this sector of our society. We accept that a modern regulatory framework is necessary. I echo the words of the White Paper which states:
"It is not surprising given these developments [in the charities world] that the system of supervision under which charities operate should need some updating".
The White Paper also says—and here I am dealing with the Woodfield Report—
"Its central conclusion was that, while the essentials of the present framework were still necessary, they were in need of extensive reform. The Trustees needed to be more aware of their duties and responsibilities; steps were needed to ensure that the information about charities held by the Charity Commission was accurate and up-to-date; above all, the Commission needed to focus more sharply on dealing with inefficiency and abuse. To achieve this new focus the Woodfield Report concluded that the Commission needed on the one hand new powers and on the other to be relieved of…its present statutory duties".
In summing up the Government's approach—I think the noble Earl used almost the same words today—the White Paper stated, in language that I can accept and indeed would approve of on behalf of this side of the House:
"The Government's overall objective…is to achieve a balance between on the one hand proper control by the Charity Commission and proper accountability by charities, and on the other the freedom and corresponding responsibilities of individual organisations to develop and do business".
The crucial test of the legislation therefore is whether it achieves that proper balance between accountability on the one hand and freedom to develop and to do business on the other. Again, broadly, we on this side of the House, with certain caveats that I shall come to later, believe that it does.
Perhaps I may therefore look at the Bill in its present framework and express some of our concerns and those of parts of the charity world itself. I start, as the noble Earl did, with Clause 2. For those noble Lords who have read the Bill, I can only say that it is a clause of almost Proustian complexity. As I read it—and I believe that the noble Earl confirmed this today—it empowers the court or commission to look beyond the terms of the trust deed and examine the way in which the charity is conducted. So far, so good. I understand. Not only that, but, as I read it, the clause says that even if the activities of the institution concerned are being carried on wholly within the terms of the trust deed, and further, even if looking only at the trust deed itself, the purposes would be held to be charitable, nevertheless the court or the commission, looking at the manner and circumstances in which the purposes of the institution are being carried out, could conclude that, although prima facie and in accordance with the terms of the instrument of trust, they were being carried out as a charity, those purposes were not charitable.
The noble Earl said that the court or commission could decide in those circumstances to conclude that

831
an institution should not be registered as a charity because it was not in the public interest or public benefit. If that is right, then this difficult clause gives very wide powers indeed to the court or to the Charity Commission. While I am not against that in principle, I am bound to ask the Government what precisely they have in mind. I assume that the wording is designed to catch the quasi religious trust or a business operating under the cloak of a charitable trust instrument whose end purposes are not charitable. If so, I should have liked the Government to give further guidance as to the circumstances in which an apparent charity operating solely within the terms of an apparently charitable trust deed can nevertheless be held to be an institution not established for charitable purposes and therefore not eligible to be registered. If it is a public interest test that is to be applied, in what circumstances? Or is it intended that it should be left to a court to decide on general principles? I know not what they would be in any given set of circumstances. Or is it intended that the commission should decide?
It is rather like the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot which, with deference to the noble and learned Lord who is no longer present, may have done us very well in mediaeval times. However, the law even in the Chancery Division seems to have become more precise as it has become more contemporary. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to enlighten us a little on what the Government have in mind on this public interest test.
I turn now to the regulatory powers in the Bill. By and large, we support them. We recognise that the Government have made a serious attempt to distinguish between those obligations appropriate for larger charities and those lesser obligations sought to be imposed on the smaller ones. As I understand it, Clause 21 provides that all charities must prepare accounts in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State. I have no problem whatever with that responsibility. It is right that there should be such a provision in the Bill. Trustees of charities with a gross income below £10,000 per year may choose to prepare, instead of full accounts, a receipts and payments account and a statement of assets and liabilities. I assume that charities with a gross income of more than £10,000 a year will have to prepare proper and full accounts.
Charities with an annual income, or a total expenditure, of more than £100,000 must undergo a professional audit. Again I have no problem with that provision. Charities with an income below that figure will be examined by an auditor or an independent examiner. I am not sure what kind of person the Government have in mind when they refer to an independent examiner. Does such a person have to be a professional accountant? Presumably he must be independent of the charity itself. One assumes he should be able at least to read a balance sheet. I should be grateful for some further clarification of the Government's thinking about how the provision will work as the charities themselves are primarily concerned with the practicalities of the Bill.
In addition to preparing accounts, all charities will
832
have to submit each year an annual report in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State. The annual report should describe the activities of the charity during the year and give other information relating to the charity or its trustees and officers. The report is to be transmitted to the commission within 10 months, together with the accounts and the audit report or certificate. That means 170,000 annual reports will be placed before the commission each year. That appears to be a major burden on the staff and the resources of the Charity Commission. How many extra staff will the commission have to recruit?
The financial memorandum to the Bill seems somewhat sanguine about this matter. I should like to receive reassurance. The operation of these new procedures will involve additional resources. I am not at all confident that the Government are prepared to fund those resources properly. If they are not prepared to do so, the Bill's provisions will place an imposition on the Charity Commission which I am sure that worthy body could well do without.
Is the commission content that its future resources will be sufficient to meet the task? Is the Charity Commission agreeable to having these burdens placed upon it? The provisions in the Bill for reducing fraud and protecting donors are ones we can support. They are designed to exclude people who have been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or deception, and bankrupts, from becoming trustees. Those provisions will help to ease co-operation between the Charity Commission and the Serious Fraud Office and other public bodies, and they will give the Charity Commission new powers to protect charitable property. As such they seem sensible provisions.
Clauses 41 and 42 enable small charities to merge and enable the very smallest charities to spend their capital. Again we accept that these are sensible provisions and the income limits realistic. Similarly the removal of the requirement for the consent of the commission to the disposition of land held in trust for a charity, subject to certain preconditions, seems a sensible provision in the light of recent developments. However, there is not universal agreement on the matter.
The Almshouses Association stated on 13th November in relation to this part of the Bill:
"Curiously after the teeth of the earlier clauses the Charity Commissioners now propose to remove their dentures to provide a loophole for unscrupulous Trustees. Our Association recommends that where Almshouse property is held for the benefit of local people in need disposal should always be subject to Public Notice and the Consent of the Commissioners".
On this matter I cannot refrain from referring to Clause 49 which requires the payment of fees in respect of certain prescribed functions of the commissioners and in respect of inspection of the register of charities and the supply of extracts from it. On the face of it one may think that that is not a bad idea. The danger is that the provisions may discourage charities from seeking advice and assistance. I wonder whether it is necessary to introduce such charges under the Bill. I believe that it is the first time that such

833
charges have been proposed. In respect of smaller charities they seem an extra imposition on top of the burdens of filing an annual return and having their accounts inspected. If the provisions deter charities from seeking advice, they would have an undesirable effect. Moreover, the anticipated revenue is in the order of £300,000 a year. One is tempted to ask whether the provisions are worth it, having regard to the dangers I have mentioned. After all, money which is raised by charities is intended for the beneficiaries of those charities and not for the Exchequer.
It is the fund-raising part of the Bill that has given rise to the major concerns of the charities. It is fair to say that the provisions of the Bill differ considerably from those set out in the White Paper. Charities are naturally worried lest the definition in the Bill with its concept of reward may deter volunteers from helping charities to raise funds in circumstances where those volunteers are reimbursed for their expenses or possibly paid a modest honorarium.
I make my next point in no spirit of confrontation. I genuinely seek to improve the Bill. Are the Government really satisfied that they have this part of the Bill right? Much of the information I have received leads me to believe that the drafting of the Bill is not universally accepted in the charities world although the principle behind it may well be accepted. I seek clarification that it is not the Government's intention to catch voluntary helpers by that provision. In Committee I shall ask the Government to reconsider the drafting of Clause 56 to ensure that voluntary helpers are excluded from the provision.
The term "promotional venture" is a wide definition. It would apply to almost all charity joint ventures. The term "commercial participator" could include trading companies associated with charities. Charities are concerned that, given the way the nature of fund-raising has changed, many of the more contemporary methods of fund-raising would be covered by those definitions. It is being argued that celebrities making appeals on television or radio, or through direct mail or trading catalogues, would be classed as professional fund-raisers under the terms of the Bill. Soliciting for funds by personal contact or by telephone contact might again be caught by the definitions I have mentioned.
I cannot believe it is the Government's intention that bona fide activities of that kind, carried out on behalf of a charity, should be subject to the same stringent protections as those imposed on professional fund-raisers in the ordinary accepted sense of the word. I am by no means certain that the drafting of the Bill is sufficiently precise. I hope the Government will take that point seriously. We shall return to it in Committee.
Clause 58 requires professional fund-raisers and commercial participators to give details of the charitable institutions for which they are soliciting money. They will also be required to give details of their remuneration and the proportion in which the money or other proceeds of a campaign or promotional venture are to be distributed. It will be an offense to breach those requirements.
834
The charity world is concerned that the clause could well lead to a reduction in fund-raising and donations as agents acting for charities, such as direct mail companies, would be required to state details of the method by which they are being paid. At one stage there was much discussion about a regulation, or some form of legislative instrument, which would compel fund-raisers to hand over the whole of the money raised to the charity concerned before deducting their expenses, even if it were accepted that those expenses were fair and legitimate. That does not appear anywhere in the Bill. I therefore ask the Government whether it is their intention to cover that point by regulation in due course.
The provision that commercial participators using telephones for appeals and trading must write to donors giving them the right to cancel could also hit fund-raising and trading by telephone marketing companies acting as agents for charities. The provisions of Clause 59 giving donors 14 days to cancel agreements to pay in response to a radio or television appeal could have a similar effect.
I am convinced by the representations that have been made to me that it is not the principle behind the provisions which worries the charities but the practicality of the clauses and how they will be implemented in practice. I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen to representations of individual charities or associations of charities on that point. I understand what the Government have in mind and I agree with the thrust of much of it, but there are dangers here and we need to be assured that the Government have the right balance in this part of the Bill.
Part III of the Bill relates to public charitable collections. As I understand it, most of the clauses apply not just to collections made for charities but also to collections made for any charitable purpose. Hence they will apply to voluntary organisations or individuals involved in public collections. The difficulty here is again primarily one of definition. A public charitable collection is defined as an appeal to give money which is made in any public place or by means of visits from place to place, whether they are public places or not. The only exclusions are appeals made in the course of a public meeting, in a place of worship or through the use of static collection boxes. A public place is defined as,
"any highway and any other place to which, at any time when the appeal is made, members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise".
I am worried about the breadth of that definition. For example, if I were to stand in the foyer of an office block in which I work appealing for sponsorship and passing round a sponsorship form for a sponsored walk, or perhaps in my case a sponsored slim, as I understand it, when I collect the money, that would become a public collection for which I would need a licence. If I, as the collector, did not have a proper licence I should have broken the law and be guilty of an offence. I cannot believe that that was the Government's intention.
The breadth of the definition in that part of the Bill will cause problems. It will certainly increase the bureaucracy in local charity. It will cause a substantial

835
decrease in informal fund-raising through coffee mornings, sponsorship and so on. That is a matter to which we shall have to return at a later stage in the Bill.
Many of these points are for the Committee stage. On the general theme of the Bill we support the Government's expressed intentions. The law on charities needs to be revised in the light of contemporary experience. The possibility of fraud needs to be considered. The powers of smaller charities need to be brought up to date and the responsibilities of the Charity Commission need to be set out in detail. However, the other side of the coin is that in addressing those obvious needs the Government must ensure that the burdens placed on charities and the inhibitions placed on fund-raising do not result in a decline in voluntary activity.
This is a giving nation. The voluntary sector is one of which we can, as a country, be distinctly proud. I should be sad if, in their laudable attempts to bring the law up to date, the Government were to damage that sector, either by imposing excessively onerous burdens on the trustees of charities in terms of their obligations to report to the commission or, just as important, by hampering their ability to perform what is after all the primary function of a charity—raising money for people who are in need.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, all noble Lords will know from their own experience the hesitation with which I rise to address the House for the first time. I am well aware that I am not familiar with the idioms and atmosphere of the House which are so crucial to speaking in a persuasive or interesting way. My anxiety is increased by the fact that I am a technician—a lawyer—speaking on a technical Bill and that that is not calculated to fill people with enthusiasm. Nevertheless, because I have had certain professional experience in this field, I thought it appropriate that I should say one or two words today on the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will indulge my ineptitudes.
There are two points which I want to make. The first is a point of principle, possibly the only point of principle raised by the Bill. It is a point to which the previous speaker referred and it is raised by Clause 2 of the Bill. Those who have anything to do with charities, either in practice or legally, know that the altruistic world of charity has attracted some rather grubby elements—people who exploit the status of charities not for altruistic ends but for personal interest. The Bill addresses two instances of that which are well known: that sector of the professional fund-raising industry (and it is only a sector and not the whole) which charges excessive remuneration for its services, and the street collection which is not always conducted with total probity. There is a third sector of parasites on the altruistic world of charity which I should like to examine for a moment and at which I believe Clause 2 is directed.
There are what might be called the white-collar parasites who use the structure of charities and the
836
exemptions which they enjoy to achieve personal benefits. Their activities are based on the fact that under existing law the legal status of a charity is determined once and for all by what is set out in its written constitution. If the words state the purpose to be a charitable purpose that is the end of the matter: it is a charity. That fact has been exploited now for many years by people who use a tame charity, incorporated and frequently registered as being for charitable purposes, which de facto they control by the ability to appoint and remove the trustees. There are many manifestations of that particular device which are to be found in many different fields.
A typical example is the sole shareholder of a company who wishes to keep control of the company although apparently not doing so. A controlling shareholding is transferred to the trustees of a tame charity and the trust of the charity provides for the income to be rolled up almost indefinitely. Control of the company remains ostensibly with the trustees of the charity but de facto the man behind the company remains in control.
There are many other examples. For instance, a club which has a number of activities may, let us say, provide a library for its members. The club's activities as a whole are not charitable but any one isolated part is charitable. Therefore the club hives off the charitable part and sets up a tame charity to promote education through the provision of libraries. The library is then provided for the members of the club at the expense of the taxpayers and to the benefit of the members' subscriptions.
It is that type of arrangement at which I believe Clause 2 is directed. It is directed at a situation where, on the face of it, the purposes declared are charitable, but are utilised for side aims for personal benefit. As such, I strongly welcome the introduction of the provision, but I echo the doubts that have been expressed about the formulation of Clause 2 and hope that it will be considered carefully in Committee because it is the only change proposed in the Bill, the other admirable provisions of the Bill providing a much-needed improved regulatory system.
Clause 2 changes the substantive law of charity. I am anxious as to what its consequences might be, not in relation to those charities that might be called dodgy, but in relation to bona fide charities. I am anxious that there should not be a wide-ranging investigation in the case of every charity, not only of what it has done in the past, but of what it intends to do in the future. I am sure that your Lordships are aware that there is nothing more difficult than to establish effectively what a person's future intentions are. I am sure that the charity commissioners accept that they are not an ideal fact-finding body such as would be required to conduct those difficult findings of fact in order to decide whether a charity should or should not be registered.
The expense of conducting such an inquiry in relation to each charity might be substantial. It must be one of the fears, as with the regulatory provisions, that the well-intentioned provisions of the Bill might increase the load on charitable funds with regard to administrative, legal and other costs in an undesirable

837
way. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that Clause 2 will require careful consideration in Committee in order to ensure that it achieves the objective which, as I understand it, it is aimed to hit, but does not other wise increase the burden on bona fide founders of charities.
I wish to mention only one other point. I mention it with even more diffidence as it is a procedural matter and I am wholly ignorant of the procedure of this House. I do not know whether any other of your Lordships found Part I of the Bill far from ideal bedside reading. As I understand it, the reason is that the draftsman formulated the proposals by way of amendment to the existing Act, the Charities Act 1960.I did a rough count and found that there were 39 provisions in the Bill amending one section or another of the Charities Act 1960, giving rise to some 94 amendments to that Act. I am sure that some Members of your Lordships' House are capable of holding the 1960 Act in mind at the same time as considering the impact of the amendments to it. However, although some of your Lordships may be able to do that, I hope that it will be borne in mind that hereafter, if the Bill passes into law, those who run charities, their advisers and even, if they may be allowed a moment's thought, the judges who have to construe the legislation, will either be forced into a scissor and paste operation, chasing 94 amendments round the Bill, or will have to wait until someone else makes intelligible on a commercial basis what Parliament has not made intelligible.
When an earlier Act is being heavily amended, there is a perfectly good precedent for a Bill, such as the Bill before your Lordships' House today, to contain a schedule setting out the original Act as amended by the Bill. In the smallest office in this country today there will be a word processor capable of conflating two texts and underlining those parts that are amendments and those that are not. I suspect that the draftsman responsible for the Bill has exactly that text on his word processor at this moment and that people in the department will also have it. It might be helpful, both to your Lordships and to those who hereafter must administer the law, if consideration could be given to including in the schedule to the Bill the Charities Act 1960 as amended. That will make it possible to consider Part I of the Bill and to ensure that it achieves the objective that it sets out to achieve, no more and no less. It will also diminish the call on professional advisers' time and consequent expense to charities hereafter.
Your Lordships have indulged me with the courtesy which, in the short time that I have been in the House, I am well aware is a custom of the House. I am very grateful.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
4.5 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have the great privilege on behalf of your Lordships of thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and congratulating him on an important maiden speech. Perhaps I may say to him and to many other members
838
of the legal profession whom I am delighted to see have come to support him that I started my political career in desperate fear of anyone involved with the legal profession and have emerged from it at the end with the utmost admiration for them, although it was always tinged by that particular fear throughout. That survived my whole period as Home Secretary and it has survived throughout my life, but the noble and learned Lord has shown us the great importance of the legal brain applied to a Bill compared with the approach of a simple person like myself.
Although I am interested in charities, I could not understand the first part of the Bill, so I simply decided that there was no point in trying to understand it and that I would relate my points to the general principles of the Bill and keep as far away from all the details as I could. In a sensible and wise way, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, showed me that what he intends to do will perhaps complement, in a very different way, what I shall try to do. We are delighted to have him in this House and to hear what he said. We look forward to hearing the advice which he will give us and which I would have originally regarded with great fear and doubt, but now regard with admiration and as advice to be followed closely.
Since I left the Government almost four years ago, I have spent a considerable amount of my time helping charities with fund-raising appeals. In addition, as chairman of the Council for Charitable Support, I have learnt something about the organisation of charities and about their problems. That experience has taught me that charities occupy an extremely important and valuable position in our national life. When I was Home Secretary, which may seem to many people a long time ago, I became very uneasy about the risks of financial impropriety, with large sums of money being handled without proper supervision. I thought that it would be tragic if, in response to appeals, generous people gave money which was subsequently misappropriated or misused in one way or another.
That anxiety increased when the Government, rightly in my opinion, gave financial encouragement to charities through changes in taxation. At that time—it is still true today —the Charity Commission lacked both the necessary legislative power and the resources required to monitor charities effectively. Nor was it able to help the trustees of charities in the performance of their duties. That was worrying to me when I was Home Secretary and was even more worrying when I came to deal with charities after leaving the Government and discovered what the position was.
However, in recent years, thanks in no small measure to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others in your Lordships' House, much has been done to improve the situation. Sir Philip Woodfield produced his excellent report and the Government wisely followed the main thrust of his proposals in their White Paper. It has culminated in the introduction of this most welcome Bill. I should like to congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Minister of State on producing this legislation which

839
after proper discussion—I shall come to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which I think are important—will, I trust, be of lasting importance to charity.
I am also particularly pleased that my noble friend the Leader of the House has succeeded in having this Bill started in your Lordships' House. No place is more likely to produce the kind of discussion which will benefit the measure and one which I hope will be detached from any party political point of view. In a Bill of this kind that is enormously important. On whatever side of the House we sit, we are all engaged in trying to make sure that our charitable sector works to the best advantage. We shall succeed only if we approach the Bill from a non-political point of view and are determined to make sure that when the Bill leaves this Parliament it will benefit not only the country but also the working of the charities, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, very properly said. I am sure that that will happen.
All that can be done in this House. It is a task which, as I have learnt from what to some of those here must seem my very short experience, this House carries out enormously well. That is why I welcome the opportunity to introduce the Bill in this House. I simply say to those who are bent on too great a political discussion in the Committee stage, that it would be wise to remember that it would be a very good thing and in the interests of the country as a whole if this Bill were to become law. I should like all those noble Lords who wish to take a very long time over this Bill to understand that we want to put it through quickly, so that it gets through Parliament next year—and it does not take very much thought to work out when it ought to happen. If it is to be effective, it will be a tragedy if it does not complete its passage before the next general election. We all ought to remember that.
On that basis I would make only two important points at this stage to my noble friend, one of which concerns the financial effects of the Bill. The purpose of this legislation will prove effective only if the Charity Commission is provided with the necessary financial resources to enable it to carry out its duties. I know that the Home Office appreciates that. I just hope that the Treasury will also understand that a niggardly attitude to the whole problem in the long run will be very counter-productive, not only from the point of view of the nation but also from its own point of view.
I have the greatest confidence in the chief charity commissioner. It would be a tragic mistake if, after the passage of this Bill, he and his commission were left short of the funds that they need to carry out their task. I notice that in Clause 49, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is provided that the charity commissioners may make charges for their services in certain circumstances and that such charges will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. I think—but only think—that I am generally in favour of such charges. I should be more in favour of them if I had certain reassurances about them, which I shall now seek from my noble friend.
840
I am surprised, as was the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the charges are supposed to yield only £300,000. I do not know where that figure came from or whether it was plucked out of the sky. However, it seems that that is the case. Can my noble friend explain to us how that sum is made up? Perhaps even more important, can he give an assurance that the money raised by those charges, whatever it turns out to be, will be made available to the charity commissioners and not put back in some way into the Consolidated Fund, with a lot of murmuring and muttering about revenue which is hypothecated (which I have never really believed in but is something that one has had to live with over a long period of time in government)?
My second point—I follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, somewhat in this—is that, in making plans to make sure that there is no impropriety in the management of charities, I hope that the Bill has not gone too far. That may have been a feeling in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, as well. There is always a danger in every Bill that everybody tries to make it so watertight that it builds up a great body of extra bureaucracy. More and more is put into it. Everyone has to make sure that every single possible avenue of doubt will be removed in one way or another. In the end it becomes too bureaucratic. I hope that the Minister of State will realise that if there is too much bureaucracy in this field, those who will be hit will be the smallest charities, many of which are very well run. They will be subjected to bureaucracy which will add to their costs in such a way that they cannot meet them. The larger charities may be able to meet them but the smaller charities will not. It will be a great tragedy if that happens. Those are two points which I hope will stay in the background of our discussion at the very important Committee stage.
I greatly welcome this Bill. It is something that I have wanted for a long time. I know from all my experience, both as Home Secretary and then as someone concerned with charities and with fundraising, that a Bill of this kind will be enormously important to charities in the future. I hope it will be seen after the Committee stage that the Bill is such that it will do the job that we all want to see done.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps the House will permit me to answer a point that he made to me. I did not pluck the figure of £300,000 out of the air. In fact it is mentioned in the Memorandum to the Bill under "Financial effects of the Bill". The government estimate of the revenue from Clause 49 to be paid into the Consolidated Fund will yield £300,000 a year. It is therefore in the Bill.
Viscount Whitelaw: I do not think I shall pursue the point. I want to leave that opportunity to other people. I am not sure that I understand it and that is the best reason for not answering the point now. I do not know.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is a good Bill. When we understand it better, it may turn out to be a very good Bill. I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in his maiden speech give the House a little homily on the problems of legislation by reference. It is a common practice and well established in precedent. But it makes it very difficult indeed to follow a Bill—and this is a case in point—without saturating oneself in the existing law and comparing the two. I hope that the noble Earl will wear modestly the congratulations that he is receiving—I am sure they are well merited—for bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House. It has been on its way a long time. It was probably on the desk of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for longer than he realises. The in-trays in the Home Office are very deep, and some Home Secretaries are not there long enough to discover what is in them. This may be a case in point.
The Bill owes its form and I believe its origin to a group of Back-Benchers in both Houses—I and a number of noble Lords served in that group—who sought to find the basis for an agreed Bill on charity reform. That is a very valuable process in our parliamentary system which is ill-used or not used at all. Yet the benefit of it could he to speed up legislation on matters which have no party political content but which nevertheless may be acutely controversial. Charily is a case in point. We spent a long time going over the ground. We were at work during the period of office of three successive Home Secretaries. We saw two of them. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was spared our attentions only because the matter was further advanced by the time he came. The all-party group was served by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations which enabled us to publish our findings before the Home Office had produced theirs. That was a splendid innovation in parliamentary affairs. But why do we have to rely on a voluntary organisation to serve a group of Members of all parties of both Houses which is engaged in trying to find tie foundations for legislative changes? We are backward in these matters.
The advantages of that method of preparing the ground for legislation were fully illustrated at the time of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The reason some Bills take so long to come before your Lordships' House, and that reform is so difficult to obtain, is because governments are afraid of the commotion which such changes may cause and the disturbance to the unity of Parliament that they may create. That is not so if that preparatory work is done.
The first decision to be made on the Bill is to keep out the contentious question of changes in the definition of a charity and discussion on the deep difficulties and traditions when sorting the wheat from the chaff. I believe that we were wise to take a decision at the outset to keep the definition of charity and other such controversial matters out of the Bill. Successive Home Secretaries have agreed with the decision although they played with it in one of the papers that they published.
It is a regulatory Bill. It does not invite
842
consideration of the moral, social or philosophical aspects of the voluntary sector. We are dealing with an industry which claims opportunities for greater expansion and makes sterner claims upon the resources of the nation. We are here to regulate that. It is for governments to decide as a matter of policy what the range and form of charitable activities shall be. We are dealing with the machinery, the security and the regulation of the conduct of those in this field of operation.
Such regulation has been achieved before. Friendly societies, trade unions, co-operative societies and companies all need regulation. When they become larger and wider in their activities the opportunities for fraud and mishandling of funds become greater.
In my acknowledgments, I wish to refer to what I believe is the one reason for the progress that we have made; namely, the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He has raised debates on charities and has been most persistent in his desire for the Bill. As a former Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, he knew from where the initiative on charities should come. He helped to provide some of that himself. His harassment of the Government was conducted in a manner in keeping with the highest traditions of a senior civil servant. It was never unpleasant, but it was effective. There is no doubt that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, ought to be published in a separate schedule to the Bill.
We all agree that the Bill is overdue and that it should pass into law in this Parliament. We should combine to facilitate that. Let us therefore keep clear of issues which may not be resolved in our time but which some people may consider important and on which reform should take place. Let us not hear a single word about religious cults or anything of an allied nature. Let us leave those subjects alone and get on with the real business relating to charities: to stop the exploitation, if we can; to stop the leaks of finance; and generally to get charities more properly organised.
There are three growth industries in Britain: crime, charity and borrowing money. We wish to regulate one of those. I should like to see a firm principle in the Bill—I am not sure that it is in the Bill—that any appeal to the public for funds for a charity should bear the approval of the charity commissioners; and that everyone appealing to the public for money should satisfy certain conditions laid down by the charity commissioners regarding a lawful appeal. I leave aside local authorities and a few exemptions provided for. Such regulation is not bureaucracy; it is to stop what happens every year. It happened in my own former constituency. I read in the paper recently of a charity which someone set up in a hillside farm on the Yorkshire moors and obtained £250,000 before anyone discovered that it was a fraud. That man is in prison. Others are doing the same. They make an appeal and receive charitable gifts and so on from local sources before they are discovered. It is not unreasonable to ensure that conditions are satisfied. It is especially necessary to make provisions in the Bill regarding accountability, accounting and other safeguards.

843
I underline what the noble Viscount said. If the Charity Commission is not given the resources to get the job done, it will be as ineffective as it has been until now. Who has neglected the Charity Commission all these years? Who has regarded the chief charity commissioner's job as suitable for an undistinguished civil servant reaching retirement age? Government after government have considered that so. It is only now that we have a chairman of the Charity Commission who shows signs of having all the qualities required for this enlarged job. How does the scrutiny take place when one considers the number of charities that may seek the cover of the law?
Although it is not for us to deal with it in this House, another important consideration, especially when one considers some of the principles of the voluntary sector, relates to tax concessions and exemptions. Concessions of differing kinds are a foundation to all approved charitable objects in this country. It is as though the generosity of the great British public could not be fully expressed unless at the same time they were induced by lowering the tax burden and saying, "It won't cost you as much. You will be able to give to the charity. The Inland Revenue will pay the balance". That is what occurs at present. Now there is a campaign for lowering the qualifying limit of a gift to charity from £600 to £100. There are more and more concessions to the charitable gifts systems under the pay-as-you-earn machinery. Is it desirable for the state to enlarge the voluntary sector by increasing all the time the inducement to give?
I have just two or three matters of particular importance to me. I am still not satisfied about advertising standards. We have had some difficulty in the past year concerning advertisements by charities. The Advertising Standards Authority has been attending to that. Something is necessary in charitable appeals to bring them more within the intelligent understanding of those who receive them rather than to stir up their emotions and prejudices and so get the money on impulse that way.
Secondly, I am still anxious about media broadcasting for public support. That is still very big business indeed. There is a lot about about the television appeals for charitable support that is open to question. I raised the matter on the Broadcasting Bill on 9th July 1990. I asked whether the broadcasting authorities would be required to follow any conditions laid down by the Charity Commissioners for the conduct of broadcasting appeals for charity. I was told that the Independent Broadcasting Authority would draw up a code on this matter. I do not know whether it has yet done so. Then the Minister said—and it is all in Hansard —that the commission would do its best to see that it was complied with. But can we not strengthen the hand of the Charity Commissioners in this regard? I think we should do so.
I come to my final point: private trusts. It astonishes me that there is no body to investigate what happens to legacies that are left to charities. It appears that the charities themselves must look out for named charities in testators' wills. Whether they have agents
844
that work in the probate office to find references to particular charities I do not know; but apparently there is no body to tell them unless the executors do it, and in the case of named charities I should imagine they invariably do.
However, some bequests are to charity in general, and are so broad in description that they are not identifiable to any particular charity. What about them? Apparently the Charity Commission has no power to ensure that money left either by residue or in specific bequests to charity generally reaches charity in some form or another. That is a weakness in the law in that regard. It leaves executors much too much power to delay the winding up of the estate in order to have the benefit of the use of the residual money in the estate before finally giving their grant to charity. These may be matters that we can deal with at Committee stage.
I certainly welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, and I am bound to say that a great deal of preparation on the Back Benches of your Lordships' House and in the other place has gone into this Bill. It has been a co-operative effort, and we have a Bill as near to agreement as we can get on the matters covered, and much better than if it were left to the Government without our help to bring it forward.
4.34 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the privilege of addressing your Lordships today is only equalled by your Lordships' assent to my being permitted to speak on the matter of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Charity is indeed a weighty matter; to love our neighbour being a requirement second only to a love of God. The importance of charity lies deep within our European Christian culture, and although the process of recent history has changed the nature of our national life so as to encompass other faiths, they too place a great obligation on charity.
In the language of the King James' translation of the New Testament, which has had such a shaping influence on our British culture, St. Paul's evocation to charity is so strong that it is almost a visual image. The equation of charity with love for humankind in all its manifestations will, I hope, govern our debate. If charity has, as yet, defied definition in law, it may well be that its subject is too great to contain in a few phrases. The succinct statement of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that, "but once one starts to define the meaning of charity one changes the law on charity" should perhaps stand as a postscript to the preamble to the Act of 1601 and Lord Macnaghten's subsequent clarification. Lack of an absolute definition may well serve a better purpose than to create the unworkable.
The White Paper and your Lordships' debate dwell long on the issue of charities and their public morality. I find in this morality two areas of public concern which, if this Bill is to advance and bring up to date charity law, it must achieve. First, despite the lack of definition, proposed charitable enterprises should not be given the status of charities unless their purpose conforms to a moral standard acceptable to the great majority of the people. I find that a concept of "public benefit" is subordinate to the maintenance of public

845
morality. If, as I believe, this is indeed true, then the law would have no problem in rejecting an offensive religious cult and at the same time would give charitable status to contemplative religious orders. If indeed law could be drafted in such a manner, then morality might once again be regarded in absolute terms rather than in relative values.
I wish to stress that charity is deeply engrained in our culture, and even if we are moving into what some would call the post-Christian era, this in no way changes the concept of the value and the virtue of charity in our national life as recognised by the people of our land. They know what is right and they know what is wrong, and I am sure would judge the suitability of charitable status as a moral issue before seeking the level of public benefit that is to be achieved.
The second area of public concern, and one that takes up a major part of this Bill, is the rectitude with which charities will conduct their affairs. Your Lordships must ensure that there is not a single lacuna in the law when it leaves your hands. I must express my own concern at the frequent reference to the cost of maintaining the Charity Commission and the cost to the Exchequer of tax remission on charitable enterprise. Quite frankly I think that this is a little dismissive of the many millions of people who give of their time in the service of others. If the state had to replicate only that part of charity work that is essential to our everyday life, the cost would far exceed the budget for that of almost any other state activity. Tax relief I o the donor is another complete red herring. As individuals we are far more capable of identifying a proper use of financial resources than any state agency that comes to mind.
For many years I have had a particular interest in the work of the Scout Association and its sister organisation the Girl Guides Association; charities that involve some 1,400,000 young people and their adult supporters. If local authorities had to replace the work carried out by the two associations with statutory youth workers, the cost to the nation could well be in the order of £300 million per year.
I pray that your Lordships will not hold me in breach of the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House as regards speaking on behalf of outside interests if I use my knowledge of the workings of the two mentioned organisations in order to illustrate particular problems which clauses in the Bill may bring about. In order to be able to include the girl guides more fully in my observations, I consulted the legal adviser to that organisation.
Clause 49 may well gain a deserved notoriety. Under the 1960 Act and the amendments contained in the Bill, the two mentioned organisations register about 10,000 local groups and will be required to provide 10,000 sets of annual accounts. The White Paper suggests fees in the order of £5; that is, £50,000 per year raised by young people to be paid to a government agency. I hope that I need make no clearer point.
While not wishing to provoke an even worse situation, I should point out that under the provisions of the Bill the scouts and guides also have 40,000
846
groups which at present do not have to register and, therefore, there will be 40,000 sets of annual accounts of which the commissioners will know nothing.
The Royal Charter under which scouts and girl guides are constituted provides for each of the organisations to maintain their own rule books which I understand augment statute law. Clause 22 provides for an independent examiner of a group's accounts who is deemed to have practical experience of the practice of accountancy. Unless the procedures contained in the rule books are allowed to stand, that will produce a major problem not only for the 10,000 groups which register but also for the 40,000 which do not.
Over the years the scout and guide associations and similar youth organisations have evolved a system of what I call a "holding trustee" to secure the proper ownership of property owned by local groups. Clause 33 may well remove a power from the central organisation which, because of its superior experience, is better placed to take longer term decisions.
Clause 43 deals with disqualification for acting as a charity trustee. All youth organisations, by virtue not only of their care of charity funds but also their charge of young people, take immense care to refuse the offered services of adults with known convictions for all criminal activities. For example, in one's local scout group the members of the executive committee are the trustees. In the case of a guide group it is the guider who is the trustee. Should any of those people be convicted of the named offences, they must cease to be trustees. I have not calculated the number of trustees involved but I should guess that it goes into tens of thousands. Does the Bill go far enough as regards the relevant offences? The Bill quite rightly addresses that old problem but I believe that the exclusions need to be further thought out and offences added other than those for dishonesty.
In all aspects of charity work a very high standard of moral perception is required. We should fail in our duty to the public if we did not take that clause a few steps further. The computer age has given to the charity commissioners a tool with which they can render to charities an aid hitherto denied to them. The cost of providing that aid would be insignificant compared with the advantages gained. Before sitting down, I make a plea to the Government, through the good offices of your Lordships' House. If all involved in charitable work—and there can be none in this House who are not—are to carry out their responsibilities, access is needed to all the information held by the agencies of state as regards those who have been convicted of crime. There is no requirement for an individual to offer his services to a charity but should he do so, the knowledge of any past convictions must be made available to the charities concerned. How can those who have the care of charity moneys and young people and the multitude of charities within the charity world carry out their stewardship if they do not have access to that information free of charge?
I remind your Lordships that the Bill follows other recent Acts—the health and safety Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Food Safety

847
Act 1990 and the Children Act 1989. All those Acts are applicable to the work of national youth organisations. I hope that the various exceptions available in the Charities Act 1960 and mentioned in the Bill will be readily accorded to us, otherwise what time shall we have for charity? I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is my great privilege on behalf of the whole House to thank the noble Viscount for what was an admirable and extremely audible maiden speech. It is one of the great strengths of this House that we benefit from contributions from people who are expert and knowledgeable on various aspects of our national life. What we have been told today, in particular about the problems which the Bill presents to the scouts and guides, and the way in which that has been put, demonstrates that the noble Viscount speaks as a real expert on a subject which crosses party lines. He has made a number of valuable points which will require considerable thought. We are most fortunate as a House to have had two notable maiden speeches in today's debate. I hope that we shall hear often from the noble Viscount in the future.
I should like to add my welcome to that which the Bill is generally receiving in the House. It has taken a long time and it is surprisingly long. However, in essentials it carries out the main recommendations of the White Paper which received general approbation. I am sure that the general thrust of the Bill is acceptable in all parts of the House. For my part I hope that we can press on so that it passes through both Houses before the election.
Looking back at our various debates—and I must plead guilty to initiating quite a number—I see with some interest how the Government's position has gradually changed from one of marked reluctance to contemplate any legislation whatever (this goes back to the days before the noble Earl joined the Home Office) to their introduction of the substantial Bill now before us. However, I shall not tease the Minister about past history. I prefer to examine where we go from here.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke in rather deprecatory terms about the chairman of the Charity Commission before the present incumbent. I submit that that is rather unfair. The previous occupant was appointed to the post following an open competition and anyone who knew him would hardly subscribe to the view that he was a rather dull and undistinguished civil servant.
It is unusual to approve of decisions to leave out possible candidates for inclusion in a Bill. However, I go along with those who have said that it is right not to attempt a definition of charity; nor do I think it right to attempt a definition of political activities.
As to what is in the Bill, I note that it copies the welcome provision in the recent Scottish Act dealing with dormant accounts; that is, accounts which, rather like the Cheshire cat, have faded away leaving only their money behind. As an aside, it is rather a pity
848
that, in gratitude, the Bill does not in exchange enable the Scots as well as the commissioners to go to Customs and the Serious Fraud Office when, as I read their legislation, the curtain of secrecy is lifted for them only in respect of the Inland Revenue.
I fear that although the number of charities is growing, as we have been told, charitable giving has not kept up as well as it should. There are various reasons. I am sure that one excuse people make for not giving is that charities are extravagant, inefficient and on occasion corrupt. The Bill should do a great deal to correct any such impressions. People will know that they are on safer ground in believing that their money will be honestly and efficiently used for the purpose for which they contributed. Also, should anything be wrong, there is a good chance of its being spotted and dealt with. All that is to the good.
There are some points in the Bill to which I should like to refer at this stage, although the Minister need not feel under an obligation to answer them all today. I am sorry that as I continue it may sound more like a shopping list than a statement of high principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, explained, they are points of great practical importance to those concerned in the charity field.
One problem I experience in understanding the Bill is that so much is left to regulation. I hope that we can be assured that there will be widespread consultation before the contents of the regulations are finally settled.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I must refer to Clause 2. There were moments when I thought I understood what it said but then the meaning slipped away. I read it as dealing primarily with quasi-religious sects—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will forgive me for mentioning them. We were given a fascinating explanation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in his most impressive maiden speech. Perhaps at some stage the Minister will explain what was intended and how much the clause was intended to cover. I am not sure that the clause will win a prize in any "Renton competition" for clarity of drafting.
I turn to the submissions to be made to the charity commissioners by the 170,000 registered charities. Two preliminary points arise. First, we hear a great deal about the figure of 170,000. However, can any estimate yet be given as to how many of those charities will be found to have gone out of existence as disclosed by the exercise on the register which the commissioners are now conducting? Secondly, in addition to the registered charities, it is not to be forgotten—although it frequently is—that there are exempt and excepted charities. No one knows quite how many there are—perhaps 100,000. Here and there the Bill touches some of those and we shall have to consider more deeply whether it should do so.
My main question concerns what is to happen to the thousands of accounts and reports which will pour in—requirements which, as I read the Bill, even small charities must face in some form. The explanatory note says that a substantial sum is to be spent on a computer to process the information as the first stage in the monitoring process. But we are not told much

849
about the second and later stages of the process. The explanatory note does not contemplate any long term addition to the staff. It has to be borne in mind that the commissioners are to take on some new duties under Part III of the Bill. We should all like to know more about the likely effectiveness of the monitoring processes on which that somewhat meagre staff will be engaged. It would be helpful also to know what happens when they spot something which has gone wrong. What has happened to the proposal in the White Paper that there should be some kind of black mark on the register and that that black mark should somehow be publicised?
Like previous speakers I am bound to say a word regarding Clause 49, which deals with charges. The clause includes the slightly surprising provision that charities may have to pay the commissioners for receiving their accounts. We do not know in any detail what is contemplated by way of fees. It must clearly be different from suggestions in the White Paper. There the income is estimated at £750,000. The explanatory note estimates it at £300,000. It is not clear whether even that modest sum is net of the costs of collection.
One point that emerges from the explanatory note is that the trustees may be charged for the explanatory leaflet explaining what is in the Bill. As it is likely that the trustees who most need guidance are those who are least likely to pay I am not sure that that is particularly helpful. Indeed, one is bound to wonder about some of the duties which will fall on the rather unsophisticated trustees of the smaller charities. For example, how will they set about recovering tax from the Inland Revenue now that the official custodian will no longer do it for them?
I turn briefly to Part II. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already made the main points. I am particularly worried about the definition of the "professional fund-raiser", which seems calculated to bite on the voluntary workers who are difficult enough to recruit in all conscience. It also strikes me as rather odd that we find in Clause 56 a definition of "charitable purposes" which is different to the "charitable purposes" dealt with in Part I. That presumably rests on the definition in the 1960 Act. There is also a difference in the "charitable purposes" defined in one of the clauses in Part III.
I am concerned about the definition of "public place" in Clause 63. This is rather more than simply a Committee point. My wife takes an active part in the local Abbeyfield Society. When she organises a coffee morning and places a notice in the village post office about it, it looks as though my house then becomes a public place for the occasion as the public will have access to it. It would also follow that we should need to go through the elaborate process of obtaining a local authority permit—a prospect which appeals neither to me nor to the local authority concerned. I hope that I am wrong. If I am not, I cannot think that that what the Government really intend. I hope too that somehow it will be possible to avoid clashes between national flag days organised by the commissioners under their new powers in Clause 70,
850
and flag days authorised by the local authorities in their areas. Without consultation awkward situations may arise.
As has been said, the powers to deal with trustees convicted of criminal offences are to be welcomed. I am not sure whether the provision applies to exempt and excepted charities. I believe that it does and if so there may be something to be said for spelling that out in the Bill. Nor is it clear to me how the commissioners are to find out about the convictions. As the noble Viscount pointed out, many people are involved. Are the commissioners to be added to the list of bodies entitled to obtain information from the Criminal Record Office?
On a different point, the White Paper contemplated that the commissioners would be able to appoint agents such as councils for voluntary service to undertake local reviews. I can find nothing about that matter in the Bill, and I wonder why.
My final comment is about Europe. I asked a Question the other day about what will happen to the provisions in the Trustee Investment Act 1961 when we have a market without frontiers. As the provisions stand they will preclude trustees from investing in other member states of the Community. I was told that the 1961 Act was under review; we have been told that since 1961. It is a little disappointing that the Bill passes over the point in silence.
For the rest, I gather that the arguments about VAT zero rating and the proposals for new Community legislation have been satisfactorily resolved—at any rate, for the time being. However, when the chairman of the Charity Commission is reported as saying that in this context some things may not be critical including, for example, the very word "charity", it is difficult to avoid wondering whether we can count on this Bill, once it has passed into law, to hold the field for anything like the length of time for which the 1960 Act has prevailed. Even so, I greatly welcome the Bill and hope that we can get on with it with all speed.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, we have listened today with great interest to many wise speeches, not least to those of the two maiden speakers. Perhaps I may digress a little and go from the sublime to the ridiculous in giving your Lordships a case history of some small charities that still exist. I shall take only a few minutes.
In my parish there are four charities with which I am concerned as senior trustee and correspondent with the Charity Commission. The first charity is the Unknown Donor. It has an income of £1.50 per annum comprised of a rent charge on a farm which was amalgamated more than 100 years ago. It was to be applied in the purchase of blue cloth for the poor of the parish. At the turn of the century the blue cloth became unobtainable. My grandfather adjusted the requirement to three lengths of red flannel. During the last war I found a note from my father which recorded that due to clothes rationing it was no longer possible to provide red flannel. The subject was discussed in

851
depth at a parish meeting and subsequently the income was distributed as cash together with the income of the second charity.
The second charity—that is the Poor's Land—holds some Treasury Stock which on 11th March 1991 had an approximate value of £58.03 and an annual income of £6. It is locally known as the St. Thomas's Dole. Thus the two charities combined have an income of —7.50 per annum. Several years ago my father topped that up to £15 out of his own pocket. It is duly distributed on St. Thomas's Day by me, as chairman of the parish meeting, with the appropriate advice of the meeting, to three people resident in the parish deemed to be most in need. I wish to point out that the question of tax is irrelevant as is the question of winding them up. The distribution of the money is similar to that of the Maundy money: it is a routine that has been carried out for hundreds of years.
The third charity is a memorial fund of some £700 concerned with the upkeep of a grave to the sum of £5 per annum. The remainder, some £70, is for the benefit of schoolchildren in the parish and is normally spent as the donor requested on a annual trip for children to Blackpool or some such frivolity.
The fourth charity concerns the Church of England school built by my great, great grandfather in 1835. After the closure of the school by the education authorities in 1985, and much against local wishes, the trustees had to find an alternative use for the building. I financed the setting up of a playgroup which I am glad to say is proving to be most popular and successful. It educates three to five-year olds. The cash flow covers the operating costs for the most part. The old trustees' funds of some £1,000 provide income which is being accumulated to deal with the maintenance of the building.
In the desire to tidy up the messy structure of these charities, and believing that the 1985 Act made that possible, in 1988 I approached the Charity Commission to assess the flexibility for doing so and to see whether it was possible to amalgamate them or some of them. After six months the commission replied that it did not have the power to agree to that in view of the different nature of the charities. Furthermore, it expressed doubts that a play group at the school fell within the existing objectives of a trust for the poor people of the parish. The difference now is that the children involved are between the ages of three and five and not five and 12. The people are that much poorer because they must pay rather than the school being financed by the local authority. Nevertheless, that matter was an issue and remains so.
In the 1990 census of charities a miasma of correspondence evolved including three and four-page letters, requests for accounts and the provision of a series of pamphlets which appeared totally inappropriate to our situation. I did not blame the authors of those letters, although the contents were not helpful and reminded me of the difficulties that I and perhaps other noble Lords have had in communicating with the Kennel Club. I do not blame the authors; I blame the system.
852
Surely the business of small charities within small parishes should be handled locally and not be centralised into a grand computer and mixed with mega charities or even medium-sized charities. Surely no one in his right mind would require accounts for charities of the type to which I am referring to be submitted to any central organisation in London. Surely the cost of correspondence—even one letter—is greater than the income of many of the charities. That is particularly so if it is necessary to employ professional people to interpret or communicate with the Charity Commission, and for me it often is because I am not very clever.
On the other hand, there certainly is a need for the supervision of all charities. However, in the case of such small charities that should be exercised by the local parish council or parish meeting. Indeed, could not those same bodies be asked to take over the responsibilities of interpreting the objectives of the original donors and of advising and consulting with the trustees on the merits of amalgamation? I believe that should be done rather than the charities being written off or subject to other routes suggested in the Bill. If problems cannot be solved in a local forum by all means make provision for the Charity Commission to act as a further adviser or a court of appeal. The present situation of the Charity Commission reminds me of the well-known principle expounded in Parkinson's Law: the board of directors will always spend more time discussing the bicycle shed than attending to proper business. As your Lordships have pointed out very clearly this afternoon, there is proper business to attend to relating to trustees with huge sums of money, some of it perhaps being handled in dubious ways. But until the Charity Commission's bicycle sheds have been demolished, this serious business will never receive proper attention.
I beg my noble friend to ensure that the new Bill is amended to deal with this problem. Many of the schedules have been referred to this afternoon—Schedules 41, 42 and 49—and they are all relevant. However, they will probably not resolve my troubles or save the Charity Commission a great deal of the money which could be saved if my suggestion were acceptable. From reading the Bill as it stands, the problem has not been sensibly resolved.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will give a warm welcome to the Bill. I shall begin by giving one reason why it is so necessary to buttress the powers of the charity commissioners.
There is an important distinction between a charitable trust for the public benefit and a private trust for individual benefit. In the case of a private trust, there will always be specific beneficiaries to whom the trustees are accountable and who are likely to take action if the trustees fall down on the job. In the case of a charitable trust, by contrast, the trustees are operating largely on their own, without any beneficiaries to prod them. In consequence, if there is incompetence or fraud, it may well go undetected and unchecked. We can only look to the charity

853
commissioners to protect the public interest. Therefore, the charity commissioners must be given all the powers that they need in order to fulfil their role.
The two topics on which I should like to say a few words are dormant funds and amalgamation. As to dormant funds, I particularly welcome Clause 19 of the Bill, which taps dormant funds and puts them back into circulation. Charities become dormant for a variety of reasons. Trustees may have died without appointing successors. In the case of persons who are trustees ex officio, the new holders of the relevant office may not have been informed of their duties by their predecessors. There may be a dearth of properly qualified beneficiaries. For example, the beneficiaries may be poor people in a small parish. The parish may have become prosperous, so that no poor people are left.
Your Lordships may be interested to know the dimensions of this problem. Between 1978 and 1980 Humberside undertook a review of dormant charities within the county. It found 120 inactive charities. Those charities had a total of £104,700 lying idle in the bank. Humberside has a population of 800,000 people. If the proportion of dormant funds to population is the same throughout England, Scotland and Wales, there could be dormant funds of £7 million being Put to no use. Therefore, Clause 19 of the Bill should prove a useful innovation.
My second topic is the amalgamation of small charities. I can give your Lordships a few figures to demonstrate the nature of the problem. In 1978 Oxfordshire County Council commissioned a report on charities for the poor in the rural parishes of Oxfordshire. Two hundred and eighty-eight charities for the poor were identified; 89 of those charities had an annual income of less than £10 per charity; 148—that is more than half—had an annual income of less than £25. Such tiny charities can do little good. They are a burden to the trustees and little help to anyone else. But if all those charities with an income of £200 or less were put together, they would command an annual income of just under £9,000, which could do much good.
Section 3 of the Charities Act 1985 was introduced expressly to deal with this problem. Under the pre-existing law, a small charity would have needed to apply 10 the charity commissioners for a formal order to enable it to amalgamate with another charity having similar objects. That was expensive. Legal help would be needed and a tiny charity could not have contemplated the cost. Section 3 of the 1985 Act established a do-it-yourself scheme under which an amalgamation could be effected by a simple resolution of the. trustees, without the fuss and bother of obtaining a formal order. Section 3 was intended as a pilot scheme, to see whether it would work. The scheme, which was limited to charities with a very small income—£200 or less—has worked. Some 1,000 amalgamations have taken place. Clause 41 of the Bill builds on Section 3 of the 1985 Act and applies it to charities with an annual income of £5,000 or less. I welcome Clause 41.
Might it not be desirable to introduce some element of compulsion into Clause 41 when a charity is
854
Minuscule—with an income of £10 or less—and another charity with similar objects is willing to receive that minuscule charity? Might it not be wise to give the commissioners a power to direct an amalgamation in such a case?
I wish to make one final point on Clause 41. If I heard my noble friend the Minister correctly, he told your Lordships that a permanently endowed charity would not come within Clause 41. A "permanently endowed charity" is defined by Section 45(3) of the 1960 Act as a charity which can spend only its income and is not authorised to spend its capital. I was of the view that Section 3 of the 1985 Act applied to a charity with a permanent endowment. Is it correct that Clause 41 is intended to exclude a "permanently endowed charity"? Would that apply, for example, to a charity holding with (shall we say?) an income of £50 a year derived from an investment worth £1,000 to which it cannot resort for its charitable purposes?
I was delighted to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson advocate setting out the 1960 Act in an amended form in a Keeling schedule. That device was recently used in the Family Law Reform Act 1987 and in the Government Trading Act 1990. If it is done in that way, the reader will have the whole picture in front of him instead of trying to read a patchwork of cross-references. Will the noble Earl consider whether a Keeling schedule might not be of immense benefit to the public?
I have one further question. I am worried about Mr. Brown. Of course, that is not the gentleman's real name. However, Mr. Brown was the hero—if that is the right expression—of the horror story which I narrated to your Lordships in the debate on the White Paper on 30th November 1989 (at col. 562 of Hansard). Mr. Brown was a retired businessman who lived on public assistance. He registered a charity in 1968 for the relief of children of the third world. In the course of three years he collected £10,000 ostensibly for his charity, until the charity commissioners caught up with him. Not a single penny was ever applied by him for any charitable purpose. Most of the money went on expenses and administration. He raised his money partly by the use of collecting boxes. He bought 1,000 of these boxes and distributed them among public houses, hotels and restaurants. However, he abandoned 234 of them because they were too much trouble to collect. So 234 boxes remained on site as a continuing invitation to the public to donate money to a charity which would never receive anything.
What would be the position under the Bill of a future Mr. Brown? As I understand the Bill, collecting boxes left by the promoter of a charity in hotels, shops, restaurants, public houses and garage forecourts will not need a permit under Clause 64 of the Bill; nor will they need a licence under the House to House Collections Act 1939 because that legislation is to be repealed. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl can tell your Lordships whether future Mr. Browns will be able to distribute collecting boxes without any licence or permit. My question is confined to that one point of collecting boxes.

855
The Charity commissioners were set up in 1853 by the Charitable Trusts Act of that year,
"for the better administration of Charitable Trusts".
That is still their role. I have looked at this old Act. It does not seem to me that the commissioners' powers have changed very much over the past 138 years. In my respectful view, it is high time that the commissioners were given a new set of teeth. I believe that that is what this Bill will do. I hope that the commissioners will be given the financial resources which they will need in order to fulfil their enhanced role and which they will need if they are to continue to attract persons of high quality to service this important office.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should first declare an interest in the Bill. I work for a charity and, as my salary is 99 per cent. of my income, I have a very definite interest in these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, suggested that, once the Bill becomes enacted, the amended version of the Charities Act 1960 should form part of the legislation as a Keeling schedule. I welcome the suggestion. Moreover, I know that those who administer charities would do likewise.
Sometimes it is very expensive to obtain professional advice. Most charities, quite rightly, try to keep their costs as low as possible. The above suggestion would certainly help them. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give the suggestion serious consideration. I also hope that the Government will give it consideration not only in this Bill but also in relation to many other Bills. Not being legally qualified, it would be much easier for me—and, I suspect, for other unqualified Members of this House—if Keeling schedules were induded in far more Bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be interested to know that there is an organisation which spends the whole of its time reading wills as soon as probate is granted and that charities can, for a reasonable fee, obtain advice not only on bequests directed to them particularly but also on general bequests which are of interest to them. The organisation has been in existence for many years.
The charities with which I have been in touch generally support the Bill. There is a general welcome for the improved regulation of charities. They welcome the attempts in the Bill to do away with improper fund-raising. I know of several instances of the latter, but I shall not weary your Lordships with them this evening. There are unscrupulous operators who misuse the name of genuine and well-respected charities, as well as inventing fictitious charities, to raise money for themselves with little or no funds being passed to the charity.
However, the Bill which is designed to put a protective arm around charities in this sphere is, I am afraid, in danger of throttling them. I suspect that the people who drafted the Bill have no experience of fund-raising. It is unfortunately a case of good intentions going awry. I am sure that we can put that
856
right in Committee or at a later stage of the Bill. If my noble friend is interested, I and representatives of charities other than the one for which I work would be pleased to discuss the details with him and his advisers.
Clause 56 defines a professional "fund-raiser". As that now stands I fear that it may well catch the volunteer fund-raisers who are paid their expenses plus a small fee—in most cases a token fee only. Clause 58 is welcome in that it requires professional fund-raisers and commercial participators to state for whom they are raising funds. However, charities with which I have been in touch see difficulty with the further requirement for a statement of the method by which the fund-raiser's remuneration in connection with the appeal is to be determined. It is not clear at this stage what information will fulfil that requirement. It could well discourage a response to direct mail advertising.
This morning, as a member of the Direct Mail Services Standards Board, I had the opportunity to discuss that matter with representatives of a number of direct mail organisations. It would appear that with the Bill, as now drafted, and with the direct mail houses being commercial participators responsible for providing such information, many would be unwilling to undertake mailing for charities. Direct mail is a fund-raising tool used by many charities today. It is not just a fund-raising tool for that mailing shot; it is a tool designed to obtain the names and addresses of those who the charity believes will give to it regularly and to whom the charity itself can write later. If that method of fund-raising is cut from under them, many charities may well have considerable difficulty in raising the funds that they require.
As has been mentioned, under Clause 63 the definition of a public place is extended to cover any place to which members of the public are permitted to have access whether the place is public or private property. I suspect that many of our spouses have run coffee mornings. It is not uncommon for there to be a small entrance fee and for the coffee morning to be open to anyone, whether or not known to the owner of the house. That immediately makes it a public place and a licence will be required.
In that respect, I understand that requests for a licence must be made at least one month and preferably not more than three months in advance. When there is a disaster, such as the typhoon in Bangladesh, the public generally wishes to respond immediately. We do not generally have a month's notice of a disaster. If we did, we could make arrangements to ameliorate the effects. I already have a licence for a fund-raising collection to take place next September in a town adjacent to a race course because of a charitable event on that race course. It would be highly undesirable to raise money on the race course and to find that another charity was raising funds immediately outside the gate. Those generous individuals who are prepared to give their funds to the charity for which I work, and not put it on the horses, would have been caught on the way and

857
that would reduce the fund-raising potential of the event which I am helping to run. Both ends of the scale are wrong: one is too short and the other is too long.
The Bill's preamble suggests that it will have no cost implications for local authorities. That is incorrect with regard to the cost of licences for fund-raising events, collections and so on. As I read the Bill, every fund-raising event will require a licence. Some events will require several licences—for instance, a sponsored walk that takes place over a number of local authority areas. Local authorities will be so overburdened that they will bear the cost themselves, which will put a charge on their community charge payers—I do not see many willing to do that—or, what is more likely, will start charging the charities, and that will further reduce the charities' funds.
5.36 pm.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have welcomed the Bill, especially the measures to control malpractice in the raising of funds. I am sure that we are all agreed that anyone who trades on the benevolence of the public with a view to benefiting only himself or herself is villainous, and the Charity Commission should have ample Dowers to deal with such people. While joining in the general welcome, I wish to raise three points of regret.
The first, which I know goes rather wide, is about the overall purpose of the Charity Commission. It is viewed in the Bill, as it was viewed in the 1960 Act and other charity legislation which goes a long way back, as a body whose main job is to deal with the administration and regulation of charities and the prevention of abuse by people who take advantage of the tax and other benefits which have been conferred upon them. As I said, it is important to prevent abuse, but it is equally important, as the social climate has changed since the 1850s, and even since the 1960s, that charities and all that they stand for should be promoted.
Charities have become much more significant in national life. They are the inseparable handmaidens of voluntary effort. It is upon voluntary effort, already one of the best features of British society, that we all depend for much of the innovation and new growth that exists. The unfortunate recent cuts in government spending in so many spheres, especially the economies that have been forced upon local authorities, have left many voluntary bodies without proper support. They will flourish as they should only if charitable giving is much increased.
I should like to see incorporated in legislation, to set against the necessary but negative purpose of regulation, that the commission should have the equally necessary but positive purpose of encouraging, fostering and supporting charities and charitable giving. The commission would then add to and supplement what is already done by the excellent Charities Aid Foundation, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Directory of Social Change and other bodies. We would then have regular reports from the commission, not just on the black
858
sheep in the fold but on the excellent work that is being done by so many of the existing charities. We would have it drawn to public notice that there were serious gaps in charitable provision which need to be filled. We would hear from the commission about the good practice of some pioneering charities which could well be followed by others, as well as having a series of model constitutions in the commission on which people could draw.
It would be best of all if the commission were firmly established as the body whose duty it was to advise the Government—not just the Home Office but the whole Government, particularly the Treasury—about the policy they should adopt towards charities. For example, if the commission were cast in this constructive, positive mode, it would at present advise the Government in favour of the national lottery, for which we have been waiting so long. The proceeds would go to charity in the same way as the fund-raising of the BBC and the independent television companies is used to benefit charity.
My second point is about the extra burden that I and many others who have already spoken in the debate fear that the Bill will impose on trustees of the many tens of thousands of smaller charities and the unpaid volunteers who are the trustees or who work for all kinds of charities of all sizes. The Spastics Society had something to say about this in the briefing paper which was circulated; so did the almshouses association.
If there is any consensus which has so far come out of what noble Lords have said, it is that on this matter the Bill has gone too far and needs to be pared down. This was part of the import of what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, gave some marvellous examples of small charities which, in the view of many people, should not be caught by the new supervisory powers given to the Charity Commission.
As one instance, what is the point of making it a criminal offence under Clause 28 for any trustees of any charity of any size to fail to produce accounts and reports in the form prescribed or to produce them late? Why should it be a criminal offence? The Government do not seem to have the support of the Woodfield Report or of the White Paper. The latter said that:
"Sanctions considered in the Woodfield Report (for accounts as for non-registration) included criminal penalties against trustees and financial penalties against charity funds. The Government believe that the Report was right to reject these".
Since then it appears that the Government have changed their mind, but I for one hope that they will change it back again.
My third point goes the other way. I believe that in some respects the commission needs more bite. It has tended to be too sparing in the use of the powers it has and it also does not have enough teeth with which to bite. Clause 29 is a case in point. Where there has been malpractice, it gives the commission the same powers to bring legal proceedings as are at present exercised by the Attorney-General. However, having given the powers with the right hand, the clause takes them

859
away again with the left hand. The powers that the Attorney-General used to exercise in the bad old days before this Bill are, in the new age, only to be exercised with,
"the agreement of the Attorney General on each occasion".
That seems to me a nonsense proposal. If the clause means that there will be a substantial difference in what is done in the future, the commission should not in this respect have to go cap in hand to the Attorney-General every time it wishes to exercise its powers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I too welcome the principle behind the Bill. I hope it gets on to the statute book as soon as possible. However, I ask my noble friends the Minister and the Chief Whip to give your Lordships plenty of time to make sure that we get the small print correct. I am extremely doubtful that it is so at the moment. Certainly, the drafting needs much explanation. I look forward to my noble friend clarifying it. Perhaps he would like to make a start this evening by explaining Clause 2 for me and others. It exceeds even Sir Humphrey's best efforts in the programme, "Yes, Minister". I found the explanation of it by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quite excellent. The queries he raised on it and on Parts II and III were valid. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer them. If he cannot answer the question on Clause 2, we should suggest that Sir Humphrey be elevated to the peerage so that he can explain it.
My concern will focus on three matters: first, Part II. I fear that many—indeed all—voluntary workers will find some of their duties under this part of the Bill onerous. That is putting it mildly. It has already been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lord Swinfen.
Voluntary workers are a charity's bedrock. No lifeboat would put to sea without their dedicated work raising the necessary funds. I cannot—and I am sure that noble Lords cannot—sufficiently praise and admire their dogged persistence. However, if we want to get rid of them or frighten them off, just suggest that they fill in a form. Sir Humphrey and his lot may not understand the dread of forms and regulations, but I can assure my noble friend that it exists. We must make sure that the voluntary workers or helpers are not hindered by red tape under the Bill. If we wish, we should put the onus on the paid official, but not on the voluntary slave, if I may call him or her that.
My second point concerns exemption certificates mentioned in Clause 70. Being closely involved with a major charity, selfishly I shall want to know whether charities which already have Home Office exemptions will automatically receive exemptions from the commissioners. If the rules for exemption are to be altered, what are these new rules likely to be?
Less selfishly, and thinking of my wife, who is involved with smaller charities, I have to say that, although the major charities may be able to cope with all the new regulations, particularly if they are exempted, I am concerned about the smaller ones.
860
They are the least able to cope with more bureaucracy. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw.
I accept the reasons and the need for controls, but I wonder whether it might be possible to have temporary exemptions or even local exemptions. I hope that my noble friend will consider the problem. I shall try to get someone younger and wiser to suggest a possible way around the problem at Committee stage. Certainly Part II needs careful examination.
Last but by no means least comes my and your Lordships' instinctive dislike of passing a Bill whose main effect will arise from the regulations—a point made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to give the House details of what may or may not be contained in the regulations. I know what my noble friend will say. Your Lordships will have heard 1,001 Ministers of the Crown say that it is impossible to give such details. I should be old enough by now to realise why that is so. However, I still refuse to accept the principle that it is right for Parliament to give blanket powers to future Secretaries of State.
I am sure that, given the time, your Lordships will be able to iron out these problems. It will be difficult, however, for noble Lords to decide how much time to spend on trying to get the Bill right as against possibly losing the Bill. I would prefer to sit all night to get this Bill right. I believe noble Lords, particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench, will wish to see a sensible, workable Act for charities on the statute book.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, it is common ground that the voluntary sector is a central pillar of our society. It has developed and grown enormously in recent years in response to the demands made upon it, particularly in the context of government policy over the past decade. In his address to the Charities Aid Foundation the other day, the Prime Minister said that charities should be seen as the cement that binds society together.
It is little wonder, then, that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations took the initiative in forming a working party on effectiveness and the voluntary sector, because efficiency and effectiveness in relation to the huge total annual income that we are discussing are essential. That sum of money has already been mentioned. I had the honour to be asked to chair that working party which reported in April 1990.
Efficiency is not solely a matter for legislation. Nevertheless the Bill is very welcome for what it seeks to achieve. Accountability, openness or, in the fashionable Eurospeak, transparency, are essential if confidence is to be retained. That must relate, first, to the collection of funds and the process of appealing; secondly, to the guardianship of money collected; and, thirdly, to the application of money for the purposes intended.
The vast increase in charitable activity and funds collected has meant that the collection of funds has expanded from holding coffee mornings to the involvement of major commercial enterprises. The

861
controls on fund-raising set out in Part II of the Bill are therefore welcome. However, they will certainly require careful consideration in Committee to ensure they do not have a wider impact than is desirable or intended. Much has been said about that already. I have several questions for the Minister. Will I have to conform to rigorous controls if I have friends to my home to appeal for funds for a local charity? Similarly, will I have to conform to rigorous controls if I telephone a business friend and ask his company to donate to a charity and ask him to secure donations from his business friends? Will I, he, or his friends and their companies, be caught up in the web of controls? If that is the case, they may be frightened off and avoid becoming involved.
As regards the emergency appeals which receive such widespread and generous public support, it will be essential to ensure that the timescale required for compliance with the controls will not hamper the appeals. In this context I refer to the concern that was expressed in the report of the working party at paragraph 4.18 in connection with appeals in the case of national disasters. It seemed to us essential that guidelines and specimen trust deeds issued by the Attorney General should be more publicly available. I understand that in September of this year the Red Cross published and distributed comprehensive guidenlines on all aspects of managing emergency appeals. That is a great step forward but it will serve no purpose if the time required to secure the requisite consents extends to a month or more. That has already been mentioned.
A further concern expressed in paragraph 4.19 of the report related to the hugely popular Telethons. There was a time not so long ago when certain of the organisations conducting Telethon appeals were not charities. They were therefore not subject to the controls which, even then, were exercised by the Charity Commission. The major organisations conducting Telethons have got together to establish a code of conduct relating to all aspects of their appeals, including the mode of appeal, the guardianship of the money collected and its distribution. All those organiations are now registered charities. That, too, is a great step forward.
I am glad to find the term "charitable purposes", as defined in Part II of the Bill, includes purposes which are benevolent or philanthropic, whether or not they are charitable as a matter of law. However, to avoid confusion, I would prefer another phrase such as "charitable or kindred purposes" or "charitable or benevolent" or some other similar phrase. I believe it is a mistake to endow the term "charitable purposes" with a meaning which is so different to that which has been imbedded in English law for so long. However, that is just a detail.
The point about extending the regulations to cover appeals for organisations other than those charitable in law is important because any impropriety or failure in accountability by any organisation appealing for funds undermines public confidence. It is therefore no less important that appeals conducted by those organisations which are not in law charitable should
862
be conducted in accordance with the same strict requirements that apply to those which are in law charitable.
I believe it is no accident that, as appeals for good causes have extended in scope and amount, those responsible for fund-raising have established the Institute of Fund Raising Managers to establish and maintain standards. That institute is making a great contribution in carrying out the purposes which lie behind Part 11 of the Bill.
There are provisions in Clause 49 which seem to me to be sensible—for example, the provision that enables the Charity Commission to charge for certain services. That matter has been referred to extensively. However, concern has been expressed, not as regards the Charity Commission having that power, but on whether the Treasury rule relating to "no hypothecation"—the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, referred to that—would be applied so that the Charity Commission could not retain the amounts so charged without a reduction by an equivalent amount of the funds provided by the Treasury. Such an arrangement would be quite unacceptable. I hope the Minister will say what the position will be.
I wish to make two minor points on the new provisions relating to land contained in Clauses 33 to 36 and Schedule 1 to the Bill. On the whole I warmly welcome those provisions. First, under Schedule 1 it strikes me as odd that in the catalogue of "connected persons" the settlor (or the person who creates a charitable trust) is not included. I wonder whether that is an accidental omission.
Secondly, there is the matter of short tenancies which may be required by either large or small charities. It appears that these quite minor transactions are caught by elaborate requirements of these sections which it would be extremely expensive to fulfil and which appear to be unnecessarily complex in such cases. I would be interested to know whether, under the present arrangements, experience has indicated a large measure of abuse in this context. I should be surprised if that were the case. Clearly this is another matter which will have to be explored in Committee. These, however, are minor points relating to a useful and necessary Bill.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on pressing Her Majesty's Government for so long on the matter. The noble Lord's patience has been incredible. I also congratulate the present charity commissioner and his staff on continuing to carry out good work at the Charity Commission.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, for his speech today. I am delighted that as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary he could not understand Part II of the Bill because neither could I. I thought that that was because I had a low IQ; but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord cannot have a low IQ. Therefore it is not surprising that I could not understand the part of the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to put that right. I

863
should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord St. David, on his speech concerning young people.
I should like to take up some points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, in relation to Clause 41 and small charities. In 1984 I was involved with the research carried out under Sir Charles Kimber into small parochial charities in the Oxford area to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred. The noble and learned Lord mentioned some figures.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, that I travelled around the country to find out what small parish charities were doing. I could give him a long list of the extraordinary things they were doing, similar to those which he mentioned, although in those cases the money was being put to a good purpose. I visited one parish where it was laid down by the parish charity that everybody who went to church at 11 o'clock on the first Sunday in every month should be given a loaf of bread. Therefore, every parishioner who went to church on the first Sunday in the month received a loaf of bread. If one had a Rolls-Royce one took away one's loaf of bread in the Roll-Royce; otherwise one just put it in one's bag. That had gone on for years. I do not know whether it still happens.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, quoted figures relating to small parochial charities. However, he could not give figures covering smaller charities which have not amalgamated into neighbourhood trusts as we recommended. Nor can the charity commissioners provide those figures. Therefore, when they examine small charities how will the charity commissioners deal with those cases where money is being wasted and not being put to good use?
I do not know whether the charity commissioners will examine the problem by county or by area. In any event examining all those charities will involve an enormous amount of time and money. Therefore, I suggest that the charity commissioners, through their area offices—if that is how the work is to be done—should look for retired solicitors or accountants to work on a voluntary basis. It will not be possible to clear up the position regarding small charities without specialised knowledge and help, and there will certainly not be sufficient money.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister what the position would be in this case. Suppose the trustees of a small charity debate amalgamation with other charities with the same terms of reference. The Bill states that the trustees must agree unanimously. If there is a trustee aged 80 or 90 who just wants to go on in the same old way and will not vote and therefore there is not a unanimous vote, what then? Is the trust to continue in its old, inefficient way?
The Bill states that the gross income of a transferred charity must not exceed £5,000. What happens if the income is just above that amount and the parish has no poor? What if a parish is found to have an income of only £25 per annum? Should it not
864
be mandatory for charities with a low income and no means of spending it to amalgamate with other charities?
I now turn to Clause 56 in Part II of the Bill relating to professional fund-raisers. Many noble Lords have spoken about that issue. I am not sure that I understand the distinction between a professional fund-raiser and a volunteer; but I shall not elaborate on that point since so many noble Lords have referred to it. A great many people in the country are becoming worried because they do not know what their position will be if they volunteer their services.
Finally, I turn to the question of resources. Here again, I reiterate what a number of noble Lords have said. We often pass good Bills through your Lordships' House and the other place but they are not implemented because there are not sufficient resources. Many voluntary organisations, large as well as small, are worried that in attempting to regulate charities as proposed in the Bill the Government may be creating a considerable amount of additional work for the Charity Commission and for charities. That in turn will inevitably lead to additional costs for charities, especially in accounting and legal fees. Will the Government make additional resources available to meet the requirements laid down in the Bill? I imagine that my noble friend will have great difficulty in answering that question. I was going to suggest that if he cannot answer now, he might write to me; but perhaps he will have to consult the Treasury first and that may therefore be difficult.
Many of the large organisations feel that the Bill will lead to the creation of a sizeable bureaucracy, and that for many charities, and possibly for the Commission, it will be difficult or impossible to meet the demands of the Bill.
This is a good Bill. There is a need for change. However, let us not have, as we have in the past and have on the statute book at present, legislation which is not implemented due to lack of resources. That would he a pity.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with temerity that I intervene in a debate which has been and is to be conducted by so many formidable experts, both in a legal capacity and as practical charitable trustees. I do so only because, having been associated to some extent with the 1960 Act, I desire to say that the changes in this Bill which are founded on it are abundantly justified and well considered. I found the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman entirely convincing.
Obviously the Bill will have to be considered carefully in Committee. Sufficient has been said today to show the necessity for that. I do not wish to trench upon those considerations. With your Lordships' leave I should like to hang my remarks on the three main ways in which a charitable trust differs from a private trust.
The first is in the cy-près doctrine. If a private trust fails it fails completely. For example, if a private trust set up in a will fails for any reason the sum entrusted falls into the residue. But in the case of a charitable

865
trust, the court and now the commissioners have power lo apply the trust funds in some object which is as near as possible to the charitable object that was originally proposed—cy-près, in the old Anglo-French phrase. Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. As I understood it, there was a reference in the White Paper to the fact that the cy-près doctrine was under consideration in the Home Office. If so, I should like to know the current thinking. I did not give the noble Earl notice that I intended to raise that point, so if I receive an answer it will be a bonus.
However, I did give the noble Earl notice of the two remaining points that differentiate a charitable trust. The first is its fiscal privilege. It might be useful to look at the vast extent of that privilege. As regards the Inland Revenue, the figures for 1990–91 show that for charities it was worth £800 million. I follow the mode of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rather than that of the noble Earl, who likes to have a string of noughts on the end. As to local government rate relief, the latest figures are for 1989–90 when the sum was £177.5 million Together that makes almost £1,000 million.
I quote those figures only because that mode of operation is inconsistent with our general way of conducting public finance. Mr. Gladstone, that pillar of financial rectitude, looked at it with a baleful eye in the middle of the last century, but the Treasury has consistently maintained charities' fiscal privileges. When "the Treasury" is spat out as a rude word and when "hypothecation of revenue" is pronounced hateful y, we should consider that aspect.
The third point that I want to raise is the question of control over charities, originally exercised purely by the Chancery courts, but now very largely, since the middle of last century and extended by the 1960 Act, exercised by the Charity Commission. If one gives those fiscal privileges, it is incumbent to ensure that there is proper control over the way in which the funds are operated. A good deal of anxiety has rightly been expressed today about the bureaucratic extension. The 1960 Act was undoubtedly a bureaucratic extension and the Bill takes it further. Certainly, at such a time as this when we are undergoing a bureaucratic surge, we should consider the matter carefully.
I found what my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman said completely convincing. The powers taken ender the Bill are by and large justified. Nevertheless, I agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Nathan, that there should be power to exempt suitable charities on whom the bureaucratic burden would be quite disproportionate.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, when he said that there is a case for devolution and that it would be desirable to consult locally and to set up local advisory councils. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, mentioned parochial councils. That seems entirely appropriate as a convenient source of local information, but one need not be confined to that. The Charity Commission should look anxiously for the formation of local advisory councils in order to bring decision-making as close as possible to the beneficiaries.
866
The only other point that I wish to raise relates to that originally made by my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson in his notable maiden speech and echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw; namely, that we have here yet again an example of legislation by reference to a previous Act—a main Act—which renders the Bill absolutely incomprehensible. I hope that I shall not offend the noble Viscount in his absence when I say that it showed somewhat of a nerve on his part to support my noble and learned friend. We have that method of legislation simply because it suits the Government's business managers. The noble Viscount was a notable and formidable business manager in another place. It suits them so well because, under the old system involving a Bill to consolidate and amend, the whole of the law, including that which is unamended, can be debated in Parliament to the fury of the Government's business managers whereas, under this system, only the amendments can be debated.
My noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson suggested that a Keeling schedule was appropriate. As your Lordships know, that is a schedule in three types of typography: the original Bill, which is sought to be amended in ordinary print; the parts to be omitted by amendments in italics; and the parts that are newly inserted in bold. That is often useful, but it is entirely inappropriate where the Act that is to be amended is a massive Act, as is the 1960 Act.
I hope that the noble Earl will not be beguiled by that suggestion, particularly as there is an alternative. Obviously, the best approach is consolidation, but that takes time. However, something can be done quite quickly; namely, to have the Act as amended reprinted in the Statutes in Force. That does not need a skilled draftsman. Where the amendments are textual, as here, it can be done by scissors and paste.
I suggest that it is incumbent on the sponsoring ministry to get in touch with the editors of Statutes in Force as quickly as possible. It need not wait for enactment. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us that that is possible. Having said that, I agree with all noble Lords who believe that this is a valuable Bill and that it should be put on the statute book as early as possible.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill in this House. I believe that there must be more hands-on experience of charitable affairs to be found among Members of this place than in the other place. Throughout the sectors of interest we have practitioners as well as benefactors and trustees as well as beneficiaries. I declare an interest as a trustee.
I believe that the Bill will allow trustees very much greater discretion in the management of their affairs. I intended to say that the soft mattress on which charities lie needs to be completely resprung; but I shall not press that point too hard in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just said. However, I very much admire the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord

867
Browne-Wilkinson, who said that he would like to see what is left of the 1960 Act incorporated in the schedule. The Government have done their best to repair the matrix and fit new springs in one or two places where necessary, which extends the life for another generation or just until another directive appears from Brussels.
Since the 1989 White Paper other legislation has been enacted which borders on the charities' domain and which may now impact upon it. We need to ensure that the Bill still keeps charitable affairs on firm ground. We want to ensure that charities obtain the benefits of reform and advance from whatever direction they come—a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who said that this is now a growth area—and that they are not constrained by the trusts of centuries ago designed for those times, some of which have become moribund. On the whole the provisions of the Bill are much welcomed but we must always remember that the new rules and regulations are being imposed largely on the voluntary and part-time sector which is already complying with the 1960 Act and with good practices.
So far as I can see most of the squeeze comes on registration and accountability. That is where most charities will have to face extra effort and costs. I am concerned with a number of matters arising out of those particular clauses.
In its role of compliance office the Charity Commission is empowered to keep the register in the manner in which it sees fit. Quite frankly I cannot understand fully what that is supposed to mean. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that the register will be a bank of information used for many things. If it implies that the commission is to use the best techniques available, I support it and I hope that the Government see fit to provide the resources necessary to beef up the Charity Commission so that it can perform in the way in which we all wish. However, if it implies that it can suit itself and in doing so makes life more difficult and expensive for corporate trustees, I do not support it. In any case, it would appear that some qualification is needed so that we can read in the Bill that the clause meets the requirements of the sector.
Turning to Clause 4 of the Bill, it appears to me that corporate trustees who administer more than one charity—some administer dozens of them—will be faced with a printing problem for each of their charities to comply. It is already common practice to carry out transactions through one account to avoid complication and expense. Surely it will be possible to use a unique registration numbering system, as is done with VAT registration, to indicate status. A further point on registration concerns the exemption of charities with incomes of between £15 and £1,000. If that implies automatic deregistration for such charities already registered, difficulties may arise with the Inspector of Taxes in making reclaims, getting dividends paid gross and investing in exempt funds. The case for being or staying registered seems to be strong but it may involve extra fees which small charities can ill afford.
868
I support Clause 5, which gives powers to the commissioners to blackball new names on the register, but I do not think that it goes far enough. Where a name is registered which is a look alike of a charity name which has ceased to exist through amalgamation or liquidation or which has changed (as "Dr. Barnado" has changed to "Barnados"), the commissioners do not appear to have powers to enforce a change because the original name may no longer be a legal entity, whether or not it was registered. A copyright name has protection of course and I suppose a name such as Oxfam falls into that category.
The call for greater transparency with reports and accounts is necessary if we are to continue having a healthy charities regime, but it makes more demands on voluntary and part-time charity staffs. My remarks strengthen what my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has already said.
The long-term effects of those particular clauses on charities with a gross income of less than £100,000 may mean that volunteers are inhibited from taking office in local charities and that life is made more difficult for those who do so. Society treasurers play an important role as auditors and the call for more expert presentation may add needlessly to costs which are better deployed where they are entrusted and most needed. The present requirements of the Housing Corporation in so far as concerns housing associations go beyond the capabilities of many society treasurers. In the case of one Abbeyfield Society project the audit fee exceeds the cost of heating and lighting the home, which seems to me to be out of all proportion to the task.
Large charities already use professional auditors to audit their accounts and can more easily accommodate the fee; but small charities have limited funds. I hope that the auditing requirement in the Bill can be tailored to the small charity's need. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, we need to know much more about the independent examiner or assessor, where he or she will fit in and what will be his or her role at the various levels.
The Bill gives trustees greater discretion and power in furthering their charitable objectives. Other legislation in education, housing, community care and local government is perhaps opening up new ways of working. For example, some charities have property, such as apartment blocks, which subsidise their almshouses. Should the charity wish to increase the almshouse capacity by using the apartments, its plans may be frustrated if at some time in the future, commonhold must be recognised. If that comes about, and it is hypothetical at the moment, I wonder in what way almshouse charities can protect themselves under this Bill. For example, would the commissioners recognise schemes to reserve such property for sheltered occupation if trustees make proposals along those lines?
There are many clauses in the Bill and I have referred to some of them. I believe that the Bill can be improved and that the knowledge and experience of Members of this place will help to improve it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am advised in particular by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the NSPCC and SANE. I have advised the Minister of most of the questions that I plan to ask. I hope that I shall therefore receive a few answers.
I welcome the Bill because it brings charity law up to date and aims to safeguard the public from bogus fund-raising. Such safeguards, if seen to be effective, will certainly help genuine charitable institutions to persuade people to contribute to their cause.
I particularly liked what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said, if I heard him aright. He suggested new attitudes so that the Charity Commission could be a helper as well as a regulator. I believe that that suggestion might make progress. I shall be interested in any amendments on those lines.
Like other noble Lords I am worried that the charity commissioners will lack the resources properly to scrutinise the annual reports, annual accounts and annual returns referred to in Clauses 20 to 27. When setting up and developing the computer system referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, one cannot help but doubt whether the charity commissioners will be able to convince the public that they have a grip on all the registered charities and that the bogus ones will not escape detection. It would be helpful to have reassurance from the Minister.
It is puzzling that Clauses 20 to 27 do not appear to relate to charitable companies. On the advice of our lawyers a few years ago, one of my charities changed itself from a trusteeship to a company limited by guarantee. Notwithstanding that change, although those of us who control and manage the charity are now directors and not trustees, it seems that we still fall within the definition of charity trustees under Section 46 of the 1960 Act. However, under Clause I of the Bill and the definition of "financial year" we are to be treated differently with regard to the annual statement of accounts. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify that point.
Clause 49 concerns me, as it does other noble Lords. it gives far too much power to the Secretary of State to prescribe fees for a range of activities performed by the commissioners. A strong point of principle is involved here. The Bill is welcome because it aims to provide extra protection to the public against bogus fund-raisers. Broadly speaking, protection of the public is a government responsibility paid for by taxpayers and charge payers, as are the police and the law courts. Clause 49 is questionable when considered in relation to the financial effects of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made reference.
In addition, when persuading people to give money for the benefit of the causes for which charities are set up, a problem is to keep the amount of money spent solely on administration to a minimum. The generous charitable givers will not be so enthusiastic if they discover that money that they thought was going towards fitting out a lifeboat, helping children from being abused, or succouring unfortunate sufferers from schizophrenia was being siphoned off to help the
870
charity commissioners inspect their register, with the money going to the consolidated fund. A comment from my noble friend on that issue would be most helpful.
Other points have been drawn to my attention of which I have not given my noble friend advance notice relating to Clauses 56 and 58. Clause 56 develops new definitions of individuals involved in raising money for charitable purposes. However, it is so widely drafted as to affect potentially the position of all volunteers and celebrities who agree to raise money, whether or not they are paid. I differ slightly from my noble friend Lord Swinfen who detected that aspect within the clause. Several of the charities with which I am closely concerned have royal patrons who, without amendment to the Bill, may find themselves legally designated "professional fund-raiser." I cannot believe that that is intended, or that the royal persons would take kindly to such a role if it were cast upon them.
Clause 58 is also very broadly drafted and may create difficulties for even the most respectable charities. I shall leave the details to the Committee stage.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen also raised the issue of permits to conduct public charitable collections referred to in Part III of the Bill. Does the definition of "public charitable collection" in Clause 63(1) (a) include a coffee morning in aid of the local church or a new electric piano for a women's institute where the public at large are encouraged to come in and contribute? If so, is it necessary for local authorities to be burdened with giving permits for such simple events? On the other hand, is it sensible, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen explained in great detail, to burden the people who collect with such a task?
There is much to be done, although I welcome the Bill. I hope that we shall not spend too long amending it in an endeavour to meet the anxieties that have been expressed. It is important that the Bill reaches the statute book before the general election.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, Britain is well known throughout the world for its many charities and the wide range of work undertaken by them. So many noble Lords are deeply involved with many aspects of charities that I feel your Lordships are the most appropriate people to scrutinise this important Bill and, it is to be hoped, to improve any aspect of the Bill which may cause problems for some charities. The importance of the Bill has been highlighted by having two maiden speakers. I congratulate both noble Lords.
I am involved in several charities. Many small charities work very hard; half their energies go into fund-raising. They do not have the time or expertise to compete with some of the large powerful charities. I therefore hope that the Government will take an overall look at the needs of all charities during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
I believe that most charities welcome most of the Bill. However, some are anxious that Part II relating to fund-raising activities may penalise charities which

871
do not have extensive fund-raising resources in-house. Clause 58 aims to target professional fund-raisers who often charge exorbitant fees. However, it ends up by interfering with charities which do not have the in-house capacity to carry out various aspects of fund-raising themselves.
Did consultation with charities on the material differences between the White Paper and the Bill take place? Were the Institute of Fund-Raising Managers and the major charities consulted prior to the publication of the Bill? Did the Charity Commission make a contribution?
In Part I, the Bill will require charities with an income of over £100,000 to be professionally audited. A charity with an income below that figure, but with significant assets, will escape that requirement. I ask your Lordships whether the Bill should include a provision on the size of assets that would require a professional audit? Another point concerns charities with an income below £100,000 but which receive a donation late in the year which pushes them above the limit. These charities may not have provided for the cost of a professional audit.
There seems to be most worry over Part II of the Bill. Most provisions are incredibly and deliberately wide and may have the effect of pushing charities to do fund-raising work in-house at a higher cost and to worse effect than if they were to contract out this work. Clause 58 targets the professional fund-raiser who charges either a flat fee or a commission on the amount raised, but it is so widely drafted that it will interfere with the fund raising of small charities.
The clause requires professional fund raisers to provide "a clear and accurate statement" which will include the names of the charities which will benefit, the proportion to be received by each charity, and the method by which the fund-raising appeal is to be determined. It seems that this clause requires that each potential donor be given this clear statement either verbally or in writing. A small charity without the resources to do the work in-house will be at a disadvantage compared to a charity with a large in-house fund-raising department. The charity that uses an agency to carry out its fund-raising would be required to issue the "clear statement" when each potential donor is approached, while the charity able to do the work in-house would not.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships three examples that may cause problems. One is the sale of Christmas cards bought by the charity and marketed by them directly or marketed by a third party or sold through a collective agent. All of these would require the "clear and accurate statement". For example, a collective agency making numerous charity cards available would have to say what percentage went to the agent, what percentage to the card manufacturers, and what percentage to the charity.
Secondly, direct mail appeals would be seen as solicitation for money. When an outside direct mail agency is used, the mail shot must include the "clear and accurate statement". The statement would need to state the fee or commission to be received by the
872
agency. It seems difficult to foresee how the clear statement of fees to be paid to the agency would be drafted.
A charity will have to make an assumption on the likely income from the direct mail exercise on the basis of past performance, but this assumption may prove to be overstated. In this case, the agency would receive a greater proportion of income than stated, and they would have therefore broken the law because their statement would not be accurate. Inevitably agencies may cover themselves by overstating their charges and understating the amount going to the charity. The result will be an unfair advantage to charities doing their own in-house work, however efficiently.
The third example is that many charities use agencies to do their tele-marketing. This proves to be cost effective. Clause 58 will require the agency to inform the potential donor of the basis on which their fee is calculated and the amount received for each solicitation. Once again charities may prefer to work in-house, however efficiently or inefficiently. The effect of Clause 58 might, as it stands, mean many charities will attempt to do their fund-raising work in-house, thereby escaping the requirements of issuing the "clear statement", because they will fear that such a statement will have an adverse effect on donors. This may increase costs and decrease efficiency in some cases.
Clause 63 deals with public charitable collections. It deals with appeals to members of the public to give money or other property in a public place, or by means of visits from place to place. Under this clause an individual who undertakes a sponsored walk breaks the law if, unknown to him or her, the charity does not have a licence. The effect of this clause is to make an innocent volunteer unwittingly liable to an offence.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the main problem lies in Clause 58. It clearly targets professional fund-raisers who charge exorbitant fees. At first sight we might all say "hurray", but it is so widely drafted that it will hit the fund-raising activities of small charities who use direct mail agencies or telemarketing so as to increase their effectiveness. These charities do not have the resources or expertise to do this type of work in-house, and will therefore be put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis charities that have extensive fund-raising departments. Many charities may be tempted to set up their own in-house direct mail and tele-marketing departments.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is a likelihood of amending the clauses to exclude these types of activity. The Minister might say that perhaps some small charities should combine. This may be the answer in some cases; but there are many small charities doing specialised work, such as the Association for the Prevention of Addiction, and it might not be in their interest, or in the interest of those they try to help, to change their present status. I hope your Lordships, with your brilliant minds, will sort out some of these problems.
6.48 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to join the ranks of those of your Lordships who give this Bill a warm welcome. The desire to request, or impose on, the, trustees of charities the highest code of conduct is to be warmly welcomed. However, I feel that many of the provisions of this Bill are more applicable to the larger charities than to the smaller charities that have been referred to by many speakers this afternoon.
I should like to address my remarks principally to the charitable foundations of almshouses throughout the country. I should at this stage declare an interest, in that I have been chairman of the trustees of our local almshouses for the past 25 years, and I like to think that I have some idea of what I am talking about in this area. If the trustees were to meet the various requirements that it is suggested should be imposed by this Bill, the extra cost would be unacceptable and might well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
There are about 20,000 people living in almshouses throughout the country, approximately 2,300 almshouse organisations, about 1,600 of which have an average income of approximately £15,000 per annum. Many of these almshouses are of some antiquity. Others are more modern, but all their buildings need continual repair and expenditure. With a level of income such as that to which I have referred, it is simply not possible to run on a day to day basis adequate accommodation and amenities such as gardens and so on and put sufficient funds on one side to provide for the future. Wooden doors, window frames, yards and so on must all be attended to. One day that will be extremely difficult to continue.
Generally speaking, almshouses are almost like a housing corporation, in that free housing is provided with a weekly maintenance contribution assisted by the Department of Social Security at little or no cost to the public purse. In the main they are looked after by people who have knowledge of local people and their needs. Almshouses are part of village life and part of rural England. I should be sad to think that that may be placed in jeopardy by too much bureaucracy and the expense related thereto.
Clause 21 refers to the requirement to produce professional audits, accounts and so on for charities with a turnover of less than £10,000. I believe that figure to be too small. A figure of £25,000 would surely be more acceptable. My noble friend Lady Masham referred to a suggestion that assets should be taken into account in assessing whether a charity should be involved in all those administrative procedures. That could be rather misleading. I entirely accept her point that, if the assets are all capital and investments and so on, that should be done. However, if I may be parochial, while the almshouse trust at home has an income of only £15,000, the site on which the houses stand and the buildings themselves are probably worth something like half a million pounds. Therefore the requirement is rather unrealistic. Perhaps that point should be borne in mind.
Clauses 24 to 27 relating to the annual report and annual return are very unsatisfactory because, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, we are legislating for something about which we know nothing. It is not
874
right that we should give power to various Secretaries of State to impose regulations. If regulations are required to be produced, I ask my noble friend to consider whether they should be brought before Parliament before they are passed. We should have some control over that sort of action.
Also, about one-third of almshouse foundations are registered with the Housing Corporation. Surely to goodness the same rules which apply to the Housing Corporation, in relation to the foundations should apply to the Charity Commission. I hope that my noble friend is willing to look again at Clauses 24 to 27 to see whether or not something can be done to take away the requirement for almshouse charities to be treated rather like limited companies in that they must make annual returns.
Clause 30 causes me slight anxiety because it removes the requirement for an official custodian for charities. The knock-on effect of that, particularly in relation to small charities, will be that there will be more hassle for the trustees, who, as has been pointed out by one or two noble Lords, are volunteers. They give up their time voluntarily. They are not tax experts and, indeed, sometimes are not experts in anything. They just try to do the best they can for local people. This provision will mean endless formfilling, the reclaiming of tax and so on. If matters are overlooked, the charity may lose money. The official custodian is an extremely useful and welcome gentleman. I hope that he is not to be given the death knell by the Bill or, if he is, I hope that there will be provision for somebody else to replace him.
Clauses 33 to 36 contain the most remarkable piece of drafting I have ever seen. I believe it is misleading. I have probably misread it and almost certainly I have misunderstood it. However, the fact is that it appears to allow for trustees to maximise without the consent of the charity commissioners the capital value of any land or buildings which they happen to own. At one stage the clause implies that that is not so but later on it appears to suggest that it is so. Quite frankly, that is very confusing. At present the charity commissioners are, quite rightly, required to give approval to trustees who wish to sell any of their landed and/or building assets. I understand that, unless there is a particularly good reason for doing so, the charity commissioners generally decline to give that approval. I hope that I shall be corrected if I misinterpret this matter but I understand that under the Bill there is no such requirement for any reference to the Charity Commission or, indeed, anyone else.
I am sorry to be parochial once again but, if my trust has an income of £15,000 and has an asset worth £0.5 million, I may say to my co-trustees, "Come on, we will sell these, raise £0.5 million, ask the people living in the houses to find alternative accommodation and give them money from the proceeds of sale". But people do not want that. They would prefer to live in their homes despite the fact that the income from the charity is not very high. It seems to me extremely dangerous to have a clause which contains no requirement for trustees to refer to, and gain permission from, some body, even if it is not the Charity Commission—although I should have

875
thought that that would be the most acceptable body. I hope that my noble friend will look again at that matter.
Clause 48 refers to the level of weekly maintenance contributions. At present, the DSS gives financial assistance to those who are asked to provide weekly maintenance contributions if their income falls below what is necessary to pay those contributions. That is carried out in association with the rent officer and with the approval of the charity commissioners and is a scheme worked out by the National Association of Almshouses. It is all above board and there is no fiddling. If there is any complaint from the DSS, which I understand there is at present, then the department does not go to the trustees to ask about the level being charged but to the rent officer and/or the charity commissioners. It can then receive an answer from professional, independent people.
Clause 48 removes that provision and permits the landlords, the trustees, to charge any rent they wish to. For example, the rent might be increased from £20 to £100 per week, but I do not believe that the DSS would agree to make any contributions on that basis. I ask that the arrangements in the Bill for settling weekly maintenance contributions should remain as they are at present. I find those arrangements extremely helpful and have never experienced any problem.
Clause 49 refers to fees. If the charity commissioners wish to have a set of accounts, annual returns and so on, so be it. However, I do not see why the charities should have to pay to send something which they do not wish to send in the first place but are being required to send. That does not seem to be fair. The Charity Commission should pay the costs. It will be bureaucratic but that is a matter for the commission. I do not see why the costs should be borne by the charities. I agree that all charities, whatever their size, should, if only in a simple way, prepare accounts every year and send them in automatically. I support that. However I do not believe they should have to bear the costs.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that some of the points which I have made will be taken on board. Perhaps we shall give them further consideration in Committee.
7 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I begin by apologising that I may not be able to stay to the end of the debate. From these Benches the Bill is given a welcome as producing important reforms that have become somewhat overdue.
In considering the Bill certain facts must not be forgotten. First, we must not lose sight of the main mischief at which the provisions are directed—abuse in the administration of charities. Secondly, we must not lose sight of the fact that the great majority of charities are properly and lawfully conducted and will continue to be so, even were life to go on without the legislation. Inevitably a balance must be struck between necessary measures to protect and retain the confidence of the public—both donors and beneficiaries—and measures which may become unduly
876
irksome and costly to the charities themselves and deter those who work for them, especially the volunteers upon whom they depend so much.
In a short debate we had some time ago dealing with the position of our charities in the European Community, we were reminded that British and Irish charities are quite unlike their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, which are more obviously commercial enterprises. The Bill recognises that that is not to say that charities here should not have to meet some of the basic requirements of good business practices which are stipulated by law for our companies. The relevant common factor is that they hold and use other people's money. We therefore welcome the measures which in some way move charities closer to company law and charitable companies nearer to charity law.
Clause 4 introduces the requirement for a registered charity to state on all documents that it is such. I am slightly worried about Clause 4(5), which provides that others, apart from the charity itself, may he charged with non-compliance with that provision. It is a potentially wide-ranging offence and could catch the individual sending a notice round his or her workplace soliciting sponsorship or support for a specific feat to be performed for a charity—whether it is the sponsored slim of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, or my occasional crawl round the London Marathon.
Clause 5 also contains echoes of company law in prohibiting the use of misleading names. Clause 5(2) (d) applies where,
"the name of the charity is … likely to give the impression that the charity is connected in some way with Her Majesty's Government".
I am not altogether sure that that device would inspire much charitable benevolence.
More important are the provisions in Clause 20 onwards, requiring records and annual accounts with provisions for auditing and examination. Those must now be regarded as fundamental requirements for almost all organisations, although one can argue about the financial limits below which the requirement may be relaxed. We shall need to look hard at making life easier and certainly cheaper for smaller charities. Those provisions are a necessary reinforcement of the 1960 Act. It is astonishing that only 11 per cent. of registered charities submitted their accounts to the commissioners in 1986. Companies behaving in that way run the risk of being struck off.
The question of sanctions for non-compliance has been raised. It is a difficult subject. All one can say is that there ought to be some form of sanction, whether in the form of criminal penalties, as proposed by Clause 28, or perhaps replacing or reinforcing that by a running daily penalty so long as the default lasts. Such detailed comment is not appropriate at Second Reading. However, I hope that before the Bill leaves this House we shall gain a clearer idea of who will form the body of independent examiners. The Bill tells us that they will have accountancy qualifications and experience, and that the commissioners may give guidance. I hope that a body of specialist practitioners will soon emerge, either formally or informally, but again giving relief to smaller charities to whom accountants and auditors do not come cheap.

877
Finally, in Part I of the Bill, Clause 19 provides for unlocking dormant bank and building society accounts, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred. That procedure depends on the bank or building society concerned informing the commissioners that the dormant account exists. It is not clear to me how that will work in practice. Will the commissioners be conducting a general trawl of the financial institutions once the Bill is law? What will trigger disclosure otherwise? I assume that computerisation will enable accounts to be identified once they have been inactive for five years. I wonder why the onus cannot therefore be on the institution to draw such accounts to the attention of the commissioners.
Part II of the Bill seeks to define the boundaries between charitable and commercial enterprises. Inevitably there will be difficult cases on the borderline. The definitions in Clause 56 may need closer scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, again touched upon that matter, as did other noble Lords. The expression "for reward" always causes anxiety and difficulty. It raises the question whether someone who solicits funds in return for reimbursement and perhaps a nominal fee is to be regarded as a professional fund-raiser. A further question arising under that part of the Bill concerns the ability of charities to seek an injunction under Clause 57. That provision begs the question why the broader category of charitable institutions is omitted from the statutory right to such relief. It seems to me that charitable institutions, as distinct from pure charities, will be just as vulnerable to the unscrupulous and just as much in need of injunctive relief in appropriate circumstances.
Finally, I should like to echo a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, that the Bill is not for easy reading. It lacks a Keeling schedule, as several noble Lords pointed out. It may be that the 1960 Act and the provisions of the Bill make the overall totality of words too much for a Keeling schedule. If that is the reason for there not being one, we should have some other means for making the legislative process more manageable when dealing with that sort of provision. For example, the Bill contains various references to "exempt charities." One must either know or discover—as I discovered —that they are not defined in the Bill. They are referred to and defined in a schedule to the 1960 Act. That indicates to me that charities legislation must be a candidate for early consideration for a consolidation Bill. Building as it does on the great reforms of the 1960 Act the Bill is indeed welcome.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is customary at this point to say that we have had a most interesting and informative debate. We have had a most interesting and informative debate. Perhaps its most notable characteristic appropriate for a Charities Bill is the conspicuous charity of your Lordships' contributions.
In his opening speech my noble friend Lord Richard paid tribute to the Woodfield Report and to the main thrust of the Government White Paper. He pointed out that the time is ripe for a careful look at
878
the law governing charities. He said that we accept the need and, subject to certain caveats, we give it our support. In all subsequent speeches there seems to have been remarkably little dissent from that premise.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the two remarkable maiden speeches we were privileged to hear today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, modestly described himself as a technician of the law. Would that all technicians were so expert, so clear in their exposition, so jargon free and came to our assistance so promptly.
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, made a most expert, elegant and philosophical contribution to our debate. He reminded us of the words of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, which must be a basic text for all our thinking on charity. He used such words as "rectitude" and phrases such as "moral concern". For one brief moment they raised our heads above the level of petty parliamentary drafting. We look forward to hearing many more such admonitions from him.
The previous major piece of legislation on charities was enacted in 1960 since when the situation has changed dramatically. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the world has changed almost beyond recognition. Now there are more than 170,000 registered charities which in 1990 raised £17 billion or, according to another authority, £17,000 million. Either way, the amount is no longer peanuts. These charities frequently undertake business activities to raise funds or to provide services. Many of them rely on fund-raising rather than on endowments and a modern regulatory framework is obviously necessary. I was pleased to see in Clause 4 that a registered charity shall be so described:
"in English in legible characters".
That bodes well for the future of the Bill.
It is clear that Clause 2 has caused your Lordships a great deal of puzzlement and difficulty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, found it necessary to suggest that Clause 2 needs looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with characteristic directness, advised your Lordships to keep out of the Bill all the contentious questions of what is a charity. He further advised us not to say a word about religious cults. Even the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—whose name, we have been reminded, should appear as a separate schedule to the Bill —appeared to have had only a fleeting and tangential comprehension of what is intended in this mysterious clause. My noble friend Lord Richard described it as being extremely complex. I should describe it as having an absolutely Byzantine reticulation. For the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, only Sir Humphrey elevated to the peerage would suffice. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was forced by the clause to doubt her own IQ, which no one else doubts. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take on board the message that as regards Clause 2, in the words of a former Prince of Wales, something must be done.
Your Lordships appear to have had less difficulty with those parts of the Bill dealing with increasing accountability. The Bill will increase accountability by

879
requiring the submission of annual returns, reports and accounts, making accounts available to the public and requiring larger charities to have their accounts professionally audited. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, made the startling proposal that the commission should not merely be a monitor but should have the duty actively to encourage and assist charities. In that suggestion he gained the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. They believed that the Bill should contain a positive and pro-active role for the commission. They received support from the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, who was the only speaker to mention the dreaded word, "Brussels".
In dealing with this area of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was sceptical about whether reports and computers could fully get a grip on the problem. Although that subject was not greatly featured this afternoon many noble Lords who have made their concerns known to me have found that as regards the report and accounts to which they are liable to have to return the remembrance of them is grievous unto them and the burden of them is intolerable.
The Bill is much concerned with reducing fraud and protecting donors. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, gave the House an example of fraudulent fund-raisers raising thousands of pounds by false pretences. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, drew our attention to the issue of trustees who have been convicted. He was not clear whether the proposal applied to exempt and excepted charities and asked cogently how we find out about such people. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, reminded us about Mr. Brown and his phoney boxes. He wondered what the position of Mr. Brown would be as regards this Bill. I looked to discover but I too found no answer. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, with his great experience and vast knowledge of this aspect of charities, warned your Lordships of the danger of throttling the fund-raisers. It is possible so to legislate to protect that everyone walks out of the door and finds something more interesting to do.
Your Lordships were much more at one on the issue of increasing efficiency. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, advocated a careful look at the processes for amalgamation. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said that some of the swingeing new penalties are inappropriate and that conversely Clause 29 gives with the left hand what it takes away with the right. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, reminded us that fiscal privileges must be properly controlled. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, told us of the necessity of ensuring that the volunteer is not submerged under the requirements of returns, licences and accounts. Like milk and motherhood, your Lordships are generally in favour of efficiency and in that respect appear to approve of the general thrust of the Bill.
There appears to have been some anxiety about the difficulties of smaller charities. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, focused his worry on the problems of the scouts and guides, giving them as typical examples of those smaller charities. The noble Lord, Lord
880
Clitheroe, pointed out the difficulties which required a blue cloth suddenly to become red flannel. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, told us about the difficulties of dormant funds and the problem of the amalgamation of charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to that matter as a means of preventing conspicuous waste. Most recently the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, gave as a typical example of small charities the almshouses which clearly will find considerable difficulty with many of the Bill's clauses. Representatives of almshouses and other such bodies are worried about the weight of responsibility to be accountable.
The greatest weight of your Lordships' anxieties lay with the issue of fund-raising. The Bill includes detailed provisions on fund-raising consultants and public collections. We are all anxious to remove abuse and fraud and are concerned to ensure that the Bill is workable while not adversely affecting legitimate and well-managed fund-raising. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, drew our attention to the dangers of television advertising. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, told us of the danger of frightening off potential donors and of the difficulties connected with telethons. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drew our attention to Clause 58 which in her view penalised fund-raisers. She asked the Minister a series of questions to which I hope he will reply.
The issue of resources was at the centre of our anxieties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, pointed out that unless resources are appropriate for the commission it will not attract people of the right high quality. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was anxious that the Bill might create extra work for the charities and for the commission. She said that wherever that is the case it must be properly resourced if the Bill is not to be a dead letter. Clearly the commission must have safe, basic funding to fulfil its tasks.
Fewer noble Lords were concerned with the problem of charging by the Charity Commission. In anticipation I had thought that some of my noble friends might feel fiercely about that matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said that he thought, but only thought, that he was in favour, although by now he may have come to a firm conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, reminded us of the difficulty of biting the volunteer.
As my noble friend Lord Richard reminded us, the problems of the charities are problems of growth, not of decline. To that extent we may rejoice and feel optimistic. In his reply to the debate I hope that the Minister may feel able to develop the Government's thinking and clarify some of the major issues which have been raised. I take those to include the regulatory structure, which will require 170,000 annual reports to be written by lots of people and read by someone; the problems of efficient audit; the problems of small charities and how the Bill will impinge on them; the stick and the carrot in the matter of fund-raising; and the issue of "public charitable collections" and their definition. The administration of charities must balance accountability with freedom. I am reminded of the words of Alexander Pope in the Essay on Man:

881
"For forms of government let fools contest; Whatever is best administered is best … In faith and hope the world will disagree But all mankind's concern is charity."
7.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had enormously knowledgeable contributions during the debate from those who have experience of charities, those who are expert in the law and those who work in charities. I am therefore glad that the Bill started its passage through Parliament in your Lordships' House.
I am grateful for the general welcome given to the Bill. It is an important and significant measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, it is no Bill for easy reading. I never claimed that it was: I did not find that it was either. I am grateful for your Lordships' understanding because we are dealing with a difficult aspect of the law and the subject inevitably becomes complicated. I was especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for his support. As he said, no party points are involved. Thank goodness for that, as all we want to do is to try to get the Bill as right as possible. My noble friend has enormous experience both as a former Home Secretary and also now as the chairman of the Council for Charitable Support.
The debate was enhanced by the contributions of two maiden speakers. We were all delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. He described himself as a technician. I have always thought that a technician is a fellow who has a screwdriver and has on a white jacket. I think that the noble and learned Lord was addressing his mind down other channels when he used that expression. He is a lawyer and was talking on technical points. We are grateful to him for his contribution. The noble and learned Lord was described by one noble Lord as a "charities Treasury devil". I thought that that was a rather insulting description, but I understand that it is a great compliment because it refers to the fact that the noble and learned Lord did much of the legal work involved in the Charities Act 1960.
My noble friend Lord St. Davids made an interesting and, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, philosophical speech. He brought in the moral issue. I was glad of that. I thought back to the occasions when his father was in the House and intervened on matters to do with canals and waterways. Indeed I remember his grandmother being here too. My noble friend has quite a history behind him. Both maiden speakers enhanced the debate and I know that we shall look forward to hearing again from them in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, threw a large pebble into the pool when he expressed the hope that in my reply I would develop the Government's thinking and answer questions. I developed the Government's thinking at the beginning of the debate. I would not go down too well with your Lordships if I expanded on that as well as answered the plethora of questions which noble Lords put to me. I shall do my best to answer those questions.
The Bill covers a wide area and a good deal of law that has come to us as case law. The issue of resources was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He
882
doubted whether the Government would provide the necessary resources and asked whether the Charity Commission was agreeable to the burdens being placed on it. That was putting the matter fairly forcefully. My noble friends Lord Whitelaw, Lord Ironside, Lord Mottistone and Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, were all concerned about resources. There is no doubt that the commissioners must have enough resources if they are to discharge their new role effectively. I cannot anticipate the size of the vote in the future, but we can look back at the Government's record over the past few years and see that the total resources in money terms allocated to the commissioners have increased in the four-year period 1987–88 to 1991–92 from £6.1 million to £21.6 million. That is a considerable jump by any standards. The number of staff employed by the commission increased from 335 in 1987–88 to 712 in 1991–92. We have ensured that resources have been made available to the commission for its work. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, the commission is satisfied that it has the resources to deal with the annual returns, which will be an invaluable tool in the work of the commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to charity accounts and the independent examiner. The examiner will be a person independent of the trustees with, in the trustees' view, appropriate knowledge of accounting practices and charities in particular. He will not necessarily be a professional accountant. He could be, for example, a bank manager or someone in a similar position. The Bill allows the commissioners to give guidance to trustees on the selection of independent examiners.
Many noble Lords referred to the register and to the commission's ability to charge. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to a black mark on the register. The Bill will allow commissioners to enter on the register any information which they think fit. That could include trustees' compliance, or otherwise, with statutory duties on trustees. If those duties have not been attended to, that could be marked on the register as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked how many of the 170,000 charities are moribund. In the commission's census of charities this year, there was no response from about 16 per cent. of the charities of which it made inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, referred to the role of the Charity Commission. I agree with the noble Lord that the commission should seek to encourage effectiveness of the charitable sector. That is one of its existing roles. The removal of some of its existing functions will allow it to devote more resources to that as well as to investigating and monitoring. The voluntary service unit in the Home Office has the task of supporting the voluntary sector generally and promoting voluntary giving.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also referred to commissioners' access to the courts. He referred to the Attorney-General's consent. Giving the commissioners direct access to the courts is already a considerable extension. The noble Lord asked why

883
non-submission of accounts should be a criminal offence. We take the view that there has to be an effective sanction against failure to submit accounts to the commissioners. Although we were reluctant to introduce criminal offences, we believe that this one will form an effective deterrent against wilful default by trustees.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether an audit should be required where there were substantial assets. It is suggested that, where assets are substantial but the income below £100,000, there should be a professional audit. The trustees can choose to have a professional audit or the commissioners can require this to be carried out if they consider it necessary. The noble Baroness also asked about consultation on the fund-raising provisions. I can tell her that comments on the White Paper were received, for example, from the Institute of Fundraising Managers and that they were taken fully into account when preparing the Bill. She also asked whether the charity commissioners played a part in the process. The answer is that they did.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret was disappointed at the demise of the Official Custodian for Charities. I realise that that causes difficulties. It will involve more work for the trustees of some charities. But such duties are consistent with the full exercise by trustees of their responsibilities for charity property. The savings from the divestment of the official custodian will provide more resources for better monitoring and investigation by the Charity Commission. My noble friend also referred to the level of the audit. I believe that he is mistaken to think that charities with an income of £10,000 or more must have their accounts professionally audited. In fact, the figure is £100,000. He also asked about the regulations on accounts. We want to get them right. We propose to consult widely with the representative bodies and charities on the detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to dormant charity accounts. He asked whether the commissioners would have to rely upon banks and other people volunteering information. That is not the way we see the provision working. The commissioners propose to link their power to the conduct of the rolling programme of local reviews which they propose to undertake.
Many noble Lords referred to charging. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked about charging in general. The purpose of this procedure is to introduce a measure of control into the growing area of professional fund-raising. We want to get it right. We do not intend to catch volunteers who are raising funds for charities. A number of representative bodies and charities have welcomed the broad thrust of these provisions.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw also referred to the effect of charges on small charities. They will be modest—probably about £50 for registration. I do not believe that it can be claimed that that will be beyond the means of even the smallest charity which requires to be registered. Charities may also have to part with a small amount of money for a leaflet, or possibly pay
884
for selling off land if the commissioners' consent is still required. But even in that case, the charges will be linked to the value of the transaction.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw asked where the £300,000 would come from. It is always hard to estimate total receipts in advance. But the best estimate we have is that at least £300,000 per year should be collected. There would probably be 4,000 registrations at £50 each and another £80,000 would be received from orders giving consents. Moreover, from the sale of leaflets and other such things about £20,000 would be realised. My noble friend also asked whether the receipts could be retained by the commissioners rather than being sent to the Consolidated Fund. I am sure that he will be the first to understand that there are difficulties with that suggestion. Receipts from charges will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. However, the fact that the commissioners are generating income will clearly count in their favour in future negotiations with the Treasury.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the fiscal privileges for charities. I have no doubt that such privileges as charities enjoy continue to be justified. We are committed to encouraging a healthy and growing charitable sector. Charities make a huge contribution to the quality of life. The tax relief enjoyed by them, which amounts to £800 million a year, is an important contribution to the ability of charities to fulfil their purpose. If that were to be removed, I believe that some charities might find themselves in difficulty. The noble and learned Lord also referred to the cy-près doctrine. That was reviewed in 1989 and, since that time, the commissioners have adopted a more flexible use of the doctrine. In the light of that, the Government do not believe that legislative changes are needed.
A certain amount of concern was expressed during the debate about public collections. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred to his friend Mr. Brown. When I say, "his friend Mr. Brown" I mean that in the most generous sense. The position is that where a charity puts an unattended collection box in a public place—such as, a public house, a shop or a similar place—for members of the public to donate contributions, that will not constitute a "public charitable collection" for the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, such action will not require a permit from the local authority. The amount of money collected by these means is usually relatively small. Such collections do not have the potential to cause inconvenience to the public as is the case with other types of collection.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who always manages to think of something ingenious, asked what would happen if he organised a collection in the foyer of his office.
Lord Richard: That is not what I asked.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon if I got it wrong.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if the noble Earl is going to quote what I said he had better get it right. I did not

885
say that I was going to organise a collection. I said that if in fact I was trying to persuade people to sponsor me in a walk, a marathon or any other form of desirable activity which may be thought fit for me, the present drafting of the legislation would mean that I would have to get a licence. If I may be permitted to use the phrase, I think that is daft.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that it would not be at all daft if the noble Lord were to encourage people to go on a fund-raising venture so that he, as he put it, could lose weight. I can assure him that if that happened under the circumstances which he suggested, he would not need to have a licence.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is what the Bill says.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are getting into a Committee situation. I am trying to tell the noble Lord that, in places such as he suggested, it would be for the owner or manager concerned in the first instance to say whether and when a collection could take place. The Government think that collections in such places should be subject to the same kind of safeguards as other public collections; for example, those conducted in the street. It depends whether it falls into the category of a street collection, a public collection or a coffee morning. I think that I had better leave the matter there. The noble Lord is shaking his head with great vigour. I wish that he would come with me for a little of the way and realise that I am probably right, even if he thinks that I am wrong. We shall return to that matter at a later stage.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and Lord Brightman, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, all wanted to see a Keeling schedule. They thought that it would make things easier. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I say that because, as so often happens with the Law Lords when they take part in a debate, they actual y disagreed. He said that we should not be taken in by this beguiling advice. I understand why it should be thought that such a Keeling schedule would make life easier. I am bound to say that I am all for anything which makes life easier. I inquired as to whether we could do this, but I am advised that it is quite difficult to do so in these circumstances. Without going into too much detail as to why it is difficult, I shall seek to find out whether there is anything that can be done. However, my advice for the moment is that it would be inappropriate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, referred to amendments to the 1960 Act. I hope that this legislation will be an early candidate for consolidation. I believe that that point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I suggested that consolidation would be likely to be too slow and that consultation with the editors of the Statutes in Force would be a convenient preliminary step.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's point. All I was trying to say was that in general we believe that that legislation would be a good candidate for consolidation.
886
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and other noble Lords, said that they were worried about Clause 2. My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he might be too old to understand. All I can say is that he said that. I am sure that he cannot be that old. Whether he can understand is another matter. The provisions of Clause 2 relate to a difficult area of the law. Essentially, the clause empowers the commissioners to take account of the activities of any organisation when deciding whether it is a charity. They may do so, notwithstanding the fact that on paper the organisation is established for exclusively charitable purposes. The new power will be available to the commissioners at any time, not merely when they are deciding whether the organisation could or should be registered.
Under the clause, the activities that the commissioners will be able to take into account are those which the organisation may legitimately pursue under its trusts. In relation to certain religious movements about which public anxiety has been expressed, it could include evidence of their recruiting methods. It could also include evidence of any commercial or trading activities carried out under the terms of the organisation's governing instrument.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to land transactions. He and a number of other noble Lords referred to almshouses. Abuse can occur, despite the safeguards. Our view is that the statutory procedures that we propose will provide adequate protection in the overwhelming majority of cases. What is more, they will free the staff for the important business of monitoring and investigation. That will be a more efficient and cost-effective way of protecting charity funds. The proposed new statutory requirements are already followed by charities dealing with land under excepting orders made by the commissioners. Experience has shown that they work well. The commissioners will remain responsible for overseeing transactions where there is a danger of abuse.
A number of noble Lords referred to the professional fund-raiser. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the disclosure of information. On fund-raising, the regulations will require professional fund-raisers to pass over to charities all the proceeds of the appeal. They will then allow the charities to pay back to the fund-raiser the remuneration and expenses. It is right that that should happen because then those who give to the charity will know that the money goes to the charity and that the fund-raiser is thereafter paid, as opposed to the fund-raiser deducting his slice before the charity receives the money.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to direct mailing. We have no intention of preventing direct mailing by or on behalf of charities, but we must ensure that donors' interests are protected. That is the purpose of the Bill. The provisions will not stop charities using direct mailing agencies. The costs of that are often much less than the administrative costs of undertaking similar activities using the charity's own resources. The noble Baroness

887
was worried whether regulating professional fundraisers would give an unfair advantage to the in-house fund-raiser. I do not believe that it does. The charities are subject to the supervision of the Charity Commissioners, whereas professional fund-raisers are not. It seems to us right to impose a degree of regulation over professional fund-raisers.
The noble Baroness also mentioned Christmas cards. Christmas cards which are sold by charities will not be caught. Christmas cards which are sold by an agent will be caught if the agent is receiving a reward for soliciting the funds for the charity. The Charity Christmas Card Council has welcomed those proposals.
There was some discussion about trustees. My noble friend Lord St. Davids was interested in the disqualification of trustees and whether other types of offence should be taken into account. I do not believe so. Trusteeship typically entails responsibility for money. It does not involve close contact with the client. That is why we believe it right to concentrate upon offences involving dishonesty and deception. Charities will not have access to criminal records, but they should exercise due diligence in whom they appoint.
A number of noble Lords were worried about coffee mornings. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was not worried about them. In fact, I do not know what he was worried about. It depends upon whether it happens in his foyer. We have extended the scope of the public collections provisions so that promoters will be required to obtain a permit for a collection on private property. Our thinking is that collections on railway station platforms and forecourts, supermarket entrances, shopping precincts and so forth should be properly regulated. In such places it is for the owner or manager to say whether and when a collection can take place. Collections in such places should be subject to safeguards similar to those existing for other public collections. We do not intend the requirement to obtain a permit to extend to functions such as coffee mornings. That would impose an unnecessary level of control, and one that it is not our intention to introduce.
A number of your Lordships were anxious about small charities. My noble friend Lord Clitheroe referred to the parish council supervising small charities. The parish council is frequently the trustee of many small local charities. It would be inappropriate for the same body to be both trustee and supervisor. There would be a conflict of interest.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked whether Clause 41 excluded permanently endowed charities. It does not. Any charity with an income which did not exceed £5,000 in the last financial year and which does not hold land for the purposes of the charity and which is neither exempt nor a charitable company may take advantage of Clause 41.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley referred to the effects that the Bill would have on small charities. I understand the worries that have been expressed—that is, the trustees of small charities in
888
particular will find their new roles onerous. I do not believe that they will. There will be changes. The position of trustee brings with it certain inevitable responsibilities. There cannot be effective monitoring of charities without the provision of better information to the commissioners.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked whether the provisions of Clauses 41 and 42 should be compulsory. It would be wrong to make it compulsory to act as Clauses 41 and 42 allow. That would be strongly resisted by the trustees of local charities. They are independent, and rightly so. They are free to carry out their purposes as they think fit. If the trustees of small charities will not act, the commissioners have the power to remove them and to appoint new trustees who would be prepared in appropriate circumstances to make use of the powers in Clauses 41 and 42.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull also mentioned Clauses 41 and 42. She asked whether the resolutions of trustees should be unanimous. She referred to the old chap of 80 who did not want any change. We take the view that it is necessary for the resolutions to be unanimous. Amalgamating two charities or changing the purpose of a charity are major decisions. We believe it right therefore that the trustees should act in concert. If they are not unanimous, they can appeal to the commissioners for a scheme. The commissioners will consider the merits of what the trustees propose. They can make a scheme if that is appropriate.
My noble friend referred to local reviews of small charities. Under the Charities Act 1960, the commissioners can conduct inquiries into any charity or group of charities. They propose to use that power to undertake local reviews of charities. They may do that themselves or appoint a person to do so.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret also referred to almshouses, and he pointed out that the commissioners would no longer have to approve rents. The commissioners have at present to approve the level of the contributions that the trustees charge almshouse residents. The Government believe that it should be the responsibility of the trustees themselves to decide the correct level of contributions. Each almshouse is different, and the trustees know the local conditions best. They also have the best interests of the almshouse residents in mind. The commissioners' withdrawal from this function will release resources for them to use in other situations.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was worried about advertising by charities. The Independent Television Commission has a code for regulating television advertisements. Otherwise, it is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority which, I understand, is working with the commission on joint guidelines on charity advertising.
There are a number of other points which your Lordships raised, and perhaps I may refer to two. My noble friend Lord Ironside mentioned charity names. The commission can require the charity to change its name if it is likely to mislead as to the purposes or businesses of the charity. He was also worried about commonhold. That is a technical point and, if I may, I shall look into it and write to him about it.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may intervene. On commonhold, the problem is that charities may own apartment blocks and have money available to subsidise the almshouses. But they may wish to expand their activities and have more almshouses. What can they do now in order to preserve their rights if commonhold comes about?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a technical point and I shall look into it and write to my noble friend with a more considered reply. He asked whether charities with an income below £1,000 would automatically be deregistered. The answer is that they will not be. The commissioners will remove the charity from the register only at the request of the charity trustees.
890
I am quite certain that there are many other points which your Lordships have made and to which I have not been able to reply. If so, I apologise. I do not think that it would be in the interests of your Lordships if I pursue questions any further but, if I may, I shall write to those noble Lords whose points I have not answered.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the general welcome which has been given to the Bill. I hope that it will be a success—I am sure it will—and that it will improve the charity law, which needs improving considering the changes which have taken place over the past 30 years.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  AFGHANISTAN: ARMS SUPPLY MONITORING PROPOSAL
  AFGHANISTAN: ARMS SUPPLY MONITORING PROPOSAL
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: NORTH KOREA
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: NORTH KOREA
  AMATEUR ATHLETES: TRUST FUNDS
  AMATEUR ATHLETES: TRUST FUNDS
  CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE
  CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE
  ECONOMIC STATISTICS: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
  ECONOMIC STATISTICS: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
  ASYLUM RULES: CONSULTATION
  ASYLUM RULES: CONSULTATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: TERMINATION OF POLICE INTERROGATIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: TERMINATION OF POLICE INTERROGATIONS
  GOVERNMENT DEFEATS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  GOVERNMENT DEFEATS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS